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

¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 13 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 534-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k

iqfyl LFkkiu vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 25½ dh

/kkjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, f=iqjk jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] vxjryk dh lgefr

ls fnukad 23 vxLr] 2014 dh vf/klwpuk lañ ,Qñ

21¼52½&ihMh@lhchvkbZ@2013¼,y½ ds rgr Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk]

1960 ¼1860 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 45½ dh /kkjk 120&ch ,oa 420 rFkk

Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 ¼1988 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 49½

dh /kkjk 13¼1½¼?k½ ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 13¼2½ ds v/khu fnukad

17-06-2014 dks lhchvkbZ] ,lhch] f'kykax 'kk[kk esa ntZ lhchvkbZ

ds ekeyk lañ vkjlh,l,pth 2014 ,004 ¼vkjlh4,2014

,l,pth½ esa MCY;wMCY;w,e ,oa th,lch en esa ekiu iqfLrdk esa

>wBh izfof"V;ka djds ftlls vkbZlhih] vxjryk ifj;kstuk] tks

vkjvkbZVhbZ,l }kjk iwjh dh xbZ Fkh ls dkWUVªsDVj dks 107-57 yk[k #ñ

dk vf/kd Hkqxrku fd;k x;k Fkk esa vkj, fcy lañ 10 dh folaxfr

tks ,dhd`r pSdiksLV] v[kkvksojk vxjryk easa jsyos ea=ky; ds

v/khu Hkkjr ljdkj ds miØe vkjvkbZVhbZ,l fyñ ds yksd lsod

dh fyIrrk ds laca/k esa vUos"k.k djus ds fy, rFkk vU; vijk/k@

vijk/kksa] iz;klksa] nq"izsj.kkvksa] "kM+;a=ksa vFkok mijksDr vijk/kksa rFkk

vU; vijk/k@vijk/kksa tks bu tSls rF;ksa ls mRiUu gksus okys leku

ysu&nsu dh mDr izfØ;k esa fd, x, gksa] ds laca/k esa fnYyh fo'ks"k

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

laiw.kZ f=iqjk jkT; ij djrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ 228@62@2014&,ohMh&II]

lq'khy dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 13th March, 2015

S.O. 534.— In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

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

the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Tripura, Home Department, Agartala vide

Notification No. F. 21(52)-PD/CBI/2013(L) dated 23rd

August, 2014, hereby extends the powers and Jurisdiction

of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to

the whole of the State of Tripura for investigation of the

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 12]

ubZ fnYyh] ekpZ 15—ekpZ 21] 2015] 'kfuokj@iQkYxqu 24—iQkYxqu 30] 1936

No. 12]

NEW DELHI, MARCH 15—MARCH 21, 2015, SATURDAY/PHALGUNA 24—PHALGUNA 30, 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

1101 GI/2015

(1329)

1330

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 30, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

offences relating to involvement of Public Servant of RITES

Limited, Government of India Undertaking under Ministry

of Railway, at Integrated Check Post, Akhaowra, Agartala

for the discrepancies in RA bill No. 10 by making false

entries in the measurement book in the item of WWM and

GSB resulting to overpayment of Rs. 107.57 Lakhs to the

contractor in connection with the work of ICP, Agartala

Project carries out by RITES as alleged in the Central Bureau

of Investigation Case No. RCSHG2014A004

(RC4A2014SHG) registered at CBI, ACB, Shillong Branch

on 17.06.2014 under sections 120-B and 420 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and section 13(2)

read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988) and any other offence/offences,

attempts, abetments and conspiracy in relation to or in

connection with above mentioned offences and any other

offence/offences committed in course of the same

transaction arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/62/2014-AVD-II]

SUSHEEL KUMAR, Under Secy.

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

¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½

¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½

ubZ fnYyh] 13 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 535-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa %—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

Lohd`fr djus

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk

Hkkjrh; ekud

Hkkek lañ@

la[;k la[;k

dh frfFk

dk 'kh"kZd

Hkkx@[k.M@

o"kZ@ekg

o"kZ

1-

2892780

24-06-2014

uhj bjhxs'ku

flapkbZ miLdj Qqgkjk ikbZi Hkk ek 14151%Hkkx 2%2008

20@21] tSue b.M- ikdZ] 'kkaxzhyk okVj ikdZ ds fof'k"V Hkkx 2

utnhd

'kh?kz ;qXed ikWfyfFkyhu ikbi

iksLV% dqdls cksjhoyh] fHkoaMh] eqEcbZ ukfld

gkbos] Fkkus&421302] egkjk"Vª

[lañ dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11]

Vhñ dySok.ku] izeq[k ¼,e;wchvks&bZbZbZ½

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 13th March, 2015

S.O. 535.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant

Name and Address (factory) of

Product

IS No./Part/Sec Year

No.

No.

Date

the party

1.

2892780

24.06.2014

Neer Irrigation Private Limited

Irrigation equipment

IS 14151 : Part 2 : 2008

20/21, Jainam Industrial Park, Near

- sprinkler pipes

Shangrila Water Park, Post Kukse

Part 2 : quick coupled

Borivali, Bhiwandi, Mumbai Nashik

polyethylene pipes

Highway, Distt: Thane - 421302

Mahrashtra.

[No. CMD/13:11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 30] 1936

1331

ubZ fnYyh] 13 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 536-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mifofu;e ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gS] os jn~n dj fn, x, gSa%—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izde lEc) Hkkjrh; ekud

jn~n djus dh frfFk

la[;k la[;k

dk 'kh"kZd

1-

7471478 ,adj bysDVªdy izkñ fyñ

Hkk ek 2086%1993

25-6-2014

losZ uañ 66@3] irkfy;k jksM] Hkheiksj]

650 oksñ rd dh oksYVrk ds fy, iqu%rkj laLFkkiu

neu

izdkj ds fctyh ds Q~;wtksa esa okgd vkSj vk/kkj

neu vkSj nho 396210

[lañ dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%13]

Vhñ dySok.ku] izeq[k ¼,e;wchvks&bZbZbZ½

New Delhi, the 13th March, 2015

S.O. 536.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given in the

following schedule have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Name and Address of the

Article/process with relevant

Date of

No.

No.

licensee

Indian standard covered by the Licence

cancellation

1.

7471478 Anchor Electricals Pvt. Ltd.

IS 2086 : 1993

25.06.2014

Survey No. 66/3 Patalia Road,

Carriers and bases used in rewirable type electrical

Bhimpore,

fuses for voltages upto 650 v

Daman, Distt: Daman,

Daman & Diu - 396210

[No. CMD/13:13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)

i;kZoj.k] ou vkSj tyok;q ifjorZu ea=ky;

vkns'k

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 537-—dsUnz ljdkj] Hkkjrh; ou lsok ¼laoxZ½

fu;e] 1966 ds fu;e 5 ds lkFk ifBr vka/kz izns'k iquxZBu vf/

kfu;e] 2014 ¼2014 dk 6½ dh /kkjk 76 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, bl vkns'k ds ljdkjh jkti= esa izdk'ku

dh rkjh[k ls ,rn~}kjk Hkkjrh; ou lsok ds vka/kz izns'k laoxZ ds

fuEufyf[kr lnL;ksa dks fu;r fnu ls iwoZ rRdky vkoafVr djrh gS—

d- Hkkjrh; ou lsok ds vka/kz izns'k laoxZ eas%

Øñ lañ uke ¼Jh@lqJh½

cSp

1

2

3

1-

,ñohñ tkslQ

1979

2-

,lñchñ,yñ feJk

1980

3-

lhñ,lñ jkeky{eh

1980

4-

dsñMhñvkjñ t; dqekj

1980

5-

vkjñ thñ dkyk?kkVxh

1981

6-

chñ ewjyhd`".kk

1981

7-

Mhñ lq/kkdj

1982

8-

ohñ osadVjkeb;k

1982

9-

ihñ dsñ lkjaxh

1982

10-

panu fe=k

1982

11-

chñ ,lñ ,lñ izlkn

1983

12-

dsñ lqxqukdj jsM~Mh

1983

13-

lqjsUnz ik.Ms;

1983

14-

,eñ lq/kkdj

1983

15-

lksE;dkar pkSVjs;

1984

1

2

3

1332

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 30, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

16-

iq"dj JhokLro

1984

17-

chñ ohñ izlknk jsM~Mh

1985

18-

ihñ ,ñ ohñ mn; HkkLdj

1985

19-

lhñ dsñ feJk

1985

20-

ihñ efYydktqZuk jko

1985

21-

eksgEen by;kl fjToh

1985

22-

,uñ izrhi dqekj

1986

23-

lrh'k dqekj dkSf'kd

1986

24-

fofiu pkS/kjh

1986

25-

ohñ chñ jeUuk ewFkhZ

1987

26-

Mhñ ufyuh eksgu

1987

27-

lat; xqIrk

1987

28-

vfuy dqekj eks;kZ

1987

29-

fpjatho pkS/kjh

1989

30-

vt; dqekj ukbd

1989

31-

okbZñ e/kqlwnu jsM~Mh

1990

32-

bZñ ujflageqyq

1990

33-

vuwi flag

1990

34-

fcuksn dqekj flag

1990

35-

jktsUnz izlkn [ktwfj;k

1991

36-

dYyksy fcLokl

1991

37-

,lñ ,lñ Jh/kj

1992

38-

vkuUn dqekj >k

1992

39-

jes'k dqekj lqeu

1993

40-

eksgEen bczkfge

1993

41-

jRukdj tkSgjh

1994

42-

ihñ ohñ pykiFkh jko

1994

43-

dsñ xksihukFkk

1994

44-

tsñ ,lñ ,uñ ewFkhZ

1994

45-

ihñ ohñ jeUuk jsM~Mh

1995

46-

,eñ jsokFkh

1996

47-

'kkUrh fiz;k ikaMs;

1997

48-

jkgqy ik.Ms;

1997

49-

,ñ Hkjr dqekj

1997

50-

dsñ lw;kZukjk;.kk

1997

51-

chñ lqUnj

1998

52-

,lñ Jo.ku

1999

53-

,eñ jfo dqekj

1999

54-

,uñ pUnzk eksgu jsM~Mh

2001

55-

dsñ yksfgrkL;qnw

2001

56-

ihñ ,lñ Jhfuoklk lkL=h

2002

57-

ihñ lqCck jk?kobZ;k

2003

58-

ihñ jkek eksgu jko

2004

59-

Vhñ ohñ lqCck jsM~Mh

2004

60-

,lñ JhdkUFkk jsM~Mh

2005

61-

chñ ,uñ ,uñ ewFkhZ

2007

62-

chñ eksgEen nhoku eSnhu

2008

63-

,eñ flok izlkn

2010

64-

vkjñ ;lksnkckbZ

2010

65-

vyu pksax Vsju

2011

66-

lhñ lsYoe

2012

67-

ls[kj ckcw xsn~ne

2013

68-

uUnuh lykfj;k

2013

69-

txUukFk flag vkjñ

2013

[k- Hkkjrh; ou lsok ds rsyaxkuk laoxZ esa%

Øñ lañ uke ¼Jh@lqJh½

cSp

1

2

3

1-

jkts'k feÙky

1979

2-

ihñ dsñ 'kekZ

1980

3-

,ñ dsñ JhokLro

1981

4-

vkjñ lqUnj onku

1982

5-

Mhñdsñ ik.Ms;

1982

6-

dsñ ihñ Jhoklqdh

1982

7-

ihñ e/kqlw/kuk jko

1982

8-

,eñ jkek izlkn

1983

9-

v'kksd dqekj tSu

1983

10-

ihñ dsñ >k

1983

11-

euksjatu Hkka>k

1984

12-

ihñ j?kqohj

1984

13-

gjh'k pUnzk feJk

1984

14-

,eñ iz/oh jktw

1984

15-

lqjs'k ukxs'k tk/ko

1984

16-

daojthr flag

1985

17-

pUnzk chñ eqyklh

1985

18-

vkjñ ;wñ d';ik

1985

19-

rst flag dnZe

1985

20-

dsñ fr:iFkS;k

1986

21-

vkjñ 'kksHkk

1986

1

2

3

1

2

3

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 30] 1936

1333

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND

CLIMATE CHANGE

ORDER

New Delhi, the 5th March, 2015

S.O. 537.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (4) of Section 76 of the Andhra Pradesh

Reorganisation Act, 2014 (6 of 2014) read with rule 5 of the

Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Rules, 1966, the Central

Government, with effect from the date of publication of

this order in the Official Gazette, hereby allocates the

following members of the Indian Forest Service, born on

the Andhra Pradesh cadre immediately before the appointed

day—

A. to the Andhra Pradesh cadre of Indian Forest Service:

S. No.

Name (Mr./Ms)

Batch

1

2

3

1.

