foÙk ea=ky;
¼jktLo foHkkx½
¼dsUæh; izR;{k dj cksMZ½
ubZ fnYyh] 13 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 568-—loZlk/kkj.k dh tkudkjh ds fy, ,rn~}kjk ;g
vf/klwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd dsUnz ljdkj }kjk vk;dj fu;ekoyh]
1962 ¼mDr fu;ekoyh½ ds fu;e 5x vkSj 5³ ds lkFk ifBr
vk;dj vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼mDr vf/kfu;e½ dh /kkjk 35 dh
mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM (ii) ds iz;kstukFkZ dj fu/kkZj.k o"kZ 2014&15
vkSj blds vkxs ls laxBu Hkkjrh; izkS|ksfxdh laLFkku ¼ch ,p ;w½]
okjk.klh ¼iSu&,,,tsvkbZ 0396 vkj½ dks fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/
khu vuqla/kku dk;Zdykiksa esa yxk ^^fo'ofo|ky; dkyst rFkk vU;
laLFkku** dh Js.kh esa vuqeksfnr fd;k x;k gS] vFkkZr~%—
(i) vuqeksfnr laxBu dks iznÙk jkf'k dk mi;ksx oSKkfud
vuqla/kku ds fy, fd;k tk,xk(
(ii) vuqeksfnr laxBu vius ladk; lnL;ksa vFkok vius
ukekafdr Nk=ksa ds ek/;e ls oSKkfud vuqla/kku djsxk(
(iii) vuqeksfnr laxBu oSKkfud vuqla/kku ds fy, blds }kjk
izkIr jkf'k ds laca/k esa vyx [kkrk cgh j[ksxk ftlesa
vuqla/kku djus ds fy, iz;qDr jkf'k n'kkZbZ xbZ gks] mDr
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 288 dh mi /kkjk ¼2½ ds Li"Vhdj.k esa
;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr fdlh ys[kkdkj ls viuh [kkrk&cgh dh ys[kk
ijh{kk djk,xk vkSj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 139 dh mi
/kkjk ¼1½ ds varxZr vk; fooj.kh izLrqr djus dh fu;r
frfFk rd ,sls ys[kkdkj }kjk fof/kor lR;kfir ,oa gLrk{kfjr
ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ ekeys esa {ks=kf/kdkj j[kus okys vk;dj
vk;qDr vFkok vk;dj funs'kd dks izLrqr djsxk(
(iv) vuqeksfnr laxBu oSKkfud vuqla/kku ds fy, izkIr nku
rFkk iz;qDr jkf'k dk vyx fooj.k j[ksxk vkSj mi;qZDr
ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ ds lkFk ys[kk ijh{kd }kjk fof/kor
lR;kfir ,sls fooj.k dh izfr izLrqr djsxkA
jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 13]
ubZ fnYyh] ekpZ 22—ekpZ 28] 2015] 'kfuokj@pS=k 1—pS=k 7] 1937
No. 13]
NEW DELHI, MARCH 22—MARCH 28, 2015, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 1—CHAITRA 7, 1937
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)
1232 GI/2015
(1387)
1388
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2- dsUnz ljdkj ;g vuqeksnu okil ys ysxh ;fn vuqeksfnr
laxBu%—
¼d½ iSjkxzkQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkQ (iii) esa mfYyf[kr vyx cgh
[kkrk ugha j[ksxk( vFkok
¼[k½ iSjkxzkQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkQ (iii) esa mfYyf[kr viuh ys[kk
ijh{kk fjiksVZ izLrqr ugha djsxk( vFkok
¼x½ iSjkxzkQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkQ (iv) esa mfYyf[kr oSKkfud
vuqla/kku ds fy, izkIr ,oa iz;qDr nku dk viuk fooj.k
izLrqr ugha djsxk( vFkok
¼?k½ viuk vuqla/kku dk;Z djuk can dj nsxk vFkok blds
vuqla/kku dk;Z dks tk;t ugha ik;k tk,xk( vFkok
¼³½ mDr fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 5x vkSj 5³ ds lkFk ifBr mDr
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 35 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM (ii) ds
izko/kkuksa ds vuq:i ugha gksxk rFkk mudk ikyu ugha djsxkA
[vf/klwpuk lañ 22@2015@Qkñlañ 203@07@2014&vkñdñfuñ&II]
_pk jLrksxh] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
(CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)
New Delhi, the 13th March, 2015
S.O. 568.—It is hereby notified for general information
that the organization Indian Institute of Technology (BHU),
Varanasi (PAN-AAAJI 0396R) has been approved by the
Central Government for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-
section (1) of section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (said
Act), read with Rules 5C and 5E of the Income-tax Rules,
1962 (said Rules), from Assessment year 2014-2015 and
onwards in the category of "University College and other
Institution", engaged in research activities subject to the
following conditions, namely:—
(i)
The sums paid to the approved organization
shall be utilized for scientific research;
(ii)
The approved organization shall carry out
scientific research through its faculty members
or its enrolled students;
(iii)
The approved organization shall maintain
separate books of accounts in respect of the
sums received by it for scientific research, reflect
therein the amounts used for carrying out
research, get such books audited by an
accountant as defined in the explanation to sub-
section (2) of section 288 of the said Act and
furnish the report of such audit duly signed and
verified by such accountant to the Commissioner
of Income-tax or the Director of Income-tax
having jurisdiction over the case, by the due
date of furnishing the return of income under
sub-section (1) of section 139 of the said Act;
(iv) The approved organization shall maintain a
separate statement of donations received and
amounts applied for scientific research and a copy
of such statement duly certified by the auditor
shall accompany the report of audit referred to
above.
