467 GI/2015
(459)
foÙk ea=kky;
(jktLo foHkkx)
(fgUnh vuqHkkx&2)
ubZ fnYyh] 21 tuojh] 2015
dk-vk- 202-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e
(4) ds vuqlj.k esa jktLo foHkkx ds v/hu lhek 'kqYd] eaqcbZ
vapy&1 vk;qDrky; dks] ftuds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa
us fgUnh dk dk;Z lk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vf/lwfpr djrh
gS A
¹iQk- la- bZ&11017@1@2015&,Mh (fgUnh&2)º
pUnzHkku ukjukSyh] funs'kd (jktHkk"kk)
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
(HINDI SECTION-2)
New Delhi, the 21st January, 2015
S.O.
202.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of rule 10
of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies
the Commissionerate Custom, Mumbai, Zone-1 under the
Department of Revenue, where more than 80% staff have
acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. E-11017/1/2015-AD (Hindi-2)]
CHANDERBHAN NARNAULI, Director (OL)
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la-
6]
ubZ fnYyh] iQjojh 1—iQjojh 7] 2015] 'kfuokj@ek?k 12—ek?k 18] 1936
No. 6]
NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 1—FEBRUARY 7, 2015, SATURDAY/MAGHA 12—MAGHA 18, 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
460
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 21 tuojh] 2015
dk-vk- 203-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e
(4) ds vuqlj.k esa jktLo foHkkx ds v/hu dsUnzh; mRikn 'kqYd
vk;qDrky;] fr:vuariqje ds dsUnzh; mRikn 'kqYd lgk;d vk;qDr
dk;kZy;] dksYye eaMy dks] ftuds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa
us fgUnh dk dk;Z lk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vf/lwfpr djrh
gS A
¹iQk- la- bZ&11017@1@2015&,Mh (fgUnh&2)º
pUnzHkku ukjukSyh] funs'kd (jktHkk"kk)
New Delhi, the 21st January, 2015
S.O.
203.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of rule 10
of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies
the Office of Assistant Commissioner Central Excise,
Kollam Mandal of Central Excise Commissionerate
Thiruvanathapuram under the Department of Revenue,
where more than 80% staff have acquired the working
knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. E-11017/1/2015-AD (Hindi-2)]
CHANDERBHAN NARNAULI, Director (OL)
(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 2 iQjojh] 2015
dk-vk- 204-—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 layXu vuqca/ esa mfYyf[kr fuEufyf[kr cSadksa
dh lwphc¼ 'kk[kkvksa@dk;kZy;ksa dks] ftuds 80 % ls vf/d
deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vfèklwfpr
djrh gSA
Øa- la- cSdksa ds uke
'kk[kkvksa dh la[;k
1-
LVsV cSad vkWiQ chdkusj ,aM t;iqj
110
2-
bafM;u cSad
81
3-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
123
4-
iatkc ,aM fla/ cSad
75
5-
Hkkjh; fjtoZ cSad
06
dqy
395
¹iQk- la-&11016@1@2015&fga- (vf/-)º
MkW osn izdk'k nwcs] la;qDr funs'kd (jkHkk)
jktHkk"kk fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 (4) ds varxZr
vfèklwfpr fd, tkus okys LVsV cSad vkWiQ chdkusj ,aM
t;iqj dk;kZy;ksa@'kk[kkvksa dh lwph
Øekad
'kk[kk dk uke vkSj irk
la-
(1)
(2)
1-
chdkusj chNoky vkS- {ks-
irk % chNoky vkS- {ks-]
ftyk& chdkusj ¼jktLFkku½
fiu&334002
2-
[kkjk 'kk[kk
irk % vkS|ksfxd {ks=] [kkjk]
ftyk& chdkusj ] jktLFkku
fiu % 342037
3-
chdkusj —f"k mit eaMh
irk % ds;w,e dSail]
ftyk& chdkusj] jktLFkku
fiu % 334001
4-
chdkusj iwxy jksM
irk % lCth eaMh ds lkeus] iwxy jksM]
ftyk& chdkusj] jktLFkku
fiu % 334001
5-
chBuksd
irk % chBuksd] rglhy& dksyk;r
ftyk& chdkusj ] jktLFkku
fiu % 334302
6-
chdkusj dj.kh uxj
irk % dj.kh uxj]
ftyk chdkusj&jktLFkku
fiu % 334002
7-
yk[kqlj
irk % lkeqnkf;d Hkou iapk;r lfefr
iksLV& yk[kqlj]
ftyk& chdkusj
jktLFkku
fiu % 334001
8-
eydhlj
irk % jsyos LVs'ku ds ikl]
eydhlj]
ftyk& chdkusj
jktLFkku
fiu % 334604
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
461
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
9-
miuh
irk % miuh xkao] iksLV& JhMwaxjx<+
ftyk& chdkusj
jktLFkku
fiu % 331803
10-
Nkij
irk % lksekuh xsLV gkml
cl LVSaM ds ikl
iksLV& Nkij
ftyk& pq#
jktLFkku
fiu % 331502
11-
vkjlhihlh] pq:
irk % dysDVªSV 'kk[kk ds Hkhrj
ftyk&pq:] jktLFkku
fiu % 331001
12-
<kcka
irk % iksLV& <kcka
rglhy& lkaxfj;k
ftyk& guqekux<+ ¼jktLFkku½
fiu % 335063
13-
xU/ksyh
irk % cl LVSaM ds ikl
iksLV % xU/ksyh]
rglhy % jkorlj
ftyk % guqekux<+ ¼jktLFkku½
fiu % 335523
14-
xksxklj
irk % iksLV % xksxklj
ftyk % pq:] jktLFkku
fiu % 331504
15-
guqekux<+ dysDVªSV
irk % dysDVªSV ifjlj
ftyk % guqekux<+
jktLFkku
fiu % 335512
16-
guqekux<+ ftyk vxz.kh cSad dk;kZy;
irk % 250] U;w xzsu /kku eaMh
ftyk % guqekux<+
jktLFkku
fiu % 335512
17-
vkjlhihlh] guqekux<+
irk % 65] /kku eaMh
guqekux<+ Vkmu
ftyk % guqekux<+
jktLFkku
fiu % 335513
18-
guqekux<+ {ks=h; dk;kZy;
irk % Jhxaxkuxj jksM
guqekux<+ taD'ku
ftyk % guqekux<+
jktLFkku
fiu % 335512
19-
jru uxj
irk % cl LVSaM ds lkeus
iksLV % jru uxj
ftyk % pq#
jktLFkku
fiu % 331021
20-
jksM+kaokyh
irk % cl LVSaM ds utnhd
iksLV % jks?kaokyh
ftyk % guqekux<+
jktLFkku
fiu % 335512
21-
ljnkj'kgj thch,e
irk % ljnkj'kgj
ftyk % pq#
jktLFkku
fiu % 331403
22-
vt; uxj] dksydÙkk
irk % 333] tknoiqj iwohZ
vt; uxj]
dksydÙkk&700075
23-
tks/kiqj ikdZ
irk % 71] tks/kiqj ikdZ
dksydkrk
if'pe caxky
24-
fodkl iqjh fnYyh
irk % lh&368] fodkliqjh
fnYyh&110018
25-
lsDVj 23& }kjdk
irk % lsDVj 23& }kjdk
ikspuiqj xk¡o ds fudV
fnYyh
462
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
26-
nsgjknwu
irk % 40] lgkjuiqj pkSd
nsgjknwu] mÙkjk[k.M
27-
xqM+xkao lsDVj&66
irk % ;wfuolZy fctusl ikdZ
xksYQ dkslZ ,DlVsa'ku jksM
lsDVj&66] xqM+xkao
gfj;k.kk&122101
28-
LokLF; fogkj
irk % ,&1] LokLF; fogkj
fodkl ekxZ
fnYyh&110092
29-
e;wj fogkj Qst&1
irk % Mh&39] e;wj fogkj
Qst&1] ubZ fnYyh&110091
30-
xkserh uxj
irk % 2@144] foiqy [kaM
xkserh uxj] y[kuÅ
mRrj çns'k
31-
dQsu pkS/kjh
irk % fnYyh ifCyd Ldwy dSail
dQsu jksM] iksLV& lukFkh
xjgk¡] ftyk& eqt¶Qjiqj
fcgkj&843103
32-
pkl
irk % /keZ'kkyk eksM+]
ekjokM+h /keZ'kkyk ds foijhr
pkl] ftyk&cksdkjks
>kj[kaM&827013
33-
flyhxqM+h
irk %
,e vkj jksM]
flyhxqM+h] nkftZfyax]
if'pe caxky&734005
34-
cDlj
irk % iapeq[kh guqeku eafnj ds foijhr
esu jksM] cDlj
fcgkj& 802101
35-
dlkLx<+] /kuckn
irk % ts oh Iyktk] diM+k iêh]
dlkLx<+] /kuckn]
>kj[kaM& 828113
36-
vklulksy
irk % 32 thVh jksM] cfLru cktkj
vklulksy] ftyk& c/kZeku
if'pe caxky& 713301
37-
dVd
irk %
ch ds jksM]
ekyh lkgh] dVd
vksfMlk &753001
38-
;equk uxj
irk % bZ&20] vkS|ksfxd {ks=
cl LVSaM ds utnhd
;equk uxj
gfj;k.kk& 135001
39-
vackyk flVh
irk % 102] çse uxj
vackyk flVh
gfj;k.kk& 134003
40-
iqBksyh
irk % fganqLrku ftad fyfeVsM
Hkhrj iqBksyh
ftyk % fpÙkkSMx<+&312021
41-
jk'keh
irk % jk'keh
ftyk % fpÙkkSMx<+&312203
42-
jkorHkkVk
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10265½
irk % jkorHkkVk Qst 2] rglhy csaxq
ftyk % fpÙkkSMx<+&323305
43-
lkyex<+
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10468½
irk % lkyex<+
ftyk % çrkix<+&312618
44-
ihiy[kwaV
¼'kk[kk dksM % 11027½
irk % ihiy[kwaV
ftyk % çrkix<+&327029
45-
ijrkiqj x<+h
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10234½
irk % ijrkiqj x<+h
ftyk % ckalokMk&327024
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
463
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
46-
fuEckgsMk
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10238½
irk % eky xksnke jksM] fuEckgsMk
ftyk % mn;iqj
fiu &312601
47-
fuEckgsMk —f"k mit eaMh
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10757½
irk % fuEckgsMk —f"k mit eaMh
ftyk % mn;iqj
fiu &312601
48-
lkaofj;k th
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10437½
irk % ehjk pkSjkgk
ftyk % fpÙkkSMx<+
fiu&312024
49-
U;w DyksFk ekdsZV ckalokMk
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10231½
irk % U;w DyksFk ekdsZV ckalokMk
ftyk % ckalokMk&327001
50-
ukgj exjk
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10321½
irk % ukgj exjk] Jhifr uxj
ftyk % mn;iqj&313201
51-
fpÙkkSMx<+
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10237½
irk % dysDVksjsV ldZy ds ikl
ftyk % fpÙkkSMx<+&312001
52-
cyhpk
¼'kk[kk dksM % 11100½
irk % cyhpk
ftyk % mn;iqj&313003
53-
Hkkuiqjk
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10695½
irk % Hkkuiqjk rglhy xksxqUnk
ftyk % mn;iqj&313003
54-
dyMokl
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10234½
irk % th 1@316] Hkkek'kkg vkS|ksfxd {ks=
dyMokl
ftyk % mn;iqj&313003
55-
ftad LesYVj
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10216½
irk % ftad LesYVj
ftyk % mn;iqj
fiu &313024
56-
Mwaxjiqj
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10228½
irk % eksph cktkj
ftyk % Mwaxjiqj
fiu &314001
57-
Mwaxjiqj U;w d‚yksuh
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10773½
irk % jktJh flusek ds lkeus
ftyk % Mwaxjiqj
fiu&314001
58-
lqjixyk
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10696½
irk % lqjixyk vkcw jksM
ftyk % fljksgh
fiu&307026
59-
lkxokMk
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10230½
irk % lkxokMk
ftyk % Mwaxjiqj&314025
60-
vkcw jksM
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10520½
irk % fjdks baMfLVª;y ,fj;k
ftyk % fljksgh&307026
61-
f'koxat , Mh ch
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10313½
irk % , Mh ch Nkouh f'koxat
ftyk % fljksgh&307027
62-
;qfuoflZVh jksM mn;iqj
¼'kk[kk dksM % 11084½
irk % ;qfuoflZVh jksM mn;iqj
ftyk % mn;iqj&313002
63-
mn;iqj lsDVj 6
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10520½
irk % lsDVj 6 mn;iqj
ftyk % mn;iqj&313001
64-
HkhyokMk vkS|ksfxd {ks=
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10093½
irk % mn;iqj jksM Mh vkbZ lh v‚fQl ds ihNs
ftyk % HkhyokMk&311001
464
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
65-
dkadjksyh
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10211½
irk % dkadjksyh
ftyk % mn;iqj
fiu &313324
66-
Hkhe
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10215½
irk % g‚fLiVy jksM Hkhe
ftyk % jktleUn
fiu &305921
67-
cjksnh;k
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10411½
irk % cjksnh;k] rglhy ckxhMksjk
ftyk % ckalokM+k
fiu &327601
68-
jktiqjk njhck
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10437½
irk % iksLV v‚fQl jktiqjk njhck
ftyk % jktleUn
fiu & 313211
69-
fl;kuk
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10686½
irk % fl;kuk rglhy vkesV
ftyk % jktleUn
fiu & 313327
70-
ephUn
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10687½
irk % xzke ephUn ok;k rglhy ukFk}kjk
ftyk % jktleUn
fiu & 313321
71-
csekyh
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10690½
irk % x.ks'k pkSd csekyh
ftyk % HkhyokM+k
fiu & 311809
72-
dqe] HkhyokMk
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10211½
irk % dqe] HkhyokM+k
ftyk % HkhyokM+k
fiu &311001
73-
,e vkbZ lh vkj] HkhyokM+k
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10881½
irk % ,e~ vkbZ lh vkj] HkhyokM+k
ftyk % HkhyokM+k
fiu &311001
74-
jkLesd] HkhyokM+k
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10892½
irk % 47] jktsaæ ekxZ] HkhyokM+k
ftyk % HkhyokM+k
fiu &311001
75-
lh lh ih lh] HkhyokM+k
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10903½
irk % Hkksiyxat] HkhyokM+k
ftyk % HkhyokM+k
fiu &311001
76-
vkj lh ih lh jktleUn
¼'kk[kk dksM & 10951½
irk % vkj lh ih lh jktleUn
ftyk % jktleUn
fiu &311326
77-
{ks= dk;kZy; 3] HkhyokM+k
irk % {ks= dk;kZy; 3] HkhyokM+k
ftyk % HkhyokM+k
fiu &311001
78-
pkjHkqtk xjHkksj
¼'kk[kk dksM % 11028½
irk % larks"k okfVdk]
lsoa=h jksM pkjHkqtk xjHkksj
ftyk % jktleUn
fiu &313333
79-
ckxhMksjk
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10232½
irk % ckxhMksjk
ftyk % ckalokM+k
fiu & 327601
80-
vktkn pkSd] ckalokM+k
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10805½
irk % vktkn pkSd] ckalokM+k
ftyk % ckalokM+k
fiu &327001
81-
,e ch ,l lh] ckalokM+k
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10605½
irk % ekfg ctkt lkxj dkEIysDl
ftyk % ckalokM+k
fiu &327001
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
465
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
82-
e.Mkojh 'kk[kk
¼'kk[kk dksM % 10822½
irk % e.Mkojh
cl LVs.M
ftyk& t;iqj ¼jktLFkku½
fiu&300305
83-
—-m-e-pkSew 'kk[kk
¼'kk[kk dksM % 11024½
irk % —f"k mit e.Mh] pkSew
fiu % 303702
ftyk& t;iqj ¼jktLFkku½
84-
ukaxy cSjlh 'kk[kk
¼'kk[kk dksM 10632½
irk % ukaxy cSjlh
ftyk& nkSlk ¼jktLFkku½
fiu % 303307
85-
dksViwryh 'kk[kk
¼'kk[kk dksM 10037½
irk % jk"Vªh; jktekxZ la- 8] dksViwryh
rglhy % dksViwryh
ftyk& t;iqj ¼jktLFkku½
fiu % 303108
86-
f'konkliqjk 'kk[kk
¼'kk[kk dksM 11073½
irk % f'konkliqjk
rglhy % pkdlw
ftyk& t;iqj ¼jktLFkku½
fiu % 303903
87-
dknsMk 'kk[kk
¼'kk[kk dksM 10685½
irk % dknsMk
rglhy % pkdlw
ftyk& t;iqj ¼jktLFkku½
fiu % 303901
88-
nkafry 'kk[kk
¼'kk[kk dksM 10670½
irk % nkafny
rglhy % dksViwryh
ftyk& t;iqj ¼jktLFkku½
fiu % 303107
89-
jk;lj 'kk[kk
¼'kk[kk dksM 10640½
irk % jk;lj
rglhy % teokjkex<+
ftyk& t;iqj ¼jktLFkku½
fiu % 303109
90-
Qwysjk 'kk[kk
¼'kk[kk dksM 10749½
irk % Qwysjk
vxzoky iapk;r Hkou
ftyk& t;iqj ¼jktLFkku½
fiu % 303338
91-
NkjsMk 'kk[kk
¼'kk[kk dksM 10639½
irk % NkjsMk
ftyk& nkSlk ¼jktLFkku½
fiu % 303505
92-
c‚l[kks 'kk[kk
¼'kk[kk dksM 11067½
irk % xzke iapk;r Hkou
c‚l[kks
rglhy % cLlh
ftyk& t;iqj ¼jktLFkku½
fiu % 300305
93-
yok.k 'kk[kk
¼'kk[kk dksM 11098½
irk % yok.k
iwfoZ;k Ldwy ds ikl
ftyk& nkSlk ¼jktLFkku½
fiu % 303004
94-
jsuoky Qkxh 'kk[kk
¼'kk[kk dksM 10977½
irk % jsuoky Qkxh
rglhy % Qkxh
ftyk& t;iqj ¼jktLFkku½
fiu % 303904
95-
cksjkt 'kk[kk
¼'kk[kk dksM 10976½
irk % cksjkt
iapk;r lfefr ds ikl
ftyk& t;iqj ¼jktL?Fkku½
fiu % 303338
96-
>ksVokMk vkS|kSfxd {ks= 'kk[kk
¼dksM &10028½
irk % LVsV cSad v‚Q chdkusj ,.M t;iqj
466
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
jksM ua- 8 >ksVokMk
vkS|kSfxd {ks=
t;iqj
fiu % 302012
97-
dj/kuh 'kk[kk
¼dksM &11086½
irk % LVsV cSad v‚Q chdkusj ,.M t;iqj
5 , lat; uxj] tks'kh ekxZ ds ikl
dkyokM jksM dj/kuh
t;iqj
fiu % 302012
98-
fp=dwV 'kk[kk
¼dksM &10828½
irk % LVsV cSad v‚Q chdkusj ,.M t;iqj
lh&8@2 fp=dwV
vtesj jksM
t;iqj
fiu % 302021
99-
fljlh jksM 'kk[kk
¼dksM &11155½
irk % LVsV cSad v‚Q chdkusj ,.M t;iqj
'kks#e ua- 1
jkstoqM vikVZeSUV
<kdk uxj ds lkeus
fljlh jksM
t;iqj
fiu % 302012
100-
ckiw cktkj 'kk[kk ¼10843½
irk % LVsV cSad v‚Q chdkusj ,.M t;iqj
lkaxusjh xsV ds ikl
ckiw cktkj
t;iqj&302003
101-
ljuk Mw¡xj vkS|kSfxd {ks= 'kk[kk
¼dksM &11050½
irk % th&93
LVsV cSad v‚Q chdkusj ,.M t;iqj
ljuk Mw¡xj
vkS|kSfxd {ks=
t;iqj
fiu % 302012
102-
x.kifr Iyktk 'kk[kk
¼dksM &10825½
irk % 103&105 x.kifr Iyktk
LVsV cSad v‚Q chdkusj ,.M t;iqj
,e-vkbZ- jksM
t;iqj
fiu % 302001
103-
Mh-lh-lh- 'kk[kk
¼dksM & 10865½
irk % LVsV cSad v‚Q chdkusj ,.M t;iqj
Mh-lh-lh- cuhikdZ
t;iqj
fiu % 302016
104-
eqjyhiqj 'kk[kk
¼dksM & 10721½
irk % LVsV cSad v‚Q chdkusj ,.M t;iqj
eqjyhiqj] t;iqj]
fiu % 302039
105-
pkaniksy cktkj 'kk[kk
¼dksM % 10025½
irk % LVsV cSad v‚Q chdkusj ,.M t;iqj
pkaniksy cktkj
t;iqj
fiu % 302001
106-
fuok# jksM 'kk[kk
¼dksM % 11176½
irk % LVsV cSad v‚Q chdkusj ,.M t;iqj
x.ks'k uxj&12
fuok# jksM
>ksVokMk
t;iqj
fiu % 302012
107-
ihry QSDVªh 'kk[kk
¼dksM % 10806½
irk % LVsV cSad v‚Q chdkusj ,.M t;iqj
fiad flVh Vkoj
>ksVokMk jksM
t;iqj
fiu % 302016
108-
fjtoZ iqfyl ykbZu
irk % fjtoZ iqfyl ykbZu
tukuk gLrirky ds çkax.k esa
t;iqj
ulZjh lfdZy jksM+
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
467
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
109-
ikoj gkml 'kk[kk
irk % iqjkuk ikoj gkml
jke eafnj ds ikl
cuh ikdZ] LVs'ku jksM+
fiu&302012
110-
oS'kkyh uxj
irk % LVsV cSad v‚Q chdkusj ,.M t;iqj
xkSre ekxZ] oS'kkyh uxj
t;iqj&302021
vapy dk;kZy; & paMhx<+
111-
bafM;u cSad
caxk jksM]
utnhd lqryst isVªksy iEi]
ftyk % uoka'kgj nksvkck
fiu % 144514
iatkc
112-
bafM;u cSad
/kkyhoky d‚EIysDl]
,QlhvkbZ xksMkmu ds lkeus
fQjkstiqj jksM
eqYyuiqj
ftyk % yqf/k;kuk&141101
iatkc
113-
bafM;u cSad
22 beçwoesaV VªLV fcfYMax]
th Vh jksM]
xqjnkliqj&143521
iatkc
114-
bafM;u cSad
,l-lh-,Q- 29&30
vcZu ,LVsV] lsDVj&1] cVkyk
ftyk % xqjnkliqj&143505
iatkc
115-
bafM;u cSad
ckck bZ'oj flag ,T;wds'ku lkslk;Vh
Hkkxiqjk
ftyk % eksxk&142043
iatkc
116-
bafM;u cSad
,l-lh-,Q- & 18
lsDVj % 20 Mh
paMhx<+
117-
bafM;u cSad
lsDVj&37 Mh
paMhx<+
118
bafM;u cSad
,l-lh-vks- 39
e/; ekxZ
lsDVj&7 lh
paMhx<+
119-
bafM;u cSad
edku uacj&48 lh
'kghn djusy flag uxj
Qst&3] ,l-;w-,- jksM
tkoMh] utnhd i[kksoky jksM
yqf/k;kuk&141013
iatkc
vapy dk;kZy; & ubZ fnYyh ,oa jktLFkku
120-
bafM;u cSad
yktiruxj 'kk[kk] ch13
yktiruxj &II
fnYyh&110024
121-
bafM;u cSad
dkilgsMk 'kk[kk]
oRl Hkou] Hkou la[;k&567]
iqjkuk ikye&xqMxk¡o ekxZ
leky[kk] dkilgsMk
fnYyh&110037
122-
bafM;u cSad
eaxksyiqjh 'kk[kk]
vkj tsM &349
[kljk la[;k& 149]
eaxksyiqj [kqnZ]
eaxksyiqjh]
fnYyh&110 085
123-
bafM;u cSad
}kjdk lSDVj&10 'kk[kk
dksBh la[;k&4
oanuk baVjus'kuy Ldwy ds lkeus]
lSDVj&10 }kjdk] fnYyh 110075
jktLFkku
124-
bafM;u cSad
ukjkSyh pkSM+ 'kk[kk] xzke iapk;r
xzke ,oa Mkd?kj ukjkSyh pkSM+]
468
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
rglhy ckeuokl]
ftyk lokbZ ek/kksiqj
fiu&322214
jktLFkku
125-
bafM;u cSad
nsbZ [ksM+k 'kk[kk]
lkeqnkf;d Hkou]
xzke ,oa Mkd?kj&nsbZ [ksM+k]
rglhy bUæ x<+]
ftyk&cwanh
fiu&323603
jktLFkku
126-
bafM;u cSad
vapy dk;kZy;]
iqYysIiMh ta-
fpRrqj jksM
,jukdqye
vapy dk;kZy; & y[kuÅ
127
bafM;u cSad
vdcjiqj 'kk[kk
vk'khokZn xsLV gkÅl
rglhy pkSjkgk
vdcjiqj
vEcsndjuxj
mRrj çns'k& 224122
128
bafM;u cSad
bykgkckn 'kk[kk
249] pd
thjks jksM
bykgkckn
mRrj çns'k& 211003
129
bafM;u cSad
cNjkoka 'kk[kk
, 21] iVsy uxj
cNjkoka jk; cjsyh
mRrj çns'k&229301
130
bafM;u cSad
cnk;wa 'kk[kk
437 flfoy ykbu
lqfurh uflaZx gkse ds lkeus
bafnjk pkSd]
cnk;wa]
mRrj çns'k&243601
131
bafM;u cSad
cgjkbp 'kk[kk]
Ýh xat] ¼Mk;e.M flusek ds ikl½
LVs'ku jksM
cgjkbp
mRrj çns'k& 271801
132
bafM;u cSad
cfy;k 'kk[kk
ekyxksnke jksM
'kh'k egy flusek ds ikl
cfy;k
mRrj çns'k& 277001
133
bafM;u cSad
cyjkeiqj 'kk[kk
efYVdqat
xksfoUn ck?k
LVs'ku jksM cyjkeiqj
mRrj çns'k& 271201
134
bafM;u cSad
cHkuh pkSjkgk 'kk[kk
cHkuh pkSjkgk
iksLV& laxr
lar dchj uxj
mRrj çns'k&272125
135
bafM;u cSad
cnuh pkQk 'kk[kk
xzke&ckjguh pkQk
iq- LVs'ku& Hkouh xat
rglhy&nqekfj;kxat
cjguh pkQk
fl)kFkZ uxj
mRrj çns'k& 272189
136
bafM;u cSad
ckjkcadh 'kk[kk
eksfguh Iyktk
jkt dey jksM
lR; çseh uxj
ckjkcadh
mRrj çns'k & 225001
137
bafM;u cSad
cjsyh 'kk[kk
la- 149 flfoy ykbUl
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
469
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
jktjkuh vLirky ds ikl
cjsyh
mRrjçns'k&243001
138
bafM;u cSad
cLrh 'kk[kk
dVh'oj ikdZ ds lkeus
xka/khuxj
cLrh
mRrj çns'k& 272001
139
bafM;u cSad
chdkiqj 'kk[kk
fcyxzke rglhy
gjnksbZ
mRrj çns'k&241302
140
bafM;u cSad
HkVkSyh cqtqxZ
xzke ,oa iksLV xkSjh cktkj
ftyk& nsofj;k
xkSjh cktkj& 274202
141
bafM;u cSad
pUnkSyh 'kk[kk
okMZ la- 11
gkml la[;k 48
lat; uxj
th Vh jksM pUnkSyh
mRrj çns'k& 232104
142
bafM;u cSad
NksVk Hkjokjk
gkml la[;k 749
xnkfj;uiqokZ
NksVk Hkjokjk
xkserh uxj
y[kuÅ
mRrj çns'k &226028
143
bafM;u cSad
nsofj;k 'kk[kk
gkml ua- 266
xksj[kiqj jksM
vcwcdj uxj
nsofj;k
mRrj çns'k &274001
144
bafM;u cSad
QStkckn 'kk[kk
igyk ry] vYdk VkolZ
fjdc xat
fu;kok jksM
QStkckn
mRrj çns'k& 224001
145
bafM;u cSad
fQjkstkckn 'kk[kk lsDVj 1@34
lqgkxuxj
fQjkstkckn
mRrj çns'k &283203
146
bafM;u cSad
xkthiqj 'kk[kk
jsyos Økflax ds ikl
xzke& QqYyuiqj
iksLV & chdkiqj
xkthiqj
mRrj çns'k &233001
147
bafM;u cSad
xkSjk c/kuok 'kk[kk
iksLV&t;rkiqj
cyjkeiqj
mRrj çns'k & 271604
148
bafM;u cSad
xksnksfy;k 'kk[kk
Mh&48@122 fefljkiks[kjk
xksnksfy;k
okjk.klh
mRrjçns'k & 221001
149
bafM;u cSad
xkserh uxj 'kk[kk
2@139 fot; [k.M
xkserh uxj
y[kuÅ
mRrj çns'k & 226010
150
bafM;u cSad
xksaMk 'kk[kk
lhih&108 lkSjHk dkEIysDl
lfdZyj jksM
vkokl fodkl d‚yksuh
xks.Mk
mRrj çns'k& 271002
470
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
151
bafM;u cSad
xksihxat 'kk[kk
Qwyck?k
Kkuiqj jksM
xksihxat
,l-vkj-,u- Hknksgh
mRrj çns'k& 221303
152
bafM;u cSad
xksj[kiqj 'kk[kk
16@lh cSad jksM
xksj[kiqj
mRrj çns'k &273001
153
bafM;u cSad
Kkuiqj 'kk[kk
iqjkuk ,-vkj-Vh-vks vkfQl
iVsy uxj
Kkuiqj
,lvkj,u Hknksgh
mRrj çns'k& 221304
154
bafM;u cSad
gjnksbZ 'kk[kk
?kaVk?kj jksM
gjnksbZ
mRrj çns'k & 241001
155
bafM;u cSad
bafnjk uxj 'kk[kk
ch&1316] lkbZ Iyktk
ch Cykd Økflax bafnjk uxj
y[kuÅ
bafnjk uxj
mRrj çns'k& 226016
156
bafM;u cSad
tkSuiqj 'kk[kk
dpgjh jksM flfoy ykbu
,lchvkbZ ds ikl
tkSuiqj
mRrj çns'k &222002
157
bafM;u cSad
deksfy;k 'kk[kk
csyxkou
lhrkiqj
mRrj çns'k& 261001
158
bafM;u cSad
dUukSt 'kk[kk
ekfyd dkEiysDl
,e th jksM
dkth VksYyk
dUukSt
mRrj çns'k& 209725
159
bafM;u cSad
dkuiqj 'kk[kk
la- 50@276
tqxy fcgkjth dkEIysDl
gYls jksM
dkuiqj flVh
dkuiqj
mRrj çns'k& 208001
160
bafM;u cSad
dkuiqj dUVksUesUV 'kk[kk
64 dSUV cksMZ vkfQl dSEil
VSxksj jksM] dUVksUesUV dkuiqj
mRrj çns'k &208004
161
bafM;u cSad
[kyhykckn 'kk[kk
lqxjfey jksM
[kyhykckn
lar dchj uxj
mRrj çns'k &272175
162
bafM;u cSad
fd'kunkliqj 'kk[kk
gkml vkQ ;ksxsUæk flag
iq~- LVs'ku& Åapgkj
fd'kunkliqj
jk;cjsyh ftyk
mRrj çns'k& 229401
163
bafM;u cSad
fdluh 'kk[kk
dqjs'kh ekdsZV
drjk pkSjkg
fdluh
vesBh ftyk
mRrj çns'k &227811
164
bafM;u cSad
fdBkok 'kk[kk
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
471
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
/kkjkbZ Cykd lSywu
jk;cjsyh ftyk
mRrj çns'k &229127
165
bafM;u cSad
ykyxat 'kk[kk
esu jksM] Hkxy fDyfud ds ikl
lkdsr uxj ykyxat
jk;cjsyh ftyk
mRrj çns'k &229206
166
bafM;u cSad
y[kuÅ 'kk[kk
la 1 vkSj 2
v'kksd ekxZ
gtjrxat
y[kuÅ
mRrj çns'k &226001
167
bafM;u cSad
egkjktxat 'kk[kk
Qjhnk jksM
gehn uxj
egkjktxat iksLV v‚Qhl
egkjktxat ftyk
mRrj çns'k &273303
168
bafM;u cSad
eYykoka 'kk[kk
1053 gjnksbZ
dkuiqj jksM
eYykou
gjnksbZ ftyk
eYykoka
mRrj çns'k &241303
169
bafM;u cSad
eÅ ukFk Hkatu 'kk[kk
257@1 T;ksrh Voj
'kgnkriqjk
HkquS fo|ky; ds ikl
eÅ ukFk Hkatu
eÅ ftyk
mRrj çns'k &275101
170
bafM;u cSad
ekbØkslsV jk;cjsyh 'kk[kk
,e&16 ykyxat jksM
vejs'kiqjh d‚yksuh
jk;cjsyh ftyk
mRrj çns'k &229001
171
bafM;u cSad
fetkZiqj 'kk[kk
Lokeh n;kuan ekxZ
osYyLyh xat
fetkZiqj ftyk
mRrj çns'k &231001
172
bafM;u cSad
eqjknkckn 'kk[kk
LVs'ku jksM
cq) cktkj
gksVy jktu ds lkeus
eqjknkckn ftyk
mRrj çns'k &244001
173
bafM;u cSad
uknsikj 'kk[kk
uknsikj pkSjkgk
xzke&uknsikj
iksLV&tksfx;k mn;iqj
fl)kFkZ uxj
mRrj çns'k& 272207
174
bafM;u cSad
iMjkSuk 'kk[kk
'kkL=h uxj
jkedksyk jksM iMjkSuk
dq'khuxj ftyk
mRrj çns'k& 274304
175
bafM;u cSad
ihyhHkhr 'kk[kk
la- 3 xka/kh LVsfM;e jksM
paæ g‚fLiVy ds lkeus
ihyhHkhr ftyk
mRrj çns'k& 262001
176
bafM;u cSad
ihyk egqvk 'kk[kk
ihyk egqvk
gjnksbZ ftyk
mRrj çns'k& 241405
177
bafM;u cSad
çrkix<+ 'kk[kk
472
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
47 , flfoy ykbUl
drjk jksM
lh,evks jsflMsUl ds ikl
çrkix<+
çrkix<+ ftyk
mRrj çns'k&230001
178
bafM;u cSad
jtuh [kaM 'kk[kk
,Q&3] okMZ uacj&1
jk;jcsyh jksM jtuh [kaM]
'kkjnk uxj fnydq'kk
y[kuÅ ftyk
mRrj çns'k&226002
179
bafM;u cSad
jk;cjsyh 'kk[kk
#æk Iyktk
fjQkeZ Dyc ds lkeus
vLirky jksM
jk;cjsyh
mRrj çns'k &229001
180
bafM;u cSad
jkeiqj 'kk[kk
'kkSdrvyh jksM
vQjks”k 'kkg dh dksBh ds lkeus
flfoy ykbUl
mRrj çns'k &244901
181
bafM;u cSad
j‚cVZ~lxat 'kk[kk
flfoy ykbu jksM
g"kZ uxj
j‚cVZ~lxat
lksuHkæk ftyk
mRrj çns'k &231216
182
bafM;u cSad
lSQqYykxat 'kk[kk
lSQqYykxat cktkj
xzke vkSj iksLV lSQqYykxat
rglhy lnj
lqYrkuiqj ftyk
mRrj çns'k &228119
183
bafM;u cSad
lkdsr uxj 'kk[kk
810] McY;w@1] Ldhe II
nhi V‚dht jksM
fdnobZ uxj
iksLV lkdsr uxj
dkuiqj
mRrj çns'k& 208014
184
bafM;u cSad
lrjkgh 'kk[kk
lrjkgh xzke
iksLV xjdq;k rgfly
gSnj?kj
ckjkcadh ftyk
mRrj çns'k &225124
185
bafM;u cSad
'kkgtgkaiqj 'kk[kk
tkyh dksBh cSdqaB ukFk eafnj ds lkeus
'kkgtgkaiqj
'kkgtgkaiqj ftyk
mRrj çns'k&242001
186
bafM;u cSad
lksU/kk 'kk[kk
lksU/kk xzke
dqUnjk
'kkgtgkaiqj ftyk
mRrj çns'k&242301
187
bafM;u cSad
lqYrkuiqj 'kk[kk
671@1 lksuh dkEIysDl
nfj;kiqj jksM
lqYrkuiqj ftyk
mRrj çns'k&228001
188
bafM;u cSad
Lo:iuxj 'kk[kk
113@148 cky fudqat Ldwy ds ikl
Lo:iuxj
dkuiqj ftyk
mRrj çns'k&208002
189
bafM;u cSad
rsUnqvk 'kk[kk
rsUnqvk
e/kqcu jksM
csyFkjk jksM iksLV
cfy;k ftyk
mRrj çns'k&221715
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
473
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
190
bafM;u cSad
okjk.klh 'kk[kk
la- lh&7@34&ch
ygqjkchj
okjk.klh
okjk.klh ftyk
mRrj çns'k&221001
191
bafM;u cSad
y[kuÅ lsok 'kk[kk
1] 2 v'kksd ekxZ
gtjrxat
y[kuÅ
y[kuÅ ftyk
mRrj çns'k&226001
192
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
vkesj jksM
czãiqjh Fkkus ds vkxs
t;iqj&302002
193
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
fp=dwV
tkudh ekxZ
LVsi ckbZ LVsi Ldwy ds ikl
t;iqj&302021
194
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
dySDVªsV lfdZy
dySDVªsV lfdZy ds ikl
cuhikdZ
t;iqj&302016
195
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
nqxkZiqjk
egkjkuh QkeZ] nqxkZiqjk
t;iqj&302018
196
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
tokgj lfdZy
xksYM lq[k xzkmaM
mÙkj if'pe jsyos gsM Do‚Vj ds vkxs
t;iqj& 302017
197
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
tokgj uxj
36&ch] lR;k lkbZ d‚yst ds lkeus
tokgj uxj
t;iqj&302004
198
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
>ksVokMk
Iy‚V ua- 8] vo/kiqjh dkyokM jksM
>ksVokMk
t;iqj&302012
199
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
dSyk'kiqjh
9] dSyk'kiqjh] Vksad jksM
t;iqj&302018
200
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
,e-,u-vkbZ-Vh-
,e-,u-vkbZ-Vh- dsEil
egkohj dsalj g‚fLiVy ds lkeus
ts-,y-,u- ekxZ
t;iqj&302017
201
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
fuekZ.k uxj
ds V‚oj] ,&47
o`ankou fogkj
fdaxl jksM] fuekZ.k uxj
t;iqj&302019
202
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
fo'ks"k x`g _.k 'kk[kk
c`t vuqdEik] v'kksd ekxZ
lh- Ldhe
t;iqj& 302001
203
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
çrki uxj
101@49] dqEHkk ekxZ
çrki uxj
t;iqj&302022
204
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
'kkL=h uxj
,& 30 ch
'kkL=h uxj
t;iqj&302016
205
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
fljlh jksM
¶ysV u-1 'ks[kkor Hkou]
fljlh jksM
t;iqj&302012
474
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
206
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
lhrkiqjk vks|kSfxd {ks=
jhdks Hkou] lhrkiqjk vks|kSfxd {ks=
t;iqj&302022
207
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
,l-,e-bZ 'kk[kk ¼t;iqj nf{k.k½
22 & xksnke vks|kSfxd {ks=
t;iqj&302006
208
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
,l-,e-bZ 'kk[kk LVs'ku jksM
eaxy Hkou] LVs'ku jksM
t;iqj&302006
209
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
Lis'ky ,u-vkj-vkbZ 'kk[kk
Iy‚V ua- 8&9] d‚jiksjsV ikdZ
xksikyckMh]
t;iqj& 302006
210
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
f=os.kh uxj]
xksikyiqjk ckbZ ikl ds ikl]
t;iqj&302018
211
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
eqæk ç'kklfud dks"B
t;iqj fo'ks"k 'kk[kk ifjlj
lkaxkusjh xsV
t;iqj&302003
212
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
fHkokMh ,l-,e-bZ-
,Q&296] vkS|ksfxd {ks= fHkokMh
vyoj&301019
213
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
'kkgtgk¡iqj
vk'kh"k Iyktk] iqjkuk cl LVS.M
vyoj&301706
214
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ViqdMk
vyoj&301707
215
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
Fkkukxkth
Hkksjk Hkou] çrkix<+ jksM
Fkkukxkth]
vyoj&301022
216
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
lw;Z uxj
guqeku pkSjkgk] fnYyh jksM
vyoj&301001
217
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
vthrx<+
lhdj&302701
218-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ouLFkyh
rglhy& fuokbZ
Vksad&304022
219-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
cLlh
ch-,l- iSjsMkbZ”k
ljkZQ d‚yksuh] cl LVsaM ds ikl
t;iqj jksM
cLlh&303301
220-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
[ksrMh
okMZ ua- 15] esu jksM]
[ksrMh
>qa>quq&333503
221-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ekyiqjk
rºlhy&ekyiqjk]
Vksad&304502
222-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ih# flag lfdZy
>qa>quq&333001
223-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
esMh] xkao&esMh]
rglhy & xaxkiqj flVh
lokbZ] ek/kksiqj&322219
224-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
lksMk
xkao&lksMk]
rglhy& ekyiqjk
Vksad&304504
225-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
Jhek/kksiqj
lhdj&332715
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
475
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
226-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
Vksad
tokgj cktkj
Vksad & 304001
227-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
mn; [kqnZ
iksLV& egqdyku
Cy‚d & xaxkiqjflVh
lokbZ ek/kksiqj&322220
228-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
—f"k okf.kT; 'kk[kk
eaxy Hkou
çFke ry] LVs'ku jksM
t;iqj&302006
229-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
lq[kkfM;k lfdZy
Jhxaxkuxj&335001
230-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
LVs'ku gsM DokVj
lk/kqokyh Nkouh
Jhxaxkuxj&335001
231-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
fefyVªh LVs'ku lwjrx<+
Jhxaxkuxj&335804
232-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
uksgj
rglhy& uksgj
guqekux<+&335523
233-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
tsy jksM
fot; HkSjo ekdsZV
eksgrk pkSd]
chdkusj&334005
234-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
uky
,;j QkslZ LVs'ku
uky] chdkusj&334001
235-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
Hkknjk
fu;j ,lh-ts-,e dksVZ
jsyos LVs'ku jksM
Hkknjk] guqekux<+&335501
236-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
vkS|ksfxd {ks= fd'kux<+
12 edjkuk jksM vkS|ksfxd {ks=
fd'kux<+&305801
237-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
buMkoj
eq[; gkbZ jksM] buMkoj
rglhy& esMrk flVh
ukxkSj&341510
238-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
tkMu [kkylk
,l-ch-vkbZ Jh fo'onhi xq#dqy
egs'kojkuUn vkJe
ikyh&306401
239-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
dknsMk
xk¡o&dknsMk] rglhy& [ksMyh
vtesj&305405
240-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
[kokl
rglhy& dsdMh
vtesj&305405