A.V. Joseph

1979

2.

S.B.L. Misra

1980

3.

C.S. Ramalakshmi

1980

4.

K.D.R. Jaya Kumar

1980

5.

R.G. Kalaghatgi

1981

6.

B. Muralikrishna

1981

7.

D. Sudhakar

1982

8.

V. Venkataramaiah

1982

9.

P.K. Sarangi

1982

10.

Chandan Mitra

1982

11.

B.S.S. Prasad

1983

12.

K. Sugunakar Reddy

1983

13.

Surendra Pandey

1983

14.

M. Sudhakar

1983

15.

Soumykanta Chottray

1984

16.

Pushker Srivastava

1984

17.

B.V. Prasad Reddy

1985

18.

P.A.V. Udaya Bhaskar

1985

19.

C.K. Mishra

1985

20.

P. Mallikarjuna Rao

1985

21.

Mohd. Iliyas Rizvi

1985

22.

N. Prateep Kumar

1986

23.

Satish Kumar Kaushik

1986

24.

Vipin Chaudhary

1986

25.

V.B. Ramana Murthy

1987

26.

D. Nalini Mohan

1987

27.

Sanjay Gupta

1987

28.

Anil Kumar Maurya

1987

29.

Chiranjiv Choudhary

1989

30.

Ajay Kumar Naik

1989

31.

Y. Madhusudhan Reddy

1990

32.

E. Narasimhulu

1990

33.

Anoop Singh

1990

34.

Binod Kumar Singh

1990

35.

Rajendra Prasad Khajuria

1991

22-

eqfuUnzk

1986

23-

jkds'k eksgu Mcfj;ky

1987

24-

yksds'k tk;loky

1987

25-

lquhy dqekj xqIrk

1987

26-

okbZñ ckcw jko

1987

27-

,uñ ';ke izlkn

1987

28-

Lojxe Jhfuokl

1989

29-

eksgu pUnz ijxSu

1990

30-

,ñ fd'ku

1990

31-

byqflag es:

1990

32-

fl)kuUn dqdjsrh

1991

33-

lhñ lqo.kkZ

1991

34-

thñ pUnz ls[kj jsM~Mh

1991

35-

v'kksd dqekj flUgk

1992

36-

fou; dqekj

1992

37-

latho dqekj xqIrk

1993

38-

lquhFkk ,eñ Hkkxor

1996

39-

chñ ckfloh jsM~Mh

1996

40-

ihñ osadVk jktk jko

1997

41-

chñ vkuUn eksgu

1997

42-

eksgEen tykyqn~nhu vdcj

1999

43-

Vhñ ihñ fFkEek jsM~Mh

1999

44-

Mhñ ukxkHkw"k.ke

2000

45-

thñ ujlS;kg

2001

46-

lhñ Jo.ku

2002

47-

vdksbZte lksfuckyk nsoh

2002

48-

chñ Jhfuokl

2002

49-

fiz;adk oxhZt

2003

50-

chñ 'kfQmYykg

2003

51-

lhñ ihñ fouksn dqekj

2003

52-

,lñ jes'k

2004

53-

f'kokuh Mksxjk

2007

54-

ohñ ,lñ ,uñ ohñ izlkn

2009

55-

,lñ 'kkUFkkjke

2010

56-

Jh flokyk jke ckcw

2011

57-

Mkñ lquhy ,lñ fgjseFk

2011

58-

fr:ekyk jfo fdju

2012

[Qkñ lañ 16016@02@2014&Hkkols&II]

MkWñ js[kk iS] ou egkfujh{kd

1

2

3

1334

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 30, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

36.

Kallol Biswas

1991

37.

S.S. Sreedhar

1992

38.

Anand Kumar Jha

1992

39.

Ramesh Kumar Suman

1993

40.

Mohd. Ibrahim

1993

41.

Ratnakar Jauhari

1994

42.

P.V. Chalapathi Rao

1994

43.

K. Gopinatha

1994

44.

J.S.N. Murthy

1994

45.

P.V. Ramana Reddy

1995

46.

M. Revathi

1996

47.

Shanti Priya Pandey

1997

48.

Rahul Pandey

1997

49.

A. Bharat Kumar

1997

50.

K. Suryanayarayana

1997

51.

B. Sundar

1998

52.

S. Saravanan

1999

53.

M. Ravi Kumar

1999

54.

N. Chandra Mohan Reddy

2001

55.

K. Lohitasyudu

2001

56.

P.S. Srinivasa Sastry

2002

57.

P. Subba Raghavaiah

2003

58.

P. Ram Mohan Rao

2004

59.

T.V. Subba Reddy

2004

60.

S. Srikantanatha Reddy

2005

61.

B.N.N. Murthy

2007

62.

B. Mohamed Diwan Mydeen

2008

63.

M. Siva Prasad

2010

64.

R. Yesodabai

2010

65.

Alan Chong Teran

2011

66.

C. Selvam

2012

67.

Sekhar Babu Geddam

2013

68.

Nandani Salaria

2013

69.

Jagannath Singh R.

2013

B. to the Telangana cadre of Indian Forest Service:

S. No.

Name (Mr./Ms)

Batch

1

2

3

1.

Rajesh Mittal

1979

2.

P.K. Sharma

1980

3.

A.K. Srivastava

1981

4.

R. Sundar Vadan

1982

5.

D.K. Pandey

1982

6.

K.P. Srivasuki

1982

7.

P. Madhusudhana Rao

1982

8.

M. Rama Prasad

1983

9.

Ashok Kumar Jain

1983

10.

P.K. Jha

1983

11.

Manoranjan Bhanja

1984

12.

P. Raghuveer

1984

13.

Harish Chandra Mishra

1984

14.

M. Prudhvi Raju

1984

15.

Suresh Nagesh Jadhav

1984

16.

Kanwarjit Singh

1985

17.

Chandra B. Malasi

1985

18.

R.U. Kashappa

1985

19.

Tej Singh Kardam

1985

20.

K. Tirupathaiah

1986

21.

R. Shobha

1986

22.

Munindra

1986

23.

Rakesh Mohan Dobriyal

1987

24.

Lokesh Jayaswal

1987

25.

Sunil Kumar Gupta

1987

26.

Y. Babu Rao

1987

27.

N. Shyam Prasad

1987

28.

Swargam Srinivas

1989

29.

Mohan Chandra Pargain

1990

30.

A. Kishan

1990

31.

Elusing Meru

1990

32.

Sidhanand Kukrety

1991

33.

C. Suvarna

1991

34.

G. Chandra Sekhara Reddy

1991

35.

Ashok Kumar Sinha

1992

36.

Vinay Kumar

1992

37.

Sanjeev Kumar Gupta

1993

38.

Sunitha M. Bhagwat

1996

39.

B. Basivi Reddy

1996

40.

P. Venkata Raja Rao

1997

41.

B. Anand Mohan

1997

42.

Mohd. Jalaluddin Akbar

1999

43.

T.P. Thimma Reddy

1999

44.

D. Nagabhushanam

2000

45.

G. Narsaiah

2001

46.

C. Saravanan

2002

47.

Akoijam Sonibala Devi

2002

48.

B. Srinivas

2002

49.

Priyankaa Varghese

2003

50.

B. Shafiullah

2003

51.

C.P. Vinod Kumar

2003

52.

S. Ramesh

2004

53.

Shivani Dogra

2007

54.

V.S.N.V. Prasad

2009

55.

S. Shantharam

2010

56.

Sri Sivala Ram Babu

2011

57.

Dr. Sunil S. Hiremath

2011

58.

Tirumala Ravi Kiran

2012

[F. No. 16016/02/2014-IFS-II]

Dr. REKHA PAI, Inspector General of Forest

1

2

3

1

2

3

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 30] 1936

1335

okf.kT; vkSj mn~;ksx ea=ky;

¼okf.kT; foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 538-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k

vkSj fujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1964 ds fu;e 12] ds mi&fu;e ¼2½ ds

lkFk ifBr fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k vkSj fujh{k.k½

vf/kfu;e] 1963 ¼1963 dk 22½ dh /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½

n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] eSllZ bZVkySc ¼xksok½

izkbosV fyfeVsM vkokl la[;k 197] jsMh dwdy Hkê] iksLV jsMh] rkyqdk

oSx#yk] ftyk fla/kqnqxZ] egkjk"Vª & 416517 dks bl vf/klwpuk] ds

jkti= esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, Hkkjr

ljdkj ds okf.kT; ea=ky;] dh vf/klwpuk la- dk-vk- 3975] rkjh[k

20 fnlEcj] 1965 esa mikcn~/k vuqlwph esa ;Fkk fofufnZ"V [kfut

vkSj v;Ld ds fujh{k.k] ¼xzqi&1½] vFkkZr~] ykSg v;Ld] eSaxuht

v;Ld] Qsjks eSaxuht vkSj ckWDlkbV dks fu;kZr ls iwoZ fuEufyf[kr

'krks± ds v/;k/khu jsMh esa mDr [kfut vkSj v;Ld ds fujh{k.k djus

ds fy,] ,d vfHkdj.k ds :i esa ekU;rk nsrh gS] vFkkZr~%

(i)

eSllZ bZVkySc ¼xksok½ izkbosV fyfeVsM] vkokl la[;k

197] jsMh lqdy Hkê] iksLV jsMh] rkyqdk oSx#yk] ftyk

fla/kqnqxZ] egkjk"Vª & 416517] [kfut vkSj v;Ld xzqwi&I

dk fu;kZr ¼fujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1965 ds fu;e 4 ds

v/khu muds n~okjk viukbZ xbZ fujh{k.k dh i)fr dh

tkap djus ds fy,] bl fufeRr fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn~

n~okjk ukefufnZ"V vf/kdkfj;ksa dks i;kZIr lqfo/kk,a nsxh(

vkSj

(ii)

eSllZ bZVkySc ¼xksok½ izkbosV fyfeVsM] vkokl la[;k

197] jsMh lqdy Hkê] iksLV jsMh rkyqdk oSax#yk] ftyk

fla/kqnqxZ] egkjk"Vª & 416517] bl vf/klwpuk ds

v/khu vius d`R;ksa ds ikyu esa funs'kd ¼fujh{k.k

vkSj DokfyVh fu;a=.k½] fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn~ n~okjk

le;≤ ij fyf[kr esa fn, x, ,sls funsZ'kksa ls vkc)

gksaxsA

[Qk- la- 4@10@2014&fu;kZr fujh{k.k]

lq/kka'kq ikaMs;] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2015

S.O. 538.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

the sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with

sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and

Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby

recognizes, M/s. Italab (Goa) Pvt. Ltd, H. No. 197, Redi

Sukl Bhat, Post Redi, Taluka Vengurla, District Sindhudurga,

Maharashtra-416517 as an agency for a period of one year

from the date of publication of this notification, for the

inspection of Minerals and Ores (Group-I) namely, Iron

Ore, Manganese Ore, Ferro manganese and Bauxite as

speficied in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the

Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce vide

S.O. 3975 dated the 20th December 1965, piror to export of

said Minerals and Ores at Redi, subject ot the following

conditions, namely:—

(i) M/s. Italab (Goa) Pvt. Ltd. H. No. 197, Redi Sukal

Bhat, Post redi, Taluka Vengurla, District

Sindhudurga, Maharashtra-416517, shall give

adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the

Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine

the method of inspection followed by them in carrying

out the inspection under rule 4 of the Export of

Minerals and Ores—Group I (Inspection) rules, 1965;

(ii) M/s. Italab (Goa) Pvt. Ltd., H.No. 197, Redi Sukal

Bhat, Post Redi, Taluka Vengurla, District

Sindhudurga, Maharashtra-416517, in the

performance of their function under this notification

shall be bound by such directions as the Director

(Inspection and Quality Council), Export Inspection

Council may give in writing from time to time.