2. The Central Government shall withdraw the approval
if the approved organization:—
(a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts as
referred to in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1;
or
(b) fails to furnish its audit report as referred to in
sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1; or
(c) fails to furnish its statement of the donations
received and sums applied for scientific research
as referred to in sub-paragrah (iv) of paragraph 1;
or
(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its
research activities are not found to be genuine;
or
(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the
provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of
section 35 of the said Act read with rules 5C and
5E of the said Rules.
[Notification No. 22/2015/F. No. 203/07/2014-ITA-II]
RICHA RASTOGI, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 569-—cSaddkjh fofu;eu vf/kfu;e] 1949 dh
/kkjk 53 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj]
Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad dh flQkfj'k ij] ;g fufnZ"V djrh gS fd cSaddkjh
fofu;eu vf/kfu;e] 1949 dh /kkjk 15 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½] vuqlwfpr
okf.kfT;d cSadksa ij ykxw ugha gksxh] tgka rd bldk laca/k Hkkjrh;
fjtoZ cSad ds 26 Qjojh] 2014 ds ifji= MhchvksMh chihchlh
lañ 98@21-04-132@2013&14 ds }kjk nh xbZ vuqefr ds vuqlkj
foÙkh; vkfLr;ksa dk izfrHkwfrdj.k ,oa iquxZBu rFkk izfrHkwfr fgr dk
izorZu vf/kfu;e] 2002 ds mica/kksa ds varxZr iathd`r izfrHkwfr
daifu;ksa@iqul±jpuk daifu;ksa dks 26 Qjojh] 2014 ls 31 ekpZ] 2015
rd csph xbZ vutZd vkfLr;ksa ¼tgka foØ; izfrQy fuoy vafdr
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1389
ewY; ls de gks½ ds foØ; ls gqbZ fdlh deh ds dkj.k nks o"kZ dh _.k
ifj'kks/ku vof/k dk laca/k gSA
[Qkñlañ 13@2@2010&chvks,]
vkuanjko foñ ikVhy] funs'kd
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2015
S.O. 569.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the Central
Government, on the recommendation of the Reserve bank
of India, specified that sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the
Banking Regulation Act, 1949 shall not apply to scheduled
commercial banks in so far as the amortization over a period
of two years of any shortfall arising out of sale of non-
performing assets sold from February 26, 2014 to March
31, 2015 (where the sale consideration is lower than the net
book value) to Securitization Companies/Reconstruction
Companies, registered under the provisions of the
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, as permitted by
the Reserve Bank of India vide its Circular DBOD.B.P. BC.
No 98/21.04.132/2013-14 dated February 26, 2014.