241-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ikyhekjokM
eq[; 'kk[kk LVs'ku jksM
ikyh&306401
242-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
{ksf=; 'kS{kf.kd laLFkku vtesj
iq"dj jksM
vtesj&305004
243-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
lkstr flVh
,y-vkbZ-lh- dk;kZy; ds ikl] lkstr
ftyk&ikyh]
ekjokM&306104
244-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
{ksf=; dk;kZy; mn;iqj
fgrkokyk Hkou
Lo#i lkxj jksM
mn;iqj & 313001
245-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ç'kklfud dk;kZy; & 2
476
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
,&5] usg: Iysl
Vksad jksM
t;iqj & 302015
246-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
[ksjokMk
iapkSyh Hkou
iapkSyh vLirky ds ikl
[ksjokMk] mn;iqj&313803
247-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
xksxqank
'k‚i u: 95] 96] bUæçLFk ekdsZV
xksxqank] mn;iqj&313705
248-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
lkxokMk
j‚;y lfoZl lsaVj
Vhoh,l lfoZl lsaVj ds ikl
Mwaxjiqj&314025
249-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
fi.MokMk fljksgh
jsyos LVs'ku jksM
VsfyQksu ,Dlpsat ds lkeus
fi.MokMk
fljksgh&307022
250-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
xksoZ/ku foykl
3@9 vkj-,p-oh d‚yksuh
xksoZ/ku foykl] esu jksM
mn;iqj&311002
251-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
lywEcj
pqaxh ukdk ds ikl
lywEcj] mn;iqj& 313027
252-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
dq'kyckx ckalokMk
o/kZu 'k‚fiax d‚EiysDl
dq'kyckx ,fj;k] ckalokMk&327001
253-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
cl LVs.M mn;iqj
fofue; d‚EiysDl
mn;iqj&313001
254-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
dsljxat vkcwjksM
gksVy t;nhi dEikm.M
fljksgh&307026
255-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
vkj-ch-vks- tks/kiqj
bZ&4] lqfo/kk d‚EiysDl
'kkL=h uxj
tks/kiqj&342002
256-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
,evkbZlhvkj lsaVj tks/kiqj
mPp U;k;ky; Hkou]
tks/kiqj&342006
257-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
vksfl;ka
rglhy jksM
tks/kiqj&342303
258-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
eqæk ç'kklfud dks"B
,lchvkbZ gkbZ dksVZ 'kk[kk ifjlj
tks/kiqj&342006
259-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ckluh vks|kSfxd {ks=] tks/kiqj
,e-vkbZ-,- gkml
ckluh Qst &2
tks/kiqj&342005
260-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
iky fyad jksM tks/kiqj
461] iky fyad jksM
tks/kiqj&342003
261-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
pksikluh gkmflax cksMZ] tks/kiqj
14 Tokyk fogkj esu pksikluh jksM
tks/kiqj& 342009
262-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
egkeafnj tks/kiqj
ch&29] [ksrkukMh
eUMksj eaMh lfdZy
tks/kiqj& 342007
263-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
>kykeaM pkSjkgk
Iy‚V u- 121] fMfLVªDV 'kkfiax lsaVj
ljLorh uxj
tks/kiqj&342008
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
477
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
264-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
jkf"Vª; fof/k egkfo|ky;
,u-,p 65] ukxkSj jksM] eaMksj
tks/kiqj&342304
265-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
dqMh Hkxrkluh gkmflax cksMZ
lsDVj&2
tks/kiqj& 342005
266-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
xk¡o % jkex<+
ftyk % tSlyesj
tSlyesj& 345022
267-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
vkbZ-vkbZ-Vh- jktLFkku
Do‚Vj u- 307
thihvkj, dsUækapy d‚yksuh
foosd uxj
U;w ikyh jksM
tks/kiqj&342005
268-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
,u-vkj-vkbZ tks/kiqj
,p&1] 'kkL=h uxj
tks/kiqj&342003
269-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
vkehZ ,fj;k tSlyesj
tSlyesj&345001
270-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
egkohj uxj] ckMesj
gksVy U;w jkt
egkohj uxj
ckMesj&344001
271-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
iky ckykth jksM] tks/kiqj
Iy‚V ua- 4ch ,.M 7 ,] [kljk ua-198
iky esu jksM
tks/kiqj&342014
272-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
usojk jksM
oh-ih-vks usojk jksM
rglhy& vksfl;ka
tks/kiqj&342303
273-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ivksrk ch jksM] tks/kiqj
ih;w"k Hkou] y{eh uxj esu jksM
tks/kiqj&342010
274-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ckajk jksM dksVk
ckads lq[k/kke d‚yksuh
ckajk jksM] dksVk&324002
275-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
cwanh
xq#ukud d‚yksuh
cwanh&323001
276-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
xaxjkj
Iy‚V ua- 2538
ch-,l-,u-,y Vkoj ds ikl
xk¡o&xaxjkj
fpÙkkSMx<+&312901
277-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ty pDdh jktuxj
ty pDdh] dyDVªsV jksM
jktuxj
jktleUn&313326
278-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
diklu
LVsfM;e njxkg jksM ds ikl
diklu
jktleUn&312202
279-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
jsyexjk
cl LVS.M ds ikl]
jsyexjk
jktleUn&313029
280-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
lsafFk ¼fpÙkkSM+x<+½
,&23 ckiw uxj lsafFk
fpÙkkSM+x<+&312001
281-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
,l-,e-bZ 'kk[kk] dksVk
>kykokM jksM
dksVk&324007
282-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
lqHkk"k uxj fHkyokMk
ch&1 Cy‚d] lqjfHk d‚EiysDl
lqHkk"k uxj
HkhyokMk &311001
478
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
283-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
foKku uxj dksVk
1 Vh, 17 foKku uxj
dksVk& 324005
284-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
Qrguxj
'k‚i ua- 2] 3] 4 dkjxks Cy‚d
os;j gkml ds ikl
mn;iqj jksM
mn;iqj&313205
285-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
l:jiqj dy‚a 'kk[kk
ftyk& ckxir
mRrj çns'k &250619
286-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
jksgVk jksM 'kk[kk
ftyk&esjB
mRrj çns'k&250002
287-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
vehuxj ljk; 'kk[kk
ftyk&ckxir
mRrj çns'k&250606
288-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
J)kiqjh Qst&2 'kk[kk
fMQsUl baDyso
esu lj/kuk jksM
ftyk&esjB
mRrj çns'k&250001
289-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
vFkZyk 'kk[kk
dSyk'k ikdZ
ftyk& xkft;kckn
mRrj çns'k &201007
290-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
çrki fogkj 'kk[kk
lsDVj&12] çrki fogkj
ftyk& xkft;kckn
mRrj çns'k & 2010009
291-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
fHkDduiqj 'kk[kk
eqjknuxj
ftyk& xkft;kckn
mRrj çns'k & 201206
292-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
[kksM+k 'kk[kk
ftyk&xkft;kckn
mRrj çns'k & 201301
293-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
rglhy daikmaM 'kk[kk
ftyk&xkft;kckn
mRrj çns'k & 201001
294-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
jktuxj ,DlVsa'ku 'kk[kk
ftyk&xkft;kckn
mRrj çns'k&201003
295-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
'kkyhekj xkMZu 'kk[kk
Cy‚d ch] fxj/kj Iyktk
ftyk&xkft;kckn
mRrj çns'k&201005
296-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
vafdr fogkj 'kk[kk
ftyk& eqt¶Qjuxj
mRrj çns'k&251001
297-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
vyekliqj 'kk[kk
ftyk& eqt¶Qjuxj
mRrj çns'k&251001
298-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
iqjdkth 'kk[kk
ftyk& eqt¶Qjuxj
mRrj çns'k&251310
299-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
QStkckn 'kk[kk
ftyk&lgkjuiqj
mRrj çns'k&247121
300-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
lsDVj&31 'kk[kk ukS,Mk
ftyk& xkSrecq)uxj
mRrj çns'k&201301
301-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
lsDVj&51 'kk[kk
ukS,Mk
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
479
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
ftyk& xkSrecq)uxj
mRrj çns'k&201301
302-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
Hkaxsy 'kk[kk
ukS,Mk
ftyk&xkSrecq)uxj
mRrj çns'k&201301
303-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
lsDVj&66 'kk[kk
ekewjk] ukS,Mk
ftyk& xkSrecq)uxj
mRrj çns'k&201307
304-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
vgenx<+ 'kk[kk
ftyk&cqyan'kgj
mRrj çns'k&203392
305-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
Nrkjh 'kk[kk
ftyk&cqyan'kgj
mRrj çns'k&203001
306-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
,l ,e bZ 'kk[kk
[kqtkZ
ftyk&cqyan'kgj
mRrj çns'k&203131
307-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ihchch 'kk[kk
lsDVj&ih2] xzsVj ukS,Mk
ftyk&xkSrecq)uxj
mRrj çns'k&201310
308-
Hkkjrh; L?VsV cSad
44 ih,lh 'kk[kk
2@3] 'kkL=huxj
ftyk& esjB
mRrj çns'k&250004
309-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
lwjtdqaM jksM 'kk[kk
ftyk& esjB
mRrj çns'k&250002
310-
Hkkjrh; L?VsV cSad
vkokl fodkl dkyksuh 'kk[kk
ftyk&gkiqM+
mRrj çns'k&245101
311-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ckcwx<+ 'kk[kk
ckcwx<+ Nkouh
ftyk&gkiqM+
mRrj çns'k& 245201
312-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
/kkSykuk 'kk[kk
ftyk&gkiqM+
mRrj çns'k&245301
313-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
tkx`fr fogkj 'kk[kk
ftyk&esjB
mRrj çns'k&240004
314-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
'krkCnh uxj 'kk[kk
ftyk&esjB
mRrj çns'k&250103
315-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
oh-ih-vks- fl/koka dyka
ftyk yqf/k;kuk
316-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
oh-ih-vks- jru gsjh
ih vks [kUuk
ftyk yqf/k;kuk
317-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
oh-ih-vks- fljhag
ftyk yqf/k;kuk
318-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
oh-ih-vks- yD[kk
rglhy txjkao
ftyk yqf/k;kuk
319-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
ljdkjh çkbejh Ldwy ds ikl
dhjh Hkqeky] rglhy txjkao
ftyk yqf/k;kuk
320-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
cl LVSaM ds ikl] esu jksM] cqtqxZ
ftyk yqf/k;kuk
321-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
ch&ekdsZV] lsDVj 6] fHkykbZ
NÙkhlx<+ & 490006
480
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
322-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
tSu /keZ'kkyk ds ikl] v'kksd uxj
e/;çns'k & 473331
323-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
ihruk pkSd] jk;iqj jksM] /kerjh
NÙkhlx<+ & 493773
324-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xzke & tkath] rglhy& eLrqjh
ftyk fcykliqj
NÙkhlx<+ & 495550
325-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
njkZHkkaBk] rglhy eLrqjh
ftyk fcykliqj
NÙkhlx<+ & 495550
326-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
fjlkek] rglhy&xquMjnsgh]
ftyk & nqxZ
NÙkhlx<+ & 491221
327-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
vkdk'kxaxk] O;olkf;d ifjlj] lqisyk
fHkykbZ]
NÙkhlx<+ & 490023
328-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
nqdku ua- 25] egky{eh diM+k ekdsZV] iaMjh
jk;iqj] NÙkhlx<+
329-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
ikoZrh fuokl] Hkksiky ukdk
flgksj
e/; çns'k & 466001
330-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xzke iguojhZ] iks- bVkjlh
ftyk gks'kaxkckn
e/; çns'k
331-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xzke iyk'k] ftyk & jryke
e/; çns'k & 457001
332-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
flfoy ykbZal] esu jksM] nfr;k
e/; çns'k & 475661
333-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
63] ekyok dkWEIysDl] lsDVj & 1
ihFkeiqj] ftyk % /kkj
e/; çns'k
334-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
dj.k vkdsZM] ijkfl;k jksM]
fNUnokM+k]
e/; çns'k & 480001
335-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xk¡o o Mkd[kkuk dksVyk lwjr yqgkj
rglhy vtukyk
ftyk ve`rlj
iatkc
336-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xk¡o o Mkd[kkuk rusy
rglhy ckck cdkyk
ftyk ve`rlj
iatkc
337-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xk¡o o Mkd[kkuk yLdjh uaxy
ftyk ve`rlj
iatkc
338-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xk¡o o Mkd[kkuk eh;afoaM
rglhy ckck cdkyk
ftyk ve`rlj
iatkc
339-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xk¡o o Mkd[kkuk ejgkuk
rglhy iêh
ftyk rju&rkju
iatkc
340-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xk¡o o Mkd[kkuk x?kkscwvk
ftyk rjurkju
iatkc
341-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xk¡o o Mkd[kkuk othj HkqYyj
rglhy ckck cdkyk
ftyk ve`rlj
iatkc
342-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
329] thokj jksM] bczkfgeiqj
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
481
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
tquSniqj
ftyk cqyan'kgj
mÙkj çns'k
343-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xkao o Mkd[kkuk lÝqnhu tkoyh
rglhy o ftyk xkft;kckn
mÙkj çns'k
344-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
Jh ?klhVk fcfYMax] xk¡o dkthokyk
ftyk fctukSj
mÙkj çns'k
345-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
nqdku ua- 2@12@13@14] y{eh Iyktk
,u ,p & 58] nkSjkyk
ftyk esjB
mÙkj çns'k
346-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xqIrk cznlZ pkaniqj jksM] uwjiqj
ftyk fctukSj
mÙkj çns'k
347-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
ts&9] th-,Q- fny'kkn dkyksuh
fnYyh
348-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
lh&3 58 ,] ;equkfogkj
fnYyh
349-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
nqdku ua- 14, o 12
f'kçk ,twj vkdsZM fu;j oso flusek
ftyk xkft;kckn
mÙkj çns'k
350-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
fu;j jsyos QkVd] dyksj jksM
cLlh iBkuk
ftyk QÙksgx<+ lkfgc
iatkc & 140412
351-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
ekQZr gksVy iqjh fu;j nso i‚y pkSd
gehjiqj
fgekpy çns'k & 177001
352-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
fu;j cl LVSaM] xqj}kjk jksM
rglhy o ftyk QÙksgx<+ lkfgc
iatkc & 140406
353-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
oh-ih-vks-] iatkSyh dyka
ftyk Qrsgx<+ lkfgc
iatkc & 145101
354-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xk¡o o Mkd[kkuk] cMoka
rglhy & vkauniqj lkfgc
ftyk :iuxj
iatkc & 140117
355-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xk¡o o Mkd[kkuk] Vaxksjh
ftyk eksgkyh
iatkc & 140306
356-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xk¡o o Mkd[kkuk] pkgj ektjk
rglhy & [kjM
ftyk eksgkyh
iatkc & 140501
357-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xk¡o o Mkd[kkuk] Qrsg ukaxy] dqaMk jksM
rglhy o ftyk xqjnkliqj
iatkc & 143519
358-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xk¡o o Mkd[kkuk & tksM+k fNrjku
rglhy o ftyk xqjnkliqj
iatkc & 143520
359-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xk¡o o Mkd[kkuk] ?kqeku
U;w e‚My dkyksuh
eq[; cktkj ?kqeku
rglhy cVkyk
ftyk xqjnkliqj
iatkc & 143514
360-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xk¡o o Mkd[kkuk HkksMhiqj
rglhy udksnj
ftyk tkya/kj
iatkc & 144040
361-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xk¡o o Mkd[kkuk Hkxksjka
482
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
rglhy uoka'kgj
ftyk 'kghn Hkxr flag uxj
iatkc & 143516
362-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
lfPpnkuUn uxj
:æç;kx
ftyk :æç;kx
mÙkjk[kaM & 246171
363-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
tykyiqj uhyk
Mkd?kj & jkejkt
rglhy tkulB
ftyk eqt¶ijuxj
mÙkj çns'k& 251320
364-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xk¡o /kcksVh
rglhy o ftyk flgksj
e/; çns'k& 466001
365-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xk¡o ykyxqokMh
rglhy o ftyk jryke
e/; çns'k& 457001
366-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xk¡o ljlok¡
rglhy iuk uxj
ftyk tcyiqj
e/; çns'k& 483220
367-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xk¡o /kjkSjk ekQh
ihyhHkhr ckbZikl jksM
iksLV v‚fQl bTtr uxj
ftyk cjsyh
mÙkj çns'k& 243122
368-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
ekSgYyk ubZ cLrh
xq:}kjs ds ikl] tliqj
rglhy dk'khiqj
ftyk m/ke flag uxj
mÙkjk[kaM & 2447121
369-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
'k‚i ua- 2686] U;w cl LVSaM jksM
rglhy o ftyk dkaxMk
fgekpy çns'k& 176001
370-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
ohihvks cgjkeiqj
rglhy o ftyk xqjnkliqj
iatkc & 143532
371-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
ohihvks nksjkaxy
rglhy o ftyk xqjnkliqj
iatkc & 143526
372-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
Mh & 127] 60 QqVk jksM
egkohj ,Udyso & 111
ubZ fnYyh & 110059
373-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
IykWV ua- 31] [kljk ua- 5624
ujs'k ikdZ ,DlVsa'ku
utQx<+ jksM] ukaxyksbZ
ubZ fnYyh & 110041
374-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
129] vkuUn uxj] bUæyksd
ubZ fnYyh & 110035
375-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
2155] vkSrjke yksu
xq# rsx cgknqj uxj
fnYyh & 110009
376-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
,&20&91] jkex<
th-Vh-djuky jksM] tgk¡xhj iqjh
ubZ fnYyh & 110033
377-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
[kljk ua- 311] xks;yk & }kjdk jksM
nhnkjiqj ¼utQx<½
ubZ fnYyh & 110043
378-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
/keZ'kkyk] dpgjh vìs ds ikl
ftyk m|ksx dsUæ ds lkeus
ftyk & dkaxMk
fgekpy çns'k & 176215
379-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
ohihvks & ljuk
ikbZi QSDVjh ds ikl] th-Vh-jksM
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
483
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
ftyk iBkudksV
iatkc & 145025
380-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
uxjksVk Hkxou] eq[; cktkj
iqjkuk cl LVSaM] ftyk & dkaxMk
fgekpy çns'k & 176047
381-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
flacy eksM] ihvks & feju lkfgc
rglhy & vkj-,l-iqjk
ftyk & tEew
tEew ,.M d'ehj & 181101
382-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
lqtkuiqj] ftyk & iBkudksV
iatkc & 145023
383-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xk¡o cgknqj gqlSu
ih vks & elkfu;k
rglhy & cVkyk
ftyk & xqjnkliqj
iatkc & 143505
384-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xk¡o ljpwj
rglhy & cVkyk
ftyk & xqjnkliqj
iatkc & 143602
385-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
xk¡o lhjg
rglhy & cVkyk
ftyk & xqjnkliqj
iatkc & 143513
386-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
lkack] ,u ,p &1 ,
ftyk & lkack
tEew ,.M d'ehj & 184121
387-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
ljfgan] th-Vh- jksM
ftyk Qrsgx< lkfgc
iatkc & 140406
388-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
ohihvks frÅM+
ftyk eksgkyh
iatkc & 140301
389-
iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad
ohihvks jaxhyiqj
ftyk jksiM+
iatkc & 140108
390-
Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad
4 Fkh eafty
jka-{ks-fo-çk- Hkou
çxfr lnu
dpgjh pkSd
jkaph &834001
>kj[kaM
391-
Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad
54@949] lR; çse fogkj
egknso ?kkV jksM] lqanj uxj
jk;iqj& 492013
Nrhlx<+
392-
Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad
rhljh eafty
th ,e oh ,u fcfYMax
74@1] jktiqj jksM
nsgjknwu& 248 001
mRrjkapy
393-
Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad
40] ,lMh, d‚EiysDl
,lchvkbZ Hkou
cslesaV & igyh eafty
dlqEiVh] f'keyk&171009
fgekpy çns'k
394-
Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad
iks-ck- ua- 20
xsjk bfEifj;e II
lkroha eafty
bZMhlh ladqy
Cy‚d la 3 , &3ch
iêks Iyktk
i.kth & 403001
xksok
395-
Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad
iks-c‚-la- 3065
,j.kkdqye ¼mÙkj½
dksPph & 628018
dsjy
484
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2015
S.O.
204.—In pursuance of sub-rules (4) of rule
10 of the Official Languages (use for official purpose of
the union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby
notified the listed branches/offices of the following banks
in the attached annexure, more than 80% of the staff
whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
Sl.
Name of the Banks
Number of
No.
Branches/Offices
1.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
110
2.
Indian Bank
81
3.
State Bank of India
123
4.
Punjab & Sind Bank
75
5.
Reserve Bank of India
06
Total
395
[F. No. 11016/1/2015-OL( Noti.)]
Dr. VED PRAKASH DUBEY , Jt. Director (OL)
List of Branches/Offices to be notified under rule 10(4)
of Official Language Rules, 1976
Sl.
Name of the Branch and Address
No.
(1)
(2)
1.
Bikaner Bichwal I.A.
Address : Bichwal I.A.
Distt: Bikaner (RJ)
Pin: 334002
2.
Khara
Address : Industrial Area
Khara, Distt: Bikaner (RJ)
Pin: 342037
3.
Bikaner K.U.M.
Address : KUM Campus
Distt: Bikaner (RJ)
Pin: 334001
4.
Bikaner Pugal Road
Address : Opp. Sabji Mandi
Pugal Road, Distt: Bikaner (RJ)
Pin: 334001
5.
Beethnoke
Address : Beethnoke, Tahsil-Kolyat
Dist-Bikaner
Pin-334302
6
Bikaner Karni Nagar
Address: Karni Nagar,
Distt: Bikaner (RJ)
Pin: 334002
7.
Lakhusar
Address: Community Hall Panchayat Samiti,
Post: Lakhusar
Distt: Bikaner (RJ)
Pin: 334001
8.
Malkisar
Address: Near Railway Station,
Malkisar
Distt: Bikaner (RJ)
Pin: 334604
9.
Upani
Address: Upani Village,
Post: Shri Dungargarh
Distt: Bikaner (RJ)
Pin: 331803
10.
Chhapar
Address: Somani Guest House,
Near Bus Stand,
Post: Chhapar
Distt: Churu (RJ)
Pin: 331502
11.
RCPC, Churu
Address: Within the campus of
Collectorate Branch,
Distt: Churu (RJ)
Pin: 331001
12.
Dhaba
Address: Post: Dhaba,
Tehsil: Sangariya,
Distt: Hanumangarh (RJ)
Pin: 335063
13.
Gandheli
Address: Near Bus Stand,
Post: Gandheli,
Tehsil: Rawatsar,
Distt: Hanumangarh (RJ)
Pin: 335523
14.
Gogasar
Address: Post: Gogasar,
Distt: Churu (RJ)
Pin: 331504
15.
Hanumangarh Collectorate
Address: Collectorate Campus,
Distt: Hanumangarh (RJ)
Pin: 335512
(1)
(2)
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
485
16.
Hanumangarh District Lead Bank Office
Address: 250, New Grain Dhan Mandi,
Distt: Hanumangarh (RJ)
Pin: 335512
17.
RCPC, Hanumangarh
Address: 65, Dhan Mandi, Hanumangarh
TownDistt: Hanumangarh (RJ)Pin: 335513
18.
Hanumangarh Regional Office
Address: Shri Ganganagar Road,
Hanumangarh Junction
Distt: Hanumangarh (RJ)
Pin: 335512
19.
Ratan Nagar
Address: Opp. Bus Stand,
Post: Ratan Nagar
Distt: Churu (RJ)
Pin: 331021
20.
Rorawali
Address: Near Bus Stand,
Post: Rorawali
Distt: Hanumangarh (RJ)
Pin: 335512
21.
Sardarshahar GBM
Address: Sardarshahar,
Distt: Churu (RJ)
Pin: 331403
22.
Ajay Nagar, Kolkata
Address: 333, Jadavpur East
Ajay Nagar Kolkata
West Bengal-700075
23.
Jodhpur Park
Address: 71, Jodhpur Park
Kolkata West Bengal-700068
24.
Vikaspuri
Address: C-368, Vikashpuri
Delhi-110018
25.
Dwarka Sector-23
Address: Sector-23,
Dwarka near Pochanpur Village,
Delhi
26.
Deharadun
Address: 40, Saharanpur Chowk Deharadun
Uttarakhand-248001
27.
Gurgaon Sector-66
Address: Universal Business Park
Golf Course Extension Road
Sector-66, Gurgaon
Haryana-122101
28.
Swasthya Vihar
Address: A-1, Swasthya Vihar
Vikas Marg
Delhi -110092
29.
Mayur Vihar Phase-1
Address: D-39, Mayur Vihar Phase-1,
New Delhi-110091
30.
Gomati Nagar
Address: 2144, Vipul Khand
Gomati Nagar, Lucknow
Uttar Pradesh –
31.
Kafen Choudhary
Address: DPS Campus Kafen Road
Post Sanathi, Garhan
District-Muzzafarpur
Bihar – 843103
32.
Chas
Address: Dharamsala More
Opposite Marwari Dharamsala
Chas, District- Bokaro,
Jharkhand-827013
33.
Siliguri
Address: M.R. Road Siliguri,
Darjiling West Bengal-734005
34.
Buxar
Address: Opposite Panchmukhi
Hanuman Mandir
Main Road, Buxar
Bihar-802101
35.
Kastrshgarh, Dhanabad
Address: J V Plaja, Kapra Patti,
Kastrashgarh, Dhanabad,
Jharkhand-828113
36.
Asansol
Address: 32 G T Road, Bastin Bazar
Asansol, District- Bardhman
West Bengal-713301
37.
Cuttak
Address: B K Road, Mali Shahi,
Cuttak, Orisa-753001
38.
Yamuna Nagar
Address: E-20 Industrial Area
Near Bus Stand
Yamuna Nagar
Haryana-135001
39.
Ambala City
Address: 102, Prem Nagar
Ambala City
Haryana-134003
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
486
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
40.
Putholee
(Branch Code 10730)
Address : Inside Hindustan Zinc Limited
Putholee
Distt: Chittorgarh -312021
41.
Rashmee (Branch Code 10246)
Address : Rashmee
Distt: Chittorgarh -312203
42.
Rawatbhata (Branch Code 10265)
Address : Rawarbhata,
Phase –II ,Tahseel Begun
Distt: Chittaurgarh -323305
43.
Salamgarh (Branch Code 10468)
Address : Salamgarh,
Tehsil Amod
Distt: Pratapgarh -312618
44.
Peepalkhoont
(Branch Code 10520)
Address : Peepalkhoont
Distt: Pratapgarh -327029
45.
Partapur Garhee
(Branch Code 10234)
Address : Distt: Baanswada -327024
46.
Nimbaheda (Branch Code 10238)
Address : Maal Godam Road,
Nimbaheda
Distt: Udaipur -312601
47.
Nimbaheda Krushi Upaj Mandi
(Branch Code 10757)
Address : Nimbaheda Krushi Upaj Mandi
Distt: Udaipur -312601
48.
Saanwariyaa
(Branch Code 10432)
Address : Meera Chauraha
Distt: Chittaurgarh -312024
49.
New Cloth Market, Baanswada
(Branch Code 10231)
Address : New Cloth Market,
Baanswada
Distt: Baanswada-327001
50.
Nahar Magra
(Branch Code 10321 )
Address : Nahar Magra,
Shripati Nagar
Distt: Udaypur -313201
51.
Chittaurgarh
(Branch Code 10237)
Address : Near Collectorate Circle
Distt: Chittaurgarh -312001
52.
Balicha
(Branch Code 11000)
Address : Balicha
Distt: Udaipur-313003
53.
Bhanpura
(Branch Code 10695)
Address : Bhanpura ,
Tehsil Gogunda
Distt: Udaipur-313003
54.
Kaladwas
(Branch Code 11039)
Address : G-1316,
Bhamashah Industrial Area
Kaladwas
Distt: Udaipur-313003
55.
Zinc Smelter
(Branch Code 10216)
Address : Zinc Smelter
Distt: Udaipur -313024
56.
Dungarpur
(Branch Code 10228)
Address : Mochee Bajaar
Distt: Dungarpur -314001
57.
Dungarpur New Colony
(Branch Code 10773)
Address : Opposite Rajshree Cinema
Distt: Dungarpur -314001
58.
Surapgla
(Branch Code 10696)
Address : Surapgla, Aboo Road
Distt: Dungarpur -314001
59.
Sagwada
(Branch Code 10230)
Address : Sagwada
Distt: Dungarpur-314025
60.
Abu Road
(Branch Code 10520)
Address : Ricco Industrial Area
Distt: Sirohee -307026
61.
Sheogunj
(Branch Code 10313)
Address : Adb Chhawanee
Distt: Sirohee-307027
62.
University Road
(Branch Code 11084)
Address : University Road
Distt: Udaipur -313002
63.
Sector 6, Hiran Magri Udaipur
(Branch Code 10520)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
487
Address : Sector 6,
Hiran Magri, Udaipur
Distt: Udaipur-313001
64.
Industrial Area Bheelwada
(Branch Code 10093)
Address : Udaipur Road,
Behind DIC Office
Distt: Bheelwada-311001
65.
Kankroli
(Branch Code 10211)
Address : Kankroli
Distt: Udaipur-313324
66.
Bhim
(Branch Code 10215)
Address : Hopital Road, Bhim
Distt: Rajsamand -305921
67.
Barodia
(Branch Code 10411)
Address : Barodia, Tahsil Bagidora
Distt: Baansawara-327601
68.
Rajpura Dariba
(Branch Code 10437)
Address : Post Office –Rajpura Dariba
Distt: Rajsamand-313211
69.
Siyana
(Branch Code 10686)
Address : Siyana , Tehsil Amet
Distt: Rajsamand-313327
70.
Machind
(Branch Code 10687)
Address : Gram Machind Via Tehsil Nathdwara
Distt: Rajsamand -3133321
71.
Bemali
(Branch Code 10690)
Address : Ganesh Chowk Bemali
Distt: Bheelwada-311809
72.
Kum, Bheelwada
(Branch Code 10211)
Address : Kum,Bheelwada
Distt: Bheelwada-311001
73.
MICR, Bheelwada
(Branch Code 10881)
Address : MICR, Bheelwada
Distt: Bheelwada-311001
74.
Rasmec, Bheelwada
(Branch Code 10892)
Address : 47, Rajendra Marg
Bheelwada
Distt: Bheelwada-311001
75.
CCPC, Bheelwada
(Branch Code 10903)
Address : Bhopalgunj, Bheelwada
Distt: Bheelwada-311001
76.
RCPC, Rajsamand
(Branch Code 10951)
Address : RCPC, Rajsamand
Distt: Rajsamand-311326
77.
Regional Office 3, Bheelwada
Address : Regional Office, Bheelwada
Distt: Bheelwada-311001
78.
Charbhuja Gadbhor
(Branch Code :-11028)
Address : Santosh Vatika,
Sevantri Road, Charbhuja Gadbhor
Distt: Rajsamand-313333
79.
Bagidora
(Branch Code :-10232)
Address : Bagidora
Distt: Baanswada-327601
80.
Ajad Chowk, Baanswada
(Branch Code :-10805)
Address : Ajad Chowk, Baanswada
Distt: Baanswada -327001
81.
MBSC, Baanswada
(Branch Code :-10605)
Address : Mahi Bajaj Sagar Complex
Distt: Baanswada -327001
82.
Mandawari Branch
(Branch Code : 10822)
Address: Mandawari
Bus Stand
District-Dausa (Rajasthan)
PIN-303504
83.
K.U.M. Chomu Branch
(Branch Code : 11024)
Address: Krishi Upaj Mandi, Chomu
District-Jaipur (Rajasthan)
PIN -303702
84.
Nangal Bersi Branch
(Branch Code : 10632)
Address: Nangal Bersi
District-Dausa (Rajasthan)
PIN -303307
85.
Kotputli Branch
(Branch Code : 10037)
Address: N H 8 Kotputli
Tehsil: Kotputli
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
488
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
District: Jaipur (Rajasthan)
PIN -303108
86.
Shivdaspura Branch
(Branch Code : 11073)
Address: Shivdaspura
Tehsil: Chaksu
District: Jaipur ( Rajasthan)
PIN -303903
87.
Kadera Branch
(Branch Code : 10685)
Address: Kadera
Tehsil: Chaksu
District: Jaipur (Rajasthan)
PIN -303901
88.
Dantil Branch
(Branch Code : 10670)
Address: Dantil
Tehsil: Kotputli
District: Jaipur (Rajasthan)
PIN -303107
89.
Raisar Branch
(Branch Code : 10640)
Address: Raisar
Tehsil: Jamwaramgarh
District: Jaipur (Rajasthan)
PIN -303109
90.
Phulera Branch
(Branch Code : 10749)
Address: Phulera Agarwal Panchayat Bhawan
District: Jaipur (Rajasthan)
PIN -303338
91.
Chhareda Branch
(Branch Code : 10639)
Address: Chhareda
District: Dausa (Rajasthan)
PIN -303505
92.
Banskho Branch
(Branch Code : 11067)
Address: Gram Panchayat Bhawan Banskho
Tehsil: Bassi
District: Jaipur (Rajasthan)
PIN -300305
93.
Lawan Branch
(Branch Code : 11098)
Address: Lawan Near Purviya School
District: Dausa (Rajasthan)
PIN -303004
94.
Renwal (Phagi) Branch
(Branch Code : 10977)
Address: Renwal (Phagi)
Tehsil: Phagi
District: Jaipur (Rajasthan)
PIN -303904
95.
Boraj Branch
(Branch Code : 10976)
Address: Boraj Near Panchayat Samiti
District: Jaipur (Rajasthan)
PIN -303338
96.
Jhotwara Industrial Area Branch
(Code – 10028)
Address: State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Road No. 8
Jhotwara Industrial Area
Jaipur
PIN – 302012
97.
Karghani Branch
(Code – 11086)
Address: State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
5-A, Sanjay Nagar Near Joshi Marg
Kalwad Road
Karghani
Jaipur
PIN – 302012
98.