[F.No. 4/10/2014-Export Inspection]

SUDHANSHU PANDEY, Jt. Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 539-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.kvkSj

fujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1964 ds fu;e 12] ds mi&fu;e ¼2½ ds lkFk

ifBr fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k vkSj fujh{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1963

¼1963 dk 22½ dh /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] eSllZ bLlu ,.M daiuh] 24&19, izFke ry]

FkkEilu xyh] utnhd vksYM iksLV vkWfQl] fo'kk[kkiêue dks bl

vf/klwpuk] ds jkti= esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/k ds

fy,] vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds fy, okf.kT;

ea=ky;] dh vf/klwpuk la- dk-vk- 3975] rkjh[k 20 fnlEcj] 1965

esa mikcn~/k vuqlwph esa ;Fkk fofufnZ"V [kfut vkSj v;Ld ds fujh{k.k]

¼xzqi&1½ ds fujh{k.k] vFkkZr~] ykSg v;Ld] eSaxuht MkbvkWDlkbM

dks NksM+dj] fu;kZr ls iwoZ fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/;k/khu fo'kk[kiêue]

esa iwoksZDr [kfut vkSj v;Ld ds fujh{k.k djus ds fy, ,d vfHkdj.k

ds :i esa ekU;rk nsrh gS( vFkkZr~ %—

(i) eSllZ bLlu ,.M daiuh] 24&19 izFke ry] FkkWEilu

xyh] utnhd vksYm iksLV vkWfQl] fo'kk[kkiêue]

[kfut vkSj v;Ld xzqIk&1 dk fu;kZr ¼fujh{k.k½ fu;e]

1965 ds fu;e 4 ds v/khu muds n~okjk viukbZ xbZ

fujh{k.k dh i)fr dh tkap djus ds fy,] bl fufeRr

fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn~ n~okjk ukefufnZ"V vf/kdkfj;ksa

dks i;kZIr lqfo/kk,a nsxh( vkSj

(ii)

eSllZ bLlu ,.M daiuh] 24&19 izFke ry] FkkWEilu

xyh] utnhd vksYm iksLV vkWfQl] fo'kk[kkiêue]

1336

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 30, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu vius d`R;ksa ds ikyu esa

funs'kd ¼fujh{k.k vkSj DokfyVh fu;a=.k½] fu;kZr

fujh{k.k ifj"kn~ n~okjk le;≤ ij fyf[kr esa fn,

x, ,sls funsZ'kksa ls vkc) gksaxsA

[Qk- la- 4@08@2014&fu;kZr fujh{k.k]

lq/kka'kq ikaMs;] la;qDr lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2015

S.O. 539.— In exercise of the powers conferred by

the sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Export (Quality

Control and Inspection) Act 1963 (22 of 1963) read with

sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and

Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby

recognizes, M/s. Essen & Co, 24-19, Ist Floor, Thomposn

Street, Near Old Post Office, Vishakhapatnam as an agency

forpurpose of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act for a

period of three years from the date of publication of this

notification, for the inspection of Minerals and Ores

(Group-I) namely, Iron Ore and Managese Ore excluding

Manganese Dioxide as specified in the Schedule annexed

to the Ministry of Commerce notification number S.O. 3975

dated the 20th December 1965, prior to export of the

aforesaid minerals and ores at Vishakhapatnam, subject to

the following conditions, namely:—

(i) M/s. Essen & Co. 24-1-9, Ist Floor, Thompson Street,

Near Old Post Office, Vishakhapatnam, shall give

adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the

Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine

the method of inspection followed by them in carrying

out the inspection under rule 4 of the Export of

Minerals and Ores—Group I (Inspection) rules, 1965;

(ii) M/s. Essen & Co. 24-1-9, Ist Floor, Thompson Street,

Near Old Post Office, Vishakhapatnam, in the

performance of their function under this notification

shall be bound by such directions as the Director

(Inspection and Quality Council), Export Inspection

Council may give in writing from time to time.

[F.No. 4/8/2014-Export Inspection]

SUDHANSHU PANDEY, Jt. Secy.

Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=ky;

vkns'k

ubZ fnYyh] 14 tuojh] 2015

dk-vk- 540-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk er gS fd ctkt

bySfDVªdYl fyfeVsM ds izca/ku vkSj muds dkexkjksa ds chp vkSn~;ksfxd

foon fon~;eku gSa%

rFkk tcfd xqtjkr ds ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] vgenkckn us

fofo/k flfoy vkosnu la- 1943@2003 rFkk fofo/k flfoy vkosnu

la- 1711@2003 esa funs'k fn;k fd vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]

1947 ds mica/kksa ds varxZr ekeys ij fopkj fd;k tk, vkSj mi;qDr

fu.kZ; fy;k tk,(

rFkk tcfd ,d ls vf/kd jkT; esa fLFkr ctkt bySfDVªDYl

fyfeVsM ds LFkkiuksa ds blls lac) vFkok izHkkfor gksus dh laHkkouk

gS(

rFkk tcfd dsUnzh; ljdkj dk er gS fd mDr fookn dk

U;k;&fu.kZ;u jk"Vªh; U;k;kf/kdj.k n~okjk fd;k tk,(

rFkk tcfd dsUnzh; ljdkj us vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]

1947¼1997 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 7[k }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq, Je ea=ky; ds fnukad 06-09-2004 ds vkns'k la-

,y&42012@144@2004&vkbZvkj¼lh&II½ ds ek/;e ls jk"Vªh;

vkSn~;ksfxd U;k;f/kdj.k xfBr fd;k ftldk eq[;ky; eqEcbZ esa j[kk

x;k rFkk U;k;k/kh'k ,l-lh- ik.Ms dks bldk ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

fu;qDr fd;k tFkk mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1d½

n~okjk iznRRk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, mDr vkSn~;ksfxd fookn dks

U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq mDr jk"Vªh; vkSn~;ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k dks Hkst fn;k(

rFkk tcfd U;k;k/kh'k Jh ,l- lh- ik.Ms us 8-9-2004 dks

mi;qZDr jk"Vªh; vkSn~;ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k dk inHkkj R;kx fn;k(

rFkk tcfd dsUnzh; ljdkj us fnukad 10-11-2015 ds vkns'k

ds ek/;e ls jk"Vªh; U;k;kf/kdj.k dk iquxZBu fd;k rFkk U;k;k/kh'k

Jh ?ku';ke nkl dks bldk ihBklhu vf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k(

rFkk tcfd U;k;kf/k'k Jh /ku';ke nkl us 06-02-2006 dks

mDr jk"Vªh; vkSn~;ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k dk inHkkj NksM+ fn;k(

rFkk tcfd dsUnzh; ljdkj us fnukad 3-1-2011 ds vkns'k ds

ek/;e ls jk"Vªh; U;k;kf/kdj.k dk iquxZBu fd;k rFkk U;k;k/kh'k

Jh xkSjh 'kadj ljkZQ dks bldk ihBklhu vf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k(

rFkk tcfd U;k;k/kh'k Jh xkSjh 'kadj ljkZQ us fnukad 20-09-2011

dks fu.kZ; nsdj fookn dk fuiVku fd;k rFkk U;k;k/kh'k

Jh xkSjh 'kadj ljkZQ us 30-06-2013 dks viuh lsokfuo`fÙk ij mDr

jk"Vªh; vkSn~;ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k dk inHkkj NksM+ fn;k(

rFkk tcfd eSllZ ctkt bySfDVªDYl fyfeVsM vkSj muds

dkexkjksa ds chp ekStwnk fooknksa ds lanHkZ esa vuqeksnu laca/kh vkosnuksa

vkSj f'kdk;rksa dk fuiVku djus ds fy, jk"Vªh; vkSn~;ksfxd

U;k;f/kdj.k xfBr fd;k tkuk visf{kr gS(

vr%] blfy, ,d jk"Vªh; vkSn~;ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k dh LFkkiuk

dh tkrh gS ftldk eq[;ky; eqacbZ esa gksxk vkSj ftlds ihBklhu

vf/kdkjh lhthvkbZVh la[;k 1] eqcbZ ds ihBklhu vf/kdkjh U;k;k/kh'k

Jh lR; iwr esgjks=k gksxsa rFkk mi;qZDr fookn dks U;k;fu.kZ;u ds fy,

mDr jk"Vªh; vkSn~;ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k dks bl funs'k ds lkFk Hkstk

tkrk gS fd U;k;k/kh'k Jh lR; iwr egjks=k ekeys esa dk;Zokgh djsaxs

rFkk rn~uqlkj bldk fuIkVku djsaxsA

[la- ,y&42012@144@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 30] 1936

1337

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

ORDER

New Delhi, the 14th January, 2015

S.O. 540.—Whereas the Central Govt. is of the

opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the

management of Bajaj Electricals Limited and their workmen:

And whereas the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at

Ahmedabad in Misc. Civil Application No. 1943/2003 in

Misc. Civil Application No. 1711/2003 gave a direction to

consider the matter under the provisions of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 and take appropriate decision;

And whereas the establishments of Bajaj Electricals

Limited situated in more than one State are likely to be

interested in, or affected;

And whereas the Central Government is of the

opinion that the said dispute should be adjudicated by a

National Tribunal;

And whereas the Central Government in exercise of

the powers conferred by Section 7B of the I.D. Act, 1947

(14 of 1997) constituted a National Industrial Tribunal vide

Ministry of Labour Order No. L-42012/144/2004-IR(C-II)

dated 6.9.2004 with headquarters at Mumbai and appointed

Justice Shri S.C. Pandey as its Presiding Officer and exercise

of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (1A) of Section 10

of the said Act, referred the said Industrial Dispute to the

said national Industrial Tribunal for adjudication;

And Whereas Justice Shri S.C. Pandey relinguished

charge of the above National Industrial Tribunal on

8.9.2004;

And Whereas Central Government vide order dated

10.11.2005 reconstituted the national Tribunal and appointed

Justice Shri Ghanshyam Dass as its Presiding Officer;

And Whereas Justice Shri Ghanshyam Dass

relinguished the change of the said national Industrial

Tribunal on 06.02.2006;

And Whereas Central Government vide order dated

3.1.2001 reconstituted the National Tribunal and appointed

Justice Shri Gauri Shanker Sarraf as the its Presiding Officer;

And Whereas Justice Shri Gauri Shanker Sarraf

disposed of the dispute by way of Award dated 20.9.2011

and Shri Gauri Shanker Sarraf relinquished the charge of

the said National Industrial Tribunal on his retirement on

30.06.2013;

And whereas the National Industrial Tribunal is

required to be constituted deal with the approal applications

and complaints in reference disputes exists between M/s.

Bajaj Electricals Limited and their workmen;

Now therefore, a National Industrial Tribunal is

constituted with Headquarters at Mumbai with Justice Shri

Satya Poot Mehrotra, Presiding Officer of CGIT No. 1,

Mumbai as its Presiding Officer and the above said dispute

is referred to the above said National Industrial Tribunal

for adjudication with a direction that Justice Shri Satya

Poot Mehrotra shall proceed in the matter and dispose of

the same accordingly.

[No. L-42012/144/2004-IR(C-II)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 541-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tkWbaV bude

VSDl dfe'uj bude VSDl fMikZVesaV HkhyokM+k ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;

t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 29@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@131@2012&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2015

S.O. 541.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 29/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour

Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Joint Income Tax Commissioner, Income

Tax Department, Bhilwara and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 10/03/2015.

[No. L-42012/131/2012-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. 29/2014

Reference No. L-42012/131/2012-IR(DU) dated: 20.2.2013

Smt. Kanchan Devi

W/o Harpal Panwar

Resident-51, Jagjivan Nagar,

Near Government High-Primary School,

Khavakheda, Kachchi Basti,

Bhilwara (Rajasthan)

V/s

1338

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 30, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Joint Income Tax Commissioner

Income Tax Department

Bhilwara Section,

Bhilwara (Rajasthan).

AWARD

4.2.2015

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred

the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:-

"Whether the action of the management of Joint

Income-Tax Commissioner, Bheelwada in terminating

the services of Smt. Kanchan Devi w/o Shripal Panwar

by oral order dtd. 4.6.2011 is legal and justified? To

what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

2. After receipt of reference it was registered on

15.4.2014 & notices were sent to both the parties on

29.5.2014 fixing 23.6.2014 for statement of claim. On

23.6.2014 applicant Smt. Kanchan Devi appeared in person

on 23.6.2014 & an oral request was made by her for further

time to file statement of claim which was granted & 2.9.2014

was fixed for filing statement of claim. On behalf of opposite

party Income Tax Department Vakalatnama was filed by Sh.

B. B. Mathur, R. B. Mathur & other advocates. On 2.9.2014

& on the subsequent date on 17.11.2014 both the parties

remained absent & statement of claim was not filed from

the side of applicant. On 2.9.2014 next date 17.11.2014 & on

17.11.2014 next date 2.2.2015 was fixed for filing statement

of claim. On 2.2.2015 again both the parties remained absent

till the closure for the day. In above fact & circumstances,

it was felt by the tribunal that applicant is not interested in

pursuing the case by filing statement of claim Accordingly,

further proceeding in the case was closed by the tribunal

& case was reserved for award.

3. From above fact & circumstances, it shall appear

that nearly more than six months time has been provided

for filing the statement of claim but the same has not been

filed which is indicative of the fact that applicant is not

interested in filing the statement of claim. Accordingly, the

tribunal is unable to pass a suitable award based on

pleadings of the parties & evidence laid by them. Thus,

"No claim Award" is passed in this matter.

4. Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 542-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jktLFkku ,VkWfed

ikoj LVs'ku] dksVk ds izca/kra= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 13@2004½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@03@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@122@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2015

S.O. 542.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 13/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Rajasthan Atomic Power Station, Kota and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 10/03/2015.

[No. L-42011/122/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. 13/2014

Reference No. L-42011/122/2013-IR(DU) dated: 7.3.2014

General Secretary

Rajasthan Anushkati Pariyojna Karmachari

Sangh, INTUC Office, Pratap Circle,

PO-Bhabhanagar, Rawatbhata,

(Kota).

V/s

Site Executive Director

Rajasthan Atomic Power

Station Unit, R.R. Site via Kota,

Rawatbhata (Kota).

AWARD

12.2.2015

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1& 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred

the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:—

^^D;k vizkFkhZ izca/ku }kjk Jh pqUuhyky dk;Zn{k ch flfoy

vuqHkkx dks dk;Zn{k lh ds in ij inksUufr ykHk ls oafpr j[ks

tkus dh dk;Zokgh oS/k o U;k;ksfpr gS\ ;fn ugha rks izkFkhZ

deZpkjh fdl jkgr dk o dc ls ikus dk gdnkj gS\**

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 30] 1936

1339

2. After receipt of reference notices were sent to both

the parties & 24.6.2014 was date fixed for filing statement

of claim. Notice to the applicant returned with service

against applicant relating to which acknowledgement is on

record. On behalf of applicant Shri Kuldeep Aswal, Advocate

appeared on 24.06.2014 & alleged to file statement of claim

& authority on behalf of applicant on next fixed date 8.9.2014.

Learned representative on behalf of opposite party also

came in appearance. On 8.9.2014 both the parties remained

absent & learned advocates were on strike for indefinite

period hence, case was adjourned by the Tribunal on its

own motion in interest of justice & 24.11.2014 was next

date fixed for filing of statement of claim. On 24.11.2014

none appeared on behalf of applicant & statement of claim

was also not filed. Learned counsel for opposite party

appeared. The case was again adjourned in interest of

justice by Tribunal on its own motion providing opportunity

to the applicant for filing statement of claim on 9.2.2015. On

9.2.2015 Presiding Officer was on leave. Both the parties

remained absent. On 9.2.2015 also none appeared for

applicant & statement of claim was not filed & next date

11.2.2015 was fixed for filing statement of claim. On 11.2.2015

also both the parties were absent till the closure for the

day. None appeared on behalf of applicant to file statement

of claim, hence, further opportunity for filing statement of

claim by applicant was closed due to lack of interest from

appliant side. From the above circumstance it is clear that

nearly 8 month has elapsed since service against the

applicant & applicant has been served in person but

statement of claim has not been filed by him which is

indicative of the fact that applicant is not interested &

willing in filing the statement of claim. Accordingly, the

Tribunal is unable to pass a suitable award in absence of

the pleadings of the parties & evidence lead by them in

relation to respective pleadings.

3. It is also pertinent to note that on 7.3.2014 copy of

the reference was sent by Ministry to applicant with

direction to file statement of claim within 15 days from the

date of receipt of reference. Applicant has neither filed

statement of claim on the direction of Ministry nor on

receipt of notice sent by the tribunal. From the above fact

& circumstances, it is evident that the applicant has shown

no interest in pursuing his case further by filing statement

of claim & submitting suitable evidence to pass a suitable

award in respect of reference. Accordingly, "No Claim

Award" is passed in relation to reference under

adjudication.

4. Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 543-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jktLFkku ,VkWfed

ikoj LVs'ku] dksVk ds izca/kra= ds lc) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 27@2014½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@03@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@121@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2015

S.O. 543.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 27/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court,, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Rajasthan Atomic Power Station, Kota and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 10/03/2015.

[No. L-42011/121/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. 27/2014

Reference No. L-42011/121/2013-IR(DU) dated: 7.3.2014

General Secretary

Rajasthan Anushkati Pariyojna Karmachari

Sangh, INTUC Office, Pratap Circle,

PO-Bhabhanagar, Rawatbhata,

(Kota).

V/s

Site Executive Director

Rajasthan Atomic Power

Station Unit, R.R. Site via Kota,

Rawatbhata (Kota).

AWARD

12.2.2015

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1& 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred

the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:—

^^D;k vizkFkhZ izca/ku }kjk Jh chñ vkjñ jkor tsñ lhñ ,ñ

chñ dsUVhu dks fnukad 01-04-2009 ls ,eñ ,ñ lhñ ihñ ds

rgr Qkbusf'k;y vixzsMs'ku ugha fn, tkus dh dk;Zokgh oS/k

o U;k;ksfpr gS\ ;fn ugha rks izkFkhZ deZpkjh fdl jkgr dk o

dc ls ikus dk gdnkj gS\**

1340

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 30, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. After receipt of reference notices were sent to both

the parties & 24.6.2014 was date fixed for filling statement

of claim. Notice to the applicant returned with service

against applicant relating to which acknowledgement is on

record. Applicant did not appear on 24.6.2014. Learned

representative on behalf of opposite party came in

appearance. Next date 8.9.2014 was fixed for filing statement

of claim and case was adjourned by the Tribunal on its

own motion in interest of justice. On 8.9.2014 both the

parties remained absent and once again case was adjourned

fixing 24.11.2014 for filing of statement of claim. On

24.11.2014 none appeared on behlaf of applicant & statement

of claim was also not filed. Learned counsel for opposite

party appeared. The case was again adjourned in interest

of justice by Tribunal on its own motion providing

opportunity to the applicant for filing statement of claim

on 9.2.2015. On 9.2.2015 Presiding Officer was on leave.

Both the parties remained absent. On 9.2.2015 also none

appeared for applianct & statement of claim was not filed

& next date 11.2.2015 was fixed for filing statement of claim.

On 11.2.2015 also both the parties were absent till the closure

for the day. None appeared on behalf of appliant to file

statement of claim, hence, further opportunity for filing

statement of claim by applicant was closed due to lack of

interest from appliant side. From the above circumstance it

is clear that nearly 8 month has elapsed since service against

the applicant & applicant has been served in person but

statement of claim has not been filed by him which is

indicative of the fact that applicant is not inerested & willing

in filing the statement of claim. Accordingly, the Tribunal is

unable to pass a suitable award in absence of the pleadings

of the parties & evidence lead by them in relation to

respective pleadings.

3. It is also pertinent to note that on 7.3.2014 copy of

the reference was sent by Ministry to applicant with

direction to file statement of claim within 15 days from the

date of receipt of reference. Applicant has neither filed

statement of claim on the direction of Ministry nor on

receipt of notice sent by the tribunal. From the above fact

& circumstances, it is evident that the applicant has shown

no interest in pursuing his case further by filing statement

of claim & submitting suitable evidence to pass a suitable

award in respect of reference. Accordingly, "No Claim

Award" is passed in relation to reference under

adjudication.

4. Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 544-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsUnzh; e`nk

yo.krk vuqla/kku laLFkku ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2 paMhx< ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 1027@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 16@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@25@97&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkj

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2015

S.O. 544.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 1027/

2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Laobur Court No. II Chandigarh now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Central Soil Salinity

Research Intitute and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 16/03/2015.

[No. L-42012/25/97-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

PRESENT: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. No 1027/2005

Registered on 12.8.1997

Gurdial Singh, S/o Sh. Phoola Ram, Resident of

Village Baldi, District Karnal.

Petitioner

Versus

1. Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal

through its Director.

2. The Director, Central Soil Salinity Research

Insitute, Karnal

Respondents

APEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. B.B. Sharma Adv.

For the Management

Sh. S.K. Gupta Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 10.2.2015

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/

25/97 IR (DU) Dated 9.7.1997, 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 Trinunal:-

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 30] 1936

1341

"Whether the action of the Management of Central

Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal in terminating

the services of Sh. Gurdial Singh SS Grade-I Beldar

w.e.f. 9.6.1988 is just and legal? If not, to what relief is

the workman entitled to?"

In response to the notice, the workman appeared

and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was

appointed as S.S. Grade-I (Beldar) on daily rate basis by

the management in the year 1982 and was allowed to work

continuously till 5.12.1984. After giving a notional break,

he was again appointed as Beldar on daily wages and

allowed to work till 1988. He was called for interview on

24.6.1987 for the post of S.S. Grade-I in the pay scale of

Rs. 750-940 on regular basis. He was not selected. He was

again called for interview on 19.4.1988 but he was not given

regular pay scale. His services were terminated w.e.f.

9.6.1988 without assigning any reason and without serving

him any notice or payment of retrenchment compensation.

That the persons junior to him were retained in service . In

the circumstances, the termination of his services is illegal

and he be reinstated in service.

Management filed written reply controverting the

averments and denied that workman was ever appointed

as Beldar at any point of time. It is further pleaded that the

muster roll/acquaintance roll has been destroyed by a

Committee vide office order dated 9.1.1991 as per rules.

That the management makes appointments by following a

procedure and as per rules and workman was not appointed

as Beldar. It is further pleaded pleaded that after 1.4.1988

the respondent management did not employ any labour

and the work was given on contract of different contractors.

Parties were given opportunities to lead their

evidence.

In support of their case, the workman appeared in

the withness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the stand

taken in the claim statement.

On the other hand the management has examined

S.K. Goyal who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand of

the respondent management taken in the written statement.

I have heard Sh. B.B. Bagga for the workman and

Sh. S.K. Gupta for the management and also perused the

written arguments submitted by them.

It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for

the workman that the witness of the management namely

Sh. S.K. Goyal admits that the workman was appointed in

the year 1982 and continued doing work till 1984 and again

he was allowed to work till March, 1988 and in view of this

admission made by the witness of the management, it is to

be taken that workman actually worked with the respondent

management continuously and since his services were

terminated without paying him any retrenchment

compensation, he is liable to be reinstated in service.

It may be added that Sh. S.K. Goyal has deposed in

his affidavit in para 9 that workman was never appointed

as Beldar and he did not work with the management. That

a contract system was introduced in the department w.e.f.

1.4.1988 and specifically denied that workman was

employed by the respondent management in the affidavit

and his statement during cross-examination that the

workman was appointed in the year 1984 and worked upto

March, 1988 has no merit more particularly when there is

no record of attendance available with the respondent

department and it is specifically pleaded in the written

statement that the record has been destroyed as per rules.

It seems that Mr. S.K. Goyal has made the statement just to

favour the workman and his statement cannot be relied

upon. There is no other convincing evidence on the file

except the bare statement of the workman that he was

employed by the management which cannot be acted upon

without any corroboration. Thus it is not proved on the file

that he was ever employed by the respondent

management.

He is also not entitled to any relief on the ground

that his services were allegedly terminated in June, 1988.

He raised a demand notice and the present reference was

in the year 1997 i.e. he agitated the matter after considerable

delay and did not furnish any explanation in this respect

and therefore on the ground of latches, he is not entitled to

any relief.

Again there is a copy of the award dated 18.5.2005

placed on the file showing that the reference regarding the

termination of the services of the workman dated 9.7.1997

was received and since the workman failed to pursue the

same, the same was returned to the Central Government

vide award dated 18.5.2005. The present reference is also

dated 9.7.1997. It seems that the workman got referred his

dispute twice from the appropriate Government and he

failed to pursue one of the reference, he cannot claim any

relief in the second reference.

It is the case of the workman himself that he was

engaged on daily rated basis. Thus he was a daily wager

and the termination of the services of such a workman do

not amount to retrenchment and in this respect reliance

may be placed on Divisional Forest Officer, Rohtak vs. Jagat

Singh and Others reported in 2010 (4) SLR 390, wherein, it

was observed in para 4 of the judgment as follow:-

It may be noticed that the definition of retrenchment

in Section 2 (oo) of the Act is applicable to the

provisions contained in chapter VA containing

Sections 25F and 25H of the Act. The termination of

daily wager is not retrenchment failling within Section

2(oo) (bb) of the Act. Therefore, the workman, who

is a daily wager, cannot be reinstated as it does not

amount to retrenchment within the meaning of

Sections 25F and 25G of the Act.

1342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 30, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Thus, considering all the circumstances, the reference

is answered against the workman and it is held that he is

not entitled to any relief. Let hard and soft copy of the

award be sent to the Central Government for further

necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 545-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj v u diwj

¼tkWfuVlZ½ izkbosV fyfeVsM ,.M vksBslZ ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+

ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1365@2008½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 16@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@101@2007&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkj

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2015

S.O. 545.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 1365/

2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum

Laobur Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the A N Kapoor (Jannitors)

Pvt. Ltd & Others and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 16/03/2015.