[F.No. 13/2/2010-BOA]
ANANDRAO V. PATIL, Director
okf.kT; ,oa mn~;ksx ea=ky;
¼okf.kT; foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 23 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 570-—dsUnzh; ljdkj jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e 1976 ds fu;e 10 mifu;e ¼4½ ds
vuqlj.k esa okf.kT; foHkkx ds v/khu fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa dks
vf/klwfpr djrh gS] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkjho`an us
fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS%—
¼1½ fu;kZr fujh{k.k vfHkdj.k—dksPph mi&dk;kZy;&
dksYye] flusl dkWEIysDl rhljh eafty] pedkMk]
dksYye & 691001 A
¼2½ fu;kZr fujh{k.k vfHkdj.k—psUubZ] NBk ry] lh,eMh,
Vkoj&II] xka/kh bjfou jksM] ,Xeksj] psUubZ&600008 A
¼3½ fu;kZr fujh{k.k vfHkdj.k—psUubZ] mi dk;kZy;&rwrhdksfju]
lañ 328 lkmFk dkVu jksM] rsrhdksfju & 628001 A
¼4½ fu;kZr fujh{k.k vfHkdj.k—psUubZ mi dk;kZy;&Hkhekoje]
ts ih jksM] Mh uañ 27&14&13@1] fclkbM ineky;k fFk;sVj]
Hkhekoje&534202] osLV xksnkojh fMLV A
¼5½ fu;kZr fujh{k.k vfHkdj.k—eqEcbZ mi dk;kZy; &
vgenkckn 305] eYVh ijit LiksV~Zt dkWEIysDl ¼U;w DykFk
ekdsZV ds lkeus½] jk;iqj] vgenkckn & 380002] xqtjkrA
¼6½ la;qDr egkfuns'kd] fons'k O;kikj dk dk;kZy;] xksdqye]
ds,yMhch fcfYaMx iV~Ve] fr#ouariqje&695004] dsjyA
¼7½ ,e,eVhlh] vfjgar VkolZ II, lkaxkusjh xsV VsyhQksu ,Dlpsat
ds lkeus] vkxjk jksM] t;iqj&302003 A
[Qkñlañ bZ&11013@1@2004&fganh]
lq/kka'kq ikaMs;] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
New Delhi, the 23rd March, 2015
S.O. 570.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of
the Official Language (Use for Official purposes of the
union) Rules, 1976, the Central Govt. hereby notifies the
following offices under Departments of Commerce, whereof
more than 80% staff have acquired a working knowledge
of Hindi:—
(1) Export Inspection Agency—Kochi, Sub-Office,
Kollam, Shines Complex, 3rd Floor, Chamkada,
Kollam-691001.
(2) Export Inspection Agency—Chennai, 6th floor,
CMDA Tower-II, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore,
Chennai-600008.
(3) Export Inspection Agency—Chennai, Sub-Office-
Tuticorin, No. 328, South Cotton Road, Tuticorin-
628001.
(4) Export Inspection Agency—Chennai, Sub-Office,
Bheemavaram, JP Road, - D. No. 27-4-13/1, Beside
Padmalaya Theatre, Bheemavaram-534202, West
Godavari Distt.
(5) Export Inspection Agency—Membai, Sub-Office-
Ahmedabad, 305, Multi Purpose Sports Complex
(Opposite new cloth market), Raipur, Ahmedabad-
380002, Gujarat.
(6) Office of Joint DGFT, Gokulam, KLDB Building,
Pattam, Thiruanantpuram-695004, Kerala.
(7) MMTC, Arihant Towers-II, Opposite Sanganeri
Gate Telephone Exchange, Agra Road,
Jaipur-302003.
[No. E-11013/1/2004-Hindi]
SUDHANSHU PANDEY, Jt. Secy.
1390
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
miHkksDrk ekeys] [kkn~; vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=ky;
¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½
¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½
ubZ fnYyh] 23 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 571-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~ }kjk
vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn;s x, ekud ¼dksa½ esa la'kks/ku fd;k x;k@x, gSaA
vuqlwph
Øe
la'kksf/kr Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½
la'kks/ku dh la[;k
dkWye ds
dkWye ¼3½ esa
la[;k
dh la[;k] o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
vkSj frfFk
la'kks/ku dh
n'kkZ;s x, vuqlkj
izfrLFkkiu frfFk
og ftl frfFk
rd ekud fcuk
la'kks/ku ds Fkk
ykxw jgsxh
1
vkbZ ,l 299 % 2015
la'kks/ku la[;k 1
23 ekpZ 2015
31 ebZ 2015
¼ikapoka iqujh{k.k½
Qjojh 2015
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjksa] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110002 {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa% ubZ fnYyh]
dksydrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj]
ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk dksfp esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in }kjk baVjuSV ij [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA
fnukad 23&3&2015
[lanHkZ % PUB/GN-1/E-V-II]
dyk ,eñ okfj;j] funs'kd ¼fons'kh Hkk"kk ,oa izdk'ku½
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi, the 23rd March, 2015
S.O. 571.—In pursunace of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the
Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment(s) to the Indian Standard(s), particulars of which are given in
the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. and year of the
No. and year of
Date of
Date till which the
No.