Chitrakoot Branch
(Code – 10828)
Address: State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
C-82, Chitrakoot
Ajmer Road
Jaipur
PIN – 302021
99.
Sirsi Road Branch
(Code – 11155)
Address: State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Showroom No. 1
Rosewood Apartment
Opp. Dhaka Nagar Sirsi Road
Jaipur
PIN – 302012
100.
Bapu Bazar Branch
(Code – 10843)
Address: State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Near Sanganeri Gate
Bapu Bazar
Jaipur
PIN – 302003
101.
Sarna Doongar I.A. Branch
(Code – 11050)
Address: G-93, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Sarna Dungar Ind. Area
Jaipur
PIN – 302012
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
489
102.
Ganpati Plaza Branch
(Code – 10825)
Address: 103-105 Ganpati Plaza
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
M.I. Road
Jaipur
PIN – 302001
103.
D.C.C. Branch
(Code – 10865)
Address: State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
D.C.C. Bani Park
Jaipur
PIN – 302016
104.
Murlipura Branch
(Code – 10721)
Address: State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Murlipura
Jaipur
PIN – 302039
105.
Chand Pole Bazar Branch
(Code – 10025)
Address: State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Pole Bazar
Jaipur
PIN – 302001
106.
Niwaroo Road Branch
(Code – 11176)
Address: State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Ganesh Nagar – 12
Niwaroo Road
Jhotwara
Jaipur
PIN – 302012
107.
Peetal Factory Branch
(Code – 10806)
Address: State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Pink City Tower
Jhotwara Road
Jaipur
PIN – 302016
108.
Reserve Line Police Force
Address: State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Reserve Line Police Force
Zanana Hosp. Campus
Distt: Jaipur, Rajasthan
109.
Power House
Address: State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Old Power House
Near Ram Mandir Temple
Bani Park, Station Road
Jaipur, Rajasthan-302012
110.
Vaishali Nagar Branch
(Code-10438)
Address: State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Gautam Marg
Vaishali Nagar
Jaipur, Rajasthan-302021
111.
Indian Bank
Banga Road
Near Sutlej Petrol Pump
District: Nawanshahr Doaba
PIN: 144514 Punjab
112.
Indian Bank
Dhaliwal Complex
Ferozepur Road
Mullanpur
District : Ludhiana – 141101
Punjab
113.
Indian Bank
22 Improvement Trust Building
G T Road,
Gurdaspur - 143521,
Punjab
114.
Indian Bank
SCF 29-30 Urban Estate
Sector - 1, Batala
District: Gurdaspur
Punjab
115.
Indian Bank
Baba Ishwar Singh Education Society
Bhagpura
District: Moga – 142043
Punjab
116.
Indian Bank
SCF -18, Sector 20 - D
Chandigarh
117.
Indian Bank
SCO -390
Sector 37 - D
Chandigarh
118.
Indian Bank
SCO -39, Madhya Marg
Sector 7 C
Chandigarh
119.
Indian Bank
House No. 48 C
Shaheed Karnail Singh Nagar
Phase – III, Sua Road
Jawadi, Near Pakhowal Road
Ludhiana - 141013
Punjab
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
490
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
120.
Indian Bank
Lajpat Nagar Branch, B-13
Lajpat Nagar-II
Delhi -110 024
121.
Indian Bank
Kapasheda Branch,
Wats Building, Building No.-567,
Old Palam - Gurgaon Marg
Samalka,
Kapasheda
Delhi110037
122.
Indian Bank
Mangolpuri Branch, Z -349
Khasra Number - 149
Mangolpur Khurd,
Mangolpuri, Delhi -110 085
123.
Indian Bank
Dwarka Sector-10 Branch
Kothi No. 4, Opp Vandana International School,
Sector-10, Dwarka, Delhi 110 075
Rajasthan
124.
Indian Bank
Naruli Chaud Branch, Gram Panchayat
Village and Post Office Naruli Chaud,
Bamnwas Tehsil, Sawai Madhopur District
Pin 322 214 (Rajasthan)
125.
Indian Bank
Dei Kheda Branch, Community Building,
Village and Post Office- Dei Khera,
Indra Garh Tehsil, Bundi District,
Pin 323 603 (Rajasthan)
126.
Indian Bank
Zonal Office
Pulleppady Jn.
Chittoor Road
Ernakulam
Zonal Office Lucknow
127.
Indian Bank
Akbarpur Branch
Ashirwad Guest House
Tehseel Chauraha Akbarpur
Ambedkarnagar
Uttar Pradesh-224122
128.
Indian Bank
Allahabad Branch
249, Chak
Zero Road
Allahabad
Uttar Pradesh-211003
129.
Indian Bank
Bachhrawan Branch
A21, Patel Nagar
Bachhrawan
Raebarelly
Uttar Pradesh-229301
130.
Indian Bank
Badaun Branch
437 Civil Line,
Opp Suniti Nursing Home
Indra Chowk
Badaun, Uttar Pradesh- 243601
131.
Indian Bank
Bahraich Branch
Free Ganj (Near Diamond Cinema)
Station Road
Bahraich
Uttar Pradesh- 271801
132.
Indian Bank
Ballia Branch
Mal Godam Road
Near Sheesh Mahal Cinema
Ballia
Uttar Pradesh- 277001
133.
Indian Bank
Balrampur Branch
Maltikunj
Govind Bagh
Station Road
Balrampur
Uttar Pradesh- 271201
134.
Indian Bank
Babhni Chauraha Branch
Babhni Chauraha
PO-Sangath
Sant Kabir Nagar
Uttar Pradesh-272125
135.
Indian Bank
Badani Chapha Branch
Vill-Barhni Chafa
P.S.-Bhawaniganj
Tehsil-Dumariyaganj
Barhni Chafa
Siddharth Nagar
Uttar Pradesh-272189
136.
Indian Bank
Barabanki Branch
Mohini Plaza
Raj Kamal Road
Satya Premi Nagar
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
491
Barabanki
Uttar Pradesh-225001
137.
Indian Bank
Bareilly Branch
No-149, Civil Lines
Near Rajrani Hospital
Bareilly
Uttar Pradesh- 243001
138.
Indian Bank
Basti Branch
Opp. Kateshwar Park
Gandhi Nagar
Basti
Uttar Pradesh- 272001
139.
Indian Bank
Bikapur Branch
Bilgram Tahsil
Hardoi
Uttar Pradesh- 241302
140.
Indian Bank
Bhatauli Bujurg
Village and Post Gauri Bazar
District Deoria
Gauri Bazar- 274202
141.
Indian Bank
Chandauli Branch
Ward No. 11, H.N. 48
Sanjay Nagar
G. T. Road
Chandauli
Uttar Pradesh- 232104
142.
Indian Bank
Chhota Bharwara Branch
H. No. 749
Gadariyanpurwa
Chhota Bharwara
Gomti Nagar
Lucknow
Uttar Pradesh-226028
143.
Indian Bank
Deoria Branch
House No 266
Gorakhpur Road
Abubkar Nagar
Deoria
Uttar Pradesh- 274001
144.
Indian Bank
Faizabad Branch
Ist Floor, Alka Tower, Rikab Ganj
Niyawa Road
Faizabad
Uttar Pradesh – 224001
145.
Indian Bank
Firozabad Branch
Sector-1/346
Suhag Nagar
Firozabad
Uttar Pradesh- 283203
146.
Indian Bank
Ghazipur Branch
Near Railway Crossing
Village-Fullanpur
Post-Bikapur
Ghazipur
Uttar Pradesh- 233001
147.
Indian Bank
Gaura Baganhawa Branch
Gaura Baganhawa
Post-Jaitapur
Balrampur
Uttar Pradesh- 271604
148.
Indian Bank
Godowlia Branch
D- 48/122 Missirpokhra Godowlia, Varanasi
Uttar Pradesh- 221001
149.
Indian Bank
Gomti Nagar Branch
2/139 Vijay Khand
Gomti Nagar
Lucknow
Uttar Pradesh- 226010
150.
Indian Bank
Gonda Branch
CP -108, Saurabh Complex
Circular Road
Awas Vikas Colony
Gonda
Uttar Pradesh- 271002
151.
Indian Bank
Gopiganj Branch
Phool Bagh
Gyanpur Road
Gopiganj
S. R. N. Bhadohi
Uttar Pradesh- 221303
152.
Indian Bank
Gorakhpur Branch
16/C, Bank Road
Gorakhpur
Uttar Pradesh- 273001
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
492
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
153.
Indian Bank
Gyanpur Branch
Old A RTO Office
Patel Nagar
Gyanpur
S R N Bhadohi
Uttar Pradesh- 221304
154.
Indian Bank
Hardoi Branch
Ghantaghar Road
Hardoi
Uttar Pradesh- 241001
155.
Indian Bank
Indira Nagar Branch
B-1316, Sai Plaza
B-block Crossing
Indira Nagar
Lucknow
Indira Nagar
Uttar Pradesh- 226016
156.
Indian Bank
Jaunpur Branch
Kutchery Road
Civil Line
Near SBI
Jaunpur
Uttar Pradesh- 222002
157.
Indian Bank
Kamolia Branch
Belgawan Sitapur
Uttar Pradesh- 261001
158.
Indian Bank
Kannauj Branch
Malik Complex, M G Road
Kazi Tola
Kannauj
Uttar Pradesh- 209725
159.
Indian Bank
Kanpur Branch
No. 50/276, Jugal Biharji Complex
Halsey Road
Kanpur City
Kanpur
Uttar Pradesh- 208001
160.
Indian Bank
Kanpur Cantonment Branch
64, Cantt Board Office Campus
Tagore Road,
Cantonment Kanpur
Uttar Pradesh- 208004
161.
Indian Bank
Khalilabad Branch
Sugar Mill Road
Khalilabad
Sant Kabir Nagar
Uttar Pradesh- 272175
162.
Indian Bank
Kishandaspur Branch
House of Yogendra Singh
P S - Unchahar
Kishandaspur Raebareli
Uttar Pradesh- 229401
163.
Indian Bank
Kisni Branch
Kureshi Market
Katra Chaurahkisni
Amethi District
Uttar Pradesh- 227811
164.
Indian Bank
Kithawa Branch
Dharai, Block Salon
Raebareli District
Uttar Pradesh- 229127
165.
Indian Bank
Lalganj Branch
Main Road, Near Baghel Clinic
Saket Nagar
Lal Ganj
Raebareli District
Uttar Pradesh- 229206
166.
Indian Bank
Lucknow Branch No.1 And 2
Ashok Marg
Hazratganj
Lucknow
Uttar Pradesh- 226001
167.
Indian Bank
Maharaj Ganj Branch
Farenda Road
Hameed Nagar
PO Maharajganj
Maharajganj District
Uttar Pradesh- 273303
168.
Indian Bank
Mallawan Branch
1053 Hardoi
Kanpur Road
Mallawan
Hardoi Dist.
Uttar Pradesh- 241303
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
493
169.
Indian Bank
Maunath Bhanjan Branch
257/1 Jyoti Tower
Sahadatpura
Near Bunai Vidyalay
Maunath Bhanjan
Mau District
Uttar Pradesh- 275101
170.
Indian Bank
Microset Branch
Raebarely
M-16 Lalganj Road
Amreshpuri Colony
Raebareli District
Uttar Pradesh- 229001
171.
Indian Bank
Mirzapur Bank
Swami Dayanand Marg
Welleseley Ganj
Mirzapur District
Uttar Pradesh- 231001
172.
Indian Bank
Moradabad Branch
Station Road
Budh Bazaar
Opposite- Hotel Rajan
Moradabad District
Uttar Pradesh- 244001
173.
Indian Bank
Nadepar Branch
Nadepar Chauraha
Vill-Nadepar
PO-Jogiya Udaypur
Siddharth Nagar
Uttar Pradesh- 272207
174.
Indian Bank
Padrauna Branch
Shastri Nagar
Ram Kola Road
Padarauna
Kushinagar District
Uttar Pradesh- 274304
175.
Indian Bank
Pilibhit Branch
3, Gandhi Stadium Road
Opp. Dr Chandra Hospital
Pilibhit District
Uttar Pradesh-262001
176.
Indian Bank
Peela Mahua Branch
Peela Mahua
Hardoi District
Uttar Pradesh-241405
177.
Indian Bank
Pratapgarh Branch
47 A, Civil Lines
Katra Road
Near C M O Residence
Pratapgarh
Pratapgarh District
Uttar Pradesh-230001
178.
Indian Bank
Rajni Khand Branch
F-3, Ward No-1
Raebareily Road
Rajni Khand, Sharda Nagar
Dilkusha
Lucknow District
Uttar Pradesh-226002
179.
Indian Bank
Raebareily Branch
Rudra Plaza
Opp - Reform Club Hospital Road
Raebarely
Uttar Pradesh- 229001
180.
Indian Bank
Rampur Branch
Shaukat Ali Road
Opp Of Afroz Shah Ki Kothi
Civil Lines
Rampur
Rampur District
Uttar Pradesh- 244901
181.
Indian Bank
Robertsganj Branch
Civil Line Road
Harsh Nagar
Robertsganj
Sonebhadra District
Uttar Pradesh- 231216
182.
Indian Bank
Saifullah Ganj Branch
Saifullah Ganj Bazar
Vill & Post Saifullah Ganj
Tahsil Sadar
Sultanpur District
Uttar Pradesh – 228119
183.
Indian Bank
Saket Nagar Branch
810, W/1, Scheme II
Deep Talkies Road
Kidwai Nagar Post
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
494
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Saket Nagar
Kanpur
Uttar Pradesh – 208014
184.
Indian Bank
Satrahi Branch
Vill Satrahi Pogharkuiya
Tahsil Haidergarh
Barabanki District
Uttar Pradesh – 225124
185.
Indian Bank
Shajahanpur Branch
Opp. Jali Kothi
Bankhandi Nath Mandir
Shahjahanpur
Shahjahanpur District
Uttar Pradesh-242001
186.
Indian Bank
Sondha Branch
Village Sondha Khundra
Shajhanpur District
Uttar Pradesh-242301
187.
Indian Bank
Sultanpur Branch
671/1 Soni Complex
Dariyapur Road
Sultanpur District
Uttar Pradesh-228001
188.
Indian Bank
Swaroopnagar Branch
113/148 Near Bal Nikunj School
Swaroop Nagar
Kanpur
Uttar Pradesh -208002
189.
Indian Bank
Tendua Branch
Tendua
Madhuban Road
PO - Belthra Road
Ballia District
Uttar Pradesh-221715
190.
Indian Bank
Varanasi Branch
No. C-7/34-B Lahurabir
Varanasi
Varanasi District
Uttar Pradesh-221001
191.
Indian Bank
Service Branch Lucknow
1,2 Ashok Marg
Hazratganj
Lucknow
Lucknow District
Uttar Pradesh -226001
192.
State Bank of India
Amber Road
Next to Brahmpuri Thana
Jaipur-302002
193.
State Bank of India
Chittrakoot
Near Step by Step School
Janaki Marg
Jaipur-302021
194.
State Bank of India
Collectorate Circle
Near Collectorate Circle ,
Banipark
Jaipur-302016
195.
State Bank of India
Durgapura
Maharani Farm
Durgapura
Jaipur-302018
196.
State Bank of India
Jawahar Circle
Gold Sukh Ground
Near North Western Railway Headquarters
Jaipur-302017
197.
State Bank of India
Jawahar Nagar
36-B, Opp. Satya Sai College
Jawahar Nagar
Jaipur – 302004
198.
State Bank of India
Jhotwara
Plot No.8, Avadhpuri
Kalwar Road, Jhotwara
Jaipur-302012
199.
State Bank of India
Kailash Puri
9, Kailash Puri
Tonk Road
Jaipur-302018
200.
State Bank of India
MNIT, MNIT Campus
Opp. Mahaveer Cancer Hospital
J.L.N. Marg
Jaipur-302017
201.
State Bank of India
Nirman Nagar
K Tower, A-47, Virndavan Vihar
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
495
Kings Road, Nirman Nagar
Jaipur-302019
202.
State Bank of India
Special Housing Finance Branch
Brij Anukampa, Ashok Marg
C-Scheme
Jaipur-302001
203.
State Bank of India
Pratap Nagar
101/49, Kumba Marg
Pratap Nagar
Jaipur-302022
204.
State Bank of India
Shastri Nagar A-30 B
Shastri Nagar
Jaipur-302016
205.
State Bank of India
Sirsi Road, Flat No.1
Shekhawat Building
Sirsi Road
Jaipur-302012
206.
State Bank of India
Sitapura Industrial Area
RICCO Building
Sitapura Industrial Area
Jaipur-302022
207.
State Bank of India
SME Branch (Jaipur South)
22-Godam Industrial Area
Jaipur-302006
208.
State Bank of India
SME Station Road
Mangal Bhawan
Station Road
Jaipur-302006
209.
State Bank of India
Speacial NRI Branch
Plot No. 8-9,
Corporate Park, Gopal Bari
Jaipur-302006
210.
State Bank of India
Triveni Nagar
Near Gopalpura Bye pass
Jaipur-302018
211.
State Bank of India
Currency Administration Cell
SBI Jaipur Special Branch
Sanganri Gate
Jaipur-302003
212.
State Bank of India
SME Bhiwadi
F-296, Industrial Area Bhiwadi
Alwar-301019
213.
State Bank of India
Sahjahanpur
Ashish Plaza
Old Bus Stand
Alwar-301706
214.
State Bank of India
Tapukra
Alwar-301707
215.
State Bank of India
Thana Gaji
Bhora Bhawan
Pratapgarh Road Thana Gaji
Alwar-301022
216.
State Bank of India
Surya Nagar
Hanuman Chouraha
Delhi Road
Alwar-301001
217.
State Bank of India
Ajeetgarh
Sikar-302701
218.
State Bank of India
Banasthali
Tehsil-Newai
Tonk-304022
219.
State Bank of India
BS Paradise
Saraf Colony
Near Bus Stand
Jaipur Road
Bassi-303301
220.
State Bank of India
Khetri, Ward No.-15
Main Road, Khetri
Jhunjhunu-333503
221.
State Bank of India
Malpura
Tehsil- Malpura
Tonk-304502
222.
State Bank of India
Peeru Singh Circle
Jhunjhunu-333001
223.
State Bank of India
Medi
Vill. Medi
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
496
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Teh. Gangapur City
Sawai Madhopur-322219
224.
State Bank of India
Soda
Village-Soda
Teh-Malpura
Tonk-304504
225.
State Bank of India
Shri Madopur
Sikar-332715
226.
State Bank of India
Tonk, Jawahar Bazar
Tonk-304001
227.
State Bank of India
Udai Khurd
Po-Mahukalan
Block- Gangapur City
Sawai Madhopur-322220
228.
State Bank of India
Agri Commercial Branch
Mangal Bhawan
1st Floor Station Road
Jaipur-302006
229.
State Bank of India
Sukhadia Circler
Shri Ganganagar-335001
230.
State Bank of India
Station Head Quarter
Sadhu Wali Cantt.
Shri Ganganagar-335001
231.
State Bank of India
Military Station Suratgarh
Shri Ganganagar-335804
232.
State Bank of India
Nohar
Tehsil- Nohar
Hanumangarh-335523
233.
State Bank of India
Jail Road
Vijay Bhairav Market
Mohta Chowk
Bikaner-334005
234.
State Bank of India
Nal
Air Force Station
Nal, Bikaner - 334001
235.
State Bank of India
Bhadra
Near ACJM Court
Railway Station Road
Bhadra, Hanumangarh - 335501
236.
State Bank of India
Industrial Area Kishangarh
12 Makrana Road Industrial Area
Kishangarh-305801
237.
State Bank of India
Indabar
Main High Raod Indabar
Tehsil- Merta City
Nagaur- 341510
238.
State Bank of India
Jadan Khalsa
SBI Shree Vishwadeep Gurukul
Maheshwaranand Ashram
Pali-306401
239.
State Bank of India
Kadera
Vill- Kadera, Teh- Kehrli
Ajmer-305405
240.
State Bank of India
Khawas
Tehsil- Kekri
Ajmer- 305405
241.
State Bank of India
Pali Marwar
Main Branch Station Road
Pali-306401
242.
State Bank of India
Regional Institution of Education of Ajmer
Pushkar Road
Ajmer-305004
243.
State Bank of India
Sojat City
Near LIC Office, Sojat
Distt. Pali Marwar-306104
244.
State Bank of India
Regional Office Udaipur
Hitawala Building
Swaroop Sagar Road
Udaipur- 313001
245.
State Bank of India
Administrative Office-2
A-5, Nehru Place
Tonk Road
Jaipur-302015
246.
State Bank of India
Kherwara
Near Pancholi Hospital
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
497
Pancholi Bhawan
Kherwara, Udaipur-313803
247.
State Bank of India
Gogunda
Shop No. 95/96, Indraprastha Market
Gogunda, Udaipur-313705
248.
State Bank of India
Sagwara
Royal Service Centre
Near TVS Service Centre
Sagwara
Dungarpur- 314025
249.
State Bank of India
Pindwara
Railway Station Road
Opp. Telephone Exchange
Pindwara
Sirohi-307022
250.
State Bank of India
Goverdhan Villas
3/9 RHB Colony
Goverdhan Villas, Main Road
Udaipur- 311002
251.
State Bank of India
Salumber
Near Chungi Naka
Salumber
Udaipur-313027
252.
State Bank of India
Kushal Bagh
Vardan Shoppping Complex
Banswara-327001
253.
State Bank of India
Bus Stand Udaipur
Vinimay Complex
Udaipur- 313001
254.
State Bank of India
Kesar Ganj- Abu Road
Hotel Jaideep Compound
Sirohi-307026
255.
State Bank of India
Regional Office Jodhour
E-4, Suvidha Complex
Shastri Nagar
Jodhpur-342002
256.
State Bank of India
MICR Centre Jodhpur
High Court Building
Jodhpur- 342006
257.
State Bank of India
Osian
Tehsil Road
Jodhpur-342303
258.
State Bank of India
Currency Administration Cell
C/o SBI High Court Branch
Jodhpur- 342006
259.
State Bank of India
Basni Industrial AreaMIA House
Basni Phase-2
Jodhpur-342005
260.
State Bank of India
Pali Link Road
461, Pali Link Road
Jodhpur- 342003
261.
State Bank of India
Chaupasni Housing Board
14, Jwala Vihar
Main Chaupasni Road
Jodhpur-342009
262.
State Bank of India
Mahamandir, Jodhpur
B-29, Khetanadi
Mandore Mandi Circle
Jodhpur- 342007
263.
State Bank of India
Jhalamand Chauraha
Plot No.121, District Shopping Centre
Saraswati Nagar
Jodhpur-342008
264.
State Bank of India
National Law Univercity
N.H.65, Nagaur Road Madore
Jodhpur-342304
265.
State Bank of India
Kudi Bhagtasani Housing Board
Sector-2
Jodhpur-342005
266.
State Bank of India
Ramgarh
Village- Ramgarh
Dist. Jaisalmer-345022
267.
State Bank of India
IIT Rajasthan
Quarter No.307
GPRA Kendranchal Colony
Vivek Nagar
New Pali Road
Jodhpur-342005
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
498
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
268.
State Bank of India
NRI Jodhpur
H-1, Shastri Nagar
Jodhpur-342003
269.
State Bank of India
Army Area Jaisalmer
Jaisalmer-345001
270.
State Bank of India
Mahaveer Nagar
Hotel New Raj
Mahaveer Nagar
Barmer-344001
271.
State Bank of India
Pal Balaji Road
Plot No. 4B & 7A Khasra No.198
Pal Main Road
Jodhpur-342014
272.
State Bank of India
Newra Road
VPO Newra Road
Tehsil- Osian
Jodhpur-342303
273.
State Bank of India
Paota B Road
Peeyush Bhawan
Laxmi Nagar Main Road
Jodhpur-342010
274.
State Bank of India
Baran Road Kota
Bankey Saukhdham Colony
Baran Road
Kota-324002
275.
State Bank of India
Bundi
Guru Nanak Colony
Bundi-323001
276.
State Bank of India
Gangrar
Plot No. 2538, Near BSNL Tower
Village - Gangrar
Chittorgarh-312901
277.
State Bank of India
Jal Chakki
Collectorate Road,
Rajnagar
Rajsamand-313326
278.
State Bank of India
Kapasan
Near Stadium
Dargah Road
Kapasan
Rajsamand-312202
279.
State Bank of India
Rail Magra
Near Bus Stand
Rail Magra
Rajsamand-313029
280.
State Bank of India
Senthi (Chittorgarh)
A-23, Babu Nagar, Senthi
Chittorgarh-312001
281.
State Bank of India
SME Branch
Jhalawar Road
Kota-324007
282.
State Bank of India
Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara
B-1 Block, Surbhi Complex
Subhash Nagar
Bhilwara-311001
283.
State Bank of India
Vigyan Nagar, Kota
1 TA, 17 Vigyan Nagar
Kota-324005
284.
State Bank of India
Fatehnagar
Shop No. 2, 3, 4 Karga Block
Near WareHouse
Udaipur Road
Udaipur-313205
285.
State Bank of India
Sarurpur Kalan Branch
Distt.- Baghpat
Uttar Pradesh-250619
286.
State Bank of India
Rohta Road Branch
Distt.- Meerut
Uttar Pradesh-250002
287.
State Bank of India
Aminagar Sarai Branch
Distt.- Baghpat
Uttar Pradesh-250606
288.
State Bank of India
Shradhapuri Phase-2 Branch
Defence Enclave
Distt.- Meerut
Uttar Pradesh-250001
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
499
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
289.
State Bank of India
Arthala Branch
Kailash Park
GT Road
Distt.-Ghaziabad
Uttar Pradesh-201007
290.
State Bank of India
Pratap Vihar Branch
Sector-12, Pratap Vihar
Distt. - Ghaziabad
Uttar Pradesh-201009
291.
State Bank of India
Bhikkanpur Branch
Muradnagar
Distt.- Ghaziabad
Uttar Pradesh-201206
292.
State Bank of India
Khoda Branch
Distt. Ghaziabad
Uttar Pradesh-201301
293.
State Bank of India
Tehsil Compound Branch
Distt.- Ghaziabad
Uttar Pradesh-201001
294.
State Bank of India
Raj Nagar Extension Branch
Distt. – Ghaziabad
Uttar Pradesh-201003
295.
State Bank of India
Shalimar Garden Branch
Block -B, Girdhar Plaza
Distt.-Ghaziabad
Uttar Pradesh-201005
296.
State Bank of India
Ankit Vihar Branch
Distt.- Muzaffarnagar
Uttar Pradesh-251001
297.
State Bank of India
Almaspur Branch
Distt.- Muzaffarnagar
Uttar Pradesh-251001
298.
State Bank of India
Purkaji Branch
Distt.- Muzaffarnagar
Uttar Pradesh-251310
299.
State Bank of India
Faizabad Branch
Distt.- Saharanpur
Uttar Pradesh-247121
300.
State Bank of India
Sector-31 Branch
Noida
Distt.- Gautambudh Nagar
Uttar Pradesh-201301
301.
State Bank of India
Sector-51 Branch
Noida
Distt.- Gautambudh Nagar
Uttar Pradesh-201301
302.
State Bank of India
Bhangel Branch
Noida
Distt.- Gautambudh Nagar
Uttar Pradesh-201301
303.
State Bank of India
Sector-66 Branch
Mamura
Noida
Distt. Gautambudh Nagar
Uttar Pradesh-201307
304.
State Bank of India
Ahmad Garh Branch
Distt.- Bulandshahar
Uttar Pradesh-203392
305.
State Bank of India
Chhatari Branch
Distt.- Bulandshahar
Uttar Pradesh-203001
306.
State Bank of India
SME Branch
Khurza
Distt.- Bulandshahar
Uttar Pradesh-203131
307.
State Bank of India
PBB Branch
Sector P2, Greater Noida
Distt. Gautambudh Nagar
Uttar Pradesh-201310
308.
State Bank of India
44 PAC Branch
2/3 Shastri Nagar
Distt.- Meerut
Uttar Pradesh-250004
309.
State Bank of India
Surajkund Road Branch
Distt.- Meerut
Uttar Pradesh-250002
500
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
310.
State Bank of India
Avas Vikas Colony Branch
Distt. Hapur
Uttar Pradesh-245101
311.
State Bank of India
Babugarh Branch
Babhgarh Chawani
Distt.- Hapur
Uttar Pradesh- 245201
312.
State Bank of India
Dhaulana Branch
Distt.- Hapur
Uttar Pradesh-245301
313.
State Bank of India
Jagruti Vihar Branch
Distt.- Meerut
Uttar Pradesh-240004
314.
State Bank of India
Shatabdi Nagar Branch
Distt.- Meerut
Uttar Pradesh-250103
315.
Punjab & Sind Bank
VPO Sidhva kalan
District Ludhiana
316.
Punjab & Sind Bank
VPO Ratan heri
P.O. Khanna
District Ludhiana
317.
Punjab & Sind Bank
VPO Sirinh
District Ludhiana
318.
Punjab & Sind Bank
VPO Lakha
Tehsil Jagranv
319.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Near Govt. Primary School
Kiri Bhumal
Tehsil Jagranv
District Ludhiana
320.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Near Bus Stand
Main Road, Bujurg
District Ludhiana
321.
Punjab & Sind Bank
B- Market, Sector 6
Bhilai, Chattisgarh – 490006
322.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Near Jain Dharmshala
Ashok Nagar
Madhya Pradesh – 473331
323.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Pitana Chowk, Raipur Road
Dhamatari
Chattisgarh – 493773
324.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Vill.-Janjee, Tehsil-Masturi
Distt. Bilaspur
Chattisgarh – 495550
325.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Vill.-Darrabhantha
Dist. Bilaspur
Chattisgarh - 495550
326.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Risama, Tehsil – Gunderdehi
Distt. Durg
Chattisgarh - 49491221
327.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Akash Ganga, Vyavsaik Parisar
Supela, Bhilai
Chattisgarh - 490006
328.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Shop No. 25, Mahalaxmi Cloth Market
Pandri, Raipur
Chattisgarh
329.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Parvati Nivas, Bhopal Nakka
Sehore, Madhya Pradesh – 466001
330.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Vill. Pahanvarri
Distt. Hoshangabad
Madhya Pradesh
331.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Vill. Palash, Distt. Ratlam
Madhya Pradesh – 457001
332.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Civil Lines, Main Road
Datiya, Madhya Pradesh – 473331
333.
Punjab & Sind Bank
63, Malva Complex, Sector -1,
Pithampur, Distt. Dhar
Madhya Pradesh .
334.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Karan Arcade, Parasia Road
Chindwara, Madhya Pradesh – 480001.
335.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Vill. & Post Office Kotla Surat Luhar
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
501
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
Tehsil Ajnala, Distt. Amritsar
Punjab.
336.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Vill. & Post Office Tanel
Tehsil Baba Bakala, Distt. Amritsar
Punjab.
337.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Vill. & Post Office Laskari Nangal
Tehsil Ajnala, Distt. Amritsar
Punjab.
338.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Vill. & Post Office Mianwind
Tehsil Baba Bakala, Distt. Amritsar
Punjab.
339.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Vill. & Post Office Marhana
Tehsil Patti, Distt. Taran Taran
Punjab.
340.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Vill. & Post Office Gaggobua
Distt. Taran Taran
Punjab.
341.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Vill. & Post Office Wazir Bhullar
Tehsil Baba Bakala, Distt. Amritsar
Punjab.
342.
Punjab & Sind Bank
329, Jewar Road, Ibrahimpur
Junaid Pur, Distt. Bulandshahar
Uttar-Pardesh
343.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Vill. & Post Office Shafruddin Javli
Tehsil & Distt. Ghaziabad
Uttar-Pardesh.
344.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Shri Ghaseeta BuildingV
illage Kaziwala, Distt. Bijnore
Uttar Pardesh
345.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Shop No. 2/12/13/14, Laxmi Plaza
NH – 58, Daurala, Distt. Meerut
Uttar-Pardesh
346.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Gupta Bros. Chandpur Road
Noorpur, Distt. Bijnore
Uttar-Pardesh.
347.
Punjab & Sind Bank
J-9. G.F. Dilshad Colony
Delhi
348.
Punjab & Sind Bank
C-3, 58 A, Yamuna Vihar
Delhi.
349.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Shop No. 14 A & 12, Shipra Azure
Arcade Near Wave Cinemas
Distt. Ghaziabad
Uttar Pardesh.
350.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Near Railway Phatak
Kalour Road, Bassi Pathana
Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib
Punjab – 140412.
351.
Punjab & Sind Bank
C/o Hotel Puri, Near Dev Pal Chownk
Hamirpur, Himachal Pardesh – 177001.
352.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Near Bus Stand, Gurudwara Road
Tehsil & Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib
Punjab – 140406.
353.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Village & Post Office Panjoli Kalan
Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib
Punjab – 145101.
354.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Village & Post Office Barnwa
Tehsil Anandpur Sahib
Distt. Rupnagar
Punjab – 140117.
355.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Village & Post Office Tangori
Distt. Mohali
Punjab – 140306.
356.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Village & Post Office Chahar Majra
Tehsil Kharar, Distt. Mohali
Punjab – 140501.
357.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Village & Post Office Fateh Nangal
Kunda Road
Tehsil & Distt. Gurdaspur
Punjab – 143519.
358.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Village & Post Office Jaura Chhatran
Tehsil & Distt. Gurdaspur
Punjab – 143520.
359.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Village & Post Office Ghoman
New Model Colony
Main Bazar Ghoman
502
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
Tehsil Batala, Distt. Gurdaspur
Punjab – 143514.
360.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Village & Post Office Bhodipur
Tehsil Nakodar, Dist.. Jalandhar
Punjab – 144040.
361.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Village & Post Office Bhagoran
Tehsil Nawanshahar
Distt. Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar
Punjab – 144516.
362.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Satchitanand Nagar
Rudraprayag, Distt. Rudraprayag
Uttarakhand -246171.
363.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Jalalpur Nella, Post Office – Ramraj
Tehsil Jansath, Distt. Muzaffar Nagar
Uttar Pardesh - 251320.
364.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Village Dhaboti, Tehsil Distt. - Sehore
Madhya Pradesh – 466001.
365.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Village Lalguwadi, Block + Distt. Ratlam
Madhya Pradesh – 457001.
366.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Village Sarsawa
Tehsil Panagpur
Distt. Jabalpur
Madhya Pradesh - 483220.
367.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Village Dhaurera Mafi
Pilibhit by pass Road
Post Office – Izzat Nagar
Distt. Bareilly
Uttar Pardesh - 243122.
368.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Mohalla Nai Basti, Near Gurdwara
Jaspur, Tehsil Kashipur
Distt. Udham Singh Nagar
Uttarakhand- 244712.
369.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Kangra, Shop No. 2686
New Bus Stand Road
Tehsil & Distrct Kangra
Himachal Pardesh – 176001.
370.
Punjab & Sind Bank
VPO Behrampur
Tehsil & Distrcit Gurdaspur
Punjab – 143532.
371.
Punjab & Sind Bank
VPO Dorangal
Tehsil & District Gurdaspur
Punjab – 143526.
372.
Punjab & Sind Bank
D-127, 60 Feet Road
Mahavir Enclave-III
New Delhi – 110059.
373.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Plot No. 31, Khasra No. 5624
Naresh Park Extension
Najafgarh Road, Nangloi
Delhi – 110041.
374.
Punjab & Sind Bank
129, Anand Nagar
Inderlok, Delhi – 110035.
375.
Punjab & Sind Bank
2155, Outram Lane
Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar
New Delhi – 110009.
376.
Punjab & Sind Bank
A-20-91, Ram Garh
G.T. Karnal Road
Jahangirpuri
New Delhi – 110033.
377.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Khasra No. 311, Ground Floor
Goyla-Dwarka Road, Didarpur
Najafgarh, New Delhi – 110043.
378.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Dharamshalla, Near Kachaheri Adda
Opp. Dist. Industry Centre
District – Kangra
Himachal Pardesh – 176215.
379.
Punjab & Sind Bank
VPO – Sarna, Near Pipe Factory
G.T. Road, Dist. Pathankot
Punjab – 145025.
380.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Nagrota Bhagwan, Main Bazar
Near Old Bus Stand
District – Kangra
Himachal Pardesh – 176047.
381.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Simbal More, PO Miran sahib
Tehsil R.S. Pura, Distt. Jammu
Jammu & Kashmir – 181101
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
503
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
382.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Sujanpur, Distt. Pathankot
Punjab – 145023.
383.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Village Bahadur Hussain
P.O. Massanian, Tehsil Batala
Distt. Gurdaspur
Punjab – 143602.
384.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Village Sarchur, Tehsil Batala
Distt. Gurdaspur
Punjab – 143602.
385.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Village Sirah, Tehsil Batala
Distt. Gurdaspur
Punjab – 143513.
386.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Samba, NH-1A, Distt. Samba
Jammu & Kashmir – 184121.
387.
Punjab & Sind Bank
Sirhind, G.T. Road
Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib
Punjab – 140406.
388.
Punjab & Sind Bank
VPO Teur, Distt. Mohali
Punjab – 140301.
389.
Punjab & Sind Bank
VPO Rangilpur, Distt. Ropar
Punjab – 140108.
390.
Reserve Bank of India
4th Floor, R.R.D.A. Building
Pragati Sadan, Kachahari Chowk
Ranchi - 834001, Jharkhand
391.
Reserve Bank of India
54/949, Satya Prem Vihar
Mahadev Ghat Road
Sunder Nagar, Raipur – 492013
Chhattisgarh
392.
Reserve Bank of India
3rd Floor, G.M.V.N. Building
74/1, Rajpur Road,
Dehradun -248001, Uttaranchal
393.
Reserve Bank of India
40, SDA Complex, SBI Building
Basement –I, Kasumpati
Shimla – 171009 HP
394.
Reserve Bank of India
Post Box No. 20, Gera Imperium –II
7th Floor, EDC Complex
Patto Plaza, Panaji -403001
Goa.
395.