[No. L-42012/101/2007-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

PRESENT : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No 1365/2008

Registered on 11.3.2008

Smt. Usha, aged 37 years wife of Sh. Sant Lal, R/o

House No. 608, Sector 38A Chandigarh.

Petitioner

Versus

1. The Managing Director, M/s. A N Kapoor

(Jannitors) Pvt. Ltd., B-104/8, Nirala Nagar,

Lucknow (UP).

2. The Management, M/s. A N Kapoor (Jannitors)

Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 38, Old Sarai, Nehru Hospital,

PGIMER, Chandigarh.

3. The Director, PGIMER, Section 12, Chandigarh.

Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. Anil Mehta Adv.

For the Management

Sh. Madan Mohan Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 19.2.2015

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/

101/2007 IR (DU) Dated 29.2.2008, 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 Trinunal:-

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. A N

Kapoor (Jannitors) Pvt. Ltd. a contracor of the Nehru

Hospital, PGIMER, Chandigarh in terminating the

services of their workman Smt. Usha w.e.f. 17.11.2006

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

is entitled to?"

In response to the notice, the workman appeared

and submitted statement of claim pleading that she was

appointed by respondent No. 3 on 29.3.2001 on a monthly

sarlary of Rs. 2400/- and she did work till April 2005, when

she was deployed with the contractor i.e. respondent No.

1 and 2. It is pleaded that workman worked with respondent

No. 1 and 2 till 17.11.2006 when here services were illegally

terminated. She was drawing a salary of Rs. 3022/- at that

time. That no notice was served upon her nor any

compensation was paid to her prior to the termination of

her services and as such the termination of the services is

illegal. That the persons junior to her were retained by the

employed and on that count also the termination is illegal.

She be reinstated in service with full back wages.

Respondent No. 1 and 2 were proceeded against

ex-parte.

Respondent No.3 contested the claim and filed

written statement pleading that it was given a contract to

M/s. A N Kapoor for providing services for Sanitation,

housekeeping etc. on 1.8.2005 and the said firm provided

the services of the applicant who used to receive salary

from the contractor. She was never appointed by the

respondent No. 3 at any point of time and there is no

relationship of employer and employee between the

workman and respondent No. 3. It is specifically denied

that she was employed by respondent No. 3 from March,

2001 to April, 2005. It was the contractor who terminated

her services on 17.11.2006.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

Workman appeared in the withness box and filed her

affidavit reiterating the stand taken by her in the statement

of claim.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 30] 1936

1343

On the other hand respondent No. 3 has examined

Sh. Arun Kumar, who filed has affidavit supporting the

stand taken in the written statement.

I have heard Sh. Anil Mehta, counsel for the workman

and Sh. Madan Mohan, counsel for the management.

It may be added that the reference is whether the

action of the management of M/s. A N Kapoor Pvt. Ltd. in

terminating the services of the workman is legal and

justified. A lengthy argument was advanced to show that

the workman was initially employed by respondent No. 3,

but since the reference is regarding the terminatioin of the

services of the workman by respondent No. 1 and 2, the

said question is not to be considered by this Court.

Moreover, it is the case of the workman itslelf that here

services were terminated by respondent No. 1 and 2 without

any notice or compensation.

According to the workman, she was engaged by

respondent No. 1 and 2 in April, 2005 and her services were

terminated on 17.11.2006. There is an unrebutted statement

of the workman in support of these assertions. This fact is

also admitted by respondent No. 3 in the written statement.

Respondent No. 1 and 2 did not come forward to contest

the claim of the workman. Therefore it is to concluded that

workman was employed by respondent No. 1 and 2 from

April 2005 to 17.11.2006.

There is nothing on the file to suggest that any notice

was issued to the workman prior to the termination of her

services or she was paid any compensation as required

under Section 25F of the Act. Thus the termination of the

services of the workman by respondent No. 1 and 2 on

17.11.2006 is not legal and are unjustified.

Now the question to be seen is whether the workman

is entitled to reinstatement in service. Suffice it to say that

respondent No. 1 and 2 are the contractors to whom the

contract was given by respondent No. 3 for providing

services for sanitation, housekeeping etc. In the

circumstances, the reinstatement of the workman with

respondent No. 1 and 2 cannot be ordered. However she is

to be paid compensation for illegal termination of her

services. Ordinarily the workman is entitled to one month's

pay and 15 days' average pay for every completed year of

service. Considering the totiality of the facts, a lump sum

amount by doing the guess work is required to be paid to

her as compensation. Therefore in the circusmstances of

the case, she is awarded Rs. 2 lac as compensation which

she is entitled to recover from respondent No. 1 and 2.

In result, the reference is answered in favour of the

workman holding that termination of here services by

M/s. A N Kapoor Pvt. Ltd. are illegal and she is entitled to

recover Rs. 2 lac by way of compensation from respondent

No. 1 and 2. The said firm shall pay the compensation

within two months from the date of the publication of the

award failing which the workman is entitled to recover

interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum on the awarded

amount from the date of the award till realization. Let hard

and soft copy of the award be sent to Central Government

for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 546-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vks ,u th lh ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 128@2004½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@140@1997&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2015

S.O. 546.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 128/

2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s.

ONGC and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 16/03/2015.

[No. L-30012/140/1997-IR(C-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labout Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 1st October, 2014

Reference: (CGITA) No.- 128/2004

Reference: (I.T.C.) No. 110/1998

The Group General Manager (Project),

ONGC Ltd.,

Chandkheda,

Ahmedabad 380001

... First Party

And

Their Workman

Sh. R.K. Parmar

Through the Union,

The Technical & Non Technical Workers Association,

A-170, Sarvottam Nagar Society,

Near New Railway Colony,

Sabarmati, Ahmedabad

... Second Party

1344

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 30, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the 1st party:

Shri K.V. Gadhia, Advocate

For the Second Party:

Ms. Santoshben N. Bhendwal,

General Secretary, Gujarat

Petroleum Employees Union

AWARD

The Central Government/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide Order No. L-30012/140/97-IR(C-I) dated 17.11.1998

referred the dispute for adjudication with respect of the

matters specified in the schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the technical and non-

technical Association Ahmedabad for treating the

workman Shri R.K. Parmar direct workman of ONGC

is justified? If yes, to what directions are necessary?"

2. Upon notice the parties to the dispute had appear

and filed respective pleadings/S.c (Ext.5) by the workman

on 09.12.1999 and W/s (Ext.7) by the O.N.G.C. Ltd.,

Ahmedabad (1st Party) on 11.10.2000. Thereafter case was

pending for leading evidence by the 2nd party Union.

The 2nd party failed to lead evidence in this case. On

03.09.2014, an application with list of documents have been

filed and its copy received by the lawyer of the opposite

party, the concern workman Sh. R.K. Parmar has authorised

the union, (the 2nd party) to represent him in this case for

withdrawal of this reference case as per settlement dated

18.07.2012. The copy of settlement has also been attached.

It appears that the concern workman in this case is ready

to accept the memorandum of settlement dated 18.07.2012

arrived at between representative of employees contractor,

representing contractor workman union and also

representing principle employer ONGC Ltd. As per terms

of settlement 35% of wage has been increase together, the

payment of Rs. 50/- per day as per order dated 15.02.2001

of the to Dy. CLC, Mumbai with other facility like gratuity,

Employees Provident Fund, Leave with wages etc.,

employees PF, leave with wages and other facility, the

concern workman needs to avail the benefit of settlement

and so consented to withdraw the prosecution of this case.

The 1st party ONGC has get no objection in disposing of

this reference case as per withdrawal application

representing of the workman/Union.

In such view of the matter there is no need to

adjudicate upon the terms of reference case. The 2nd party

workman/Union does not intend to make contest in this

reference case for availing the benefits of memorandum of

settlement on 18.07.2012. So the withdrawal application is

accepted.

In such view of the matter, this reference is dismissed.

No order of any cost.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 547-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; u- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 54@2004½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@29@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2015

S.O. 547.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby published the Award (Ref. No. 54/2004)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

16/03/2015.

[No. L-20012/29/2004-IR(C-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/s 10(1) (d)(2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 54/2004

Employer in relation to the management of Khas Kusunda

Colliery of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present :

Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri S.N. Ghosh, Advocate

For the workman :Sri N.M. Kumar, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry—Coal

Dated 5.12.2014

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/29/2004-IR(C-I) dated

08/16.06.2004, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 30] 1936

1345

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Khas

Kusunda Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not providing

employment to Smt. Kanti Devi, the dependant

daughter of late Birbal Bhuia as per the provisions

of NCWA is justified? If not, to what relief is the

said dependant of late Birbal Bhuia entitled?"

2. This case is received from the Ministry on 28/06/

2004. During the pendency of the case. The representative

of workman submits that workman is not interested to

contest the case. The management agreed it is felt that the

dispute between parties is resolved. Hence "No dispute"

award is passed. communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 548-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr gsoh

bysfDVªdYl fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 60@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

17@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@128@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th March, 2015

S.O. 548.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby published the Award (I.D. No. 60/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour

Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 17/03/2015.

[No. L-42012/128/2012-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Friday, the 27th February, 2015

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 60/2014

(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 Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and their

workman)

BETWEEN

Sri S. Duraisamy and 14 Others :

1st Party/Petitioners

AND

The Executive Director

:

2nd Party/Respondent

M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.

Trichirappalli-620014

Appearance:

For the 1st party/Petitioners

:

M/s R. Thangasamy,

Advocate

For the 2nd Party/Respondent :

Sri A.V. Arun, R.

Vinothkumar,

Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government/Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-42012/128/2012-IR(DU)

dated 07.01.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the demand for employment to the

workman S/Sri S. Duraisamy and 14 others is legal and

justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman are

entitled?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 60/2014 and issued notice to both

sides. Both sides entered appearance through their Counsel

and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioners are Sons of workmen who had worked

in the Respondent establishment as permanent employees.

These employees died while they were in service. The

petitioners were provided employment by the Respondent

on compassionate grounds when they approached the

Respondent after death of their respective fathers. The

petitioners rendered efficient and loyal service to the

Respondent. Most of them were working with the

Respondent during the period from 1988 to 1993, the details

of which are shown in the Claim Statement. To avoid the

claim of permanency by the petitioners the Respondent

created occasional breaks in their service. Later the

Respondent refused to provide employment to the

petitioners and relieved them from their duties with effect

from their last day of their service. Some other workers

who were turned out from service in such manner had raised

industrial dispute and the Labour Court, Trichy had directed

the Management to reinstate them in service. This order

1346

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 30, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

was confirmed by the High Court as well as by the Supreme

Court. Whenever the petitioners requested the

Management for reinstatement, they were assured of

reinstatement after final verdict in the case before the

Labour Court, Trichy. But the Respondent has not

reinstated the petitioners even after the order by the Trichy

Labour Court was confirmed by the higher courts. An order

may be passed directing the Respondent to reinstate the

petitioners in service with back wages and continuity of

service.

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

The petition is barred by limitation as it is beyond

the period specified under Section-2(a)(3) of the Industrial

Disputes Act. It is admitted that petitioner's fathers served

in the Respondent establishment and died while they were

in service. However, the cause of their death was natural

and not due to any accident arising out of and in the course

of employment. Appointment on compassionate grounds

is considered in the Respondent establishment only in the

event of the employee dying due to accident during the

course of and arising out of employment. The petitioners

are not entitled for employment in the Respondent

establishment on compassionate ground. The petitioners

were engaged only on daily wages in the category of

unskilled workers as casual labourers during some period

till 1993. Their engagement was purely on temporary basis.

The contract of employment was for a specific period and

on expiry of the period the engagement automatically came

to an end. It is not admitted that the petitioners worked in

the Respondent establishment for the number of days

stated in the petition. None of the petitioners worked for

more than 240 days in the year prior to the date of the

alleged termination. So the provision of Section-25(F) of

25(N) are not attrached in the case. The allegation that the

Respondent created artificial breaks in the petitioners'

service with the mala-fide intention to avoid their claim for

permanency is not correct. The Respondent being a

Government of India Undertaking, the appointment to any

post in the establishment is subject to the recruitment policy

and guidelines of Government of India. The petitioners

were not at all terminated from service. It was only a case of

non-renewal of contract of employment. The petitioners

used to be engaged only when work was available and that

also for a specified period. Disengagement of the petitioners

will not amount to termination. In any case the petitioners

have been sleeping over the matter for around 20 years.

For this reason itself they are not entitled to any relief.

5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext. W1 to

Ext. W202 and Ext. M1 to Ext. M5.

6. The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the demand of the petitioners for

reinstatement in the service of the Respondent is

legal and jusitifed?

(ii) To what relief the petitioners are entitled?

The Points

7. All the petitioners are children of persons who

were permanent workers of the Respondent establishment

and died while they were in service. According to the

petitioners, on death of their respective fathers who were

permanent workmen of the Respondent establishment, they

have approached the Respondent and were provided with

work on compassionate basis. The petitioners are said to

have been taken as workers by the Respondent either in

1988, 1989 or 1990, but all turned out of work at the end of

March 1993. It is stated by the petitioners that after their

termination from service, they have been requesting the

Respondent to reinstate them in service but were made to

wait with the assurance that their case will be considered

after a dispute raised by some other workmen came to an

end. According to the petitioners even after the dispute

raised by other workmen before the Trichy Labour Court

were ordered in their favour and were confirmed by the

High Court and Supreme Court, their plea for reinstatement

was not favourably considered by the Respondent.

8. It is the case of the Respondent that the petitioners

were not given employment on compassionate grounds at

all. It is admitted by the Respondent that all the petitioners

are children of workmen of the Respondent establishment

who died while they were still in service. However, according

to the Respondent all of them had natural death and not on

account of any accident in the course of their employment.

It is admitted by the Third Petitioner examined as WW1

that all those workmen had a natural death though they

died while in service. The case of the Respondent is that

only the children of those employees who died in accident

during the course of employment are entitled to employment

on compassionate grounds as per the recruitment policy

of the Respondent. In fact there is no case for any of the

petitioners that they were permanently employed. They

were being engaged on daily wage basis by the Respondent,

probably considering the fact that they are children of

workmen who died while in service.

9. The case of the petitioner is to be rejected on

account of the huge delay in raising the dispute itself. As

seen from the Claim Statement itself, all the petitioners were

terminated from service in March 1993. The dispute was

raised by them before the Labour Commissioner only in

2012. That means it was almost after 20 years the petitioners

have thought of raising a dispute challenging their alleged

termination.

10. True, no limitation is prescribed in the Industrial

Disputes Act for raising the dispute. Sub-Clause (2) & (3)

was incorporated to Section-2(A) of the ID Act only in

2010 enabling the aggrieved workmen to approach the

Industrial Tribunal directly after expiry of 45 days of the

application before the conciliation officer and within 3 years

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 30] 1936

1347

from the date of discharge, dismissal or retrenchment.

However, this limitation prescribed is only for directly

approaching the Tribunal and not in raising the dispute

before the Conciliation Officer. However, in spite of the

absence of any such provision for limitation delay in raising

the dispute is a matter that is to be taken into account. This

is the dictum laid down by the Apex Court and reiterated

repeatedly. The petitioners have not stated what is the

reason for the delay in raising the dispute. There is a vague

reference in the Claim Statement to the assurance made by

the Respondent regarding consideration of their demand

after disposal of a similar matter pending. But the petitioners

have not produced a scrap of paper to show that they have

made any representation to the Respondent seeking to

take them back in service. What were the petitioners doing

for the 20 years during which they remained silent? There

is no clue at all regarding this. The Third Petitioner who is

the only one examined on the side of the petitioners have

not stated anything about the delay in raising the dispute.

It could not be that they were sitting idle for all these 20

years. By the time they approached the Conciliation Officer

the issue has already become stale. It was something

forgotten, buried to the past. There was no justification at

all for the petitioners for coming forward with such a dispute

after all these years. Silence for so many years is to be

interpreted as acceptance of their termination without any

challenge. The petitioners probably thought of raising the

dispute after some workmen were reinstated in service on

the intervention of the labour Court, Trichy. If not for this,

the petitioners would not have thought of a reinstatement

even in 2012. I find that on account of delay itself the

petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

11. Even otherwise the claim of the petitioners for

reinstatement in the service of the Respondent has no legal

justification. They petitioners have given a table in the

Claim Statement showing the days for which they have

worked with the Respondent. As seen from the Claim

Statement, the First Petitioner has worked for 674 days, the

Second Petitioner for 894 days, the third Petitioner for 982

days, the Fourth Petitioner for 805 days, the Fifth Petitioner

for 578 days, the Sixth Petitioner for 388 days, the Seventh

Petitioner for 533 days, the Eighth Petitioner for 85 days,

the Ninth Petitioner for 53 days, the Tenth Petitioner for

664 days, the Eleventh Petitioner for 846 days and Twelfth

Petitioner for 346 days. As could be seen the period during

which each of them have worked this much days is from

1988 to 1993. None of them have worked for more than 240

days within any particular 12 months even as per the Claim

Statement. The petitioners have produced their appointment

letters and relieving orders. As could be seen from these

documents each time they were appointed for a specified

period and were relieved after expiry of the said period.

They were appointed again after some days or after some

months as the occasion necessitated and were relieved

again. Their employment was never continuous even as

seen from the documents.

12. The counsel for the Respondent has referred to

Section-25F of the ID Act and pointed out that the Section

is applicable only to persons who were in continuous

service for not less than one year. As per Section-25(B)(i)

of ID Act if a person is to be said to be in continuous

service for a period he should be in uninterrupted service

for that period. If he is not in continuous service as per

Sub-Clause (i) of Section-25(b) of the Act, as per Sec. 25

(B)(2), he will be deemed to be in continuous service for a

period of one year if he was during a period of 12 calendar

months preceding the date with reference to which

calculation is to be made has actually worked under the

employer for not less than 190 days in the case of workman

employed below ground in a mine and 240 days in any

other case. So if the petitioners are to be treated to have

been in continuous service for a period of one year they

should have actually worked for 240 days prior to the date

of their termination. Even as per the Claim Statement none

of the petitioners have worked for 240 days during the 12

calendar months preceding the date of their termination

with reference to which the calculation is to be made. As

per their claim statement itself the First Petitioner has

worked for 102 days, the Second Petitioner for 105 days,

the Third Petitioner for 97 days, the Fourth Petitioner for 98

days, the Fifth Petitioner for 90 days, the Sixth Petitioner

for 109 days, the Seventh Petitioner for 88 days, the Eighth

Petitioner for 85 days, the Ninth Petitioner for 53 days, the

Tenth Petitioner for 90 days, the Eleventh Petitioner for 192

days and the Twelfth Petitioner for 92 only during the 12

calendar months preceding their termination. The Apex

Court has held in the decision HARYANA STATE

COOPERATIVE SUPPLY MARKETING FEDERATION

LTD. VS. SANJAY reported in 2009 14 SCC 43 that for the

applicability of Section-25F the workman has to show that

he has been in continuous service for not less than one

year under an employer. So legally also the petitioners are

not entitled to any relief.

13. In view of my discussion above, the reference is

answered against the petitioners. An award is passed

accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

:

WW1,

Sri R. Adaikaladhas

For the 2nd Party/Management :

MW1,

Smt. Krishnaveni

Sekar

Documents Marked:

For 1st Petitioner's

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

25.02.1987

Call Letter

Ex.W2

02.04.1988

Appointed as Casual Employee

Ex.W3

23.07.1988

Relieving Order

1348

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 30, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.W4