Reserve Bank of India
Post Box No. 3065
Ernakulam (North)
Kochi- 628018, Kerala
LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=kky;
(LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2013
dk-vk- 205-—Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn vfèkfu;e] 1956
(1956 dk 102) dh /kjk 11 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUnz ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls
ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh izFke
vuqlwph esa vgZrk ds uke esa ifjorZu ds dkj.k vkSj la'kks/u
djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %—
mDr vuqlwph esa %—
(d) ¶MkW- ,u-Vh-vkj- LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]
fot;okM+k¸ ds lkeus ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* ¹blds ckn
dkWye (2) ds :i esa lanfHkZr] 'kh"kZ ds varxZr vafre izfof"V rFkk
mlls lacaf/r izfof"V ds ckn ^iathdj.k ds fy;s laf{kIr :i*
¹blds ckn dkWye (3) ds :i esa lanfHkZr] 'kh"kZd ds rgr
fuEufyf[kr dks var£o"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—
(2)
(3)
¶ekLVj vkWiQ ltZjh
,e-,l- (us=k jksx foKku)
(us=k jksx foKku)¸
(;g ebZ] 2013 esa ;k mlds ckn
esfMflVh fpfdRlk foKku laLFkku]
?kuiqj] vka/z izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk
jgs Nk=kksa ds laca/ esa MkW- ,u-Vh-vkj-
LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k
}kjk LohÑr fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr
fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh)A
¶ekLVj vkWiQ ltZjh
,e-,l- (vfLFk jksx foKku)
(vfLFk jksx foKku)¸
(;g ebZ] 2013 esa ;k mlds ckn
esfMflVh fpfdRlk foKku laLFkku]
?kuiqj] vka/z izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk
jgs Nk=kksa ds laca/ esa MkW- ,u-Vh-vkj-
LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k
}kjk LohÑr fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr
fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh)A
504
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
¶MkDVj vkWiQ esMsflu
,e-Mh- (iQkekZdkWykWth)
(iQkekZdkWykWth)¸
(;g ebZ] 2013 esa ;k mlds ckn ih-bZ-
,l- fpfdRlk foKku ,oa vuqla/ku
laLFkku] dqIie] vka/z izns'k esa izf'kf{kr
fd, tk jgs Nk=kksa ds laca/ esa MkW- ,u-
Vh-vkj- LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]
fot;okM+k }kjk LohÑr fd, tkus ij
ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh)A
([k) mDr izFke vuqlwph esa ¶xq: xks¯on ¯lg baæizLFk
fo'ofo|ky;] ubZ fnYyh¸ ds lkeus ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk*
¹blds ckn dkWye (2) ds :i esa lanfHkZr] 'kh"kZ ds varxZr vafre
izfof"V rFkk mlls lacaf/r izfof"V ds ckn ^iathdj.k ds fy;s
laf{kIr :i* ¹blds ckn dkWye (3) ds :i esa lanfHkZr] 'kh"kZd ds
rgr fuEufyf[kr var£o"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—
(2)
(3)
¶MkDVj vkWiQ esfMflu
,e-Mh- (euf'pfdRlk)
(euf'pfdRlk)¸
(;g vizSy] 2013 esa ;k mlds ckn MkW-
vkj-,e-,y- LukrdksÙkj fpfdRlk f'k{kk
,oa vuqla/ku laLFkku ,oa vLirky]
ubZ fnYyh esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs
Nk=kksa ds laca/ esa xq: xks¯on ¯lg baæizLFk
fo'ofo|ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk LohÑr
fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk gksxh)A
(x) mDr izFke vuqlwph esa ¶xqtjkr fo'ofo|ky;]
vgenkckn] xqtjkr¸ ds lkeus ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk*
¹blds ckn dkWye (2) ds :i esa lanfHkZr] 'kh"kZ ds varxZr vafre
izfof"V rFkk mlls lacaf/r izfof"V ds ckn ^iathdj.k ds fy;s
laf{kIr :i* ¹blds ckn dkWye (3) ds :i esa lanfHkZr] 'kh"kZd ds
rgr fuEufyf[kr var£o"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—
(2)
(3)
¶MkDVj vkWiQ esfMflu
,e-Mh- (vkikrdkyhu esfMflu)
(vkikrdkyhu esfMflu)¸ (;g vizSy] 2013 esa ;k mlds ckn
Jherh ,u,p,y uxj ikfydk
esfMdy dkWyst ,oa vLirky]
vgenkckn] xqtjkr esa izf'kf{kr fd,
tk jgs Nk=kksa ds laca/ esa xqtjkr
fo'ofo|ky;] vgenkckn] xqtjkr }kjk
LohÑr fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr
fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh)A
(?k) mDr izFke vuqlwph esa ¶lkSjk"Vª fo'ofo|ky;]
jktdksV] xqtjkr¸ ds lkeus ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* ¹blds
ckn dkWye (2) ds :i esa lanfHkZr] 'kh"kZ ds varxZr vafre izfof"V
rFkk mlls lacaf/r izfof"V ds ckn ^iathdj.k ds fy;s laf{kIr :i*
¹blds ckn dkWye (3) ds :i esa lanfHkZr] 'kh"kZd ds rgr
fuEufyf[kr var£o"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—
(2)
(3)
¶vfLFk jksx foKku
Mh-vksjFkks-
esa fMIyksek¸
(;g vizSy] 2013 esa ;k mlds ckn lh-
;w- 'kkg esfMdy dkWyst ,oa vLirky]
lqjsUæuxj] xqtjkr esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk
jgs Nk=kksa ds laca/ esa lkSjk"Vª
fo'ofo|ky;] jktdksV] xqtjkr }kjk
LohÑr fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr
fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh)A
(Ä) mDr izFke vuqlwph esa ¶fgekpy izns'k fo'ofo|ky;]
fgekpy izns'k¸ ds lkeus ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* ¹blds
ckn dkWye (2) ds :i esa lanfHkZr] 'kh"kZ ds varxZr vafre izfof"V
rFkk mlls lacaf/r izfof"V ds ckn ^iathdj.k ds fy;s laf{kIr :i*
¹blds ckn dkWye (3) ds :i esa lanfHkZr] 'kh"kZd ds rgr
fuEufyf[kr var£o"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—
(2)
(3)
¶MkDVj vkWiQ esfMflu
,e-Mh- (laKkgj.k foKku)
(laKkgj.k foKku)¸
(;g twu] 2013 esa ;k mlds ckn MkW-
jktsaæ izlkn 'kkldh; esfMdy dkWyst]
VkaMk] fgekpy izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd,
tk jgs Nk=kksa ds laca/ esa fgekpy izns'k
fo'ofo|ky;] fgekpy izns'k }kjk
LohÑr fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr
fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh)A
(p) mDr izFke vuqlwph esa ¶jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku
fo'ofo|ky;] caxyq:] dukZVd¸ ds lkeus ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk* ¹blds ckn dkWye (2) ds :i esa lanfHkZr] 'kh"kZ ds varxZr
vafre izfof"V rFkk mlls lacaf/r izfof"V ds ckn ^iathdj.k ds fy;s
laf{kIr :i* ¹blds ckn dkWye (3) ds :i esa lanfHkZr] 'kh"kZd ds
rgr fuEufyf[kr var£o"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—
(2)
(3)
¶MkDVj vkWiQ esfMflu
,e-Mh- (ekbØksck;ksykWth)
(ekbØksck;ksykWth)¸
(;g ebZ] 2013 esa ;k mlds ckn
bZ,lvkbZ&ihthvkbZ,e,lvkj] bZ,lvkbZ
vLirky] jktkth uxj] cSaxyq:]
dukZVd esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=kksa
ds laca/ esa jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
505
fo'ofo|ky;] caxyq:] dukZVd }kjk
LohÑr fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr
fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh)A
¶MkDVj vkWiQ esfMflu
,e-Mh- (iSFkksykWth)
(iSFkksykWth)¸
(;g ebZ] 2013 esa ;k mlds ckn
bZ,lvkbZ&ihthvkbZ,e,lvkj] bZ,lvkbZ
vLirky] jktkth uxj] caxyq:]
dukZVd esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=kksa
ds laca/ esa jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku
fo'ofo|ky;] caxyq:] dukZVd }kjk
LohÑr fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr
fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh)A
¶MkDVj vkWiQ esfMflu
,e-Mh- (iSFkksykWth)
(iSFkksykWth)¸
(;g twu] 2013 esa ;k mlds ckn
vkfnpqapuxhjh fpfdRlk foKku laLFkku]
ekaM;k] dukZVd esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk
jgs Nk=kksa ds laca/ esa jktho xka/h LokLF;
foKku fo'ofo|ky;] caxyq:] dukZVd
}kjk LohÑr fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr
fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh)A
¶vkVksykjkbuxksykWth
Mh-,y-vks-
esa fMIyksek¸
(;g ebZ] 2013 esa ;k mlds ckn uoksn;
esfMdy dkWyst] jk;pwj] dukZVd esa
izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=kksa ds laca/ esa
jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku
fo'ofo|ky;] caxyq:] dukZVd }kjk
LohÑr fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr
fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh)A
¶MkDVj vkWiQ esfMflu
,e-Mh- (iQhft;ksykWth)
(iQhft;ksykWth)¸
(;g ebZ] 2013 esa ;k mlds ckn ,l-
Mh-,e- fpfdRlk foKku dkWyst] /kjokM+
dukZVd esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=kksa
ds laca/ esa jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku
fo'ofo|ky;] caxyq:] dukZVd }kjk
LohÑr fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr
fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh)A
¶MkDVj vkWiQ esfMflu
,e-Mh- (iSFkksykWth)
(iSFkksykWth)¸
(;g ebZ] 2013 esa ;k mlds ckn ,l-
Mh-,e- fpfdRlk foKku dkWyst] /kjokM+
dukZVd esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=kksa
ds laca/ esa jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku
fo'ofo|ky;] caxyq:] dukZVd }kjk
LohÑr fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr
fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh)A
¶laKkgj.k foKku
Mh-,-
esa fMIyksek¸
(;g ebZ] 2013 esa ;k mlds ckn ,l-
Mh-,e- fpfdRlk foKku dkWyst] /kjokM+
dukZVd esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=kksa
ds laca/ esa jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku
fo'ofo|ky;] caxyq:] dukZVd }kjk
LohÑr fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr
fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh)A
(N) mDr izFke vuqlwph esa ¶ve`rk fo'o fon~;kihBe
fo'ofo|ky;] dks;EcVwj] rfeyukMq¸ ds lkeus ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk* ¹blds ckn dkWye (2) ds :i esa lanfHkZr] 'kh"kZ ds varxZr
vafre izfof"V rFkk mlls lacaf/r izfof"V ds ckn ^iathdj.k ds fy;s
laf{kIr :i* ¹blds ckn dkWye (3) ds :i esa lanfHkZr] 'kh"kZd ds
rgr fuEufyf[kr var£o"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—
(2)
(3)
¶MkDVj vkWiQ esfMflu
,e-Mh- (ih,evkj)
(fiQftdy eSfMflu
(;g ebZ] 2013 esa ;k mlds ckn
,oa jhgSfcfVys'ku
ve`rk Ldwy vkWiQ eSfMflu]
lkb±l)¸
,vkbZ,e,l] dksfPp esa izf'kf{kr fd,
tk jgs Nk=kksa ds laca/ esa ve`rk fo'o
fon~;kihBe fo'ofo|ky;] dks;EcVwj]
rfeyukMq }kjk LohÑr fd, tkus ij
ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh)A
lHkh ds fy, uksV % 1- fdlh LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe dks bl
izdkj ekU;rk vf/dre 05 o"kZ dh
vof/ ds fy, gksxh vkSj mlds ckn
mldk uohdj.k djuk gksxk A
2- mi&[k.M 4 esa ;Fkkisf{kr le; ij
ekU;rk dk uohdj.k u gksus ij lacafèkr
LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe esa nkf[kyk
fujiokn :i ls #d tk,xk A
¹la- ;w- 12012@70@2013&,ebZ (ih&II)º
vfurk f=kikBh] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of Health and Family Welfare)
New Delhi, the 15th October, 2013
S.O. 205.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (2) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government,
506
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes
the following further amendments in the First Schedule
to the said Act, due to change of nomenclature of the
qualification, namely :—
In the said Schedule—
(a)
against “Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences,
Vijayawada” under the heading ‘Recognized Medical
Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)] after
the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading
‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as
column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely :—
(2)
(3)
“Master of Surgery
MS (Ophthalmology)
(Ophthalmology)”
(This shall be a recognized
medical qualification when
granted by Dr. NTR University
of Health Sciences, Vijayawada
in respect of students being
trained at Medicity Institute of
Medical Sciences, Ghanpur,
Andhra Pradesh on or after
May, 2013).
“Master of Surgery
MS (Orthopaedics)
(Orthopaedics)”
(This shall be a recognized
medical qualification when
granted by Dr. NTR University
of Health Sciences, Vijayawada
in respect of students being
trained at Medicity Institute of
Medical Sciences, Ghanpur,
Andhra Pradesh on or after
May, 2013).
“Doctor of Medicine
MD (Pharmacology)
(Pharmacology)”
(This shall be a recognized
medical qualification when
granted by Dr. NTR University
of Health Sciences, Vijayawada
in respect of students being
trained at P.E.S. Institute of
Medical
Sciences
and
Research, Kuppam, Andhra
Pradesh on or after May, 2013).
(b)
against “Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University,
New Delhi” under the heading ‘Recognized Medical
Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)] after
the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading
‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as
column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely :—
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine
MD (Psychiatry)
(Psychiatry)”
(This shall be a recognized
medical qualification when
granted by Guru Gobind Singh
Indraprastha University, New
Delhi in respect of students
being trained at Postgraduate
Institute of Medical Education
and Research, Dr. RML
Hospital, New Delhi on or after
April, 2013).
(c)
against “Gujarat University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat”
under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’
[hereinafter referred to as column (2)] after the last entry
and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation
for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the
following shall be inserted, namely :—
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine
MD (Emergency Medicine)
(Emergency Medicine)”
(This shall be a recognized
medical qualification when
granted by Gujarat University,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat in respect
of students being trained at
Smt. NHL Municipal Medical
College
and
Hospital,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat on or after
April, 2013).
(d)
against “Saurashtra University, Rajkot, Gujarat”
under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’
[hereinafter referred to as column (2)] after the last entry
and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation
for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the
following shall be inserted, namely :—
(2)
(3)
“Diploma in Orthopaedics”
D. Ortho.
(This shall be a recognized
medical qualification when
granted by Saurashtra
University, Rajkot, Gujarat in
respect of students being
trained at C.U. Shah
Medical College and
Hospital, Surendranagr,
Gujarat on or after April,
2013).
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
507
(e)
against “Himachal Pradesh University, Himachal
Pradesh” under the heading ‘Recognized Medical
Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)] after
the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading
‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as
column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely :—
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine
MD (Anaesthesia)
(Anaesthesia)”
(This shall be a recognized
medical qualification when
granted by Himachal Pradesh
University, Himachal Pradesh
in respect of students being
trained at Dr. Rajendra Prasad
Govt. Medical College, Tanda,
Himachal Pradesh on or after
June, 2013).
(f)
against “Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore, Karnataka” under the heading ‘Recognized
Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column
(2)] after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the
heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred
to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted,
namely :—
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine
MD (Microbiology)
(Microbiology)”
(This shall be a recognized
medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi
University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore, Karnataka in
respect of students being
trained at ESI-PGIMSR, ESI
Hospital,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore, Karnataka on or
after May, 2013).
“Doctor of Medicine
MD (Pathology)
(Pathology)”
(This shall be a recognized
medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi
University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore, Karnataka in
respect of students being
trained at ESI-PGIMSR, ESI
Hospital,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore, Karnataka on or
after May, 2013).
“Doctor of Medicine
MD (Pathology)
(Pathology)”
(This shall be a recognized
medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi
University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore, Karnataka in respect
of students being trained at
Adichunchanagiri, Institute of
Medical Sciences, Mandya,
Karnataka on or after June,
2013).
“Diploma in
DLO
Otolaryngology”
(This shall be a recognized
medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi
University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore, Karnataka in
respect of students being
trained at Navodaya Medical
College, Raichur, Karnataka on
or after May, 2013).
“Doctor of Medicine
MD (Physiology)
(Physiology)”
(This shall be a recognized
medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi
University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore, Karnataka in respect
of students being trained at
S.D.M. College of Medical
Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka
on or after May, 2013).
“Doctor of Medicine
MD (Pathology)
(Pathology)”
(This shall be a recognized
medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi
University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore, Karnataka in respect
of students being trained at
S.D.M. College of Medical
Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka
on or after May, 2013).
“Diploma in Anaesthesia”
DA
(This shall be a recognized
medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi
University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore, Karnataka in respect
of students being trained at
508
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
S.D.M. College of Medical
Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka
on or after May, 2013).
(g)
against “Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham University,
Coimbatore, Tamilnadu” under the heading ‘Recognized
Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column
(2)] after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the
heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred
to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely :—
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine
MD (PMR)
(Physical Medicine and
(This shall be a recognized
Rehabilitation)”
medical qualification when
granted by Amrita Vishwa
Vidyapeetham University,
Coimbatore, Tamilnadu in
respect of students being
trained at Amrita School of
Medicine AIMS, Kochi on or
after 2013).
Note to all :
1. The recognition so granted to a
Postgraduate Course shall be for a
maximum period of 5 years, upon which
it shall have to be renewed.
2. Failure to seek timely renewel of
recognition as required in sub-clause 4
shall invariably result in stoppage of
admission
to
the
concerned
Postgraduate Course.
[No. U. 12012/70/2013-ME (P-II)]
ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
vk;q"k ea=kky;
ubZ fnYYkh] 15 tuojh] 2015
dk-vk- 206.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 (;Fkk la'kksf/r 1987) ds
fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds vuqlj.k esa vk;q"k ea=kky; ds
iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;] ftlds 80 izfr'kr
deZpkfj;ksa us ¯gnh dk dk;Z lk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks
,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrh gS %
2-
¶jk"Vªh; vk;qosZn vkS"kf/ fodkl vuqla/ku laLFkku]
Hkqous'oj¸ A
[la- bZ&11018@1@2013&vk;q"k (jk-Hkk-)]
jkekuUn ehuk] mi lfpo
MINISTRY OF AYUSH
New Delhi, the 15th January, 2015
S.O. 206.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule
10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose
of the Union) Rules,1976 (as amended in 1987), the
Central Government, hereby, notifies the following office
under the administrative control of Ministry of AYUSH,
where 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge
of Hindi :
1.
“National Research Institute of Ayurvedic Drug
Development, Bhubaneswar”.
[No. E-11018/1/2013-AYUSH (O.L.)]
RAMANAND MEENA, Dy. Secy.
'kgjh fodkl ea=kky;
ubZ fnYYkh] 23 tuojh] 2015
dk-vk- 207.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 'kgjh fodkl ea=kky;
ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu dsUæh; yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx dk
fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d vf/dkfj;ksa
vkSj deZpkfj;ksa us ¯gnh dk dk;Z lk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks
jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976
(;Fkk la'kksf/r 1987) ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds varxZr
vf/lwfpr djrh gS %
dk;kZy; mi egfuns'kd (mn~;ku)]
dsUæh; yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx]
dejk ua- 236 ^,* [k.M]
fuekZ.k Hkou]
ubZ fnYyh&110011
[iQk- la- bZ&11017@5@2013&fgUnh]
/esZUæ] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
New Delhi, the 23rd January, 2015
S.O. 207.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule
10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purpose
of the Union) Rules,1976 (as amended in 1987), the
Central Government, hereby, notified the following office
of the Central Public Works Department, Ministry of Urban
Development, where more than 80% of officers/employees
have attained working knowledge of Hindi :
Office of the Deputy Director General
(Horicultrue),
CPWD,
Room No. 236, ‘A’ Wing,
Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi-110011
[F. No. E-11017/5/2013-Hindi]
DHARMENDRA, Jt. Secy.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
509
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2015
dk-vk- 208-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ dksyfiQYMl~
fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 18@2011)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@01@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@86@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2015
S.O.
208.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2011)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of the Junad Sub Area,
Western Coalfields Ltd., and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 22/01/2015.
[No. L-22012/86/2011-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND,
PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/18/2011
Date: 05.01.2015.
Party No. 1
:
The Sub Area Manager,
Junad Sub Area,
Western Coalfields limited,
Post-Ukani, Tah- Wani,
Distt.-Yavatmal. (M.S.)
Versus
Party No. 2
:
The President,
Bhartiya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor
Sangh (BMS),
Wani North Area,
Pragati Nagar, Ward No.4, Tah.-Wani,
Distt.-Yavatmal (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 5thJanuary, 2015)
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 Junad Sub-Area, Western coalfields
Limited and their workman, Shri S. R. Bobade, for
adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/86/2011-IR (CM-II)
dated 14.07.2011, with the following Schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of Junad
Sub Area of Wani Area of WCL in denying
promotion to Shri S. R. Bobade, Dumper Operator is
legal and justified?To what relief the applicant
workman is entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri S. R. Bobade,
(‘the workman” in short), filed the statement of claim and
the management of Western Coalfields Limited (“Party
No. 1” in short) filed their written statement.
The case of the workman as projected in the
statement of claim is that he is working as a dumper
operator with party No.1 till date and in 2007, the party
No.1 constituted a departmental Promotion Committee,
chaired by Shri Datar, the Mine Manager, Junad Open
Cast Mine for promotion to seven posts of dumper
operator including one post reserved for ST candidate
and he (Workman) was from the general cadre and he
topped the seniority list and the post of dumper operator
falls in category “B” and is a seniority-cum-merit post and
as he fulfilled all the criteria, he was promoted as a dumper
operator vide order dated 14.09.2007and on the very date,
he submitted his joining report in the promotional post of
dumper operator and on his joining report, the competent
Officer made remark for fixation of his pay to the Billing
Clerk and signed the same and his probation was for a
period of one year and after a period of one year and
almost eleven months of the completion of the probation
period, to his surprise, party No.1 issued a letter dated
08.08.2009, cancelling his promotion and the order of
cancellation of his promotion was illegal, improper and
impermissible.
It is further pleaded by the workman that at the
relevant time, the workman was driving dumper for the
purpose of water tanker and blasting and account was
being maintained of the trips made by the dumper on
machine and even to-day, he is operating dumper for
blasting and such fact has been admitted by the party
No.1 vide their note sheet dated 09.03.2008 and the mining
department comes under the mining Manager and the
Mining Manager writes the performance of the employees
of the said department and the Mining Manager was the
Chairman Of the Departmental Promotion Committee and
as such the say of the party No.1 that he did not operate
dumper is not correct.
The further case of the workman is that he had
submitted an application on 29.05.2005 for alternative job
510
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and on the said application, the Deputy Chief Medical
Officer had made the remark of “no driving” and opined to
send him to the Medical Board, but he was neither sent to
the Medical Board nor any alternative job was provided
to him and no action was taken by the party No1 on his
application dated 29.05.2005 and he continued with his
treatment and submitted his fitness certificates dated
09.07.2005 and 12.07.2005 on his joining his duties and the
Personnel Manager signed on the said certificates only
on 10.05.2008 and party No.1 took a period of three years
to look at the report and to take action on the same and
from such facts, it is clear that some conspiracy was
hatched by the party No.1 for cancelling his promotion
and to accommodate one ShriArun Salve, who was at serial
No. 8 in the list prepared by the D.P.C. and the Union
raised the industrial dispute as per the minutes dated
09.06.2009 and 21/25.06.2009.
The workman has prayed to quash and set aside the
order dated 08.08.2009, whereby, his promotion was
cancelled and to grant him all the consequential benefits
thereof.
3.
The party No.1 in the written statement has pleaded
inter-alia that though the dispute was raised by the
president of the union, the statement of claim has been
signed, verified and filed by the workman himself, who in
fact and in law is not a party to the dispute and so also, in
the reference made by the Government and the statement
of claim lacks basic requirement of constituting an
industrial disputeas per the Act and therefore, the same is
liable to be rejected on this ground and the union as
mentioned in the reference order of the Central Government
has not filed any document on record to indicate the
workman to be its member and that any resolution was
passed by it for espousing the dispute of the workman
and in absence of the same, no industrial dispute as defined
under section 2-k of the Act is constituted and as such,
the reference is not tenable in law.
It is further pleaded by the party No.1 that the
workman was in Excavation Cadre as dumper operator and
in excavation of mines, heavy earth moving machineries,
such as Shovel, Dozers and Dumpers etc are deployed
and the operators of these machines are highly skilled and
they require special experience for their growth and the
workman while in dumper category “C” had become
medically unfit to operate dumper due to suffering from
Epilepsy and he was recommended for alternative job and
the workman by his letter dated 29.07.2005 applied for
providing him light job, which was given to him by
protecting his pay and he was deployed as explosive van
driver in ancillary jobs and ever since he was deployed in
alternative job in 2005, he was not operating dumper till
the date of holding of the DPC on 25.08.2007 and he did
not acquire the requisite experience and skill for promotion
to the higher post, i.e., dumper operator category “B” and
when the D.P.C. for promotion to category “B” posts was
held on 25.08.2007, the fact that the workman was not
operating dumper at the relevant time was lost sight of
and in a routine manner his name was recommended for
promotion to category “B” under misconceived and
misleading circumstances and consequently, the promotion
order was issued, promoting him to the post of dumper
operator, category “B” and later on, when it was pointed
out that the workman had not been operating dumper and
was not having experience and skill for category “B” post,
the position was reviewed and his promotion order was
withdrawn vide office order dated 08.08.2009 and in view
of the withdrawal of the promotion order of the workman,
one post of category “B” became available and against
the said vacant post, ShriArun Salve was promoted and
such actions were taken with the approval of the competent
authority and the withdrawal of the promotion of the
workman as dumper operator category “B” was on valid
and reasonable grounds duly approved by the competent
authority.
The further case of the party No.1 is that D.P.C.
proceedings and recommendations are not final and they
are subject to acceptance, review and correction by the
competent authority and therefore, when the
recommendation of the D.P.C. was reviewed and modified
by the competent authority, the same cannot be termed as
invalid and improper and the management has an inherent
right to correct errors and mistakes and if the same has
been resorted to in the case of the workman, it cannot be
termed as irregular or illegal and the workman has already
been promoted to category “B” post w.e.f. 31.03.2011 and
the workman is not entitled to any relief.
4.
No rejoinder has been filed by the workman.
5.
In support of their respective claims, both the parties
have led oral evidence, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman has examined himself as a witness in
support of his case, whereas, party No.1 has examined
one Shri Devanand Wahane as a witness in support of the
stands taken by it.
6.
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 stated that the statement of claim has been filed by
him and not by the unionand the dispute was raised by
the union before the ALC and the union has not raised the
dispute before the Tribunal and he has not filed any
document to show that he is a member of the union and no
resolution was passed by the union to raise the dispute
on his behalf. The workman has admitted that at present,
he is working as Group “B” dumper operator and he was
promoted to the present grade on 31.03.2011 and by his
application dated 29.07.2005,Ext. M-I, he had requested
the management to give him alternative light job, due to
suffering from Epilepsy. However, the workman has denied
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
511
the suggestions that he was provided with alternative light
job of explosive driver and he did not work as dumper
operator.
7.
The evidence of the witness examined by the party
No.1 on affidavit Is more or less in the same line as taken
by the party No.1 in the written statement. In his cross-
examination, this witness has admitted that no written order
was given to the workman of giving him alternative light
job and no certificate was issued by the Medical Board
stating that the workman was not fit to work as a dumper
operator and he was not examined by any Medical Board
to find out about his fitness or otherwise to work as a
dumper operator and no document has been filed by the
management to show that the workman did not work as a
dumper operator and worked in alternative light job and
no office order was passed by the management basing on
the recommendation of the Area Medical Officer to provide
alternate light job to the workman and the management of
WCL has no evidence to show that the workman did not
work as a dumper operator and he worked in the alternate
light job.
8.
At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the workman that the workman was
promoted as a dumper operator grade “B” as per the office
order dated 14.09.2007, as he topped the seniority list in
the D.P.C. held for the promotion to the posts of dumper
operator grade “B” and after one year and eleven months
of such promotion, on 08.08.2009, the promotion order
was cancelled by the party No.1 illegally and though, the
workman had applied for providing him alternate light job,
no alternate light job as given to him and it is clear from
the evidence of the witness examined by the party No.1
that the workman was never provided with any alternate
light job and he worked as dumper operator and the
cancellation of the order of promotion of the workman
was illegal, arbitrary and without any basis and the same
is not sustainable in law.
9.
Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the party No.1 that though, the union had raised the
dispute, the workman who was not a party to the dispute
has filed the statement of claimand the statement of claim
lacks the basic requirement of an industrial dispute as per
the Act and is therefore, is liable to be rejected and no
document has been filed to show that the workman is a
member of the union and that resolution was passed by
the union to espouse the dispute of the workman and in
absence of the same, industrial dispute under Section 2(k)
of the Act is not constituted and therefore, the reference
is not tenable in law.
It was further submitted by the learned advocate for
the party No.1 that according to the JBCCI, a dumper
operator is a skilled workman and for promotion to dumper
operator grade “B” post, 5 years experience in the operation
of heavy duty highway dumper of coal haulers like
Euvclide, Macks Le turvene etc.is one of the criteria and
when the D.P.C. for promotion to category “B” posts was
held on 25.08.2007, the workman was not operating dumper
and such fact was lost sight of and in a routine manner,
the name of the workman was recommended for promotion
and consequently, the promotion order was issued,
promoting the workman to the post of dumper operator
grade “B” and later on, when it came to the knowledge of
the part No.1 that the workman was not having the
experience and skill for category “B” post, the matter was
reviewed and his promotion order was withdrawn and such
action was taken with the approval of the competent
authority and the withdrawal of the promotion order of
the workman is valid and the same cannot be termed as
illegal and therefore, the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
10.
So far the first contention raised by the learned
advocate for the party No.1 that the dispute raised is not
an industrial dispute and the statement of claim has not
been filed by the union, but the same has been filed by the
workman and therefore, the same is liable to be rejected is
concerned, on perusal of the record, it is found that the
union had raised the dispute on behalf of the workman
before the party No.1 and as party No.1 did not take any
action , the union raised the dispute before the Assistant
Labour commissioner. It is also found that the Central
Government while sending the dispute for adjudication to
this Tribunal has made the union as a party. It is well
settled that when an individual dispute is sponsored by
the union of workmen, the same becomes industrial
dispute. Section 2(k) of the Act defines an industrial
dispute. When literally construed, the definition may
include within its scope a dispute between a single
workman and his employer, because the plural, in the
context, will include the singular. In this case, as the
dispute had been raised by the union on behalf of the
workman, the dispute has become an industrial dispute.
Admittedly, the statement of claim in this case has
not been filed by the union, but the same has been filed by
the workman. However, having regard to the broad policy
which underlines the Act and in order to safeguard the
interests of the working class, the statement of claim filed
by the workman cannot be said to be illegal and therefore
to be rejected. The statement of claim has been filed by
the workman himself. If for any reason, the union, which
had raised the dispute on behalf of the workman does not
come forward to file the statement of claim and to contest
the case before the Tribunal, then the workman would
have left with no other option for asking his dispute to be
adjudicated, unless he himself comes forward and files
the statement of claim. So, the statement of claim filed by
the workman cannot be rejected.
11.
In this case, it is the admitted case by the parties
that the workman was working as a dumper operator grade
512
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“C” and there was a D.P.C. on 25.08.2007 for promotion to
category “B” posts and the workman was promoted to
category “B”, as per the recommendation of the D.P.C., as
per office order dated 14.09.2007 and after the probation
period of one year, he worked in grade “B” dumper
operator till 08.08.2009 and by order dated 08.08.2009, his
promotion order was cancelled by the party No.1. It is also
not disputed that by office order dated 30/31.03.2011, Ext.
M-IV, the workman was again promoted to category “B”.
According to party No. 1, the workman was not
driving the dumper at the relevant time and such fact was
overlooked by the D.P.C. and later on when such fact came
to the notice of the management, the order of promotion
of the workman was cancelled.
On perusal of the materials on record including the
evidence of the witness examined by the party No.1, it is
found that party No.1 has failed to prove that the workman
was not driving the dumper prior to the holding of the
D.P.C. and he had no experience and skill to drive the
dumper. Rather, it is found from the document of the D.P.C.
that the workman was given 20 marks out of 30 marks in
performance, 28 marks out of 40 marks in trade test and 28
marks out of 30 marks in length of service. So, it cannot be
said that the fact of the workman not driving the dumper
was overlooked and his name was recommended for
promotion to grade “B” by the D.P.C. in a routine manner.
It is also clear from the record that the workman joined in
the promotional post of grade “B” on 14.09.2007 and
completed the probation period of one year and there after
worked in the said post till 08.08.2009.
From the materials on record, it is found that the
order of cancellation of the promotion of the workman
dated 08.08.2009 is illegal and in breach of the principles
of natural justice. The workman having been promoted,
the party No.1 could not have cancelled his promotion
order without giving the workman a show cause notice to
have his say in the matter. The order of cancellation of the
promotion of the workman dated 08.08.2009 is also found
to be based on unsustainable ground and therefore cannot
be sustained. Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management of Junad Sub Area of
Wani Area of WCL in denying promotion to Shri S. R.
Bobade, Dumper Operator is illegal and unjustified. The
order dated 08.08.2009 passed by the party No.1 cancelling
the promotion of the workman to the post of dumper
operator Grade “B” is quashed and set aside. The order of
promotion of the workman dated 14.09.2007 is restored
and he be treated as promoted to dumper operator grade
“B” w.e.f. 14.09.2007 with continuity and also with seniority
and all other consequential benefits including the financial
benefits.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2015
dk-vk- 209-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ dksyfiQYMl~
fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 38@2011)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@01@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@02@2010&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2015
S.O. 209.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/2011)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of the Pench Sub Area,
Praceya Western Coalfields Ltd., and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 22/01/2015.
[No. L-22012/02/2010-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND,
PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/38/2011
Date: 05.01.2015.
Party No. 1
:
Chief Manager,
WCL Pench Area, Praceya,
Distt.-Chhindwara.
Versus
Party No. 2
:
Shri Bharat Singh,
General Secretary,
Sanuket Koyla Mazdoor Sangh
(ATAC)
Ekkalhar, Chhindwara.
AWARD
(Dated: 5thJanuary, 2015)
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 WCLPench Area Praceya, District-
Chhindwara and the petitioner, ShriArjun, for adjudication,
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
513
as per letter No.L-22012/02/2010-IR (CM-II) dated
23.12.2010, with the following schedule :-
“Whether the action of the management of Pench
Area of M/s. WCL in not providing compassionate
employment to ShriArjun S/o Late Mahesh, DPR,
Token No. 3874 is legal and justified? To what relief
the claimant is entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the union, “Sanuket Koyla
Mazdoor Sangh(ATAC)” (“the union” in short) filed the
statement of claim on behalf of the petitioner, Shri Arjun,
(“the petitioner” in short) and the management of WCL
(“Party No. 1” in short) filed their written statement.
The case of the petitioner as presented by the union
in the statement of claim is that deceased Mahesh, the
father of the petitioner was working in Ganpati Mine and
he died on 27.10.2006 and Lakhania Bai, the first wife of
Mahesh had predeceased him and she had died on
17.10.1981 and the petitioner is the first child of deceased
Mahesh through his first wife, Laklina Bai and the petitioner
was born on 25.06.1973 and the name of the petitioner has
been mentioned as the son of Mahesh in Form-F and
service book of deceased Mahesh, maintained by the party
No.1 and so also, in the family card, residential certificate
and other documents and the petitioner submitted an
application on 18.12.2006 to the party No.1, for employment
as the dependent son of deceased Mahesh and on
05.04.2008, the petitioner submitted another application
to the Chief Manager, Pench Area for such appointment
and on 11.02.2009, the petitioner submitted another
application to the Chief Manager, Pench Area with copy
of the same to the Sub Area Manager requesting to provide
him employment as the dependent son of late Mahesh, as
per the provisions made in the NCWA for providing
employment to one dependent of the workman, who dies
while in service, but party No.1 did not provide any
employment to him, for which, the industrial dispute was
raised on behalf of the petitioner.
The union has prayed to direct the party No.1 to
give employment to the petitioner as the dependent son
of late Mahesh.
3.
The party No.1 in the written statement has pleaded
inter-alia that Late Mahesh was employed as a
departmental piece rated worker and posted at Chanda
Colliery w.e.f. 16.01.1979 and on 08.12.2000, he was
transferred to Ganpati Mine and continued to work as
such till his death on 27.10.2006 due to illness and as
per the declaration given by the deceased Mahesh in
different records and forms, his family consisted of
Smt. Tijiyabai(wife), Arjun, Bhim, Baldeo(the three sons)
and Sita(daughter) and deceased Mahesh had also shown
Tijiyabai as his second wife in the service excerpts
supplied to him by the management in 1987 and the
petitioner had submitted an affidavit duly notarized dated
15.11.2006 stating of his having no objection in providing
employment to his younger brother, Shri Baldeo and that
he would not raise any dispute in future regarding the
employment and in the mean time, Tijiyabai, the widow of
deceased Mahesh submitted an application for giving her
employment as the dependent of her late husband and as
per the provisions of NCWA for providing employment to
dependent, the first right goes to the widow and for
considering of giving employment to any other dependent
than the widow, consent of all the other dependents is
required and the SKMS union of Pench Area raised
industrial dispute before the ALC©, Chhindwara for
providing employment to the petitioner and it had
submitted its written comments in the matter before the
said ALC, stating therein that the petitioner did not produce
the no objection/consent of the other members of his family
and on receipt of the application dated 11.02.2009 filed by
the petitioner claiming employment, he was informed in
writing to submit the required documents, consent/no
objection of other legal heirs of late Mahesh, vide letters
dated 04.03.2009. 01.04.2009, 15.04.2009, 16.05.2009,
23.06.2009, 02.09.2009, 14.09.2009, 11.02.2011, 26.04.2011,
14.05.2011 and 09.09.2011 and letter Nos. 546 dated
14.05.2011 and 1022 dated 14.09.2011 were sent to Tijiyabai,
but the petitioner did not comply with the same and without
fulfilling the legal requirements, he rushed to the
Conciliation Officer to raise the dispute and in view of the
facts and circumstances as mention above, the petitioner
is not entitled for employment as the dependent of late
Mahesh and on the date of application , the petitioner was
already over age and on that count also, the petitioner is
not entitled for employment and therefore, the reference is
liable to be answered in favour of the management and
against the petitioner.
4.
In the rejoinder, the union on behalf of the petitioner
has pleaded that the management is not empowered to
give employment to the son of the second wife of the
deceased Mahesh, even if, filing of the affidavit by the
petitioner, till the petitioner is not declared unfit for such
employment for any reason and as Tijiyabai is the second
wife of Late Mahesh, as per the records, submission of
application by her for employment does not have any
bearing, because as per the the provisions, she is not
entitled for employment and the petitioner had filed his
first application on 18.12.2006, when his age was 33 years
and when he was not over age and the said application
was received by the management on 22.12.2006 and party
No.1 sent the letters without having any reason, as all the
required documents for employment had already been
submitted by the petitioner.
5.
In support of their respective claims, both the parties
have led oral evidence, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
514
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The union has examined the petitioner as a witness
in support of the claim, whereas, one M.B.Kumbhare has
been examined as a witness by the party No.1.
6.
In his examination-in-chief on affidavit, the petitioner
has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim
and rejoinder. However, in the cross-examination,the
petitioner has admitted that in P.S.-3 and P.S.-4 forms
submitted by the his father, the name of Tijiyabai was
mentioned as his wife and his mother and brother raised
objection to provide him(petitioner) employment as a
dependent of his father and management had written
number of letters to him for submission of consent of other
family members and as he failed to submit the consent of
other family members, he was not provided with any
employment by the management.
7.
The evidence of the witness examined by the party
No.1is also on affidavit and his evidence is more or less in
the same line of the stands taken by the party No.1 in the
written statement. In his cross-examination, this witness
has stated that at the time of the death of Mahesh, NCWA-
VII was in force and as per clause 9.5.0 of NCWA-VII,
employment is to be given to one dependent of the
workman, who dies while in service and the service excerpts
submitted by Late Mahesh, Ext. W-II, the petitioner was
shown as his eldest son and his age was 13 years in 1987.
8.
At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative that Mahesh, the father of the
petitioner, who was working at Ganpati Mine as DPR died
on 27.10.2006 and the petitioner submitted his application
dated 18.12.2006 for providing employment to him as the
dependent of his deceased father under the provisions of
the NCWA and subsequently, he also submitted
applications on 05.04.2008 and 05.05.2008 for the same
and management vide letter dated 04.03.2009 asked the
petitioner to submit documents and vide letter dated
01.04.2009, the party No.1 made correspondence with the
petitioner for employment and the petitioner had submitted
all the required documents in the office of party No.1 and
on 27.07.2007, Tajiya Bai submitted an application for
providing employment to her and such application was
filed by Tajiya Bai only to deprive the petitioner from getting
employment, at the instance of others and on the date of
filing of the application on 18.12.2006, the petitioner was
33 years of age and he was not overage and the petitioner
is entitled for employment.
9.
On the other hand, it was submitted by the
representative for the party No.1 that Tijiya is admittedly
the wife of Late Mahesh, the deceased workman and she
has applied for providing her employment as per the
NCWA and the wife of a deceased workman has the
preferential right for employment and the petitioner was
asked to submit the consent of the other legal heirs of
Late Mahesh for providing employment to him, but he
failed to do the same and as such, he was not provided
with employment and as such, action of party No.1 is
justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
10.
For better appreciation of the matter, I think it proper
to mention the provisions as provided in Chapter-IX of
NCWA-VII for providing employment to dependent of a
workman, who dies while in service.
9.3.0-
Provision of employment to dependent.
(i)
The clauses 9.3.0, 9.4.0 & 9.5.0 of NCWA-VI
will be operative in NCWA-VII till a revised
scheme is jointly prepared keeping in view
the various verdicts of Hon’ble Supreme Court
at the earliest.
The provisions in chapter-IX of NCWA-VI are as
follows:
9.3.0.
Provision of employment to dependents.
9.3.1.
Employment would be provided to one
dependent of worker who are disable
permanently and also those who die while in
service. The provision will be implemented as
follows.
9.3.2.
Employment to one dependent of the worker
who dies while in service. In so far as female
dependents are concerned their employment/
payment of monetary compensation would be
governed by para 9.5.0.
9.3.3.
The dependent for this purpose means the
wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried
daughter, son and legally adopted
son,……………
9.5.0.
Employment/Monetary compensation to
female provision of employment/monetary
compensation to female dependents of
workman who die while in service and who
are declared medically unfit as per clause 9.4.0.
would be regulated as under;
(i)
………
(ii)
In case of death/total permanent disablement
due to causes other than mine accident and
medical unfitness under clause 9.4.0., if the
female dependent is below the age of 45 years,
she will have the option either to accept the
monetary compensation of Rs. 3000/- per
month or employment.
In case the female dependent is above 45 years of
age she will be entitled only to monetary compensation
and not to employment.
11.
After perusal of the record and taking into
consideration the submissions made by the representatives
for the parties the following undisputed facts are found:-
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
515
(i)
Mahesh, the father of the petitioner was
working as a DPR in Ganpati mine and while in
service, he died on 27.10.2006 and Laxmibai,
the first wife of Mahesh died on 17.10.1981.
(ii)
The petitioner, Arjun is the eldest son of
Mahesh through his first wife.
(iii)
Tajiyabai is the second wife of deceased
workman, Mahesh and she was shown as his
second wife in the records of the party No.1
by the deceased workman.
(iv)
After the death of Mahesh, the petitioner
submitted an affidavit dated 15.11.2006,
stating of his having no objection for giving
employment to his younger brother, Shri
Baldeo and not to raise any dispute in future
regarding employment.
(v)
The petitioner also submitted application
dated 22.12.2006 and thereafter to give him
employment as the dependent of deceased
workman, Mahesh.
(vi)
Tijiyabai submitted application dated
27.09.2007 to give her employment as
dependent of deceased workman, Mahesh.
(vii)
The petitioner was asked by party No. to
submit the relevant documents and so also
the consent of the other dependents of the
deceased workman, but the petitioner failed
to submit the consent of the other dependents
of deceased workman to provide him
employment and due to such failure, party No.1
did not proceed further to provide
employment to the petitioner.
12.
It is clear from the provisions as provided in the
NCWA-VI that employment to only one dependent of the
workman who dies while in service. It is also clear that the
wife of the deceased workman has the preference right for
such employment. In this case, Tijiyabai, the wife of the
deceased workman has also applied to provide her
employment. The petitioner though applied for
employment, he failed to submit the consent of other
dependents including Tijiyabai to give him employment
as the dependent of the deceased workman. So, the action
of the party No. in not providing employment to the
petitioner, Arjun is justified. Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management of Pench Area of
M/s. WCL in not providing compassionate employment to
ShriArjun S/o Late Mahesh, DPR, Token No. 3874 is legal
and justified. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2015
dk-vk- 210-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l- 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;] xksnkojh[kUuh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
46@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@01@2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22013@01@2015&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º
eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2015
S.O. 210.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Godavarikhani as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of the SCCL,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 22/01/2015.
[No. L-22013/1/2015-IR(C-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN,
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-CUM-VI ADDL. DISTRICT &
SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI
Present :
Sri G. V. Krishnaiah, Chairman-cum-
Presiding Officer
Wednesday, the 3rd day of December, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 46 OF 2013
Between :
Thokala Srikanth,
S/o. Thirupathi, Age: 25 Years,
Occ: Ex-Badli Coal Filler,
E.C.No. 2372461, RK-1A Incline,
R/o H.No. 7-2-533/209, Ganga Nagar,
Godavarikhani
Post, Karimnagar District.
...Petitioner
And
1. The Colliery Manager,
RK.IA Incline, SCCo.Ltd.,
Mandamarri Area,
Dist.Adilabad.
2. The General Manager,
S.C. Co. Ltd., Mandamarri Area,
Mandamarri Post, Dist.Adilabad.
516
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. The Chairman & Managing Director,
S.C. Co. Ltd.,
Post : Kothagudem, Dist. Khammam.
...Respondents
This Industrial Dispute petition coming on before
me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Kishan Rao,
Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri D.Krishna Murthy,
Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood
over before me for consideration till this date, the Court
passed the following:-
AWARD
1.
The allegations in this petition are:-
Petitioner was appointed as Badli Coal Filler in the
place of his father under dependent employment scheme
vide order dt. 16-08-2006 and underwent training upto
February, 2007. He was posted to work under control of
respondent No. 1 vide Office order dt. 15-02-2007.
Respondent engaged the petitioner for coal filling against
the absentee vacancies of regular coal fillers. Petitioner
discharged his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors
but the atmosphere and water did not suit the petitioner,
due to coal filling of underground work petitioner suffered
severe ill-health and not attended his work. But R-1 without
considering the facts and ill-health of the petitioner issued
charge sheet dt. 07-01-2008 under office standing orders
25.25 alleging habitual absence from duty without
sufficient cause for putting in only 40 musters during the
year 2007. Petitioner submitted his explanation about his
ill-health but the enquiry was conducted. Petitioner
participated in the enquiry and pleaded his ill-health and
assured that he will be regular in future. Enquiry was not
conducted fairly and properly and therefore enquiry may
be held invalid. From November, 2006 till February, 2007
petitioner underwent MVTC training. He was shown
coal filling duty on May, 2007 and issued identity card
on 21-05-2007. He suffered fever and body pains from
July, 2007 and underwent treatment in SCCL dispensaries
frequently. Without considering the facts, second
respondent dismissed him from service vide office order
dt. 17-11-2009 with effect from 27-11-2009. The said
dismissal is highly disproportionate and unfair labour
practice and amounts to victimization. Hence the petitioner
may be reinstated into service with continuity of service
and all attendant benefits and full back wages.
2.
Respondent No. 2 filed counter and respondent
No. 1 and 3 filed adoption memo adopting the counter of
R-2 and contended that the petitioner’s attendance to
duties as follows:
Sl.No.
Year
No. of musters.
1.
2006
70
2.
2007
106
3.
2008
41
4.
2009
48
Since attendance of the petitioner was poor he was
given charge sheet dt. 20-01-2009 and enquiry was
conducted on 05-02-2009. Petitioner was given ample
opportunity and he participated in the enquiry. Petitioner
was counseled for the first time for improving attendance
on 06-02-2009, and was put on observation for a period of
three months. On 31-03-2009 petitioner was given show cause
notice enclosing the enquiry report. Petitioner received show
cause notice on 09-04-2009 and submitted explanation and
assured to attend duties regularly. Therefore petitioner was
once again counseled on 15-07-2009 and was put on one
month observation time from 01-08-2009 to improve his
attendance. But petitioner failed to attend duties during
August, 2009. He was put on observation for two months
from 01-09-2009. Petitioner attended for three days in
September and did not attend in October. Therefore
petitioner was dismissed from service on 17-11-2009 with
effect from 27-11-2009. Petitioner never worked for 190
musters which is the minimum. Respondents followed the
procedure with regard to conducting enquiry and gave
ample opportunity to men himself. Petitioner kept quiet
for four years and now raised dispute which is barred by
limitation under section 2A(3) of Industrial Disputes
Amendment Act, 2010. Therefore petition may be
dismissed.
3.
During the course of enquiry petitioner filed memo
u/s. 11-A of Industrial Dispute Act that he is not disputing
the validity of departmental enquiry.
4.
During the course of hearing, Ex.M-1 to M-16 are
marked on behalf of respondent/management. No oral or
documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner.
5.
Now the point for consideration is whether the
petitioner can be reinstated into service?
6.
This is a case where petitioner was irregular to his
duties right from tbe beginning and in the year 2008 he
attended for only 40 days. A Departmental enquiry was
held on 05-02-2009. Petitioner pleaded in the enquiry that
because of illness he could not attend and herein after he
will be regular. Therefore he was put under observation
for three months from 05-03-2009 to 05-05-2009 but his
attendance was irregular, then he was put on observation
for another two periods but his attendance was quite
irregular. Already Management has given sufficient
opportunity to the petitioner to improve his attendance.
The petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from
27-11-2009 vide order dt. 17-11-2009. He filed this Industrial
Dispute with a delay of four years. Respondents have
taken the plea that under the amendment of 2010 to the
I.D., Act an industrial dispute has to be raised within three
years of dismissal or discharge. However present I.D can
not be dismissed on that ground because the petitioner
was dismissed from service even prior to the coming into
force of the Management. Under these circumstances
though, the petition can not be dismissed on the ground
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
517
of limitation, there appear to be no grounds to interfere
with the order passed by the Management dismissing the
petitioner from service because of the long rope given to
the petitioner before such dismissal.
7.
Accordingly petition is dismissed.
G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For workman :
For Management :
-Nil-
-Nil-
EXHIBITS
For workman :
-Nil-
For Management :
Ex.M-1
Dt.
20-01-2009
Charge sheet o/copy
Ex.M-2
Dt.
04-02-2009
Ack., to charge sheet
Ex.M-3
Dt.
04-02-2009
Enquiry notice
Ex.M-4
Dt.
05-02-2009
Explanation to the charge sheet
Ex.M-5
Dt.
05-02-2009
Enquiry proceedings (along
with enquiry material)
Ex.M-6
Dt.
12-02-2009
Enquiry report
Ex.M-7
Dt.
06-02-2009
Undertaking letter/observation
period letter signed by the
petitioner before counseling
member
Ex.M-8
Dt.
31-03-2009
Show-cause notice
Ex.M-9
Dt.
09-04-2009
Ack., to show-cause notice
Ex.M-10 Dt.
21-05-2009
Reply of petitioner to the
show-cause notice
Ex.M-11 Dt.
03-07-2009
Counseling letter issued to the
petitioner
Ex.M-12 Dt.
15-07-2009
Undertaking 2nd observation
period letter signed by the
petitioner and others during
2nd counseling.
Ex.M-13 Dt.
02-08-2009
Letter issued to the petitioner
advising him to improve
attendance performance
Ex.M-14 Dt.
09-09-2009
Ack., to letter of improvement
of attendance
Ex.M-15 Dt.
11-10-2009
Letter issued to the petitioner
to improve attendance/
performance and its ack.,
Ex.M-16 Dt.
17-11-2009
Dismissal order o/copy.
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2015
dk-vk- 211-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lh- ih- MCY;w-
Mh- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
15@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@01@2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@198@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2015
S.O. 211.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 15/2007)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure,
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the
CPWD, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 22/01/2015.
[No. L-42012/198/2005-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT - II,
DELHI
Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No. 15/2007
Smt. Sunita Devi,
W/o Sh. Uttam Chand , Work Assistant,
C/o All India CPWD (MRM),
Karamchari Sangathan (Reg.)
4823, Balbir Nagar Extension,
Gali No. 13, Shahdra,
Delhi-110032.
...Workman
Versus
The Superintending Engineer
(Elect) Coord. Circle,
CPWD, East Block ,
R. K. Puram, New Delhi.
...Management
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
vide notification No. L-42012/198/2005(IR(CM-II)) dated
12.06.2007 referred the following industrial Dispute to this
tribunal for adjudication :-
“Whether the demand of the Union in the matter of
payment of arrears w.e.f. 3.06.1982 to 23.12.1992 for
518
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the post of enquiry clerk i.e. 260-400/950-1500 in
respect of the workman Sh. Uttam Chand from the
management of CPWD i.e. Superintending Engineer
Electrical Coordination Circle CPWD East Block ,
R.K. Puram , New Delhi is legal and justified? If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled and from which
date?”
On 22.06.07 reference was received in this tribunal.
Which was register as I.D No. 15/2007 and claimant was
called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days
from date of service of notice. Which was required to be
accompanied with relevant documents and list of
witnesses.
When notice to workman sent to his residential
address than his wife Sh. Sunita Devi came in the court on
30.09.2008 . She informed that his husband already died
on 30.08.2005 .
After service of notice Smt. Sunita Devi W/o
workman/claimant filed claim statement on 27.09.2007 on
behalf of workman. Wherein she stated as follows:-
1.
That the workman who had filed this case before the
Hon’ble Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) had been
died on 30.12.2005 and hence his wife is the applicant in
this case.
2.
That all the terminal benefits of the deceased
workman have been paid to Smt. Sunita who is wife of the
workman and hence also the legal heir of the workman.
3.
That my husband late Sh. Uttam Chand was working
as Work Assistant under the Executive Engineer, Dr. RML
Hospital Division, CPWD , New Delhi before his death.
4.
That my husband late Sh. Uttam Chand had been
employed on muster-roll as Beldar w.e.f. 30.06.1982 under
‘B’ division of CPWD at New Delhi. Photocopy of proof is
enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-1.
5.
That he was transferred to E Division of CPWD w.e.f .
1.09.85 when he was on muster-roll Beldar but he was
performing the duties of Enquiry Clerk under the said
Division at 1/E , Teen Murti House, New Delhi. Photocopy
of proof is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-II.
6.
That as per judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court,
he had been paid arrears of equal pay of equal work for the
post of Beldar instead he was performing the duties of
Enquiry clerk.
7.
That the services of my late husband were
regularized w.e.f. 24.12.92 as Beldar but upon
implementation of Arbitration Award, he had been paid
the arrears of wages of the post Enquiry Clerk as he was
performing the duties of Enquiry Clerk in the pay scale of
Rs. 950-1500/3050-4590 w.e.f. 24.12.92.
8.
That beside above, he was entitled for the pay scale
of Rs. 260-400- 950-1500 w.e.f. 30.06.82 as had been
performing the duty of Enquiry clerk from his initial
appointment.
9.
That as per the recommendations of Arbitration
Award, 1988, pay scale of Rs. 260-400/950-1500 was
awarded in favour the muster-roll/work charged Beldar
from their initial date of appointment who had performed
the duties of Enquiry Clerk.
10.
That the management of CPWD had challenged the
recommendations of Arbitration Award , 1988 in the
Hon’ble High court of Delhi and Hon’ble High Court had
modified the said award on 28.1.92 and Hon’ble Court had
declared the Muster-roll category as null and void as there
was no reference before the Arbitration Board for muster-
roll categories of the CPWD.
11.
That in view of the para 10 above, it was become
necessary for the workman to make reference for his cause
hence he filed the application before the appropriate forum
and on the recommendations of the forum the , M/o Labour
has issued the following reference.
“Whether the demand of the Union in the matter of
payment of arrears w.e.f. 3.6.1982 to 23.12.92 in
respect of the workman Sh. Uttam Chand from the
management of CPWD i.e. Superintending Engineer
Electrical Coordination Circle, CPWD , East Block,
R. K. Puram , New Delhi is legal and justified? If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled and from which
date”.
12.
That in view of the above facts, the applicant is
entitled to claim the earned wages of her late husband.
13.
That my late husband had been active member and
office Bearer of the All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari
Sangthan till his death.
14.
That hence I am authorizing the General Secretary,
All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangthan in writing
to take up my case after death of my husband till its
finalization.
15.
That I am also submitting application for Legal
Representative of the workman sedately with this claim
application.
Prayer
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the
case, the applicant most humbly and respectfully prays
for the following among other relief:-
(i)
That I am entitled to receive the arrears of
earned wages of my late husband late Sh.
Uttam Chand w.e.f . 3.6.82 to 23.12.92 in the
pay scale of Rs. 260-400/950-1500 and all other
consequential benefits including terminal
benefits .
(ii)
Any other relief which may kindly be deemed
fit and proper to meet the end of justice.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
519
Subsequently application for substitution L.Rs .of
deceased workman has been moved which was allowed
on 03.09.2009 and Smt. Sunita Devi was substituted as L.R
of his deceased husband.
Against Statement of Claim Management filed
Written Statement on 30.11.2007. Wherein it stated as
follows:-
Most Respectfully Showeth:-
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS :
1.
That the statement of the worker is not maintainable
and liable to be dismissed with a ground of Suppressio-
vari and Suggesssio-falsi. The worker has not approached
his Hon’ble Court with clean hands.
2.
That the statement of the worker is also not
maintainable and liable to be dismissed as the same is
devoid of any cause of action.
PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS :
(i)
The deceased Uttam Chand was initially
appointed as Beldar on Muster Roll on
30.06.1982 and was transferred to Executive
Engineer “E” Division, CPWD , N. Delhi as a
Muster Roll Beldar. The claim of the applicant
on behalf of the deceased that he had
performed duty as Enquiry Clerk under “E”
division is not admissible as per Executive
Engineer “E” Division officer letter No. 54(4) /
ED /2007/2920 dt. 02.11.2007, which is self –
explanatory. Vide that letter it has been cleared
that there is no such record in the said Division
showing that Uttam Chand , work assistant
had performed duty of Enquiry Clerk. Hence
the claim of the applicant is liable to be
rejected. Copy of the letter dt. 02.11.2007 is
enclosed herewith as Annexure –R 1.
Parawise Reply :
1-4.
That the contents of para -1 to 4 of the statement of
claim need no reply being matter of record.
5.
That with regard to the contents of para -5 of the
Statement of Claim it is respectfully submitted that the
deceased Uttam Chand was initially appointed Beldar on
Muster Roll on 30.06.1982 and was transferred to Executive
Engineer “E” Division , CPWD , N. Delhi as Muster Roll
Beldar. The claim of the applicant on behalf of the deceased
that he had performed duty as Enquiry clerk under “E”
division is not admissible as per Executive Engineer “E”
Division officer 54(4) /ED /2007/2920 dt.02.11.2007, which
is self –explanatory. Vide that letter it has been cleared
that there is no such record in the said Division showing
that Uttam Chand , work assistant had performed duty of
Enquiry Clerk. Hence the claim of the applicant is liable to
be rejected. Copy of the letter dt. 02.11.2007 is enclosed
herewith as Annexure –R 1.
6.
That the contents of para -6 of the statement of
claim are wrong hence vehemently denied. In this regard
whatever is stated in the preceding para is reiterated and
applicant is not entitled to pay any arrear of equal pay for
equal work, as he was initially appointed on Muster Roll
as Beldar.
7.
That in reply to the averment of para -7 of the
statement of claim nothing is admitted except what has
been substantiated by records and whatever is stated in
preceding para No. 5 is reiterated.
8.
That the contents of para -8 of the statement of
claim are wrong hence vehemently denied and whatever
is stated in the para -5 is reiterated.
9.
That the contents of para-9 of the statement of claim
are wrong hence vehemently denied since the deceased
was appointed initially as Beldar.
10.
That the contents of para -10 of the statement of
claim need no reply being matter of record.
11-12 That the contents of para-11 and 12 of the statement
of claim are wrong hence vehemently denied. The demand
of Union for payment of arrears w.e.f. 03.06.82 to 23.12.92
is not justified and no payment of arrears is due.
13.
That the contents of para 13 of the statement of
claim need no comments being irrelevant.
14.
That the contents of para 14 of the of the statement
of claim need no comment being irrelevant .
15.
That the contents of para 15 of the statement of
claim need no comment.
16.
That the para under reply are the prayers made before
this Hon’ble court and is liable to be dismissed with costs.
In Reply to the written statement on the behalf of
the workman Smt. Sunita Devi w/o Workman filed rejoinder
on 20.03.2008. Wherein she stated as follows:-
1-4
Need no reply being matters of record.
5.
That the contention of management is wrong,
incorrect, misleading , misrepresentation of facts so denied
and disputed. It is submitted that late Uttam Chand was
regularized on the same post and place and continued to
be designated as Beldar but discharging the duties of
Enquiry Clerk, therefore, my husband had been working
on the same post and place before and after regularization
of services. It is further submitted that my husband had
got wages for working as Enquiry Clerk for the period
from date of regularization and date of promotion as Work
Assistant in accordance with the order of Director General
of Work, CPWD dated 09.09.99. Copy of proof of payment
received as Enquiry Clerk is enclosed and marked as
Annexure –A.
6.
That the contention of management is wrong so
denied and disputed. The submission of workman is
restated and reaffirmed.
520
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7.
That the contention of management is wrong so
denied and disputed. It is submitted that “E” Division has
made the payment and deputed on duty. The officers who
have extracted work from my husband has also certified
that late Uttam Chand had performed duties of Enquiry
Clerk. Copy of said proof is already enclosed with the
main application as Annexure-II . Late Uttam Chand was
paid wages of enquiry clerk for the period of workcharged
establishment and not for the period of muster roll which
is illegal and unjustified.
8.
That the contention of management is wrong,
incorrect, misrepresentation of facts so denied and
disputed. It is submitted that no duty can be called as
additional work. In fact, my husband had performed the
said duties as mentioned in the letter of Executive Engineer,
E Division as his routine duties.
9.
That the contention of management is wrong so
denied and disputed. The submission of workman is
restated and reaffirmed.
10.
Needs no reply being matter of record.
11-12.That the contention of management is wrong so
denied and disputed. The submission of workman is
restated and reaffirmed.
13-14.Need no reply being matters of records.
15.
That the contention of management is wrong so
denied and disputed. The submission of workman is
restated and reaffirmed.
In view of above submissions, most humbly and
respectfully it is prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may
kindly be pleased to set aside the written statement of
management in the interest and fair play.
On 19.8.2010 my Ld. Predecessor passed order on
order sheet that question of determination are sufficient
for adjudication and no need to frame any issue more and
fixed 2.11.2010 for workman evidence.
Smt. Sunita Devi W/oWorkman in support claim filed
her affidavit on 9.11.2011. Where-in she stated as follows:-
1.
That I am legal heir of late Uttam Chand and I had
received all the terminal benefits in respect of late Uttam
Chand and I am receiving family pension also.
2.
That The case was filed by my late husband before
the conciliation officer and same has continued further by
me consequent upon his death.
3.
That as per Arbitration Award 1988, Beldars who
had worked as Lab. Assistant/Enquiry Clerk were given
the wages of said posts in CPWD/PWD.
4.
ThatUttam Chand and similarly situated Beldar had
been working on same basis on muster roll as well as
workcharged establishment.
5.
That the reference for adjudication has to be properly
referred because as per Arbitration Award , there was no
reference of Muster roll and hence the present application.
6.
That I was also a union member and office bearer
and new late Uttam Chand very closely and am well
conversant with the case.
7.
That I had personally found late Uttam Chand
discharging his duties as Enquiry Clerk.
8.
That Uttam Chand was legally and rightfully entitled
to receive the wages of Enquiry Clerk and his wife legal
heir is entitled to receive the same.
Smt. Sunita Devi W/o Workman tendered her
affidavit on 8.11.2012 . Her statement of tendering of
affidavit is as follows:-
I tender in evidence my affidavit by way of
examination in chief. It is signed by me at points A and B
and is correct. The same is Ex. WW1/A . It be read as part
of my statement.
She was cross-examined on same day. Her cross-
examination is as follows:-
XXXXX:- By Sh. K.C Dubey , Ld. A/R for the management.
Since Uttam Chand was my husband I am personally
aware of what he was doing and had seen him doing work
as enquiry clerk. I personally was not working there. I
personally was not the member of the Union but my
husband was the member. It is wrong to suggest that my
husband Uttam Chand was never working as enquiry clerk
nor I had ever seen him working as such nor the
management officer ever asked him by way of any letter or
correspondence to work as such. It is incorrect to suggest
that my husband was not working in the office of the
management at the relevant period. I cannot produce any
letter or correspondence whereby the management had
asked my husband to work as enquiry clerk in his office at
the relevant period.
Smt. Sunita Devi, W/o Workman in support of her
case filed affidavit of WW2. Sh. Satish Kumar. Wherein
he stated as follows:-
1.
That I am working as Work Assistant in R Division,
CPWD, New Delhi and am well conversant with the case
of late Uttam Chand.
2.
That I was also appointed as Beldar initially and got
appointment as Work Assistant under Direct Recruitment
quota.
3.
That as per Arbitration Award 1988, Beldars who
had worked as Lad. Assistant/Enquiry Clerk were given
the wages of said posts in CPWD/PWD.
4.
That Uttam Chand and similarly situated Beldar had
been working on same basis on muster roll as well as
workcharged establishment.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
521
5.
That the reference for adjudication has to be properly
referred because as per Arbitration Award, there was no
reference of Muster roll and hence the present application.
6.
That I was also a union member and office bearer
and new late Uttam Chand very closely and am well
conversant with the case.
7.
That I had personally found late Uttam Chand
discharging his duties as Enquiry Clerk.
8.
ThatUttam Chand was legally and rightfully entitle
to receive the wage of Enquiry Clerk and his wife legal
heir is entitled to receive the same.
Smt. Sunita Devi, W/o Workman tendered his
affidavit on 8.11.2012. His statement of tendering of
affidavit is as follows:-
I tender in evidence my affidavit by way of
examination –in –chief . It is signed by me at point A and B
and is correct. The same is Ex. WW2/A. It be read as part
of my statement.
He was cross-examined on same day. His cross-
examination is as follows:-
XXXXXX:- By Sh. K.C Dubey , Ld. A/R for the
management.
I was initially appointed as Baildar in the office of
the management and after promotion I am working as Work
Asstt. In the same office. I am a regular employee. It is
incorrect to suggest that Uttam Chand was never
regularized and my statement made in para 3of my affidavit
is wrong. It is wrong to suggest that my information
regarding Uttam Chand that he got wages of enquiry clerk
for the period work charged establishment is incorrect.
Management in support of its case filed affidavit of
MW1 Sh. Munna Lal on 18.04.2013. Wherein he stated as
follows:-
1.
That I am well conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the case matter and competent to swear
this affidavit.
2.
That the deceased husband of claimant, Sh. Uttam
Chand was a Beldar on mustrol roll and working as Work
Assistant. Vide this office letter No. 3/LHD/Court /07/1459,
dated 26.10.2007 the status of Late Sh. Uttam Chand was
enquired from the concerned office. In reply to the same,
the Executive Engineer vide their letter No. 54 (G)/EM/
2007/2920, date 02.11.2007, has clarified that no record
with regard to working of Late Sh. Uttam Chand as typing,
dispatch of salary bill, correspondence etc. is available in
the office.
3.
That the genuineness of the certificate issued by
Sh. M. C, Gupta, Asst. Eng. and Sh. R. P. Sharma, Asst.
Eng. could not be ascertained as they are not working
therein. A copy of letter dated 02.11.2007 are exhibited
and marked as PW1/1.
4.
That the working of Late Sh. Uttam Chand can only
be ascertained from the enteries of his service book. A
copy of letter dated 02.11.2007 are exhibited and marked
as PW1/1.
Management in support of its case filed
Supplementary affidavit of MW1 Sh. Munna Lal on
13.11.2013. Wherein it stated as follows:-
1.
That I am well conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the case matter and competent to swear
the affidavit.
2.
That I state that the claimant was Beldar and after
passing the trade test he became skilled workman. As per
rule a skilled workman is required to pass another trade
test for being appointed as ‘Work Assistant’. The claimant
had passed the said two trade tests and was working as
“Work Assistant” at RML Hospital at the time of his death.
The claimant was regularized as work charge employee
from the Muster Roll Beldar w.e.f . 24.12.1992. His service
book was maintained and the same is exhibited as Ex. MW-
1/1 (colly).
3.
That I state that there are four cadres of employees
in CPWD. These are 1. Engineering Staff, 2. Ministerial
Staff (LDC, UDC, and Office Superintendant ), 3.Work
Charge Establishment (Beldar, Carpenter, Mason etc.) and
4. Regular classified (Work Asst. ,Sewer-man, Sweeper
etc. ) . It may be noted that the enquiry clerk falls under the
category of Ministerial Staff. At the moment there is no
such post . Earlier the most senior LDC was appointed as
Enquiry Clerk, after imparting specific training for the same.
The claimant being in the category of work charge
Establishment and later on in the Regular Classified, cannot
claim to have worked at the post of Enquiry Clerk. A copy
of recruitment rules, rules for trade tests and the categories
in the work charge establishment are annexed herein and
exhibited as Ex. MW-1/2, MW-1/3 and MW-1/4
respectively.
4.
That I state that A.E . (Assistant Engineer) is not
appointing authority for the post of “Enquiry Clerk”. It is
the Superintending Engineer Coordination who is the
appointing authority for the post of Enquiry Clerk.
Obviously it is this authority which is empowered even to
assign the duties of Enquiry Clerk to an eligible person.
The record shows that no appointment letter was issued
to the claimant for the post of Enquiry Clerk by any
competent authority and so he cannot claim the benefits
of that post in any manner whatsoever. The letter dated
26.10.2007 and testimonials (Colly) and 02.11.2007 are
exhibited as:-
5.
Ex. MW-1/5 (colly and MW-1/6 respectively.
However from 24.12.92 applicant has been paid due
payment from the date when he was appointed by the
competent authority to discharge the Service of enquiry
clerk (photo copy of Service Book attached).
522
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MWI tendered his affidavit on 3.06.2013. His
statement of tendering of affidavit is as follows:-
I tender my affidavit as evidence, which is Ex. MW1/
A .Alongwith this affidavit, I rely on letters dated
02.11.2007 and 56.10.2007, which documents are Ex. MW1/
1 to Ex. MW1/2 . These documents may be read in support
of my affidavit. I would like to produce copies of service
record of the claimant on the next date. My further
examination may be deferred. At the request of the witness,
his further examination is deferred.
Thereafter, MW1 filed supplementary affidavit on
13.11.2013. Which was tendered on 13.11.13. His statement
of tendering of affidavit is as follows:-
I have filed my supplementary affidavit as Exhibit
MW1/B. I am also filing on record Exhibit MW1/1colly the
service record of late Uttam Chand. I am also submitting
the recruitment rules as Ex. MW1/B. Thereafter I am
submitting on record the rules for trade test as MW1/3. I
have also placed on record. The categories in the work
charge as Ex. MW1/4. I am placing on record letter dated
16.10.2007 and two testimonials as Ex. MW1/5 (Colly). I
am also placing on record letter 2.11.2007 as Ex. MW1/6.
He was cross-examined on the same day and his
Cross-examination is as follows:-
XXXX:- by Satish Kumar, Ld. A/R for the workman.
I am fully satisfied and aware of the contents of the
documents with my affidavit placed on record. As per
record he passed trade test for the post of ‘Assistant
Painter”. While he was working as ‘Beldar’ on 28.2.1995.
As per record thought he passed the trade test he was not
posted at the post of “Assistant Painter”.
Q.
Whether contents of para 3of your affidavit are
correct or not?
A. Yes, Correct.
Worker was paid as per office order dtd 6.4.2001.
Pay scale of Enquiry clerk for a period w.e.f. 24.12.92.
Aforesaid was made after his regularization. It is correct
that workman was a Beldar when aforesaid payment was
made to him. Workman was Beldar as well as Mustroll
period and work charge period. Duty of Beldar is to help
skill workman/semi skill . It is incorrect to suggest that
workman only performed duty of Enquiry Clerk only.
Q.
Whether certificate issued by AE relating to work
performance of Enquiry clerk by workman was not believed
and relied upon by you. Can you mention any reason.
A.
As Ex. Engineer informed vide letter dtd. 2.11.2007
inform that workman never perform. There is no record to
show that workman the duty of inquiry clerk. He also
mention the testimonial issue by A.E could not be
ascertained as Mr. M. C Gupta and Mr. R. P. Sharma A.
Engineer were not working in this Division. I cannot say
aforesaid Engineer are still working or not. It is correct
that no verification were sought from A.E relating to
certificate issued by them reason is Ex. Engineer is Senior
to them.
Q.
How many Beldars were working ?
A.
I cannot say only working division may is state about
it. It may be confirmed from correspondence from working
Division.
Q.
Whether any other Beldar has been paid pay scale
of Enquiry clerk except the workman.
A.
In my knowledge only present workman was paid
payment of Enquiry.
On aforesaid question correspondence shall be made
by me in reply of correspondence shall be intimated to the
tribunal.
It is incorrect to suggest that my affidavit is false
and I am deposing falsely.
I have heard the arguments of Ld. A/Rs for the
parties at length on 8.12.2014. To appreciate the
contentions and counter contentions of Ld.A/Rs for the
parties. I perused the pleadings of claim statement , written
statement and rejoinder as well as questions of
determination mentioned in the schedule of reference
including evidence of parties.
It is relevant to mention here the schedule of
reference containing questions of determination . Which
are as follows:-
“Whether the demand of the Union in the matter of
payment of arrears w.e.f. 3.06.1982 to 23.12.1992 for
the post of enquiry clerk i.e. 260-400/950-1500 in
respect of the workman Sh. Uttam Chand from the
management of CPWD i.e. Superintending Engineer
Electrical Coordination Circle CPWD East Block ,
R.K. Puram , New Delhi is legal and justified? If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled and from which
date?”
Perusal of claim statement makes it crystal clear that
it contains contents of para 5 and prayer as follows:-
Para 5 of claim statement
“That he was transferred to E Division of CPWD
w.e.f. 1.09.85 . When he was on muster –roll Beldar
but he was performing the duties of enquiry clerk
under the said devision at 1/E, Teen MurtiHouse ,
New Delhi , Photo copy of proof is enclosed herewith
and marked as Annexure –II.”
Prayer
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the
case, the applicant most humbly and respectfully prays
for the following among other relief:-
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
523
(i)
That I am entitled to receive the arrears of
earned wages of my late husband late Sh.
Uttam Chand w.e.f . 3.6.82 to 23.12.92 in the
pay scale of Rs. 260-400/950-1500 and all other
consequential benefits including terminal
benefits .
(ii)
Any other relief which may kindly be deemed
fit and proper to meet the end of justice.
Annexure-II issued by Sh. R.P. Sharma I/E , Sub-
division CPWD , Teen Murti House , N.D. Contains as
follows:-
This is to certify that Sh. Uttam Chand, S/o Sh.
ShandkarDass, Beldar has been working as Enquiry Clerk
in this Sub-Division since 1.9.1985 to 31.01.1990. He has
been attending to the duties of Enquiry clerk in addition
to his own duties . He performed his duties to the
satisfaction of all concerned.
He bears good moral character to best of my
knowledge and belief.
(R. P. SHARMA )
Assistant Engineer
I/E Sub-Division CPWD,
Teen Murti House, New Delhi.
Annexure –II issued by Sh. M.C Gupta Assistant
Engineer , NDZIV, CPWD, East Block I , Level III, R.K.
contains as follows:-
It is to certify that Sh. Uttam Chand S/o Sh. Shankar
Dass, Beldar attached with Sub-Division No.1 during my
tenure there as Asstt. Engineer, Sub Division I, ‘E’ Division,
C.P.W.D , New Delhi from Feb, 1990 to June, 1992 has been
attending to all works of typing ,preparation of pay bills,
correspondence Diary, Despatch and other duties of
Enquiry Clerk including issue of stores etc., besides his
routine duties of Beldar. It is to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
(M. C. GUPTA)
Assistant Engineer,
NDZIV, C.P.W.D.,
East Block 1, Level III,
R. K. Puram, New Delhi-110066,
Tel No. 6175819(0) 6523990(R)
It is further relevant to mention here that my Ld.
Predecessor on 19.08.2010 treated questions of
determination of schedule of reference as issues.
Perusal of question of determination No.1makes it
crystal clear that burden to prove it lies on wife of workman.
To discharge her burden proof w/o workman filed
her affidavit dated 29.8.2011 on 9.11.2011 and tendered it
on 8.11.12 as WW1. She was cross –examined on same
day . In her corroborative evidence she filed affidavit of
Sh. Satish Kumar. Who tendered his affidavit on 8.11.2012.
He was also cross-examined on the same day.