22.12.1988

Reposted as Casual Employee

Ex.W5

30.03.1989

Relief Order

Ex.W6

30.03.1989

Experience Certificate

Ex.W7

24.08.1989

Reposting Order

Ex.W8

30.03.1990

Relieving Order

Ex.W9

03.04.1990

Posted as Casual Leave to SSTP

Ex.W10

24.07.1990

Posting Order as Casual Employee

Ex.W11

30.07.1990

Posting Order in the SSTP

Department

Ex.W12

03.09.1990

Experience Certificate

Ex.W13

21.04.1990

Relief Order

Ex.W14

22.04.1991

Casual Employee Appointment

Ex.W15

27.06.1991

Appointed As Casual Employee

Ex.W16

22.07.1991

Appointed as Casual Employee

Ex.W17

01.08.1991

Duty reporting statement

Ex.W18

31.03.1992

Relieving order

Ex.W19

17.08.1992

Posting as Casual Employee

Ex.W20

24.08.1992

Relieving Order

Ex.W21

21.12.1992

Temporary Appointment Order

Ex.W22

28.12.1992

Posting Orders

Ex.W23

31.03.1993

Relieving Orders

For the 2nd Petitioner

Ex.W24

01.02.1988

Appointed as casual employee

Ex.W25

02.02.1988

Joining report

Ex.W26

29.03.1988

Relieving orders

Ex.W27

02.04.1988

Appointment Orders

Ex.W28

06.04.1988

Joining report

Ex.W29

22.07.1988

Relieving Order

Ex.W30

27.12.1988

Appointment on temporary basis

Ex.W31

31.12.1988

Posting Orders

Ex.W32

30.03.1989

Experience Certificate

Ex.W33

20.02.1989

Appreciation Order issued of the

Respondent

Ex.W34

28.03.1989

Relieving Order

Ex.W35

08.09.1989

Telegram informing for the

selection

Ex.W36

22.11.1989

Vocational Clerical Training Order

Ex.W37

09.09.1989

Posting Orders

Ex.W38

31.03.1989

Relieving Orders

Ex.W39

03.04.1990

Posting Orders

Ex.W40

09.04.1990

Sent for Medical Test

Ex.W41

12.04.1990

Order sending for Medical Test

Ex.W42

17.04.1990

Relieving Order

Ex.W43

25.04.1990

Temporary Appointment Order

Ex.W44

02.05.1990

Posting Order

Ex.W45

28.07.1990

Relieving Order

Ex.W46

01.08.1990

Posting Order

Ex.W47

10.09.1990

Experience Certificate furnished by

the Respondent

Ex.W48

10.09.1990

Relieving Order

Ex.W49

28.12.1990

Temporary Appointment Order

Ex.W50

31.12.1990

Posting Order

Ex.W51

30.03.1991

Relieving Order

Ex.W52

11.04.1991

Certificate For Excellence

Ex.W53

23.04.1991

Temporary Appointment Order

Ex.W54

27.04.1991

Posting Orders

Ex.W55

29.06.1991

Relieving Orders

Ex.W56

08.07.1991

Experience Certificate

Ex.W57

09.01.1992

Temporary Appointment Order

Ex.W58

14.01.1992

Posting Order

Ex.W59

06.04.1992

Relieving Order

Ex.W60

17.08.1992

Posting Order

Ex.W61

24.08.1992

Relieving Order

Ex.W62

24.08.1992

Experience Certificate

Ex.W63

01.01.1993

Posting Orders

Ex.W64

31.03.1993

Relieving Orders

For the 3rd Petitioner

Ex.W65

01.02.1988

Posting Orders as Casual

Employee

Ex.W66

29.03.1988

Relieving Order

Ex.W67

02.04.1988

Posting Order

Ex.W68

22.07.1988

Relieving Order

Ex.W69

29.10.1988

Allotted Canteen Works

Ex.W70

31.12.1988

Posting Orders

Ex.W71

28.03.1989

Relieving Orders

Ex.W72

30.03.1989

Experience Certificate

Ex.W73

31.03.1990

Relieving Orders

Ex.W74

03.04.1990

Posting orders

Ex.W75

24.07.1990

Relieving Orders

Ex.W76

06.08.1990

Posting Orders

Ex.W77

10.09.1990

Relieving Orders

Ex.W78

10.09.1990

Experience Certificate

Ex.W79

03.01.1991

Posting Orders

Ex.W80

30.03.1991

Relieving Orders

Ex.W81

21.04.1991

Relieving Orders

Ex.W82

22.04.1991

Posting Orders

Ex.W83

27.06.1991

Relieving Orders

Ex.W84

08.07.1991

Experience Certificate

Ex.W85

14.01.1992

Posting Orders

Ex.W86

06.04.1992

Relieving Orders

Ex.W87

01.01.1983

Posting Orders

Ex.W88

31.03.1993

Relieving Orders

Ex.W89

01.02.1988

Appointed as Casual Employee

Ex.W90

20.07.1988

Relieving Orders

Ex.W91

31.12.1988

Posting Orders

Ex.W92

28.03.1989

Relieving Orders

Ex.W93

09.09.1989

Posting Orders

Ex.W94

26.02.1990

Service extended order

Ex.W95

31.03.1990

Relieving Orders

Ex.W96

03.04.1990

Posting Orders

Ex.W97

24.07.1990

Relieving Orders

Ex.W98

30.07.1990

Posting Orders

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 30] 1936

1349

Ex.W99

30.08.1990

Steel Tub Plant—Pass

Ex.W100 01.01.1991

Posting Order

Ex.W101 01.03.1991

Extension of Service Order

Ex.W102 22.04.1991

Posting Order

Ex.W103 07.05.1991

Conduct Certificate

Ex.W104 08.07.1991

Experience Certificate

Ex.W105 14.01.1992

Posting Orders

Ex.W106 06.04.1992

Relieving Orders

Ex.W107 01.01.1993

Posting Orders

Ex.W108 31.03.1993

Relieving Orders

For the 5th Petitioner

Ex.W109 04.01.1990

Posting Orders

Ex.W110 09.04.1990

Order to undergo medical

Examination

Ex.W111 13.04.1990

Medical Test—calling letter

Ex.W112 10.09.1990

Experience Certificate

Ex.W113 01.01.1991

Postings Orders

Ex.W114 07.06.1991

NMR Wages Billing

Ex.W115 09.01.1992

Temporary Appointment Order

Ex.W116 01.01.1993

Telegram for reporting duty

Ex.W117 31.03.1993

Relieving Order

For the 6th Petitioner

Ex.W118 06.08.1990

Posting Order as Casual Employee

Ex.W119 10.09.1990

Relieving Orders

Ex.W120 10.09.1990

Experience Certificate

Ex.W121 02.01.1991

Posting Orders

Ex.W122 13.04.1991

Relieving Orders

Ex.W123 24.04.1991

Joining Report

Ex.W124 29.06.1991

Relieving Orders

Ex.W125 29.06.1991

Experience Certificate

Ex.W126 29.01.1992

Joining Report

Ex.W127 30.01.1992

ESI Benefit coverage order

Ex.W128 06.04.1992

Relieving Order

Ex.W129 -

Time Card for 1/92 and 2/92

Ex.W130 -

Time Card for 3/92

Ex.W131 17.08.1992

Posting Orders

Ex.W132 24.08.1992

Relieving Orders

Ex.W133 24.08.1992

Experience Certificate

Ex.W134 28.12.1992

Posting Orders

Ex.W135 31.03.1993

Relieving Orders

Ex.W136 07.04.1993

Experience Certificate

For the 7th Petitioner

Ex.W137 28.03.1989

Relieving Order

Ex.W138 30.03.1989

Experience Certificate

Ex.W139 31.03.1990

Relieving Orders

Ex.W140 03.04.1990

Relieving Orders

Ex.W141 17.04.1990

Relieving Orders

Ex.W142 02.05.1990

Posting Orders

Ex.W143 29.06.1991

Relieving Orders

Ex.W144 28.07.1990

Relieving Orders

Ex.W145 09.08.1990

Posting Orders

Ex.W146 29.08.1990

Relieving Orders

Ex.W147 29.06.1991

Relieving Orders

Ex.W148 08.07.1991

Experience Certificate

Ex.W149 06.04.1992

Relieving Orders

For the 8th Petitioner

Ex.W150 20.01.1993

Posting Orders

Ex.W151 30.03.1993

Relieving Orders

For the 9th Peititioner

Ex.W152 28.01.1993

Temporary Appointment Order

Ex.W153 06.02.1993

Posting Orders

Ex.W154 31.03.1993

Relieving Orders

For the 10th Petitioner

Ex.W155 09.02.1988

Posting Orders

Ex.W156 02.04.1988

Relieving Orders

Ex.W157 22.07.1988

Relieving Orders

Ex.W158 25.02.1989

Service Extension Orders

Ex.W159 04.01.1990

Posting Orders

Ex.W160 26.02.1990

Service Extension Orders

Ex.W161 24.07.1990

Posting Orders

Ex.W162 10.09.1990

Relieving Orders

Ex.W163 30.03.1992

Relieving Orders

Ex.W164 01.04.1992

Posting Orders

Ex.W165 31.03.1993

Relieving Orders

For the 11th Petitioner

Ex.W166 23.01.1988

Posting Orders

Ex.W167 30.03.1988

Relieving Orders

Ex.W168 02.04.1988

Posting Orders

Ex.W169 22.07.1988

Posting Orders

Ex.W170 02.01.1989

Posting Orders

Ex.W171 31.03.1989

Relieving Orders

Ex.W172 23.05.1989

Experience Certificate

Ex.W173 24.08.1989

Posting Orders

Ex.W174 31.08.1989

Reporting Orders

Ex.W175 02.04.1990

Relieving Orders

Ex.W176 03.04.1990

Posting Orders

Ex.W177 28.07.1990

Relieving Orders

Ex.W178 30.07.1990

Posting Orders

Ex.W179 30.07.1990

Expenditure Certificate

Ex.W180 03.09.1990

Relieving Orders

Ex.W181 01.01.1991

Posting Orders

Ex.W182 13.04.1991

Posting Orders

Ex.W183 22.04.1991

Posting Orders

Ex.W184 24.04.1991

Joining Duty Report

Ex.W185 29.06.1991

Posting Orders

Ex.W186 29.06.1991

Experience Certificate

Ex.W187 04.02.1992

Posting Orders

1350

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 30, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.W188 12.02.1992

Joining report

Ex.W189 01.04.1992

Temporary Appointment Order

Ex.W190 04.03.1992

ESI Coverage order

Ex.W191 31.03.1992

Relieving Order

Ex.W192 01.04.1992

Posting Order

Ex.W193 30.06.1992

Relieving Order

Ex.W194 17.08.1992

Posting Order

Ex.W195 24.08.1992

Experience Certificate

Ex.W196 24.08.1992

Relieving Order

Ex.W197 21.12.1992

Temporary Appointment Order

Ex.W198 28.12.1992

Posting Order

Ex.W199 28.01.1993

Relieving Order

For the 12th Petitioner

Ex.W200 31.03.1990

Relieving Order

Ex.W201 03.04.1990

Posting Order

Ex.W202 01.04.1992

Posting Order

On the Management's side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

10.08.2011

Representations of the petitioners

Ex.M2

14.08.2007

Recruitment Policy of Respondent

Ex.M3

23.12.2011

Petition submitted by Petitioners

before ALC (Central)

Ex.M4

28.05.2012

Counter filed by Respondent

before ALC (Central)

Ex.M5

23.07.2012

Failure report of ALC (Central)

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 549-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fpfdRlk foKku

jklk;fud vuqla/kku fuxe ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 13@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 17@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,yñ&42012@93@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th March, 2015

S.O. 549.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. Ref. No. 13/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-

Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the M/s Therapeutics Chemical

Research Corporation and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 17/03/2015.

[No. L-42012/93/2012-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 13 of 2012

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

M/s. Therapeutics Chemical Research

Corporation

AND

Their workmen,

Present

;

Justice Dipak Saha Ray,

Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the

:

Mr. S.K. Karmakar, Ld. Counsel.

Management

On behalf of the

:

Mr. A. Mukherjee, Ld. Counsel.

Workmen

State : West bengal.

Industry : Chemicals

Dated: 23rd February, 2015.

AWARD

By Order No. L-42012/93/2012-IR(DU) dated

13.08.2012 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the M/s Therapeutics

Chemical Research Corporation, Durgachak

Colony Market, Haldia is justified for terminating

the services of Shri Bhupal Mukherjee is legal and

justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled

to?"

2. When the case is taken up for hearing today, Ld.

Counsels appearing for both the parties submit that the

matter has been settled amicably between the parties and

they have filed a joint petition of compromise enclosing

therewith a memorandum of settlement signed by the

parties concerned. They accordingly pray for an award in

terms of the said settlement.

3. On careful consideration of the said joint petition

of compromise and the memorandum of settlement it

appears that the terms and conditions of the memorandum

of settlement are fair, reasonable and the same is made for

the interest of the parties.

4. I accept the said memorandum of settlement and

pass an Award in terms of the said memorandum of

settlement which do from part of this Award as Annexure-A.

Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkta,

The 23rd February, 2015.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 30] 1936

1351

ANNEXURE-A

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL

Ref No. 13 of 2012

AND

In the matter of,

An Industrial Dispute

BETWEEN

The Management of

THE RAPEUTICS CHEMICAL

RESEARCH CORPORATION

AND

Their workman

Sri Bhupal Mukherjee

The humble Joint Petition on behalf of

both parties above named

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH

1.

That the above matter is pending before Your Honour.

2.

That during the pendency of the cases filed by

Sri Bhupal Mukherjee before this Hon'ble Tribunal, the

parties to the case have started bi-partite discussion

to settle the cases amicably outside the Tribunal.

3.

That after protected discussion in an atmosphere of

cordiality a memorandum of settlement has been

arrived at between the parties on 12th January, 2015

and the terms and conditions have been incorproated

therein. In terms of the said settlement the present

case has been settled fully and finally settled.

A xerox copy of the said memorandum of settlement

is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-'A'.

4.

That the petition is made bonafide and for ends of

justice.

In the circumstances it is therefore humbly

prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be

graciously pleased to pass an award in terms

of the said settlement disposing the present

reference and/or pass any other order or orders

as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper.

And for this act of kindness your petitioner as in

duty bound shall ever pray.

For the Company

Workman

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 550-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj izxfr'khy fuekZ.kksa

fyfeVsM fxjhMhgh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2 /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

106@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42011@40@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th March, 2015

S.O. 550.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. Ref. No. 106/

2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-

Labour Court No. II, Dhanbad now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Progressive

Construction Ltd., Giridihi and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 17/03/2015.

[No. L-42011/40/2011-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, 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. 106 OF 2013.

PARTIES :

Sri Arya Kumar Srivastava

Gandhi Road, Mahabir Asthan, Dhanbad

Vs. The. Project Director,

Progressive Constructions Ltd., At &

PO: Hesla, PS. Bagodar, Giridihi.

Ministry's Order No. L-42011/40/2011-

IR(DU) dt. 01.04.2013

APPEARANCES:

On behalf fo the workman/Union

:

None

On behalf of the Management

:

None

State

:

JHARKHAND

Industry

:

Transportation

Dated, Dhanbad, the 25th Feb., 2015,

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-42011/

40/2011-IR(DU) dt. 01.04.2013.

1352

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 30, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of

Progressive Construction Ltd., in stopping the work and

non-payment of admissible dues to Shri Arya Kumar

Srivastava, Liaison Officer w.e.f. 20.06.2009 is fair and

justified? What relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

2. Neither the workman Arya Kumar Srivastava nor

any his representative appeared nor any written statement

along with his documents filed on his behalf despite last

chance. likewise none appeared for the Project Director,

the progressive Construction Ltd., Bagodhar, Giridihi.

On perusal of the case record, it appears the case

has been all along pending fof filing the W.S. with the

documents of the workman, for which three Regd. Notices

dt. 29.05.2013, 26.0.2014 and 10.11.2014 were issued to both

the parties on their addresses noted in the reference itself

for it, yet despite the best efforts of the Tribunal, none of

the parties could appear except the workman who appeared

only two times on 17.04.2014 and 16.06.2014, yet he could

not file any written statement with his documents. Under

these circumstances, it stands undoubtedly quite clear as

apparent from the conducts of the workman that he is no

longer interested/willing to pursue the case for its finality.

So it seems No industrial Dispute exists. In result, the case

is closed as such; accordingly 'No Dispute Award' is

passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 551-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fHkykbZ LVhy

IykaV ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/

kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 55@03½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 9@3@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&29012@85@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th March, 2015

S.O. 551.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D. No. 55/

03) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Bhilai Steel Plant and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

9/3/2015.

[No. L-29012/85/2002-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUANL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/55/03

Shri Bhagiram S/o Shri Dirop Singh,

Patel Colony,

Behind State Bank,

PO Dallirajhara, Durg (CG)

Workman

Versus

General Manager (Mines),

Bhilai Steel Plant,

Bhilai, CG

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 18th day of February 2015

1.

As per letter dated 17-3-03 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference

is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal

under Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-29012/85/2002-IR(M). The dispute under

reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Bhilai

Steel Plant in terminating the serivces of

Shri Bhagiram is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled for?"

2.

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Statement of claim is submitted at Page 3/1

to 3/4. Case of workman is that he was working with

IInd party from 1987. He was working with devotion.

His services were terminated from 8-4-2000. Workman

was suspended vide order dated 6-11-99.

Chargesheet was issued to him on 13-11-99. That

enquiry was not properly conducted. He was not

given opportunity for defence. He is illiterate person.

His signatures were obtained by the officer on

several documents. Co-worker was not allowed for

his defence. He was not given opportunity for adducing

evidence. Workman had not caused any damage to

the property. After dismissal from service, workman

is rendered unemployed. On such ground, workman

is praying for his reinstatement with back wages.

3.