Prayer made by Smt. Sunita Devi w/o Workman in
clause (i) of prayer mentioned in claim statement is beyond
pleadings of para5 of claim statement. Which cannot be
granted as per legal provisions of relevant principles of
law. In this background prayer which is confined upto
pleadings can be granted in case it is not rebutted by
management evidence.
In the instant case management evidence is not
sufficient to rebutt the workman evidence on the point of
prayer confined upto pleading of claim statement.
On the basis of aforesaid discussion I am of
considered view that question of determination No.1 is
liable to be partly decided in favour of deceased workman.
Which is accordingly decided.
Reference is liable to be decided in favour of
deceased workman and against management.Which is
accordingly decided. Management is directed to pay the
arrears of pay to Smt. Sunita Devi w/o Workman within a
period of two months after expiry of period of available
remedy against award.
Award is accordingly passed.
Dated:-07/01/2015
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2015
dk-vk- 212-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- ch- ,e-
ch- 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] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
1348@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
22@01@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&23012@4@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2015
S.O. 212.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1348/
2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the
Bhakra Beas Management Board, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 22/01/2015.
[No. L-23012/4/2007-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
524
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No.1348/2008
Registered on 31.1.2008
Sh. Durga Singh,
S/o Sh. Takur Singh,
R/o Village Bhanwar,
PO Tandu, Tehsil and Distt. Mandi,
Himachal Pradesh.
...Petitioner
Versus
The Chief Engineer BSL (P),
Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Sunder Nagar, Himachal Pradesh.
...Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
:
Sh. R. K. Parmar, A. R.
For the Management
:
Sh. RavinderRana, Law Officer.
AWARD
Passed on 24.11.2014
Central Government vide Notification No. L-23012/
4/2007 (IR(CM-II)) Dated 28.1.2008, by exercising its
powers under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and
Sub Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management of BBMB,
Sunder Nagar (HP) in terminating the services of Sh.
Durga Singh w.e.f. 9.12.2005 is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief is the workman entitled?”
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim to which reply was filed by the
management. The facts emerging from the pleadings are
that the workman was appointed as Peon on 89 days basis
vide order dated 4.4.2003 and thereafter, he was given 11
more spells of 89 days from time to time. His services were
terminated on 9.12.2005.
Now according to the workman he rendered two
years three months and five days service and he was
entitled to compensation of one-and-a-half months of
average wages but was given compensation only of one
month wages. That the compensation is not as per Section
25F(b). Hence his termination is not legal. It is further
pleaded that the persons junior to him were retained in
service, the same amounts to violation of the provisions
of law. That he be reinstated in service.
According to the management, the father of the
workman was working as a Peon and on his death the
workman was go be given regular employment by Irrigation
Department of Haryana government but to remove
hardship, the petitioner was appointed for 89 days. The
Board adopted a new policy regarding employment issued
vide letter dated 3.11.2005 and accordingly the services of
the workman were terminated after paying him
retrenchment compensation as per provisions of Section
25F of the Act which was received by the workman without
any objection. That the retrenchment is legal and valid.
Parties were given opportunities to lead evidence.
In support of its case, the workman appeared in the
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the stand
taken by him in the claim statement.
On the other hand the management has examined
Sh. Jaswinder Singh who filed his affidavit reiterating the
case of the management as pleaded in the written
statement.
I have heard Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar, AR of the
workman and Sh. RavinderRana, Law Officer for
management.
There is no dispute that the workman was appointed
on 89 days basis as Peon w.e.f. 4.4.1993. Thereafter, he
was again appointed for 10 times and his services were
terminated in view of some policy framed by the Board
vide order dated 9.12.2005. For the sake of convenience
the termination order dated 9.12.2005 is reproduced as
follow:-
“You were appointed as peon vide this office letter
No.495-99/3-E dated 4.4.2003 purely on contract basis for
89 days on compassionate grounds under Ex- gratia
scheme of BBMB. You were further appointed on the
above said terms and conditions vide following letters.
1.
2nd Spell: Letter No. 945-49/3-E dated 3.7.2003
2.
3rd Spell: Letter No. 1391-95/3-E dated 1.10.2003
3.
4th Spell: Letter No. 1855-58/3-E dated 26.12.2003
4.
5thSpell: Letter No. 531-35/3-E dated 29.3.2004
5.
6th Spell: Letter No. 948-51/3-E dated 28.6.2004
6.
7th Spell: Letter No. 1884-86/3-E dated 27.9.2004
7.
8th Spell: Letter No. 2872-76/3-E dated 30.12.2004
8.
9th Spell: Letter No. 1168-72/3-E dated 29.3.2005
9.
10th Spell: Letter No. 3043-45/3-E dated 4.7.2005
10.
11th Spell: Letter No. 4061-64/3-E dated 1.10.2005
2.
The Board in its 190th Meeting held on 21.10.2005
has considered the matter regarding employment on
compassionate grounds to the members of the families of
the deceased BBMB (own recruited) and State
Government/State Electricity Boards/Power Utilities
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
525
allocated and has decided to adopt new alternate policy in
lieu of compassionate employment.
3.
In view of the above your service is dispensed with
effect from 9.12.2005 afternoon in accordance with the terms
and conditions of your offer of appointment.
4.
In this connection, the following payments are
admissible under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
1.
One month wages in lieu of one month
termination notice for Rs. 5209/-.
2.
Compensation equivalent to fifteen days
average pay for Rs.5911/-. DA/Cheque
No.G016239 dated 9.12.2005 for Rs. 11710/-.
It is clear from the termination order itself that the
workman continuously worked from 4.4.2003 to 9.12.2005
with the notional break of one day every time. The
retrenchment compensation paid as find mentioned in Para
4 of the said letter is one month wages in lieu of notice
amounting to Rs.5799/-, and compensation equivalent to
15 days average pay was Rs.5911/-.
Section 25F deals with the retrenchment
compensation and it read as follow:-
“25-F - No workman employed in any industry who
has been in continuous service for not less than one year
under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer
until –
(a)
The workman has been given one month’s
notice in writing indicating the reasons for
retrenchment and the period of notice has
expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu
of such notice, wages for the period of the
notice.
(b)
The workman has been paid, at the time of
retrenchment, compensation which shall be
equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay [for
every completed year of continuous service]
or any part thereof in excess of six months;
and
(c)
Notice in the prescribed manner is served on
the appropriate Government [or such authority
as may be specified by the appropriate
Government by notification in the Official
Gazette.]
Thus the workman is to be paid wages for the period
of notice i.e. for one month; and he is also to be paid
compensation equivalent to 15 days average pay for every
completed year of continuous service or in part thereof in
excess of six months. Since it is not denied that the
workman worked for more than two years and eight months
and therefore he was entitled to get retrenchment
compensation for 15 days average pay of two complete
years and also 15 days average pay for the service he
rendered for more than eight months. Sh. Jaswinder Singh,
examined by the management has deposed in his affidavit
in para 5 as follow:-
“Compensation equivalent to fifteen days average
pay for every completed year Rs.5911/-.”
Thus, according to him, the workman was paid 15
days average pay per every completed year. Workman
has specifically pleaded in para 4 of the written statement
that he was entitled to one-and-a-half average pay by way
of compensation. But the management intentionally
omitted to give a specific reply to this averment and simply
pleaded that workman was paid compensation for every
completed year. Thus the workman was paid
compensation only for 15 days average pay per every
completed year, but was not paid compensation for the
service of 8 months he rendered and as per the law he was
entitled to 15 days average pay as compensation. Thus,
the compensation paid to the workman is less by 15 days
average pay and the retrenchment compensation paid
cannot be held as valid compensation as provided under
Section 25F(b) of the Act.
Mr. Ravinder Rana, representing the management
has relied on Ravinder Kumar Vs. Labour Court, Patiala
and Others reported in 2006(4) SLR 795 to contend that if
there is any technical violation of Section 25F, that would
not entitle the workman to get any relief. This contention
is devoid of any service. In the said case there was a
mistake of Rs.73.50/- in the calculation of compensation
and the Court assessed the compensation at Rs.500/- and
the Hon’ble High Court has held that if there is a mistake
in the calculation, the same is not a violation of the
provisions of law. But in the present case the management
has omitted to pay him compensation for eight months of
service rendered by him and no explanation whatsoever
has been given in the written statement or in the affidavit
of its witness who rather specifically deposed that
workman was paid compensation equivalent to 15 days
average pay for every completed year. Thus in the present
case, there is no error in the calculation of compensation
but the management has intentionally omitted to pay him
compensation for the services he rendered in excess of
two years i.e. for more than 8 months which the workman
was entitled to get as per provisions of the law, stated
above. Thus, the retrenchment compensation paid by the
management to the workman and accepted by the workman
without any objection cannot be termed as legal and valid
and being so, the retrenchment of the workman cannot be
termed as legal and justified.
Now the question is whether the workman can be
ordered to be reinstated in service. He was appointed
from time-to-time on 89 days basis and lastly, the extension
was given vide letter dated 1.10.2005. He was not working
on any regular post. Thus he cannot be ordered to be
526
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
reinstated in service more particularly when he was
appointed on 89 days basis. Since the retrenchment is not
legal, it is a fit case where compensation can be awarded
to the workman. Considering the length of service and
other circumstances, Rs.1,00,000/- is a just compensation
which can be awarded to the workman.
In result, the reference is answered holding that the
termination of the workman is not legal and justified and
he is entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- by way of compensation
from the respondent management, who shall pay the
amount to the workman within 2 months of the publication
of the award failing which the workman will be entitled to
get interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the
date of the award till realization.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2015
dk-vk- 213-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mh- Mh- ,- ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; ua- 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 37@2009) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@01@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@223@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2015
S.O. 213.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 37/2009)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the
Delhi Development Authoirty, and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 22/01/2015.
[No. L-42012/223/2005-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
DELHI
Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No. 37/2009
Sh. ShyamYadav& Others,
The General Secretary,
Municipal Employees Union,
Aggarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road,
Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054.
Versus
The Dy. Director (Hort.), Division No.1,
Delhi Development Authority,
Shekh Sarai Ph-II, New Delhi-110017
NO DISPUTE AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
vide notification No. L-42012/223/2005-IR (CM-II) dated
13.05.2009 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this
tribunal for adjudication :-
On 18.05.2009 reference was received in this tribunal.
Which was register as I.D No. 37/2009 and claimants were
called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days
from date of service of notice.Which was required to be
accompanied with relevant documents and list of
witnesses.
After service of notice workmen/claimants
Sh. Shyam Yadav & others filed claim statement on
13.11.2009 but against claim statement management not
filed written statement.
Case proceeded ex-parte against management on
16.08.2012 and fixed 22.11.2012 for ex-parte evidence of
workmen. Several opportunity given to workmen for their
ex-parte evidence. On 25.08.2014 even Ld. A/R for the
workmen Sh. Pradeep Kaushik himself expressed his desire
to close the evidence to workmen. As workmen are not at
all interested to proceed further.They are not contacting
me. (Ld. A/R for the management).
So Evidence of the workmen has been closed.
There is no evidence on record in favour of workmen
so there is no option to me except to pass the No Dispute
Award in the instant case.
No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.
Dated:-17/10/2014
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2015
dk-vk- 214-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQ- lh- vkbZ-
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 47@2008)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@01@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22011@14@2008&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2015
S.O. 214.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
527
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 47/2008)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of the Food
Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 22/01/2015.
[No. L-22011/14/2008-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
LUCKNOW
PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No 47/2008
L-22011/14/2008-IR(CM-II) dated 01.09.2008
BETWEEN :
The State Secretary
Bharatiya Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh
TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow
AND
1.
The General Manager
Food Corporation of India
TC/3V Vibhuti Khand
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow
2.
The Executive Director (North)
Food Corporation of India
Plot No. 2A,2B Sector 24,
Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida (U.P)
3.
Area Manager
Food Corporation of India
1/12/203 b, Civil Lines
Farizabad
AWARD
1.
By order No. L-22011/14/2008-IR(CM-II) dated
01.09.2008, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by
clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947) referred
this industrial dispute between The State Secretary,
Bharatiya Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh, TC/3V,
Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and The General
Manager(UP) Food Corporation of India, TC/3V Vibhuti
Khand Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and the Executive Director
(North) Food Corporation of India, Plot No. 2A, 2B, Sector
24, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida (UP) for adjudication.
1.
The reference under adjudication is:
“WHETHER
THE
ACTION
OF
THE
MANAGEMENT OF FOOD CORPORATION OF
INDIA IN IMPOSING PUNISHMET OF SRI RAM
KRISHAN VIDE THEIR ORDERS, AS PER LIST
ENCLOSED, AND OF REJECTING COMMON
APPEAL FILED THEREON BY THE WORKMAN
CONCERNED IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? TO
WHAT RELIEF IS THE CONCERNED WORKMAN
ENTITLED?”
2.
The union (espousing cause of workman Sri Ram
Krishan) filed claim statement. The union stated that
management issued seven charge sheets to him in the
month of retirement of the workman. The workman filed
the replies of the aforesaid charge sheets. The opposite
party no. 2 has illegally and arbitrarily not granted the
relief wh ic h he is entitled It is stated by the applicant that
the opposite party no. 1 & 2 instead of granting relief to
the workman imposed recovery of Rs. 170525/ - against
workman in the said seven orders. The opposite party
no. 2 had agreed that there were bird/squirrel/monkey
trouble in the depot apart from others for which workman
had taken due steps and apprised the position to the
higher authorities butthey failed to take appropriate
measure. The opposite party no. 2 has modified the
punishment orders and reduced the recovery of
Rs. 170525/- to Rs. 108634/ - by means of impugned order
dated 31.05.2007. The workman union stated that opposite
party had not followed any written norms and the basis of
the storage losses a nd balance was unjustified. The
workman union has prayed for direction to the Management
to set aside the unjust punishment orders and the
impugned appellate order and the said penalty orders.
3.
The managemenl has filed written statement M-9
stating therein that the claim statement is wrong and charge
sheets were given to the workman within rule, and well
reasoned and speaking order was passed on the
representation given by the workman, there is no provision
of personal hearing under Regulation 60, such demand
was untenable and against the law and rules. The
management requested to reject the claim with cost.
4.
Amended statement of claim W-11 and rejoinder
W-12 was filed by the workman denying the averments of
the written statement and reitcrated the claim statement.
Vide list C-6, 46 papers have been filed by the workman
union.
5.
The work ma n did not t ur n up before this Tribunal
for evidence although sufficient opportunity was glven
to him. On 17.1l.2014 learned authorized representative of
both the parties appeared before Tribunal and requested
for fixing the case in the National Lok Adalat on 06.12.2014.
Learned authorised representative of the management
moved an application mentioning therein that perhaps
grievances of the workman have been redressed and
528
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
therefore the workman has not been appearing in the court
for several dates. Learned authorised representative of
the workman in writirig accepted this version of the
management.
6.
Under the circumstances and the facts mentioned
herein, no relief is legally required to be given to the
applicants/workmen. The reference under adjudication is
answered as NO CLAIM AWARD.
7.
Award as above.
LUCKNOW
06.12.2014
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2015
dk-vk- 215-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ dksyfiQYMl~
fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] uxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 16@2010)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@01@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@83@2010&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2015
S.O. 215.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 16/2010)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of the Western
Coalfields Limited, Central Workshop Tadali of WCL, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
22/01/2015.
[No. L-22012/83/2010-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND,
PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT,
NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/16/2010
Date: 30.12.2014.
Party No.1 (a)
:
The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Western Coalfields Limited,
Coal Estate,
Civil Lines, Nagpur. 440001.
(b)
:
The General Manager,
Central Workshop Tadali of WCL,
Post UrjagramTadali,
Chandrapur (M.S.).
Versus
Party No.2(a)
:
The President/Secretary,
Rashtriya Koyala Khadan,
Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC),
CWS, Tadali Branch,
Post UrjagramTadali,
Chandrapur (MS).
(b)
:
The President/Secretary,
Koyala Shramik Sabha (HMS),
CWS, Tadali Branch,
Post UrjagramTadali,
Chandrapur (MS).
(c)
:
The President/ Secretary,
Lalzhanda Coal Mines
Mazdoor Union (CITU),
CWS, Tadali Branch,
Post Urjagram Tadali,
Chandrapur (MS).
(d)
:
The President/Secretary,
Sanyukta Khadan
Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC),
CWS, Tadali Branch,
Post Urjagram Tadali,
Chandrapur (MS).
AWARD
(Dated: 30th December, 2014)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Western Coalfields Limited and the
workmen of CWS, Tadali, for adjudication, as per letter
No.L-22012/83/2010-IR (CM-II) dated 04.02.2011, with the
following schedule:-
“Whether the action of WCL HQ in denying the
incentive to the employees of CWS,Tadali for the
year 2007-08 and 2008-09 and for the years ahead is
right and justified? To what reliefthey are entitled
to?”
2.
On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the four unions named above,
(“the unions” in short) filed the joint statement of claim on
behalf of the workmen of CWS, Tadali (‘the workmen” in
short) and the management of WCL (“Party No. 1” in
short) filed their written statement.
The case of the workmen as presented by the unions
in the statement of claim is that the employees of CWS
Tadali were initially covered by an “Incentive Scheme”
mooted by the Party No. 1 for the years 2003-2004 and
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
529
2004-2005 and under the said scheme, some incentives
were provided to the employees in kind and Party No.1
sanctioned a detailed “productivity improvement scheme”
for the year 2005-2006 exclusively for the employees of
Central Workshop, Tadali and the scheme was circulated
under office order dated 15.10.2005 and although the said
scheme was approved by the Competent Authority for the
year 2005-2006, the same was reviewable after completion
of one year and as such, the said scheme was continued
for the year 2006-2007 and though the said scheme was to
be continued for 2007-2008 onwards, the same was not
done and at the instance of the unions, though a proposal
to continue the scheme was submitted to the Head
Quarters of WCL for approval, no fruitful result came out,
inspite of repeated assurances made by the management
in different I.R. forum and the Party No. 1 had formulated
incentive schemes for the year 2007-2008 and 2008-2009
for the employees of the WCL, but the said scheme was
not applicable to the employees of CWS,Tadali pm the
specific ground that there existed a separate incentive
scheme for them and on persistent quarries made by the
unions, the Party NO. 1 came out with the answer that the
FD’s of the company has taken a decision not to continue
the incentive scheme for the employees of CWS, Tadali
and the Party No. 1 thus adopted discriminatory attitude
and pick and choose tactics in the matter of implementing
incentive scheme against the employees of CWS, Tadali,
in breach of the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India and the action of the Party No. 1 was
unjustified.
The unions have prayed to answer the reference in
favour of the employees of CWS, Tadali and to declare the
action of Party No. 1 as illegal and to direct the Party No.
1 to give the benefits of the said scheme.
3.
Party No. 1 in the written statement has pleaded
inter-alia that any incentive scheme promoted by the
employer is the sole prerogative of the employer and no
employee can claim the same as a matter of right and the
employees of CWS, Tadali want to grab money for which
they are not entitled, by putting pressure on it and there
was no incentive scheme for the years 2003-04 and 2004-
05 in CWS, Tadali, but there was a scheme for the year
2005-06 and the said scheme was to be reviewed every
year and the same was also subject to be modified or
withdrawn at the desire of the management and the scheme
was also there for the year 2006-07 with similar conditions
and at no point of time, any objection was raised by
anybody regarding the imposition of the conditions and
as such, the unions are estopped from making any claim
against the withdrawal of the said scheme and similar
schemes were applicable in different Areas for different
class of workmen and at present, the incentive scheme is
available only for the workmen working in underground
mines and the incentive schemes are based on various
factors and if the management is of the opinion that the
incentive scheme should be made available for a particular
standard of work only, the same cannot be termed as
discriminatory and the reference is devoid of merit and is
liable to be rejected.
4.
In the rejoinder, after denying the adverse
allegations, the unions have pleaded that the incentive
scheme mooted by the management was in the mutual
interest of both the parties and the party No.1 withdrew
the facility of incentive scheme in a clandestine manner
after achieving the necessary target of production and
productivity and the same was manifestation of colorable
exercise of employer’s right and hence an unfair labour
practice and though party No.1 has repeatedly stated that
the incentive scheme is based on various factors, but they
have not spelled out as to why such factors are not
applicable to the employees of CWS, Tadali and a public
authority cannot be allowed to withdraw at it sweet will
from a part of its employees the facility of the incentive
scheme which has become a part of their monthly earning.
5.
In order to prove their respective case, both the
parties have placed reliance on documentary evidence.
Besides the documentary evidence, the unions have also
examined one PrahalladWaghmare as a witness. It is to be
mentioned here that party No. 1 has not adduced any oral
evidence.
6.
The evidence of witness, PrahalladWagmare is on
affidavit. This witness has reiterated the facts mentioned
in the statement of claim, in his evidence. In his cross-
examination, this witness has stated that productivity
improvement scheme of incentive is not a service condition
and in clause 15 of the office order dated 15.10.2005, the
productivity improvement scheme for 2005-2006 of Central
Workshop, Tadali, it has been mentioned that, “The
management reserves the right to withdraw, change or
modify the incentive scheme from time to time with the
approval of FD’s of WCL” and the unions had never
challenged the said clause. This witness has further stated
that as management did not formulate any scheme for
Tadali Central Workshop in 2007- 2008 and did not pay the
incentive in 2008-2009, they raised the dispute and at
present, except the employees working in the underground,
the incentive scheme has been withdrawn for all other
employees of WCL.
7.
At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the unions that though the
management of the party No.1 formulated incentive scheme
for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 for all its employees, the
same was not made applicable to the employees of CWS,
Tadali on the sole ground of existence of a separate
incentive scheme for the said years and party No.1 adopted
discriminatory and pick and choose tactics in the matter
of implementing the incentive scheme, in violation of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and such
action of Party No.1 was illegal and unjustified and the
530
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
employees of CWS, Tadali are entitled for the monetary
benefits as provided in the incentive scheme for 2007-08
and 2008-09 and onwards.
8.
Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the party No.1 that promotion of any Incentive scheme
is the sole prerogative of the employer and the same cannot
be claimed as a matter of right and floating of incentive
scheme is based on many factors and in the incentive
scheme for the year 2005-06 itself, there was a clause that,
“The management reserves the right to revoke this scheme
at any time without assigning any reasons thereof.” And
at no point of time, any objection was raised by any union
or anybody else about the imposition of the said condition
and as such, the unions are estopped from challenging
the action of the party No.1 of withdrawing the said scheme
and as such, the employees of CWS, Tadali are not entitled
to any relief.
9.
On perusal of the materials on record and taking
into consideration the submissions made by the learned
advocates for the parties, the following undisputed facts
are found:
(i)
The party No.1 floated “the productivity
Improvement Scheme” for the years 2005-06
and 2006-07 for the employees of CWS, Tadali
and gave the benefits of such scheme to such
employees.
(ii)
The party No.1 floated the Incentive scheme
for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 for its
employees (all the employees of WCL), but
the application of the said scheme was
excluded to the employees of CWS, Tadali on
the ground of existence of a special scheme
for them and party No.1 gave the benefits of
such scheme to all its employees for the years
2007-08 and 2008-09, except the employees of
CWS, Tadali.
(iii)
The party No.1 withdrew the incentive scheme
after 2009 for all other employees of WCL,
except the employees working in the
underground.
11.
It is not disputed that floating of incentive scheme
is the sole prerogative of the employer and no employee
can claim the same as a matter of right. As the party No.1
has already withdrawn the incentive scheme after 2009 for
all its employees, except for the employees working in the
underground, the employees working in CWS, Tadali
cannot ask the party No.1 to float the incentive scheme
beyond 2008-09. Hence, the employees working in CWS,
Tadali are not entitled to any benefit of the Incentive
Scheme.
11.
Now, the only question remains for consideration is
as to whether the employees of CWS, Tadali are entitled
for the benefits of the incentive scheme for the years 2007-
08 and 2008-09.
As already mentioned above, the party No.1
formulated the Incentive scheme for all the employees of
WCL for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 and gave the
benefits of such scheme to the employees, except the
employees of CWS, Tadali, only on the ground that a
special scheme was there for the said employees. It is
clear from the above admitted facts that the special
incentive scheme floated for the employees of CWS, Tadali
was not reviewed or the same was not withdrawn for the
years 2007-08 and 2008-09. No document has also been
filed by the party No.1 to show that the said scheme wa
withdrawn for the employees of CWS, Tadali. So, the action
of the party No.1 can be said to be discriminatory. From
the materials on record, it is clear that the employees of
CWS, Tadali are entitled to get the benefits of the Special
Incentive Scheme as floated in 2006-07, for the years 2007-
08 and 2008-09. Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of WCL HQ in denying the incentive to
the employees of CWS, Tadali for the years 2007-08 &
2008-09 is unjustified. The employees of Cws, Tadali are
entitled for the monetary benefits of the Special Incentive
Scheme as floated in the year 2006-07, only for the years
2007-08 and 2008-09. The said employees are not entitled
to any other relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2015
dk-vk- 216-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ dksyfiQYMl~
fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 153@2003)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@01@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@378@2002&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2015
S.O. 216.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 153/
2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of the Western
Coalfields Limited, New Majri U/G Sub Area of WCL, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
22/01/2015.
[No. L-22012/378/2002-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
531
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING
OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/153/2003
Date: 09.01.2015.
Party No. 1
:
The Sub Area Manager,
New Majri U/G Sub Area of WCL
Post- Shivjinagar,
Chandrapur (MS)
Versus
Party No. 2
:
Shri Lomesh Khartad,
General Secretary,
Rashtriya Colliery Workers Congress
Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Ballarpur,
Post and Tah. Ballarpur,
Chandrapur (MS)
AWARD
(Dated: 9thJanuary, 2015)
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 New Majri U/G Sub Area of WCL and their
workman, Shri Iqbal Hasan, for adjudication, as per letter
No.L-22012/378/2002-IR (CM-II) dated 11.07.2003, with the
following schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management in relation
to New Majri U/G Sub Area of Western Coalfields
Ltd. in dismissing Shri Iqbal Hasan S/o Imamuddin,
U/G loader vide office order No. Wcl/NMUGSA/
PER/93/922 dated 13/17.05.1993 is legal and justified?
If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to
file their respective statement of claim and written
statement, in response to which, the workman Shri Iqbal
Hasan, (“the workman” in short) through the union, the
Rashtriya Colliery Workers Congress (“the union” in short)
filed the statement of claim and the management of New
Majri U/G Sub Area of Western Coalfields Limited (“party
No.1” in short) filed the written statement.
The case of the workman as presented by the Union
in the statement of claim is that it is a registered trade
union under the Trade Unions Act,1926 and the party No.1
is a government company and is a “state” within the
meaning of Article 12 of the constitution of India and the
workman was working as a wagon loader on surface of the
mine in 1978 and he was discontinued by party No.1 and
against the illegal discontinuance of the workman and some
others, the union, Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh raised
a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner
(Central) Chandrapur and a tripartite settlement was arrived
between the management and the said union during the
course of the conciliation proceedings and as per the said
settlement, the workman was given employment as
underground loader at New Majri Mine No.3 by the party
No.1 and the appointment letter was given to the workman
on the basis of his previous work and on verification of
his photograph and during the conciliation proceedings
before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, documents
and photograph of the workman were authenticated by
the union representative and the affidavit sworn in by the
workman before the Magistrate was filed by the workman
and the same was verified by the management and after
completion of the other formalities of appointment, initial
medical examination, vocational training and filling up of
the statutory and non statutory forms and records, the
workman was allowed to join duty at Majri Mine No.3
w.e.f. 27.12.1989, vide office order No. 6552 dated 26/
28.12.1989 and the workman rendered continuous service
and put in more than 190 days of attendance in the
underground in the years, 1990, 1991 and 1992 and he also
worked regularly in 1993, till he was illegally dismissed
from service.
The further case of the workman as presented by
the union is that in the mean while necessary actions for
verification of character and antecedents of the workman
were taken up by the party No.1, by sending the necessary
information to Saini police in the district of Allahabad, UP,
under which, the native village “Nandeymai” of the
workman is situated and due to political rivalry, bias, family
feud and personal grudge, the then Pradhan of the Gram
Panchayat of the workman submitted a wrong, frivolous
and prejudicial report against the workman and on the
basis of such false report, police also submitted a false
report without any physical verification about the workman
and for that the party No.1 submitted a charge sheet dated
15.06.1991 against the workman under clauses 18 (i) (a)
and 18 (i) (o) of the standing orders and the charge sheet
was vague and suffered from several infirmities and the
documents and list of witnesses were not supplied to the
workman and the workman was stopped illegally and
without any notice from performing his duties for about
10 days and he had not been paid the wages for those
days and on that ground alone, the entire action of the
party No.1 was vitiated and the workman vide his letter
dated 28.06.1991, requested the party No.1to direct a re-
enquiry in to the verification of his character and
antecedents, so as to arrive into an impartial conclusion,
but the request of the workman was not considered and
without application of mind, mechanical order for initiation
of the departmental enquiry against the workman was
passed and that too by an incompetent person and the
copy of the alleged reports/certificates submitted by the
Grampanchayat, Nandeymai and the police were not
supplied to the workman and the Enquiry Officer travelled
beyond his jurisdiction and guided by the management in
the matter of as to how to proceed with the enquiry and
the Enquiry Officer was biased and prejudiced and he did
not act impartially and he worked merely as a recorder and
during the enquiry, the workman examined two witnesses,
who fully supported the workman, but the evidence of the
532
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
said witnesses was discarded by the Enquiry Officer and
it was wrongly held by the Enquiry Officer that the charges
were proved against the workman and the copy of the
report of the Enquiry Officer was not supplied to the
workman and second show cause notice was also not
issued by the party No.1 and the workman was abruptly
dismissed from service vide order dated 13/17.05.1993 of
the Sub Area Manager and though the workman requested
to supply of the copy of the report submitted by the
Enquiry Officer vide his letters dated 03.06.1993, 12.01.1994,
12.11.1996, 11.02.1997 and 30.03.1998, the same was not
supplied to him.
The further case of the workman as presented by
the union is that the enquiry conducted against the
workman is illegal and in violation of the principles of
natural justice and no proper opportunity was afforded
to the workman to defend himself and the report of the
Enquiry Officer suffers from several infirmities and the
order of dismissal also suffers from several infirmities
and the same was signed by the authority, who was
superior to the punishing authority/disciplinary authority
and the same vitiated the departmental enquiry and so
also the entire actions taken by the party No.1 and though
the workman approached the party No.1 by his letters
dated 25.05.1993, 16.08.1993, 02.01.1996, 03.04.1996,
10.04.1997, 02.04.1998 and 06.06.1998 for his reinstatement
in service, party No.1 did not consider his request and
Shri Bhupati, the Labour/Welfare officer was appointed
as the management representative in the enquiry held
against the workman and a Labour/Welfare officer is not
entitled under the Mine (Central) Rules to participate in
the enquiry, so the entire enquiry conducted against the
workman is illegal on that ground and there was no
complaint what so ever by anybody claiming himself to
be the real IqbalHasan S/o Imamuddin and the workman
was not the real Iqbal Hasan S/o Imamuddin and he
(workman) took the name of the name of Iqbal Hasan
S/o Imamuddin and such facts vitiated the enquiry in
totality and the Enquiry Officer failed to consider the
documents in possession of the party No.1 in regard to
the age of the workman that his age was 29 years as on
12.11.1989 and the Enquiry Officer at a wrong and
erroneous conclusion and the workman on 12.07.1995
obtained a fresh certificate from the Grampanchayat,
Nandeymai, which shows the correct name and identity
of the workman and the said certificate clarified that the
earlier certificate issued by the then Pradhan was issued
out of bias, enmity and personal prejudice and the said
certificate was duly submitted by the workman to the
management alongwith his representations and the
workman also obtained a certificate dated 28.10.1998 from
the Tahsildar and submitted the same to the management,
but the sais certificates were not considered by the
management and if there was another person named Iqbal
Hasan S/o Imamuddin allegedly employed in Chanda
Colliery of WCL, as mentioned in the earlier certificate
issued by the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, then
management should have examined him as a witness in
the enquiry to prove the charges levelled against the
workman and since, the so called Iqbal Hasan as alleged
by the management was not examined , it can be held
that management miserably failed to prove the charges
against the workman and the workman was also not
subjected to ossification test to determine his exact age
and in absence of such test, the finding of the Enquiry
Officer that the workman might be a minor in 1977-78 has
no substance and the Enquiry Officer also ignored the
provisions of employment of adolescent under Mines
Act, 1952, during the relevant time and the practice
prevalent then.
It is also pleaded by the union on behalf of the
workman that in the departmental enquiry, neither any
witness was produced nor examined by the management
to substantiate the charges levelled against the workman
and at any rate, the charge under S.O. 18(i)(a) i.e. theft,
fraud or dishonesty in connection with the employers
business or property cannot be said to have been proved
against the workman by any stretch of imagination and
the said charge was totally vague and irrelevant and the
entire enquiry proceeding was illegal and void ab-initio
and is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside and the
punishment is too harsh and disproportionate.
Prayer has been made for the reinstatement of the
workman in service with continuity and all consequential
benefits including back wages.
3.
The party No.1 in the written statement has pleaded
inter-alia that the present dispute has been raised by the
union and the said union is a non-existing union and have
no followers and the said union remains on paper only
and there is nothing on record to show that the workman
was a member of the union and the union has authorized
Shri Lomesh Khartad to raise the present dispute on his
behalf and as such, the union has no locus standi to raise
the dispute and the union has raised the dispute without
any authority and the workman was dismissed from
services vide order dated 17.05.1993, where as the present
dispute was raised in 2003 and there was inordinate delay
in raising the dispute and as such, the dispute is not
maintainable.
It is further pleaded by the party No.1 that Coal
India Limited is a government undertaking and Coal India
has several subsidiaries including the WCL and Coal India
has a recruitment policy and appointment is done only in
accordance with the appointment Rules and a person
seeking employment in WCL has to go through the
prescribed procedure for getting appointment and Coal
Mines in India were owned by the private owners and the
Coal Mines were nationalized in the year 1973 and during
the year 1976, there were provisions of having casual
wagon loaders in the pool of the collieries and the same
was for the simple reason that placing of the wagon was
not under the control of the management and it was the
railways, who used to provide wagon as per their
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
533
convenience and under such circumstances, it was not
advisable for the management to have permanent wagon
loaders on their own roll and after 1979, loading of coal
was being done by mechanical process and no manpower
was required for coal loading and the persons engaged in
the process of wagon loading during the relevant period
were regularized, subject to their working for more than
240 days preferably and whose names were sponsored
through the Employment Exchange an preference was
given to those, who were in possession of prove that they
worked as casual workers and there was agitation by the
union for regularization of the ex-casual workers and with
a view to keep industrial peace, a settlement was arrived at
with the union for providing employment to the ex-casual
workers and as per the terms and conditions of the said
settlement, ex-casual workers were given employment and
on the basis of the said settlement, on person namely,
Iqbal Hasan as underground piece rated loader at New
Majri Mine, vide offer of appointment No. 5850 dated
28.11.1989, on the terms and conditions enumerated in the
offer of appointment itself and Iqbal Hasan accepted the
terms and condition of the appointment by putting his
signature on the said letter and the said offer of
appointment was given to him on the said letter and the
said offer of appointment was given to him on the claim
made y him that he had worked as casual loader for the
years 1976 to 1979 and the said offer of appointment was
subject to verification of antecedents and after joining of
duty, the workman was asked to fill up a verification form
giving all necessary particulars and as per the declaration
of the workman in the verification form, verification of
antecedents was made through the District Police of his
home town and the District Police sent a report after
obtaining the particulars from the Grampanchayat in the
said report, it was reported by the Police that the person
whose photograph was affixed on the form was that of
another person and not of Iqbal Hasan and it was evident
from the report that the workman had obtained the
employment by impersonating himself as IqbalHasan and
on receipt of the report, in terms of the specific conditions
of his employment, it could have summarily terminated his
service, but having regard to the principles of natural
justice, it was decided to give an opportunity to the
workman to explain his conduct and accordingly, charge
sheet dated 15.06.1991was issued against him, specifically
mentioning therein that his antecedent verification form
was sent to the Superintendent of Police and it was reported
by the police that the photo affixed on the form was of Shri
Massu S/o Shri Mansoor Hasan and the workman was
asked to explain his conduct and as the reply submitted
by the workman was found to be unsatisfactory, it was
decided to conduct a departmental enquiry and
accordingly, Shri B. B. Mishra, the Personnel Manager
was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and Shri G. S. Bhupati
was appointed as the Management representative and the
Enquiry Officer fixed the first sitting of the enquiry on
13.07.1992 and the workman attended the enquiry in person
and the Enquiry Officer advised him to take the service of
a co-worker and accordingly, the workman engaged
ShriSatruddinRamzan Khan as his co-worker and though
the enquiry was fixed to 18.07.1992, 25.07.1992, 18.08.1992,
27.08.1992 and 04.09.1992, the enquiry could not be taken
up due to the absence of the management representative
and on 20.09.1992, the workman, his co-worker and the
management representative attended the enquiry and being
asked by the Enquiry Officer, the workman admitted to
have received the charge sheet and to have understood
the charges and he pleaded not guilty to the charges, so
the management representative was asked to lead
evidence to prove the charges and the management
representative stated the case of the management and
produced documents and after the cross-examination of
the management witness and production of documents,
management’s case was case was closed and the workman
was given the opportunity to adduce evidence in his
defence and the workman examined three witnesses
including himself and the Enquiry Officer after hearing
both the parties closed the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer
submitted his report on 11.12.1992 and the entire
documents in connection with the departmental enquiry
were placed before the Disciplinary Authority and the
Disciplinary Authority after examination of the record and
being satisfied with the correctness of the conclusions
done by the Enquiry Officer, agreed with the findings of
the Enquiry Officer that the charges levelled against the
workman were proved and passed the order of punishment
of dismissal of the workman from services w.e.f. 15.08.1993
and its action was legal and proper and the departmental
enquiry conducted against the workman is in accordance
with law and looking into the seriousness of the
misconduct proved against the workman, the punishment
imposed against him is just and proper.
It is also pleaded by the Party No.1 that under the
Mines Act, persons below 18 years are prohibited from
working in the mines and medical examination and
vocational training are given to the employees as per the
requirement of law and there existed no reason for making
re-enquiry as claimed by the workman and as the workman
denied the charges, it was correctly decided to conduct a
departmental enquiry against him and the enquiry was
not conducted by incompetent person and the document
produced in the departmental enquiry were provided to
the workman for inspection and the workman never
demanded to supply any document to him during the
enquiry and the workman was supplied with the enquiry
report and he was dismissed from service vide order dated
17.05.1993 and the correspondence made by him
subsequent to the submission of the enquiry report by
the Enquiry Officer are of no help to the workman and the
workman did not challenge the order of dismissal and the
workman is not entitled to any relief.