IInd party submitted Written Statement at Page 10/1

to 10/7. IInd party submits that chargesheet was

issued to workman under clause 29.1, 29.2 of standing

orders. Workman was given opportunity for his

defence. It is denied that workman was not given

opportunity to cross-examine witness or lead his

evidence or to engage co-worker. It is submitted that

workman had admitted charges against him as per

letter dated 21-2-2000 and at other stages. Even after

issuing showcause notice to workman, he admitted

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 30] 1936

1353

charges of unauthorised absence. He refused to

engage co-worker as he admitted charges against

him. On such ground, IInd party submits that

workman is not entitled to any relief. Punishment of

dismissal is proper and legal.

4.

Evidence of parties was recorded by my predecessor

and as per order dated 23-2-2012 held enquiry proper.

5.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them

for the reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the misconduct

alleged against workman is

In Affirmative

proved from evidence in

Enquiry proceedings?

(ii)

Whether the punishment of

dismissal imposed against

In Negative

workman is proper and legal?

(iii)

If not, what relief the

As per final order.

workman is entitled to?"

REASONS

6.

Enquiry is found proper and legla. Thereafter no

evidence is adduced by both parties. Documents are

produced at Exhibit W-1 to W-4. Charge against

workman was (i) willful disobedience of lawful and

reasonable order of superior, (ii) leaving work place

without permission and (iii) dishonestly in

connection with company property. Exhibit W-2 is

order of his suspension. W-3 shows that on 5-11-99,

workman was allotted tipper No. MKT 741. He failed

to report to quarry with said tipper for transportation

of Ore/Waste. He was not traceable in Ist shift.

Around 1.15 PM, he brought said tipper to garage.

The tipper was driven by outsider was parked in

garage. Exhibit W-4 workman has admitted charge

against him. In view of admission of charge, I record

my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

7.

Point No. 2 — the charge workman was not reporting

with Tipper No. MKT 741 in Ist shift on 1-11-99 at

1.15 PM, workman had brought said Tipper to

Garrage. The Tipper was driven by outsider and was

not handed over to garage supervisor. The pleading

of workman that he was in service of IInd party form

1987 till dismissal of his service in 2000. For the alleged

misconduct, not reporting to Mine with Tipper in Ist

shift, the punishment of dismissal appears excessive

and not justified. Considering the nature of proved

charge, punishment of dismissal would be justified.

When past service of the workman is not shown

bad, the punishment of compulsory retirement would

be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in

Point No. 2.

8. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1)

The action of the management of Bhilai Steel

Plant in terminating the services of

Shri Bhagiram is not legal and proper.

(2)

Punishment of dismissal is modified to

compulsory retirement of Ist party workman.

IInd party is directed to give retirement benefit

to Ist party workman.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 552-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ tk;loky

usdks baMLVªht fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 41@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

09@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&43012@4@2011&vkbZvkj¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th March, 2015

S.O. 552.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D. No. 41/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s Jayasawal NECO Industries Limited

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 9/3/2015.

[No. L-43012/4/2011-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/41/2012

Shri Irfan Sariff,

C-2, Jivan Vihar Colony,

VIP Chowk, Telebandha,

Raipur (CG)

...Workman

Versus

Director,

M/S Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd.

Steel Plant Division,

Siltara Growth Centre,

Siltara, Distt. Raipur (CG)

...Management

1354

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 30, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed on this 18th day of February, 2015

1.

As per letter dated 27-2-2012 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference

is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal

under Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-43012/4/2011-IR(M). The dispute under

reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s

Jayaswal Neco Ltd. (Steel Plant Division) Siltara

Growth Centre, Raipur in retrenching/terminating the

services of Shri Irfan Sariff, Ex-Assistant (F&A)

Mines, without observing the provisions of Section

25-F of ID act is legal and justified? What relief the

workman is entitled to and from which date?"

2.

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of

claim at Page 1 to 3. Case of Ist party is that he was

issued appointment order dated 5-12-05. He was

appointed as Assistant in F&A Mines on 1-5-05. He

was working with IInd party on daily wages from

November, 2004 prior to the appointment order was

issued. He was paid salary under vouchers. That he

completed probation period and was confirmed

service from 1-6-06, the order issued on 14-12-06.

That he was continuously working with IInd party.

He acquired status of permanent employee. He is

covered as workman under ID Act. He was performing

his duties sincerely and honestly. That workman was

transferred on 22-5-08 to F&A Coal Mines. He joined

his duty on 1-10-08. He was further transferred to

Coal Mine Division via order dated 19-9-08. His

repeated request for transfer to Raipur were not

considered. Workman submits that he could not

attend the duty at place of transfer as he was getting

nominal salary of Rs. 9105/-. He has taken rented

home at Raipur. Mr. Shaji Thomas Dy. General

Manager has advised him to submit undertaking not

to remain absent then his request will be considered.

If he again remained absent, the same will be treated

as his resignation. Despite of his written undertaking,

workman was not transferred. His services are

terminated illegally. It amounts to illegal retrenchment.

He was not paid retrenchment compensation before

termination of his service after his undertaking dated

16-2-09. On such grounds, workman prays for his

reinstatement with back wages.

3.

IInd party after notice appeared through Advocate

Jaipal Singh but no Written Statement is filed.

4.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them

for the reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of M/s Jayaswal

Neco Ltd. (Steel Plant Division)

Siltara Growth Centre,

Raipur in retrenching/terminating

the services of Shri Irfan Sariff,

Ex-Assistant (F&A) Mines is

legal and justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?"

order.

REASONS

5.

The workman filed affidavit of his evidence

supporting his contentions in statement of cliam that

he was appointed by IInd party from 1-12-05. Prior to

it, he was working on daily wages from November,

2004. His services are terminated without issuing

notice. He was transferred to Coal Mines Raipur as

per order dated 22-5-08. Vide order dated 19-9-08, he

was transferred to Raigarh region. He requested

management for transfer to Raipur. He was suffering

from sciatica. He had not attended duties at place of

transfer in Raigarh Division. That place is 240 kms

distance from Raipur and coal miens are located at

60 kms from the office. The evidence of workman

remains unchallenged. That undertaking was

obtained from him that if he remains absent, it would

be treated as his resignation. Unchallenged evidence

of workman cannot be disbelieved. Workman has

not produced documents Exhibit W-1, W-2, W-3 in

support of his evidence. As evidence of workman

shows that he was regular employee of IInd party,

his services are terminated without notice,

retrenchment compensation not paid to him, the

termination of service of workman is illegal for

violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. For above

reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.

6.

In the result, award is passed as Under:—

(1)

The action of the management of M/s Jayaswal

Neco Ltd. (Steel Plant Division) Siltara Growth

Centre, Raipur in retrenching/terminating the

services of Shri Irfan Sariff, Ex-Assistant

(F&A) Mines is illegal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with

full back wages.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 553-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vykbM

DokfyVh daVªksylZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 21] 2015@iQkYxqu 30] 1936

1355

118@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@03@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&29012@50@2000&vkbZvkj¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th March, 2015

S.O. 553.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D. No. 118/

2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s Allied Quality Controllers and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 9/3/2015.

[No. L-29012/50/2000-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/118/00

Shri Pathiram,

Ward No. 14, Tirodi,

PO Tirodi, Distt. Balaghat (MP)

...Workman

Versus

M/s. Allied Quality Controllers,

Contractors of Thirodi Mine of MOIL,

H.O. Goberwahi, PO Goberwahi,

Distt. Bhandara (MS)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 19th day of February, 2015

1.

As per letter dated 26-6-00 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference

is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal

under Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-29012/50/2000-IR(M). The dispute under

reference relates to:

"Whether the action of M/s Allied Quality Controllers

Contractors of Tirodi Mine of MOIL Head Office,

Goberwahi, PO Goberwahi, Distt. Bhandara in nor

paying retrenchment compensation as per ID Act

and not paying 15 days leave wages to Shri Pathiram

S/o Modku and 32 other workers are justified? If not,

what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

2.

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Statement of claim on behalf of Ist party

workman by Shri Pathiram at Page 2/1 to 2/2. Case of

workman is that they were engaged as labour by

IInd party on daily wages in wages Rs. 38.23 since

year 1977. Their Provident Fund was deducted

amount of PF was deposited in PF office at Jabalpur.

Without assigning any reasons, all the workmen were

terminated without notice. They were not paid

retrenchment compensation. All workmen were

continuously working with IInd party for 20 years.

Their services are terminated without notice is illegal.

On such ground, Ist party workman prays for

reinstatement with back wages.

3.

IInd party submitted Written Statement. Preliminary

objection is raised that the answering respondent

entered into a contract with Manganese Ore India

Ltd. on 31-10-98 for a period of 3 years ending on

31-10-98. The contract was for transport of ore from

Mining to Railway siding far away from Mining to

stack it at Railway siding. The activity of loading ore

is only unconnected with mining as Central Govt. is

not the appropriate Government under Section 2-A

of ID Act. The order of reference is without

jurisdiction and illegal. The answering respondent

completed contract on 31-10-98. The establishment

ceized to exist from 1-11-98. Stator notice of closure

of establishment was given by RPAD on 30-8-98 to

Secretary of Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour. The

notice was also displayed on notice board for

information to the workman in Hindi. That Pathiram

has submitted statement of claim on behalf of 32

employees without authority by them. That law is

settled that recognized Union only can espouse the

grievance of workman collectively. If case is not filed

by Union, workman is required to file case

individually. If statement of claim of individual

workman was not given, the statement of claim is

silent about work performed in particular calendar

year. The statement of claim is vague and therefore

the claim deserves to be dismissed.

4.

IInd party further submits that workmen were engaged

on casual basis as per availability of work. Workman

not completed 240 days during any of the calendar

year. That workmen not rendered continuous service

as defined under Section 25B of ID Act. Since the

employees rendered their services on casual basis,

not completed 240 days continuous service, in any

of the calendar year, their claim for gratuity was

rejected by competent authority. It is submitted that

the workmen are gainfully employed therefore they

are not entitled to backwages.

5.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as

1356

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 21, 2015/PHALGUNA 30, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

under. My findings are recorded against each of them

for the reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of M/s Allied

Quality Controllers Contractors

of Tirodi Mine of MOIL Head

In Affirmative

Office,

Goberwahi,

PO

Goberwahi, Distt. Bhandara in

nor paying retrenchment

compensation as per ID Act

and not paying 15 days leave

wages to Shri Pathiram S/o

Modku and 32 other workers

are justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman

Workmen are not

is entitled to?"

entitled to any

relief.

REASONS

6.

Though dispute is raised by Shri Pathiram and

statement of claim if filed on behalf of 32 employees,

Ist party workmen failed to participate in reference

proceeding. Evidence of workmen is closed on

23-5-14. Management also failed to participate in

reference and adduce evidence. Evidence of

management is closed on 16-2-2015. As both parties

failed to participate in reference proceeding and no

evidence is adduced, no dispute award is passed as

under:—

"Parties failed to participate in reference proceeding

therefore dispute between parties could not be

decided on merit."

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 554-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fgjhZ MksyksekbV

ekbal vkWQ+ chñ,lñihñ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;y;] tcyiqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 57@98½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

09@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&29012@94@97&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th March, 2015

S.O. 554.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D. No. 57/

98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Hirri Dolomite Mines of BSP and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 9/3/2015.

[No. L-29012/94/97-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/57/98

General Secretary,

Metal Mines Workers Union,

Qr. No. 38, Street-9, sector-I,

Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG)

Workman/Union

Versus

Mines Manager,

Hirri Dolomite Mines of BSP,

PO Hirri Mines,

Distt, Durg (CG)

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 16th day of February, 2015

As per letter dated 18-3-98 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-29012/

94-97-IR(Misc). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Hirri

Mines, Bhilai Steel Plant, SAIL in removing

Shri Bishahu Ram Ex-Attendant, Hirri Mines, P.No.

831577 from service vide order No. OMQ/HM/Estt

(MPS)/R/96/2295 dated 19-10-96 of the Mines

Manager, Hirri Mines is justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices wee issued to

the parties. Ist party workman alongwith General Secretary

of Metal Mines Workers Union submitted statement of

claim at Page 4/1 to 4/14. Case of workman is that he was

working as attendant in blasting section Hirri Mines, Bhilai.

As per memorandum dated 26-2-94, Mines Manager

recommended enquiry for charges leaving working place

without prior permission of the concerned officer on 17-1-94.

Charge No. 2 on 17-1-94, after leaving working place,

workman participated in procession and instigated other

employees causing obstruction in production, instigated

other employees to participate in strike. Workman further

submits copy of statement of witnesses were not supplied

to him He denied charges filing reply to the chargesheet.

Shri Mahadingm was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Enquiry

was fixed on various dates. Enquiry Officer forwarded his

reports. As per letter dated 27-5-96, Mines Manager

forwarded Enquiry Report to him. Workman submitted his

representations to report of Enquiry Officer. Workman was