4.
In the rejoinder, it is pleaded by the union on behalf
of the workman that it is well settled that a workman, who
534
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
is not a member of any union can be represented in any
proceedings under the Act, by any member of the executive
or other office bearers of any trade union connected with
or by any other workman employed in the industry in which
the worker is employed and authorized in such manner as
may be prescribed and it is also settled by the Hon’ble
Apex Court that once a reference has been validly made
by the Central Government, then the same has to be
adjudicated and disposed of on merit by the Tribunal and
practice raising preliminary objection regarding the
maintenance of the reference raised at the instance of the
employer should not be allowed and law of limitation is
not applicable to the disputes raised under the Act. The
union has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim in the rejoinder.
5.
As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from
service, as a punishment in the departmental enquiry held
against him, the validity or otherwise of the departmental
enquiry was taken up as a preliminary issue for
consideration and by order dated 19.11.2014, the
departmental enquiry conducted against the applicant was
held to be legal, proper and in accordance with the principles
of natural justice.
6.
At the time of argument, the learned advocate for
the workman submitted that the findings of the Enquiry
Officer are perverse as without any legal evidence on
record, he had determined the age of the workman and the
Enquiry Officer did not consider the evidence adduced by
the workman in his defence. It was further submitted by
the learned advocate for the workman that the Enquiry
Officer submitted his report dated 02.11.1992 to the Sub
Area Manager and the Sub Area Manager recommended
the punishment for approval of the General Manager on
04.05.1992, i.e. before the date of submission of the enquiry
report and from such facts, it is crystal clear that the papers
were manipulated and the Appellate authority passed the
order mechanically and without application of mind and
as the Appellate Authority has approved the punishment,
the workman lost the chance of appeal and the copy of the
enquiry report and second show cause notice were not
given to the workman and the workman was prejudiced
and there was violation of the principles of natural justice
and therefore, the order of punishment is liable to be
quashed and set aside and the workman is entitled for
reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
wages.
In support of the contentions, the learned advocate
for the workman placed reliance on the decisions reported
in (1999) 7 SCC-7399 (Yoginath D.Bagde Vs. State of
Maharashtra), 2000 III CLR-99 (Gajanan Vs. MSRTC) and
AIR 1988 S.C.-344 (Union of India Vs. Baburam)
It is to be mentioned here that in the written notes of
argument, the learned advocate for the workman has
reiterated some submissions regarding the validity of the
departmental enquiry, which had already been considered
at the time of deciding the preliminary issue of the fairness
or otherwise of the departmental enquiry, as such, there is
no scope for consideration of the same again.
7.
On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the party No.1 that the preliminary issue of
fairness of the departmental enquiry has already been
answered in favour of the party No.1 and the findings of
the Enquiry Officer are based on the evidence on record
of the enquiry and the same are not perverse and the sub
Area Manager recommended the approval of the
punishment on 04.05.1993 and not on 04.05.1992 a
submitted by the learned advocate for the workman and
copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the workman,
which is evident from the endorsement made by the
workman on the said report itself and the order of
punishment was passed by the Disciplinary Authority and
not by the appellate Authority.
It was further submitted by the learned advocate for
the party No.1 that the workman committed gross
misconduct and such misconduct was proved against him
in a properly conducted departmental enquiry and as such,
the punishment imposed against him cannot be said to be
shockingly disproportionate and the punishment imposed
against the workman is just and proper and in view of the
principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the
Hon’ble High Courts in different pronouncements, there
is no scope to interfere with the punishment and the
workman is not entitled to any relief.
In support of the contentions, the learned advocate
for the party No.1 placed reliance on the decisions reported
in (2003) 3 SCC-437(KendriyaVidyalaya vs.
RamratanYadav), (1996) 7 SCC-118(State of M. P. Vs.
Shyama Pardhi), Air 1998 SC-300(union of India Vs.
B.K.Shrivastava), 2009 I LLJ-220(west Bokaro Colliry vs.
Ramprakash Singh and order of the Hon’ble High Court of
M. P. in W. P. No.17687/07(ratanlal Vs. SECL) dated
27.03.2012 and orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court
of Chhatishgarh in W.P. No.57/2007(C.M.D., SECL Vs.
Naval Kishore Mishra) dated 01.04.2009.
8.
The first contention raised by the learned advocate
for the workman is that the Sub-Area Manager
recommended the punishment for approval on 04.05.1992,
which was prior to the submission of the report of enquiry
dated 02.11.1992 by the enquiry officer. However, on
perusal of the document, Ext. M-IV, it is found that the
recommendation of the punishment for approval was made
on 04.05.1993 and not on 04.05.1992 as claimed by the
learned advocate for the workman. Hence, there is no
force in the contention raised by the learned advocate for
the workman on that score.
9.
On perusal of Ext. M-IV, the report of the enquiry
submitted by the enquiry officer, it is found that the
workman has made the endorsement “KAPI PRAPTA
KIYA” and signed the same. Such endorsement clearly
shows the copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the
workman.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
535
10.
It is also found from record that the order of
punishment was passed against the workman by the
Disciplinary Authority and not the Appellate Authority
and as per the practice in vogue, the recommendation about
the proposed punishment was submitted for approval of
the General Manager (MA).
As the facts and circumstances of the present case
are quite different from the facts and circumstances of the
cases referred in the decisions cited by the learned advocate
for the workman, with respect, I am of the view that the
said decisions have no clear application to the case in
hand.
11.
In view of the submissions made by the learned
advocate for the parties, I think it apropos to mention the
principles settled by the Hon’ble Apex court in a string of
decisions including the decisions cited by the learned
advocate for the party No.1 regarding the jurisdiction and
the power of the Tribunal in regard to interference with
the findings and punishment in a departmental enquiry.
It is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that:-
“The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with
the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be
equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal
cannot interfere with the findings of the enquiry
officer or competent authority where they are not
arbitrary or utterly perverse. The power to impose
penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the
competent authority either by an Act of legislature
or rules made under the proviso to Art.309 of the
Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent
with the rules and in accordance with principles of
natural justice what punishment would meet the ends
of justice is a matter exclusively within the
jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty
can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the
proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to
substitute its own discretion for that of the authority.
The adequacy of penalty unless it is mala fide is
certainly not a matter for the Tribunal to concern
itself with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with
the penalty if the conclusion of the enquiry officer
or the competent authority is based on evidence
even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or
extraneous to the matter.”
It is also settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that:-
“A review of the above legal position would
establish that the disciplinary authority and on
appeal, the appellate authority, being fact finding
authorities have exclusive power to consider the
evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They
are invested with the discretion to impose
appropriate punishment keeping in view the
magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High
Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial
review, cannot normally substitute its own
conclusion on penalty and impose some other
penalty. If the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority or the appellate authority
shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal,
it would appropriately mould the relief, either
directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to
reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the
litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases,
impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons
in support thereof.”
In departmental proceedings, the disciplinary
authority is the sole judge of facts and in case an appeal is
presented to the appellate authority, the appellate authority
has also the power/and jurisdiction to re-appreciate the
evidence and come to its own conclusion, on facts, being
the sole fact-finding authorities. Once findings of fact,
based on appreciation of evidence are recorded, the High
Court in writ jurisdiction may not normally interfere with
those factual findings unless it finds that the recorded
findings were based either on no evidence or that the
findings were wholly perverse and/or legally untenable.
The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not
permitted to be canvassed before the High Court. Since
the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over
the factual findings recorded during departmental
proceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review,
the High Court cannot, normally speaking, substitute its
own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of the delinquent,
for that of the departmental authorities. Even insofar as
imposition of penalty or punishment is concerned, unless
the punishment or penalty imposed by the disciplinary or
the departmental appellate authority, is either impermissible
or such that it shocks the conscience of the High Court, it
should not normally substitute its own opinion and impose
some other punishment or penalty. Both the learned Single
Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, it appears,
ignored the well-settled principle that even though judicial
review of administrative action must remain flexible and
its dimension not closed, yet the Court, in exercise of the
power of judicial review, is not concerned with the
correctness of the findings of fact on the basis of which
the orders are made so long as those findings are
reasonably supported by evidence and have been arrived
at through proceedings which cannot be faulted with for
procedural illegalities or irregularities which vitiate the
process by which the decision was arrived at. Judicial
review, it must be remembered, is directed not against the
decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision-
making process.”
It is also settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that:-
“A review of the above legal position would
establish that the disciplinary authority and on
appeal, the appellate authority, being fact finding
authorities have exclusive power to consider the
evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They
536
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.”
It is also settled beyond doubt that departmental
enquiry is not bound by strict rules of Evidence Act, but
by fair play and natural justice. Only total absence, but
not sufficiency of evidence before Tribunal is ground for
interference. If the enquiry has been properly held the
question of adequacy or reliability of evidence cannot be
canvassed before the court and in a departmental enquiry,
penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a
finding recorded on the basis of “preponderance of
probability”.
12.
Judging the present case in hand with the touch
stone of the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble apex
Court as mentioned above, it is found that the Enquiry
Officer has based his findings on the evidence on record
of the enquiry, after properly analyzing the evidence and
the Enquiry Officer has also assigned cogent reasons in
support of his findings. It is also found that this is not a
case of no evidence at all or that the findings of the enquiry
Officer are totally against the whole body of the evidence
on record of the enquiry. Hence, the findings of the
Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be perverse.
13.
So far the proportionality of the punishment is
concerned, commission of grave misconduct under clauses
18(i)(a) and 18(i)(o) of the Certified Standing order has
been proved against the workman in a properly conducted
departmental enquiry against him. Hence, the punishment
of dismissal from service cannot be said to be shockingly
disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct
committed by him. Hence, there is no scope to interfere
with the punishment imposed against the workman. Hence,
it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management in relation to New
Majri U/G Sub Area of Western Coalfields Ltd. in
dismissing Shri Iqbal Hasan S/o Imamuddin, U/G loader
vide office order No. WCL/NMUGSA/PER/93/922 dated
13/17.05.1993 is legal and justified. The workman is not
entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 tuojh] 2015
dk-vk- 217-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u cSad
vkWiQ bafM;k ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqcaèk esa 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
307@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
23@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@75@99&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd January, 2015
S.O. 217.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 307/
1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the
Union Bank of India, and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 23/12/2014.
[No. L-12011/75/99-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. 307 OF 1999.
PARTIES :
The General Secretary,
Union Bank Employees’ Association, Bihar State,
C/O Union Bank of India, Frazer Road, Abhay
Bhawan, Patna, Bihar.
Versus
Asst. General Manager,
Union Bank of India, Regional Office,
Nasheman, Mazhrul Haque
Path, Patna.
Ministry’s Order No L-12011/75/99 IR (B-II) dt.27.10.1999
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman/Union : None.
On behalf of the Management
:
Mr. D. K. Verma
Ld. Adv.
State : Bihar
:
Industry Banking
Dated, Dhanbad, the 18th Dec., 2014.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
537
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-12011/75/99-IR (B-II) dt. 27.10.1999.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of Union
Bank of India, Patna in not paying the officiating
allowance as per terms of Bipartite Settlement dated
19.10.1966 & 8.11.1973 to Peon/Armed Guard and
part time Sweepers for doing clerical work was not
justified? If so, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2
Neither Union representative for the Union Bank
Employees’ Association, Bihar State, and nor workman
appeared nor any witness on behalf of the workman
produced, though Mr. D. K.Verma, Ld. Advocate for the
OP/Management is present.
On perusal of the case record, I find in the present
Reference which is related to an issue over non-payment
of officiating allowance to the Pen/Armed Guard and Part
Time Sweepers for performing their clerical work, the
Union/Representative had failed to produce any witness
in support of their case, so it was closed on the very
28th Sept, 2005 and since thereafter the case has been
running for the evidence of the OP/Management which is
in my view quite useless to proceed with, because the
onus of poof lying upon the Union concerned to prove it
could not be effected.However,twice Regd.notices
dtt.30.6.14 and 6.8.14 were issued to the General Secretary
of the Union concerned for his appearance. The Union
Representative by his conduct appear to be quite reluctant
to contest the case. Hence the case is closed as no
Industrial Dispute existing. Accordingly an order of No
Dispute Award is passed.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2015
dk-vk- 218-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 23@2013) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@01@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@53@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 27th January, 2015
S.O. 218.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Bank,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 27/01/2015.
[No. L-12011/53/2012-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR
COURT, CHENNAI
Friday, the 16th January, 2015
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 23/2013
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947),
between the Management of Indian Bank and their
workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner
Indian Bank Employees
Union
Association (T. Nadu)
17, Ameerjan Street
Choolaimedu
Chennai-600094
AND
The Asstt. General Manager
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Indian Bank, Zonal Office
Katpadi Road
Vellore
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/
:
Sri G. Gopal, Authorized
Petitioner Union
Representative
For the 2nd Party/
:
M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.,
Respondent
Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/53/2012-IR (B-II)
dated 01.02.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the action of the Management of Indian
Bank, Chennai in imposing the punishment of
Compulsory Retirement from service upon Sri G.
Soundarajan, Part-Time Sweeper, Ranipet Industrial
538
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Complex Branch vide order dated 30.01.2010 is legal
and justified? To what extent the workman is entitled
to relief?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 23/2013 and issued notices to both
sides. The petitioner entered appearance through
Authorized Representative and the Respondent through
the counsel and filed claim and counter statement
respectively.
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are these :
The petitioner is a registered union having
substantial following among the workmen of the
Respondent Bank. The union takes up genuine grievances
of its members working in the bank. Soundarajan, Part-
Time Sweeper of Ranipet Industrial Complex Branch of
the Respondent was issued a Charge Sheet on 27.04.2009
alleging that he had removed cash from the Cash Counter.
Before issuing charge sheet Soundarajan was placed under
suspension. As per the Charge Sheet Soundarajan is
alleged to have removed a bundle of Rs. 10/- denomination
from the drawer of the Single Window Operator on
19.03.2009. Rs. 10,000/- is said to have been given to
Elizabeth Sundar, the Single Window Operator of the period
by a customer for changing to Rs. 10/- denomination. He
had agreed to come and collect the notes in the evening.
The Single Window Operator is said to have exchanged
the notes to Rs. 10/- denomination notes and kept it at the
drawer of the counter. In the evening she forgot to take
the amount before leaving the branch. On the next day
morning when she opened the drawer the bundle was
found missing. On 21.03.2009, Soundarajan is said to have
entrusted the amount to the Manager who in turn handed
it over to Elizabeth Sundar, the Single Window Operator.
Subsequently, the bank has issued Charge Sheet alleging
that Soundarajan has removed the bundle. A domestic
enquiry was conducted and Soundarajan was found guilty
of the charges. The punishment of Compulsory Retirement
from service was imposed on Soundarajan by the
Disciplinary Authority. Though, appeal was filed by
Soundarajan against the order, Appellate Authority upheld
the order of Disciplinary Authority. Soundarajan has not
committed any misconduct. Soundarajan who found the
amount in the Cash Cabin thought that it is the personal
amount of Single Window Operator and took it and kept it
in safe custody. Soundarajan was on leave on 20.03.2009.
When he reached the branch on 21.03.2009 he was
informed of the missing of the cash and he immediately
remembered about the cash kept by him and returned it to
the Manager. This would show that Soundarajan had no
intention to commit any fraud. There is no justification in
imposing the punishment on Soudarajan. An order may be
passed setting aside the punishment of Compulsory
Retirement from service.
4.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as follows :
On 19.03.2009, Mr. Elizabeth Sundar was working as
Single Window Operator. According to her one
Shivashaktivelan, a customer of the Bank had tendered
Rs. 10,000/- to her for fresh currency in the denomination
of Rs. 10/- and had told her that he would collect the amount
in the evening. She got the notes of Rs. 10/- denomination
and kept it in the drawer of the Counter at which she was
working. The customer had not turned up in the evening
and the Single Window Operator had forgotten to take the
amount from the counter drawer before she left the Branch.
On 20.03.2009 she found that the cash kept in the drawer
was missing. Soundarajan had not reported for work on
that day. On 21.03.2009 when the Branch Manager reached
the branch at 07.30 in the morning Soundarajan also had
reached there. When he was questioned about his coming
for work early, he informed that Elizabeth Sundar had
requested to search the entire branch while cleaning the
premises. By about 08.00 AM Soundarajan called the
Branch Manager and pointed out a bundle of fresh
currency of Rs. 10,000/- wrapped in a carry bag lying inside
the cupboard near the server room. The Manager collected
the amount and handed it over to Elizabeth Sundar at 10.00
AM. While reviewing the CCTV recording of 19.03.2009
on 21.03.2009 it was observed that Soundarajan had
entered the Cash Cabin at about 05.05 PM and removed
the bundle from the Cash Cabin. He admitted before the
other staff that he had removed the cash from the place
where it was kept. On the same day the Branch Manager
sent a report to the Circle Office. An investigation was
conducted and charge sheet was issued to Soundarajan
on the basis of the Investigation Report. After enquiry the
punishment of compulsory retirement from service was
imposed on Soundarajan. He had received the Gratuity
and PF amount due to him. The petitioner is not entitled to
any relief.
5.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence
of WW1 and documentary evidence marked as Ext.W1 to
Ext.W12 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M13
6.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the action of the Respondent in
imposing the punishment of Compulsory
Retirement on Soundarajan is legal and
justified?
(ii)
What, if any is the relief to which Soundarajan
is entitled?”
The Points
7.
The Petitioner Union has raised the dispute on behalf
of Soundarajan, a member of the Union. Soundarajan had
been working as Part-Time Sweeper at Ranipet Industrial
Complex Branch of the Respondent. A charge sheet dated
27.04.2009 was issued to him alleging that on 19.03.2009
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
539
he had fraudulently removed a bundle of Rs. 10,000/- from
the drawer of the counter of Single Window Operator. On
enquiry Soundarajan was found guilty of the charges
against him and the punishment of Compulsory Retirement
from service was imposed on him.
8.
The stand of the Petitioner Union as well as
Soundarajan, the concerned workman is that he happened
to find the money in the drawer of the Single Window
Operator and he took the money and kept it in a safe place
to be handed over to Single Window Operator. According
to them, only because Soundarajan was on leave on
20.03.2009 it could not be entrusted to Elizabeth Sundar,
the Single Window Operator. It is also the case of the
petitioner that the confession statement which is relied
upon by the Enquiring Authority was obtained by threat
and force and it is not a voluntary one.
9.
The General Secretary of the Union has been
examined before this Tribunal as WW1. Soundarajan the
affected person has not come forward to give evidence
here. WW1 seems to have given evidence in the capacity
as the General Secretary of the Union. He had nothing to
do with the incident. He did not even defend Soundarajan
in the enquiry proceedings. Someone else was defending
Soundarajan.
10.
On the basis of the report given by the Branch Manager
to the Circle Office after the incident, an investigation was
conducted. It was based on the investigation report, charge
sheet was issued to Soundarajan and an enquiry was
conducted on the charge against him. In the enquiry
proceedings the Management had examined the
Investigating Officer and also two Daftaries of the Branch.
The Manager of the Branch, Elizabeth Sundar, the Single
Window Operator and another staff of the Bank were
examined on the side of the charge sheeted employee.
The charge sheeted employee also has given evidence.
11.
As already stated, Soundarajan, the concerned
workman had admitted that he has taken the money from
the drawer of the Single Window Operator’s counter.
However, his stand is that it was for safe keeping he had
removed the bundle. On the other hand, according to the
Management this is only a ploy on the part of the workman.
The stand of the bank is that the concerned workman
decided to return the money when he came to know about
the intention of the Manager to review the CCTV recording
of 19.03.2009.
12.
The witnesses on the side of the Management as
well as on the side of the workman have given evidence
on what happened after Elizabeth Sundar reported that
the money is found missing. Elizabeth Sundar examined
as DW1 has stated that when cash was found missing,
she was in tension and she had discussed the matter and
the incident had become known to the entire branch. She
has further stated that the bundle put in the drawer had
RBI wrapper. When she received it back also it had the
same RBI wrapper. DW3, the Manager had stated that
he has written to the Vigilance Officer about the incident
on 29.03.2009. The incident was reported to him on
20.03.2009 morning. They have searched the entire branch
for the money. On 21.03.2009 he had reached the office by
07.30 AM. The concerned workman came to the office by
07.45 AM. The Manager asked him why he was so early
on the day and he was told that Elizabeth Sundar had
requested him to search the entire premises for the money.
By 08.00 AM the concerned workman informed the
Manager that he found the bundle of currency from the
table adjoining the system room. Even though the cash
was found he wanted to know how the cash was removed
from the particular place. So he reviewed the CCTV
recording of 19.03.2009 and found the concerned workman
entering the cabin at 08.00 PM and removing the bundle.
However, where the workman had kept the bundle could
not be seen as it was not within the focus of CCTV. MW1
and MW2, the Daftries also were with him when he
viewed the CCTV recording. On noticing that the bundle
was removed by the concerned workman, they took him to
the record room and enquired with him. After 10 minutes
they came back to the Manager and informed him that the
concerned workman had admitted that he had removed
the cash.
13.
The evidence given by MW1 and MW2, the two
Daftries are regarding their viewing the CCTV recording
and on how the concerned workman had admitted that he
had removed the bundle. MW3, the Investigating Officer
had deposed that the CCTV was played to him also and he
had noticed the concerned workman removing the bundle
by about 08.00 PM on 19.03.2009. DW2, the armed guard
of the Branch had deposed that it was the practice of the
concerned workman to pick up and hand over any missing
piece found in the Currency Chest while cleaning the area.
Soundarajan himself examined as DW4 has stated that on
19.03.2009 he had opened the drawer to put a pad or paper
inside. According to him, he used to put in the cupboard
whatever things found in the floor during cleaning. He
deposed that he used to reach the branch daily by 0730
AM and not at 0900 AM as deposed by the Branch
Manager. He has stated that he had handed over the cash
bundle to the Manager on the morning of 21.03.2009.
According to him on seeing the CCTV recording, MW2
had told him that he has removed the cash from the
cupboard and he is to give confession letter to the Branch
Manager.
14.
The witnesses seem to have given statement to the
Investigation Officer. The examination of these witnesses
were based on the statements. It is clear from this that a
search was made for the bundle on 20.03.2009 and still it
could not be found. It is also clear that the concerned
workman had handed over the cash bundle to the Branch
Manager on 21.03.2009 by 08.00 AM.
540
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15.
The petitioner challenges the finding of the Enquiry
Officer justifying the conduct of the concerned workman
stating that he has taken away the cash bundle with the
good intention of keeping it safely and it was not a
fraudulent act on his part. Will the available evidence and
circumstances justify such a conclusion? It is very much
clear that the concerned workman entered the counter of
the Single Window Operator at 08.00 PM and it was on
this occasion he had removed the cash bundle. It has
come out during the evidence of Branch Manager that
while viewing the CCTV recording it was noticed that the
concerned workman had entered the counter of the Single
Window Operator by about 05.05 PM also. Initially it was
thought that the removal of the cash bundle was done by
the concerned workman at this time. However, further
playing of the CCTV recording had revealed that the
concerned workman had entered the counter at 08.00 PM
also and actual removal of the cash bundle was done at
this occasion. Though none of the witnesses have stated
whether the Single Window Operator herself was at the
counter at 05.05 PM when the concerned workman entered
the counter, the assumption to be made is that she had
already left by this time. It is clear that the concerned
workman who opened the drawer had noticed the cash
bundle at that time and had later returned to the counter
and had removed the cash bundle. The evidences and
circumstances would reveal that it was a deliberate act on
the part of the concerned workman and not an act with the
bonafide intention of keeping the amount in safe custody.
For one thing, a person who is working as Part-Time
Sweeper, even though he was at times employed by the
Single Window Operator to accompany her while carrying
cash, is not expected to meddle with the drawer in the
counter of Single Window Operator. The drawer is under
the custody of the Single Window Operator and he had
no right to open the same. Even though the Single Window
Operator had been negligent enough in not keeping the
drawer locked, still the place was safe enough and the
bundle would have remained in the drawer until next day,
till the arrival of the operator for work in the next morning.
There was no necessity for the concerned workman to
remove the same. Even as stated by the concerned
workman his habit was to put papers and other things
found at the floor in the cupboard. He was not in the habit
of carrying them away. So there was no necessity to remove
the bundle at all.
16.
There are other circumstances also which would
reveal the malafide intention of the concerned workman.
What he found on the particular day was not a paper or
pad or some other thing which are not of much importance.
If the case that he had removed the bundle with the
bonafide intention is accepted it was incumbent upon him
to inform the Single Window Operator of the same. At the
time of the removal, necessarily the Manager or some other
responsible person would have been available at the Bank.
If the intention was bonafide the concerned workman
would have entrusted the bundle with any of them, rather
than keeping it aside. At least he would have informed
them of the find. Even assuming that the concerned
workman had kept it safely, on the next day when he has
decided to take leave he would have informed the Single
Window Operator that he has removed the bundle and
kept it in the particular place. Having been an employee of
the Bank for several years naturally he would have known
what would have been the pandemonium in the Bank when
it was noticed that the money is missing. He kept silence
for the entire day.
17.
Another circumstance that points against the
concerned workman is his early arrival on the next day.
The Manager has deposed that the concerned workman
used to reach the bank only at 0900 AM usually and he
was doing most of the work only in the evening. So it is
clear that the concerned workman had got information
about the happenings in the branch about the missing
bundle. What he told the Manager is that Elizabeth Sundar,
the Single Window Operator had requested him to search
the premises for the money while he is doing the cleaning.
However, the evidence given by Elizabeth Sundar is that
though a search was made in the entire premises she did
not contact the concerned workman or make any request
to make a search. The concerned workman himself has no
case in his confessional statement that anyone enquired
with him. This makes it clear that the concerned workman
had reached the office early not for the purpose of making
a search. The Manager had stated during his examination
that on 20.03.2009 itself he had made known that he will be
viewing the CCTV and the petitioner must have come to
know about this also. He apprehended the danger of his
removal of the bundle being viewed in the recording of
CCTV.
18.
After CCTV was viewed the concerned workman
was taken aside and questioned. The evidence given by
MWs 1 and 2 is that he has admitted that he had removed
the bundle. Even without the admission it is clear that he
had removed the bundle. The case of the workman is that
pressure was exercised on him to make the confession.
There is no specific case for the workman that it was by
threat and coercion that he was made to confess. He has
not cared to give evidence before this Tribunal. The
evidence given by the General Secretary regarding the
incident is not of any consequence in so far as he had
nothing to do with the incident. It was clearly a case of
removal of the bundle from the drawer of the Single Window
Operator’s counter. The bundle was returned only when
the concerned workman came to know that the CCTV
recording will reveal his malafide act. The Enquiry Officer
had every justification in finding the charges against the
concerned workman proved.
19.
There is no necessity to interfere with the
punishment imposed on the concerned workman also.
Rather than the major punishment of removal from service,
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
541
Compulsory Retirement from service which is a lesser one
has been imposed on the concerned workman. This
commensurate with the offence for which he is found guilty.
The concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.
20.
In view of my findings above, the reference is
answered against the petitioner. An award is passed
accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/
:
WW1, Sri K. Krishnan
Petitioner Union
For the 2nd Party/
:
None
Management
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
21.03.2009
Letter from Branch Manager,
Ranipet to Circle Office, Vellore
regarding personal cash missing
from Branch Premises
Ex.W2
31.03.2009
Preliminary Investigation Report
with Annexures 1 to 7
Ex.W3
27.04.2009
Charge Sheet CO/VLR/VIG/F339/
198/2009 issued to Sri G.
Soundarajan by Indian Bank,
Circle Office, Vellore
Ex.W4
04.05.2009
Letter from Sri G. Soundarajan
(CSE) to Circle Office, Vellore
protesting his suspension and
denying charges against him
Ex.W5
13.10.2009
Written submission by Sri G.
Soundarajan in the domestic
enquiry
Ex.W6
22.12.2009
Comments by Sri G. Soundarajan
(CSE) on the findings of the
Enquiry Officer’s Report
Ex.W7
30.01.2010
Order CO/VLR/VIG/F339/028/2010
of the Disciplinary Authority
imposing punishment
Ex.W8
06.03.2010
Appeal letter by G. Soundarajan
(CSE) to the Appellate Authority
against the punishment imposed
on him by the Disciplinary
Authority
Ex.W9
03.12.2010
Order HRM/DPC/724/2010-11
confirming the punishment
imposed on CSE
Ex.W10
04.05.2011
Letter IBEA/GEN/81/2010-13 by
the Union to the Asstt. Labour
Commissioner
raising
an
Industrial Dispute against the
punishment
Ex.W11
30.01.2012
Rejoinder by the Union for the
above letter dated 09.06.2011
Ex.W12
09.09.2009
Domestic Enquiry Proceedings
and other
dates
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.M1
09.04.2009
Letter from bank placing G.
Soundararajan under Suspension
Ex.M2
18.07.2009
Letter appointing Mr. S.
Bagyanathan as Enquiry Officer
Ex.M3
18.07.2009
Letter appointing Mr. A. Kalyana
Raman as Presenting Officer
Ex.M4
09.08.2009
Letter from G. Soundararajan
authorizing
Mr.
C.
Baladhandayudhapani as his
Defence Representative
Ex.M5
01.10.2009
Letter from EO to Mrs. Elizabeth
Sundar
Ex.M6
01.10.2009
Letter from EO to Mr. E. Chitti Babu
Ex.M7
01.10.2009
Letter from EO to Mr. M.
Narayanasamy
Ex.M8
09.04.2009
Letter from EO to Mr. G.
Soundararajan
Ex.M9
01.10.2009
Letter from EO to Mr. R.
Sivasakthivelan
Ex.M10
-
Statement of Mr. G. Soundararajan
before Mr. S. Bagyanathan
Ex.M11
19.11.2009
Findings of Enquiry Officer Mr. S.
Bagyanathan
Ex.M12
19.01.2010
Second Show Cause Notice to
Mr. G. Soundararajan proposing
punishment and offering personal
hearing on 25.01.2010
Ex.M13
25.01.2010
Proceedings of personal hearing
and Mr. G. Soundararajan’s written
representation
before
the
Disciplinary Authority.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2015
dk-vk- 219-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fczfV'k ,vjost
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
542
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 126@2014)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28@01@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&11012@39@2014&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 28th January, 2015
S.O. 219.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 126/2014)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of The Regional HR
Management, British Airways, and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 28/01/2015.
[No. L-11012/39/2014-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, CHENNAI
Tuesday, the 12th January, 2015
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 126/2014
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947),
between the Management of British Airways and their
workman)
BETWEEN :
Sri Sathish Loganathan
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1. The Regional HR Management
:
2nd Party/1st
British Airways
Respondent
South Asia, DLF Plaza Tower,
DLF City Phase-I, Gurgaon,
Haryana-122022
2. The Customer Service Manager
:
2nd Party/2nd
British Airways
Respondent
No. 3 & 4, New Integrated
Air Cargo Complex
Meenambakkam, Chennai-600027
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Respondent :
None
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-11012/39/2014-IR (CM-I)
dated 28.10.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the action of the management of British
Airways regarding termination of the service of the
petitioner, Sri Sathish Loganathan is justifiable or
not? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled
to?”
2.
The petitioner has entered appearance in the ID on
notice.
3.
The petitioner does not want to proceed with the ID
as a similar matter filed by him directly on the same subject
is pending before this Tribunal as ID 93/2014. The petitioner
has made endorsement to this effect. So there is no need
to proceed with this ID.
4.
Accordingly the ID is closed. An award is passed to
this effect.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents marked:
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
N/A
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
N/A
ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2015
dk-vk- 220-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fczfV'k ,vjost
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 127@2014)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28@01@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&11012@38@2014&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 28th January, 2015
S.O. 220.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 127/
2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
543
Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of The
Regional HR Management, British Airways, and their
workman, received by the Central Government on
28/01/2015.
[No. L-11012/38/2014-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR
COURT, CHENNAI
Monday, the 12th January, 2015
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 127/2014
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947),
between the Management of British Airways and their
workman)
BETWEEN :
Smt. T. Jenifer Prasanna Kumari
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1. The Regional HR Management
:
2nd Party/1st
British Airways
Respondent
South Asia, DLF Plaza Tower,
DLF City Phase-I, Gurgaon,
Haryana-122022
2. The Customer Service Manager
:
2nd Party/2nd
British Airways
Respondent
No. 3 & 4, New Integrated
Air Cargo Complex
Meenambakkam, Chennai-600027
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Respondent :
None
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-11012/38/2014-IR (CM-I)
dated 28.10.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the action of the management of British
Airways regarding the termination of the service of
the petitioner, Ms. T. Jenifer Prasanna Kumari is
justifiable or not? To what relief the concerned
workman is entitled to?”
2.
The petitioner has entered appearance in the ID on
notice.
3.
The petitioner does not want to proceed with the ID
as a similar matter filed by her directly on the same subject
is pending before this Tribunal as ID 91/2014. The petitioner
has made endorsement to this effect. So there is no need
to proceed with this ID.
4.
Accordingly the ID is closed. An award is passed to
this effect.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
N/A
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
N/A
ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2015
dk-vk- 221-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dekaMsaV ,oa
eq[; izf'k{kd] Hkkjrh; lSU; vdkneh] nsgjknwu 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] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 23@13) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@01@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&14012@12@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 30th January, 2015
S.O. 221.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 23/13) of
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Commandant and Chief Trainer, Indian
Military Academy, Dehradun, and their workmen, which
was received by the Central Government on 29/01/2015.
[No. L-14012/12/2012-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
544
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT - II, DELHI
Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No. 23/13
Sh. Shamshad Ali,
S/o Sh. Mazsood Ali,
Nanda ki Chowki, PO: Chandrabani, Dehradun
Versus
The Commandant and Chief Trainer,
Indian Military Academy,
Dehradun,
Ex-parte AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
vide notification No L-14012/12/2012(IR(DU)) dated
28.02.2013 referred the following industrial Dispute to this
tribunal for adjudication :-
“Whether the action of the management of Indian
Military Academy, Dehradun in terminating the
services of Sh. Shamshad Ali, Cycle Repairer w.e.f.
01.03.2012 in violation of provisions of Section 25 F,
G, H of ID Act, 1947 is unjustified? If so, what relief
the workman is entitled to?
On 2.4.2013 reference was received in this tribunal.
Which was register as I.D No. 23/13 and claimant was
called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days
from date of service of notice. Which was required to be
accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses
After service of notice workman/claimant Sh.
Shamshad Ali filed claim statement on 23.05.2013 in this
tribunal. Wherein he prayed as follows:-
(i)
An Award be made in favour of the workman
and against the management for regular
appointment on the basis of long work
experience of bicycle repairer.
(ii)
To reinstate on the post bicycle repairer.
(iii)
Back wages be granted.
(iv)
Any other relief , if court thinks fit.
10.07.2013 was fixed for filing written statement but
inspite of service management filed no written statement.
So case proceeded ex-parte against management on
30.12.2013.
Claimant in support of his case filed affidavit in his
evidence on 18.02.2014 alongwith certain Photostat copies
of documents. He tendered his affidavit alongwith annexed
Photostat copies of documents on 28.04.2014.
None appear to cross-examine the workman as case
proceeded ex-parte against management.
I have heard the arguments of Ld. A/R of the
workman at length and perused the record.
In the light of contentions of Ld. AR for the workman
I perused the pleadings in claim statement and evidence
of workman on record which shows that evidence of
workman is unrebutted evidence. So it comes within the
ambit of reliable and credible evidence.
On the basis of evidence of workman/ claimant on
record. Claim statement is liable to be allowed but it is to
be determined what relief is to be provided to the workman/
claimant.
In the light of contentions and counter contentions
I perused the settled law of Hon’ble Supreme court on the
point of reinstatement and grant of back wages. Which
shows that reinstatement is not a necessary consequence
wherever termination is held illegal. Depending upon the
facts of each case a suitable compensation can be awarded.
In Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corporation and
Anr Vs. Gitam Singh, (2013)II LLJ 141 Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that reinstatement of workman with
continuity of service and 25% back wages was not proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case and the
compensation of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand Only)
shall meet the ends of justice. In Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana
State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr AIR 2009
Supreme Court 3004, Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus
“the award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case
where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a
year preceding the date of termination particularly, daily
wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and
instead compensation has been awarded.” In catena of
Judgments, Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a view that
reinstatement is not automatic, merely because the
termination is illegal or in contravention of S-25-F of the
Industrial Dispute Act. In Talwara Co-operative credit and
service society Limited Vs. Sushil Kumar (2008) 9 SCC
486, Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus,” grant of relief of
reinstatement, it is trite, is not automatic. Grant of back
wages is also not automatic.”
Workman of the instant case was not appointed by
following due procedure and as per rules. He had rendered
service with the respondent as a casual worker, thus,
Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only)
by way of damages as compensation to the workman/
claimant by Management after expiry of period of limitation
of available remedy against Award. That will meet the ends
of Justice.
Thus Reference is decided in favour of workman
and against Management.
Ex-parte Award is accordingly passed.
Dated:-25.11.2014
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
545
ubZ fnYyh] 3 iQjojh] 2015
dk-vk- 222-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
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; ua- 2] fnYyh
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 44@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@32@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2015
S.O. 222.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 44/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court-II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the General Manager, Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited, and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 03/02/2015.
[No. L-40012/32/2011-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No. 44/12
Sh. Manoj Kumar,
S/o Sh. Rajender,
R/o- MCF 2941/1, Sanjay Colony,
Sector-23 , Faridabad.
Versus
The General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Sector-15, Faridabad.
NO DISPUTE AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
vide notification No L-40012/32/2011-IR(DU) dated
13.01.2012 referred the following industrial Dispute to this
tribunal for adjudication :-
“Whether the contract awarded by G.M, BSNL,
Faridabad is a sham contract in nature? Whether
action taken by the management in terminating the
services of Sh. Manoj Kumar, S/o Sh. Rajender , Ex-
cable jointer, w.e.f. 23.08.2010 is just, fair and legal?
What relief the workman is entitled to and from which
date?”
On 30.1.2012 reference was received in this tribunal.
Which was register as I.D No. 44/2012 and claimant was
called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days
from date of service of notice. Which was required to be
accompanied with relevant documents and list of
witnesses.
After service of notice workman/claimant Sh. Manoj
Kumar not filed claim statement but management in
response to reference filed written statement. wherein it
mentioned as follows:-
1.
That there exists /existed no relationship of employer
and employee between the workman and the management.
The workman/claimant had never been taken into
employment by the respondent/management at any point
of time. The respondent has sufficient staff of Group ‘C’
and ‘D’ and, therefore, the respondent department does
not engage daily wagers for any work. If any petty work is
to be done then that work is done through the contractors
engaged by the respondent . A list of contractors engaged
by the respondent/department is as under:-
Name of Contractor
Period
1.
M/s. Keshav Security Service
31.08.1998 to 30.08.1999
2.
M/s. Laxman Security Service
31.08.1998 to 30.08.1999
3.
M/s. Om Prakash Bhulania
1.02.2001 to 31.01.2002
4.
M/s. Keshav Security Service
2.02.2001 to 1.02.2002
5.
M/s. Keshav Security Service
21.10.2002 to 20.10.2003
6.
M/s. Anirudh Security Service
2.09.2002 to 15.09.2004
7.
M/s. Keshav Security Service
1.08.2003 to 31.07.2004
8.
M/s. Keshav Security Service
23.03.2005 to 31.08.2008
9.
M/s. Kishan Singh and Associates 1.11.2007 to 31.10.2008
10. M/s. Kishan Singh and Associates 1.02.2009 to 31.01.2010
11. M/s. Keshav Security Service
1.08.2010 to 31.07.2011
12. M/s. Mgarock Security Service
11.09.2006 to 10.09.2007
2.
That the workman has no locus standie to file the
instant claim before this Hon’ble Tribunal.
3.
That the claim of the workman is not maintainable as
it is false, bogus and vexatious and has been filed by the
workman with malafide intention and oblique motive.
4.
That the workman /claimant has not come before
this Hon’ble Tribunal with clean hands and he has filed
the false and fabricated claim before this Hon’bl Tribunal.
REPLY PARAWISE
1.
That the contents of para No.1 of the claim statement
are absolutely wrong, incorrect and hence vehemently
denied. It is wrong and denied that the workman joined
the management on 05.01.2004 as Cable Joinder at the
monthly salary of Rs. 1,650/- and it was increased time to
546
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
time and lastly drawn salary by workman was Rs. 3,500/-
per month. It is submitted that the workman had never
been taken into employment by the management and there
exists/existed no relationship of employer and employee
between the workman and the management. Since the
workman never joined the management , therefore, there
is no question of paying any salary to workman as alleged.
The respondent has sufficient staff of Group ‘C’ and ‘D’
and, therefore, the respondent department does not engage
daily wagers for any work. If any petty work is to be done
then that work is done through the contractor engaged by
the respondent and a list of contractor engaged by the
respondent/BSNL is as under:-
Name of Contractor
Period
1.
M/s. Keshav Security Service
31.08.1998 to 30.08.1999
2.
M/s. Laxman Security Service
31.08.1998 to 30.08.1999
3.
M/s. Om Prakash Bhulania
1.02.2001 to 31.01.2002
4.
M/s. Keshav Security Service
2.02.2001 to 1.02.2002
5.
M/s. Keshav Security Service
21.10.2002 to 20.10.2003
6.
M/s. Anirudh Security Service
2.09.2002 to 15.09.2004
7.
M/s. Keshav Security Service
1.08.2003 to 31.07.2004
8.
M/s. Keshav Security Service
23.03.2005 to 31.08.2008
9.
M/s. Kishan Singh and Associates 1.11.2007 to 31.10.2008
10. M/s. Kishan Singh and Associates 1.02.2009 to 31.01.2010
11. M/s. Keshav Security Service
1.08.2010 to 31.07.2011
12. M/s. Mgarock Security Service
11.09.2006 to 10.09.2007
2.
That the contents of para No.2 of the claim statement
are absolutely wrong, incorrect and hence vehemently
denied. Since the workman never worked under the
employment of the management , therefore, the allegation
of the workman as to his work and conduct is wrong and
denied.
3.
That the contents of para No.3 of the claim statement
are absolutely wrong, incorrect and hence vehemently
denied. Since the workman never joined the management ,
therefore, the allegation of the workman as to his work
and conduct is wrong and denied.
4.
That the contents of para No.4 of the claim statement,
it is submitted that since the workman never worked under
the employment of management therefore, there is no
question of providing any facility of P.F. ESI, Holiday
Leave, bonus, overtime etc. to the workman as alleged
and there was no requirement to the management to shunt
out the workman from its office/establishment as alleged.
The workman may be put to strict proof in support of
pleadings made by him in this para.
5.
That the contents of para No.5 of the claim statement
are absolutely wrong, incorrect and hence vehemently
denied. It is wrong and denied that on 23.08.2010 when
the workman was on duty, the management not only
misbehaved but turned out him from the job, without
assigning any reason or without any notice, illegally which
is clear violation of Section 25-F of Industial Disputes
Act, 1947. It is submitted that the management has not
violated any provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 as alleged. Since the workman never
worked at any point of time under the employment of
management , therefore, there is no question of any duty
by the workman and further there is no question of turning
out the workman from job as alleged. All the allegations
leveled in this para by the workman are nothing allegations
leveled in this para by the workman are nothing but a false
and concocted story made out by the workman. Therefore,
the workman may be put to strict proof in support of
allegations made in this para.
6.
That the contents of para No.6 of the claim statement
are absolutely wrong, incorrect and hence vehemently
denied. Since the workman never under the employment
of the management at any point of time, therefore, there is
no question of giving any hearing or notice/show cause
by the management as alleged.
7.
That the contents of para No.7 of the claim statement
are absolutely wrong, incorrect and hence vehemently
denied. Since the workman never worked under the
employment of the management , therefore, there is no
question of paying any salary to the workman as alleged.
8.
That the contents of para No.8 of the claim statement
are absolutely wrong, incorrect and hence vehemently
denied. As submitted above, the workman is not entitled
for any salary and other benefits as alleged.
9.
That the contents of para No.9 of the claim statement
are absolutely wrong, incorrect and hence vehemently
denied. The reply of foregoing paras may be read in reply
to this para. The workman never approached to the
management as alleged.
10.
That the contents of para No. 10 of the claim
statement are not disputed to the extent of sending a
demand notice to the management by the workman , being
a matter of record. But the contents of said demand notice
are absolutely false, incorrect and hence vehemently
denied. Since the workman never worked under the
employment of management, therefore there was no
question of complying with the notice.
11.
That the contents of para No.11 of the claim statement
are absolutely wrong, incorrect and hence vehemently
denied. Since the workman had never taken into
employment by the management and there exists/existed
no relationship of employer and employee between the
workman and the management, therefore, the workman is
not entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity of
service, full back wages alongwith consequential relief as
alleged in this para.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
547
12.
That the contents of para No.12 of the claim statement
are absolutely wrong, incorrect and hence vehemently
denied. It is submitted that reply of foregoing paras may
be read in reply to this para. It is, however, submitted that
the workman is gainfully employed.
REPLY TO PRAYER
The contents of this para of the claim statement are
absolutely wrong, incorrect and hence vehemently denied.
The claim of the workman is false, vexatious and bogus
and same has been filed by the workman with malafide
intention and oblique motive.
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that in view of
preliminary objections taken above and in view of reply
parawise, the claim of the workman may be dismissed with
costs.
On the basis of non-interestedness of workman. The
proceeding of this case is not liable to be proceeded further.
Hence proceedings of the case are liable to be dropped
and no dispute award is liable to be passed.
No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.
Dated:-28.1.2015
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 iQjojh] 2015
dk-vk- 223-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vEcqtk
lhesaV~l fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] paMhx< ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 19@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
23@01@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&29011@9@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th February, 2015
S.O.
223.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 19/2014)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. Ambuja Cements Limited, and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 23/01/2015.
[No. L-29011/9/2014-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present : Sri KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. 19/2014
Registered on 23.7.2005
Ambuja Cement Workers Union,
Daburji, Ropar.
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Jt. President,
Ambuja Cement Ltd.,
Duburji,
Ropar.
2. Managing Director,
Ambuja Cement Ltd.,
Elegant Business Park,
MIDC Cross Road B,
Off Andheri K Road,
Andheri East City-Mumbai
State-Maharashtra-400059.
...Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
Ex parte
For the Management
Sh. Pawan Mutneja Adv.
AWARD
Passed on-24.12.2014
Central Government vide Notification No. L-29011/
9/2014-IR(M) Dated 9.7.2014, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d) and sub-
section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management of Ambuja
Cement Ltd.,Ropar in not considering any of the
demands raised vide letter dated 11.6.2013 (copy
enclosed) is just, valid and legal? If not what
benefits the union/workman is entitled for and what
directions are necessary in the matter?”
On receipt of the reference, notice was issued to the
workers-Union through registered cover but none
appeared and workers-Union was proceeded against ex
parte vide order dated 14.11.2014.
Since the workers-Union was proceeded against ex
parte, no statement of claim was filed.
In the circumstances, the reference is answered
against the workers-Union. Let hard and soft copy of the
award be sent to Central Government for further necessary
action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
548
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 4 iQjojh] 2015
dk-vk- 224-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vk;y
dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] ubZ fnYyh ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 93@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 23@01@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@43@2010&vkbZvkj (,e)º
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th February, 2015
S.O.
224.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 93/2011)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court-II, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of Indian Oil Corporation Limited, and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 23/01/2015.
[No. L-30011/43/2010-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT - II,
DELHI
Present : Shri HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA
ID No. 93/11
The General Secy.,
Petroleum Employees Union (Regd.),
H. No. 1166, R Block,
Mangolpuri , New Delhi -110083.
Versus
The Chief Terminal Manager,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Terminal Bijwasan, New Delhi-110061.
NO DISPUTE AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
vide notification No. L- 30011/43/2010-IR(M) dated
18.10.2011 referred the following industrial Dispute to this
tribunal for adjudication :-
“Whether the demand of the workmen (As per list
attached) for reinstatement with full back wages is
just and fair? To what relief the workmen are entitled
and from which date?”
On 11.11.2011 reference was received in this tribunal.
Which was register as I.D No. 93/11 and claimants were
called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days
from date of service of notice.Which was required to be
accompanied with relevant documents and list of
witnesses.
Several opportunities given to workmen as well as
management but neither workmen nor management filed
claim statement/Response to the reference.
In this background there is no option to this tribunal
except to pass No Dispute Award because parties are not
interested in further progress of the case.
No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.
Dated:-27/11/2014
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 iQjojh] 2015
dk-vk- 225-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSlwj feujYl
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;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
70@2007 ,oa vU;) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
23@01@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&29012@35] 46] 54] 57] 59@2006&vkbZvkj (,e)]
la- ,y&29012@6&18] 28] 31] 33] 34] 38] 43] 52&55]
77&82@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)]
la- ,y&29012@33&36] 39&41] 43@2008&vkbZvkj (,e)º
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th February, 2015
S.O. 225.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. Common
Award C.R. No. 70/2007 & Others) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore
now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the employers in relation to the management of
Mysore Minerals Limited, and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 23/01/2015.
[No. L- 29012/35, 46, 54, 57, 59/2006-IR (M),
No. L- 29012/6-18, 28, 31, 33, 34, 38,
43, 52-55, 77-82/2007-IR (M),
No. L- 29012/33-36, 39-41, 43/2008-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
549
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
Dated : 3rd December, 2014
Present : Shri S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
C R No. 70/2007
I Party
Smt. Lakkamma, W/o Javaraiah,
Jamboor Post, Nuggehalli Hobli,
C R Patna, Tq: Hassan Dist.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road, Bangalore-560 001
C R No. 71/2007
I Party
Smt. T Lakshmamma,
W/o Late M H Thimmegowda,
Muddanahalli Village,
Jamboor Post, Nuggehalli Hobli,
C R Patna
Tq: Hassan Dist.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore-560 001
C R No. 72/2007
I Party
Smt. J Rangamma, W/o Javare Gowda,
K B Byrapura Village, Kembalu Post,
Bagur Hobli, C R Patna Taluk,
Hassan Dist.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001
C R No. 74/2007
I Party
Sir Chowdegowda,
S/o Late Kampini Gowda,
MML Worker, Hebalu Village,
Bathikere Post, Nuggehalli Hobli,
C R Patna Taluk, Hassan.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
C R No. 73/2007
I Party
Sri K Mahadeva Shetty,
S/o Late Madashetty, MML Worker,
Kelamballi Village and Post,
Kasaba Hobli,
Chamrajanagara Taluk And District
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001
C R No. 75/2007
I Party
Smt. K Parvathamma, W/o Late Vishnushetty,
Kallakere Village, Hattihalli Post,
Nuggehalli Hobli,
C R Patna Taluk, Hassan District
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001
C R No. 76/2007
I Party
Sri Sannappa, S/o Late Thammaiah Chari,
Hullikere Village, Athihalli Post,
Nuggehalli Hobli,
C R Patna Taluk, Hassan District
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001
C R No. 77/2007
I Party
Sri Thimmashetty, S/o Late Kuri Dasappa,
MML Worker, Kenkere Village And Post,
Gandasi Hobli, Arasikere Taluk,
Hassan District
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001
550
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
C R No. 78/2007
I Party
Sri D Nanjegowda, S/o Late Dasegowda,
MML Worker, Hullenahalli, Kembalu Post,
Bagur Hobli, C R Patna Taluk,
Hassan District
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001
C R No. 80/2007
I Party
Sri J Thirumalegowda, S/o Late Jade Rangegowda,
MML Worker, Hullikere Post,
Nuggehalli Hobli,
C R Patna, Hassan District
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001
C R No. 105/2007
I Party
Smt. Thimmamma, W/o Mari Gowda,
Kembal Village and Post,
Bagur Hobli,
C R Patna Taluk, Hassan District
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001
C R No. 107/2007
I Party
Smt. S Thimmamma, W/o Amase Gowda,
Kembal Village and Post,
Bagur Hobli, C R Patna Taluk,
Hassan District
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001
C R No. 109/2007
I Party
Sri Mariyappa, S/o Late Ningegowda,
N Thimalapura Village,
Nagarnavile Post, Bagur Hobli,
C R Patna Taluk, Hassan District
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001
C R No. 110/2007
I Party
Smt. Nanjamma,
W/o Late Bore Gowda,
MML Worker, Karekere Village,
Hattihalli Post,
Nuggehalli Hobli,
C R Patna, Hassan District.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
C R No. 111/2007
I Party
Smt. B Nanjamma, W/o Late Boregowda,
Hullikere Village, Hattihalli Post,
Nuggehalli Hobli,
C R Patna, Hassan District.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
C R No. 112/2007
I Party
Sri Huvappa, S/O Late Shivananjegowda,
MML Worker, K Byrapur Village,
Kembal Village and Post, Bagur Hobli,
C R Patna Tq, Hassan
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
551
C R No. 113/2007
I Party
Sri Doddegowda, S/o Late Nanjegowda,
N Thimalapura Village, Nagarnavile Post,
Bagur Hobli, C R Patna Taluk,
Hassan District.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
C R No. 114/2007
I Party
Smt. Giriyamma,
W/o Late Thimmegowda,
MML Worker, Chavenahalli Village,
Nagarnavile Post, Bagur Hobli,
C R Patna Taluk,
Hassan District.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
C R No. 115/2007
I Party
Smt. Narasamma,
W/o Late Mudalagirigowda,
Chavenahalli Village,
Nagarnavile Post, Bagur Hobli,
C R Patna Taluk,
Hassan District.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
C R No. 118/2007
I Party
Sri C Rangappa, S/o Late Hanumegowda,
Chavenahalli Village, Nagarnavile Post,
Bagur Hobli, C R Patna Taluk,
Hassan District.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
C R No. 119/2007
I Party
Sri Beeregowda, S/o Late Ninge Gowda,
Chattna Halli, Anathi Post,
Bagur Hobli, C R Patna Taluk,
Hassan District.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
C R No. 120/2007
I Party
Sri Puttegowda, S/o Late Sh. Kalase Gowda,
MML Worker, Bidare Village,
Kembalu Post, Bagur Hobli,
C R Patna Taluk, Hassan District.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
C R No. 155/2007
I Party
Sri Shankaregowda, S/o Laate Siddappa,
Holegerehalli Village And Post,
Bagur Hobli, C R Patna Taluk,
Hassan Dist.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001
C R No. 161/2007
I Party
Sri H Thimmaiah, S/o Late Hanumaiah,
Nandihalli Village, Bageshpura Post,
Gandasi Hobli, Arasikere Taluk,
Hassan District.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
552
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
C R No. 162/2007
I Party
Sri A Siddaiah, S/o Late Arasaiah,
Nandihalli Village, Bageshpura Post,
Gandasi Hobli, Arasikere Taluk,
Hassan District.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
C R No. 163/2007
I Party
Sri D Shivalingaiah,
S/o Late Dasappa,
Kanakatte Village Post And Taluk,
Arasikere Taluk,
Hassan Dist.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
C R No. 164/2007
I Party
Smt. Jayalakshmamma,
W/o Late Venkategowda MML Worker,
Chavenahalli Village, Nagarnavile Post,
Bagur Hobli, C R Patna Taluk,
Hassan District.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
C R No. 04/2008
I Party
Sh. C S Nanjundegowda,
S/o Late Shivegowda, MML Worker,
Aladahalli Village,
Bageval Post Gandasi Hobli,
Arasikere Taluk, Hassan Dt.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
C R No. 05/2008
I Party
Sh. V Rangegowda, S/o Late Venkate Gowda,
Mavinahalli Village, Buvanahalli Pt,
Nuggehalli Hobli,
C R Patna, Tq Hassan District.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
C R No. 06/2008
I Party
Smt. L Huchamma, W/o Lakke Gowda,
MML Worker, Chevenahalli Village,
Nagar Navile Post, Bagur Hobli,
C R Patna Taluk, Hassan Dist.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
C R No. 07/2008
I Party
Smt. R Mayamma, W/o C Range Gowda,
MML Worker, Chevenahalli Village,
Nagar Navile Post, Bagur Hobli,
C R Patna Taluk, Hassan Dist.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
C R No. 08/2008
I Party
Smt. Narasamma, W/o Late Hanumaiah,
MML Worker, Chevenahalli Village,
Nagar Navile Post, Bagur Hobli,
C R Patna Taluk, Hassan Dist.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
553
C R No. 09/2008
I Party
Smt. Shankaramma,
W/o Late Kattebasappa,
MML Worker, Rajapur Village,
Post And Taluk,
Bellary District.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
C R No. 33/2008
I Party
Sri Sannaiah, S/o Late Sh. Rangappa,
Hullenahalli, Kembalu Post,
Bagur Hobli,
C R Patna Taluk,
Hassan District.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
C R No. 34/2008
I Party
Smt. M Savitramma,
W/o Late Masthi Gowda,
Honnamaranahalli Village,
Jamboor Village and Post,
Nuggehalli Hobli,
Channarayapatna Taluk,
Hassan District.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
C R No. 35/2008
I Party
Smt. Puttalakshamamma,
S/o Sh. H D Ningegowda,
Honnamaranahalli Village,
Jamboor Village and Post,
Nuggehalli Hobli,
Channarayapatna Taluk,
Hassan District.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
C R No. 36/2008
I Party
Smt. M Subamma,
W/o Late Masthi Gowda,
Honnamaranahalli Village,
Jamboor Village And Post,
Nuggehalli Hobli,
Channarayapatna Taluyk,
Hassan District.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
C R No. 37/2008
I Party
Smt. Tippamma, W/o Late Gaviappa,
21 A, Taranagar, Village & Presenting Officer,
Ward No. 4, Sandur Taluk,
Bellary District 583 119
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
C R No. 38/2008
I Party
Smt. Siddamma, W/o Katte Gowda,
Ubbalgani Village, Rajapur,
Presenting Officer Sandur Taluk,
Bellary District.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
C R No. 39/2008
I Party
Smt. Nagamma, W/o late Jakkan Gowda,
Village Rajapur Presenting Officer,
Sandur Taluk,
Bellary District.
554
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
C R No. 41/2008
I Party
Smt. Dodda Honuramma
W/o late Shri Krishnappa,
Tara Nagar Village and Presenting Officer,
Dandur Taluk,
Bellary District.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
Appearances :
I Party
:
ShriK T Govinde Gowda Advocate
II Party
:
Shri T K Vedamurthy Advocate
COMMON AWARD
1.
The Central Government vide order Nos. L-29012/
35/2006-IR(M) dated 23.08.2007; L-29012/31, 38, 43, 52, 53,
54, 55, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81/2007-IR(M) dated 16.05.2007,
22.08.2007, 21.08.2007, 03.12.2007, 17.12.2007, 06.02.2008;
L-29012/33, 34, 35, 36/2008-IR(M) dated 02.04.2008 in
exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section
(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) made these references for
adjudication with similar schedule which reads as under:
“Whether the management of Mysore Minerals
Limited is justified in terminating the services of
(naming I Party and date of termination in each case)?
If not, to what relief is the said workman entitled
to?”
and under Order no. L-29012/6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
17, 18, 28, 33, 34/2007-IR(M) dated 16.05.2007, 21.08.2007,
22.08.2007 with a similar schedule which reads as under:
“Whether the management of Mysore Minerals
Limited is justified in terminating the services/
premature superannuating of the services of (naming
I Party and date of termination in each case)? If not,
to what relief is the said workman entitled to?”
and under Order no. L-29012/82/2007-IR(M) dated
06.02.2008; L-29012/39, 40, 41, 43/2008-IR(M) dated
02.04.2008 with a similar schedule which reads as under:
“Whether the management of Mysore Minerals
Limited, Bangalore in removal from service of
(naming I Party and date of termination in each case)?
If not, to what relief is the said workman entitled
to?”
and under Order no. L-29012/9/2007-IR(M) dated
16.05.2007 with a similar schedule which reads as under:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s.
Mysore Minerals Limited in imposing the
punishment of forceful retirement from the services
by way of order of discharge dated 1/6/1998 on Shri
K Mahadeva Shetty, Ex-Mining Worker, Kare Mines
(Nanjangoodu Taluk, Mysore District) of M/s.
Mysore Minerals Ltd. is legal and justified? If not,
to what relief the workmen are entitled and from
which date?”
and under Order no. L-29012/46, 54, 57, 59/2006-IR(M)
dated 23.08.2007, 24.08.2007, 23.02.2007 with a similar
schedule which reads as under:
“Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Mysore Minerals Ltd., in terminating the
services/superannuating the services of (naming I
Party and date of termination in each case) of M/s.
Mysore Minerals Ltd. is legal and justified? If not,
to what relief the workmen are entitled and from
which date?”
2.
Since the II Party/Management is common and the
workmen in all the cases and II Party management in all
the cases though filed separate claim statements and
counter statements all of them are being prototype and
the cross-examination of the workmen and management
witness are also similar in all the cases and even common
arguments were addressed by the learned advocates
appearing for both the sides, I have taken up all these
references for passing award through common award.
3.
While registering the above references in C R Nos.
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 105, 107, 109, 110, 111,
112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 119, 120, 155, 161, 162, 163, 164/
2007, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 41/2008
respectively, when notices were issued the I Party and II
Party entered their appearances through their respective
common advocates in all the 41 references and filed their
claim statement and counter statement which are practically
prototype.
4.
Though the Ministry in relation to C R 114/2007,
73/2007, 09/2008, 37/2008, 38/2008, 39/2008 and 41/2008
mentioned the impugned punishment as Removal/forceful
retirement/discharge from service and as the contention
of the I Party as well as the II Party is that the punishment
is that of Termination and even copy of orders produced
states the punishment imposed being termination.
5.
The I Parties in all the 41 references in their claim
statement claim that they were all appointed by the II Party
Management in its different Mining Units at
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
555
Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District, Karnataka under
different designations like Mining Worker, Watchman,
Foreman and that they had furnished their date of birth as
per the Horoscope maintained by their parents as per the
family tradition and custom and same was accepted by
the II Party Management by entering the same in their
respective EPF, B Register and Service Records. They
further claim that in the year 1998 the II Party management
abruptly conducted an eye wash illegal medical examination
through an MBBS Doctor and not by any Assistant Civil
Surgeon as defined under Rule 29-C of the Mines Rules
1955 and on the basis of the reports obtained from that
Doctor illegally terminated or prematurely superannuated
or forcefully made them to take VRS from the services
without complying the provisions of Section 2(OO) and
Section 25F, G, H & N of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and
also failed to issue three months prior notice or tender
payment of three months salary before terminating or
prematurely superannuating or forcefully making them to
retire from the services. With these assertions the I Party
workman in each reference have prayed to direct the
management to reinstate them into service with continuity
of service, full backwages and other consequential
benefits. INTERALIA, in the counter statements filed for
the II Party which are all prototype it is contended that the
dispute raised by the I party are time barred and belated
and that as per Mines Rules, 1955 it has conducted Medical
Examination of all the employees and workers working at
Mines Unit during the year 1997-98 which is mandatory as
per law under the advise of Director of Mines Safety
through a team of qualified and Senior Medical Officers
from Hutti Gold Mines Company Limited and as per the
report of the experts the I Party workmen were
incapacitated to work in a mine in view of the fact that that
they were aged more than 58 years as on the date of the
medical examination. Though the I party were given an
opportunity to prefer an appeal before Appellate Medical
Board within 30 days the same was not availed and on the
other hand they received the monetary benefits arising
out of termination i.e., EPF, Gratuity, Leave Pension and all
other benefits without any protest and thereby there
existed no Employer and Employee relationship between
the II Party Management and the I Party workmen. It is
further contended all the I Party workmen who did not
avail the opportunity extended to them to prefer an appeal
and received the benefits, after their co-workers succeeded
in getting relief in Writ Petition No. 5615/2001 and 5616/
2001 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka after
lapse of 8 years to their respective termination of services
having raised these disputes the exercise of power by the
Central Government under Section 10 (1) of the ID Act is
not reasonable, rationale and it ought to have refused to
make these references. With these contentions the II Party
has prayed for rejection of the references.
6.
After close of the pleadings when the matters were
posted for evidence, counsel for II Party while filing the
similar affidavits of Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager in
all the 41 matters examining him on oath as MW 1(M) got
exhibited in few cases copy of B Register and Service
Records as narrated in the annexure. INTERALIA, the
learned advocate appearing for the I Party who had got
exhibited some documents in each case while cross-
examining MW 1 (M) in the respective case as narrated in
the annexure to the Award while filing the affidavit of the
respective workman in each case examining them on oath
as WW 1 (M) closed his side.
7.
With the above pleadings and evidence brought on
record by both the sides, counsel for both sides filed their
written arguments.
8.
On appreciation of the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence brought on record by both the
sides, in the light of the arguments put forward by their
learned advocates, I have arrived at conclusion of allowing
the references for the following
REASON S
9.
There is no dispute as to the joining of service by
the I Party workman as well as entry of their date of birth
as furnished by them in their service records by the II
Party and it is stated in the evidence of MW 1 (M) that in
view of the request made by the Employees Union (without
specifying which Union) it conducted their Medical
Examination through qualified Senior Medical Officers and
as per their report they were found to be incapacitated to
work in mine in view of the fact that they were aged more
than 58 years as on the date of their medical examination
and based on that reports it took the decision to terminate
their services and terminated on different dates giving an
opportunity to prefer an appeal before the Appellate
Medical Board and the same was not availed and they
received the terminal benefits and after the result in W P
No. 5615/2001 and 5616/2001 preferred by their co-workers
having raised these disputes they are not maintainable.
In view of the admission of the II Party that the I Party
workmen had joined its services on different dates as
claimed by them and the date of birth were recorded in
their respective service records as furnished by them while
joining the service as per the Horoscope maintained by
their parents, the claim of the workmen in their respective
references about their joining of their service and recording
of their date of birth in their service record as furnished by
them based on the Horoscope maintained by their
respective parents being not in dispute it was for the II
Party to establish that the Employees Union of which these
workmen were members had made request for conducting
their medical examination through qualified Senior Medical
Officers and accordingly they got conducted their medical
examination through qualified Senior Medical Officers and
556
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
were found to be incapacitated to work in mine being aged
more than 58 years of age on the date of their respective
examination but the II Party failed to place on record any
evidence to substantiate this contention put forward by
them. MW 1 (M) the only witness examined for the II
Party/Management having categorically stated in the very
beginning of the affidavit evidence that he who is working
as Assistant Manager being conversant with the facts
from records. He has no personal knowledge about the
each workman being subjected to the medical examination
and their medical reports being as claimed in the counter
statements. Under the circumstances in support of the
contention taken in the counter statements which is
reiterated in the affidavit evidence he ought to have
produced the documentary evidence to substantiate that
there was a request made by the Employees Union of which
these workmen were members for conducting their medical
examination to ascertain their fitness to work and age and
accordingly they were subjected to medical examination
through qualified Senior Medical Officers and were found
to be incapacitated to work in Mine being aged about
more than 58 years as on the date of their respective
Medical Examinations. In the absence of production of
medical records/documents in that regard his/MW 1(M)
testimony in the affidavit which is reiteration of the
contention in the counter statement is baseless and of no
value. Further since it has come in the evidence of MW 1
(M) by way of admission in the cross-examination that
during the year 1998 there were around 4000 mining workers
in all the 40 mining units in MML in Karnataka State and
out of them around 2000 were working in the Mines of
Hassan District namely, Byrapura, Tagadur, Jamboor,
Aladahalli, Baktharahalli, Bageshwara, Kaolin Chromite
Mines and Dumgere Granite Mines and that it suffered
loss of about Rs. 21 crores in Shimoga and Hassan Districts
and due to the said loss it thought of reducing the number
of workers and at this juncture it ordered for medical
examination of all mining workers. In view of this admission
in the cross-examination of MW 1 (M) the claim of the II
party that the medical examination of workmen were got
done on the request of the Employees Union in the absence
of any record in that regard has to be said to be far from
truth. The II Party which had accepted the date of birth of
the workman as furnished by them based on the Horoscope
maintained by their respective parents without any reason/
doubt being entertained in respect of their date of birth
there was no occasion for them to subject those workmen
for medical examination to ascertain their correct age.
Moreover, there being no evidence for the II Party that
they had called upon the workmen to undergo a medical
check up to find out their correct age without there being
any enquiry in that regard changing their date of birth is
unsustainable, because once the age is entered into service
record it cannot be changed unless the procedure
prescribed for changing the date of birth is followed. Under
these circumstances viewed from any angle the action of
II Party terminating the services of the I party workmen
covered in these references do amount to premature
superannuation or imposing the punishment of forceful
retirement from services by way of order of discharge and
are unsustainable.
10.
In the upshot of the above, the workmen covered in
these references are entitle for their reinstatement into
service and to continue in service till they attain the age of
superannuation which was 58 years till 16.07.2008 and came
to be raised to 60 years w.e.f. 17.07.2008 by virtue of the
Office Order dated 22.08.2008 copy of which have been
got exhibited in the cross-examination of MW 1 (M). But
having regard to the nature of the work for which they
were engaged and raising these disputes after around 8
years of their termination from the services looking to the
judgements rendered in W P No. 5615/2001 and 5616/2001
preferred by their co-workers, I feel it just and appropriate
to direct the II Party to pay them 30 % of the salary/wages
payable to the respective workmen from the date of their
respective references made by the Ministry with other
consequential benefits that they would have received in
the absence of their impugned termination orders. In the
result, I pass the following
ORDER
11.
All the 41 references are allowed holding that the
management of Mysore Minerals Limited is not justified
in terminating the services / premature superannuating /
Removal / Discharge of the services of Smt. Lakkamma,
Smt. Lakshmamma, Smt. Rangamma, Sh. Mahadeva Shetty,
Sh. Chowdegowda, Smt. Parvathamma, Sh. Sannappa,
Sh. Thimmashetty, Sh. Nanjegowda, Sh. Thirumalegowda,
Smt. Thimamma, Smt. S Thimamma, Sh. Mariyappa,
Smt. Nanjamma, Smt. B Nanjamma, Sh. Huvappa,
Sh. Doddegowda, Smt. Giriyamma, Smt. Narasamma,
Sh. Rangappa, Sh. Beere Gowda, Sh. Puttegowda,
Sh. Shankaregowda, Sh. Thimmaiah, Sh. Siddaiah,
Sh. Shivalingaiah, Smt. Jayalakshmamma, Sh. Nanjude
Gowda, Sh. Rangegowda, Smt. Huchamma, Smt. Mayamma,
Smt. Narsamma, Smt. Shankaramma, Sh. Sannaiah,
Smt. Savitramma, Smt. Puttalakshmamma, Smt. Subbamma,
Smt. Tippamma, Smt. Siddamma, Smt. Nagamma and
Smt. Dodda Honuramma w.e.f. the respective dates
mentioned in their references and II Party is liable to
reinstate them into the service/designation that they were
holding at the time of impugned termination/discharge from
Service and to continue their services till they attain the
age of superannuation and pay them 30% of the salary/
wages payable to them from the date of their respective
references for adjudication with all other consequential
benefits that they would have received in the absence of
their impugned termination/discharge from service
deducting the benefits already given to them. It is made
clear that in cases of workmen who attain the age of
58 years prior to 16.07.2008 are entitled for being continued
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
557
in service till they attain the age of 58 years and who still
do not complete the age of 58 years as on 17.07.2008 are
entitled to be continued in service till they attain the age
of 60 years as per its Office Order dated 22.08.2008.
(Typed to my dictation by UDC,corrected and signed by
me on 3rd December 2014)
S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
ANNEXURE - I
Documents exhibited on behalf of management:
C R 70/2007
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 71/2007
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 73/2007
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 74/2007
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 75/2007
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 76/2007
Ex M-1
:
Original Individual Worker History
Sheet
C R 77/2007
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 78/2007
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 80/2007
Ex M-1
:
Original Individual Worker History
Sheet
C R 105/2007
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 107/2007
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 109/2007
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 110/2007
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 111/2007
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 112/2007
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 113/2007
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 114/2007
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 115/2007
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 118/2007
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 119/2007
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 120/2007
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 155/2007
Ex M-1
:
Original Individual workers History
Sheet
C R 161/2007
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 162/2007
Ex M-1
:
Original Individual workers History
Sheet
C R 163/2007
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 04/2008
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 05/2008
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 07/2008
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 08/2008
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 34/2008
Ex M-1
:
Form 'O" dated 29.08.1992
Ex M-2
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 35/2008
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 36/2008
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
558
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
C R 37/2008
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
Ex M-2
:
Copy of Form B of I Party
C R 38/2008
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
Ex M-2
:
Copy of Form B of I Party
C R 39/2008
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
Ex M-2
:
Copy of Form B of I Party
Documents exhibited on behalf of workman:
C R 70/2007
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Medical Examination Report
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 71/2007
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Medical Examination Report
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination order dated
22.05.1998
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 72/2007
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Membership application form
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 73/2007
Ex W-1
:
Copy of EPF Scheme date 14.06.2002
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination Order dated
10.06.1998
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 74/2007
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Termination Order dated
22.05.1998
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
Ex W-5
:
Office Order No. PIR:7:GEN:2008-
09:1891 dated 22.08.2008 enhancing the
age from 58 years to 60 years
C R 75/2007
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Medical Examination Report
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination Order dated
22.05.1998
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 76/2007
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Medical Examination Report
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 77/2007
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Medical Examination Report
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination Order dated
06.06.1998
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 78/2007
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Membership Application Form
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination Order dated
29.06.1998
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
559
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 80/2007
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Membership Application Form
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination Order dated
29.06.1998
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 105/2007
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Termination Order dated
29.06.1998
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 107/2007
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Termination Order dated
29.06.1998
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 109/2007
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Membership application form
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 110/2007
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Termination Order dated
22.05.1998
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 111/2007
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Medical Examination Report
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination Order dated
22.05.1998
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 112/2007
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Medical Examination Report
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 113/2007
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Medical Certificate issued by
Government Surgeon, Hassan
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Hospital Certificate issued to
HOSMAT dated 24.06.98
Ex W-3
:
Copy of Form 'O' issued by Medical
Officer
Ex W-4
:
Copy of Termination Order dated
13.10.1998
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-6
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-7
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 114/2007
Ex W-1
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 115/2007
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Membership application form
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
560
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
C R 118/2007
Ex W-1
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 119/2007
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Medical Examination Certificate
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
Ex W-5
:
Office Order No. PIR:7:GEN:2008-
09:1891 dated 22.08.2008 enhancing the
age from 58 years to 60 years
C R 120/2007
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Medical Examination Report
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination Order dated
22.05.1998
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 155/2007
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Medical Examination Report
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination Order dated
22.05.1998
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
Ex W-6
:
Office Order No. PIR:7:GEN:2008-
09:1891 dated 22.08.2008 enhancing the
age from 58 years to 60 years
C R 161/2007
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Membership application form
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 162/2007
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Termination Order dated
01.09.1998
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 163/2007
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Office Note of II Party
Ex W-2
:
Copy of I Party's Representation dated
29.05.1998
Ex W-3
:
Copy of the workmen compensation
Order dated 27.07.2001
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-6
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 164/2007
Ex W-1
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
Ex W-4
:
Office Order No. PIR:7:GEN:2008-
09:1891 dated 22.08.2008 enhancing the
age from 58 years to 60 years
C R 04/2008
Ex W-1
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 05/2008
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Membership Application Form
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination Order dated
22.05.1998
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 7] 2015@ek?k 18] 1936
561
C R 06/2008
Ex W-1
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
Ex W-4
:
GPA executed by I Party towards her
Husband
Ex W-5
:
Office Order No. PIR:7:GEN:2008-
09:1891 dated 22.08.2008 enhancing the
age from 58 years to 60 years
C R 07/2008
Ex W-1
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 08/2008
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Membership Application Form
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination Order dated
06.06.1998
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 09/2008
Ex W-1
:
Copy of B Register
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination Order dated
30.07.1998
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 33/2008
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Form O issued by II Party
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination Order dated
22.06.2001
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 34/2008
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Membership Application Form
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination Order dated
06.06.1998
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 35/2008
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Membership Application Form
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination Order dated
06.06.1998
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 36/2008
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Membership Application Form
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination Order dated
06.06.1998
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
Ex W-6
:
Office Order No. PIR:7:GEN:2008-
09:1891 dated 22.08.2008 enhancing the
age from 58 years to 60 years
C R 37/2008
Ex W-1
:
Copy of EPF Scheme mentioning the
date of birth
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
562
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2015/MAGHA 18, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
C R 38/2008
Ex W-1
:
Copy of EPF Scheme mentioning the
date of birth
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
Ex W-5
:
Office Order No. PIR:7:GEN:2008-
09:1891 dated 22.08.2008 enhancing the
age from 58 years to 60 years
C R 39/2008
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Pension Payment Order
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination Order dated
30.07.1998
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others
C R 41/2008
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Pension Payment Order
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination Order dated
30.07.1998
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in W P No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in W A No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001 (SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in W A No. 26101/01 and
others.
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi.110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi.110054.