Indian Standards
the amendment
Establishment of
Standard without
the Amendment at
amendment as
column (3)
mentioned at Column
(3) shall remain in
force
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1
IS 299: 2012 Alumino
Amendment No. 1
23 March, 2015
31 May, 2015
Ferric - Specification (Fifth
February, 2015
Revision)
Copy of these Amendments are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai, and also Branch
Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneswar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad Jaipur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune,
Kochi. On line purchase of Indian standard can be made at: http://www.standardsbis.in.
Dated 23-3-2015
[Ref: PUB/GN-1/E-V-II]
KALA M. VARIAR, Director (Foreign Languages and Publication)
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1391
ubZ fnYyh] 23 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 572-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~ }kjk
vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x;s gSaA
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud¼dksa½
LFkkfir
Hkkjrh; ekud¼dksa½ tks
jn~n gksus dh
la[;k
dh la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
frfFk
fd jn~n gksus gSa] vxj gSa]
frfFk
dh la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼5½
1
vkbZ,l 694 % 2010 ,oa
26 uoEcj 2014
IS 694 % 1990
01 flrEcj 2015
la'kks/ku lañ 1 ls 2 rd
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110002 {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ fnYyh]
dksydrk] paMhx<+] psUubZ] eqacbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa% vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;EcVwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj]
dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk dksfp esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in }kjk baVjuSV ij [kjhnk tk
ldrk gSA
fnukad 23&3&2015
[lanHkZ % PUB/GN/694]
dyk ,eñ okfj;j] funs'kd ¼fons'kh Hkk"kk ,oa izdk'ku½
New Delhi, the 23rd March, 2015
S.O. 572.—In pursuance of Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the
Bureau of Indian Standards hereby modifies the column (5) of notification dated 26/11/2014, the Indian Standards, particulars
of which are given in the second column of Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against it
in third column. The particulars of the standards, if any, which are given in the fourth column shall also remain in force
concurrently till they are cancelled on the date indicated against them in the fifth column.
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. & Year of the
Date of
No. & Year of the
Date of
No.
Indiain Standards
Establishment
Indian Standards to
cancellation
Established
be cancelled, if any
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1
IS 694: 2010 Polyvinyl Chloride
26 November 2014
IS 694 : 1990
01 September 2015
Insulated Unsheathed and
Sheathed Cables/Cords with
Rigid and Flexible Conductor
for Rated Voltages up to and
Including 450/750 V
(Fourth Revision) with
Amendment Nos. 1 & 2
Copies of these standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices : Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices:
Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune,
Kochi.
Dated 23-3-2015
[Ref: PUB/GN/694]
KALA M. VARIAR, Director (Foreign Languages & Publication)
1392
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky;
¼LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 20 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 573-—tcfd Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ¼la'kks/ku½
v/;kns'k] 2013 dh /kkjk 3d dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq, fnukad 6 uoacj] 2013 dks Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn
dk iquxZBu fd;k x;k%
vkSj tcfd dsUnz ljdkj us Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn vf/kfu;e]
1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds
vuqlj.k esa vkSj lacaf/kr fo'ofo|ky;ksa@LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;ksa
}kjk ;Fkk lwfpr] fuEufyf[kr O;fDr dks bl vf/klwpuk ds tkjh gksus
dh frfFk ls pkj o"kks± ds fy, Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn ds lnL; ds
:i esa fuokZfpr fd;k x;k gSA
vr% vc mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds mica/k
ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnz ljdkj }kjk Hkkjr ljdkj ds rRdkyhu LokLF;
ea=ky; dh fnukad 9 tuojh] 1960 ds vf/klwpuk la[;k dkñvkñ
138 esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku fd, tkrs gSa] vFkkZr~%—
Hkkjr ljdkj] LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky; dh fnukad
06 uoacj] 2013 dh vf/klwpuk lañ dkñvkñ 3323 ¼v½ vkSj mlds
la'kks/ku esa vafre izfof"V rFkk rRlaca/kh izfof"V esa fuEufyf[kr dks
tksM+k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%µ
Øñ lañ
jkT; ljdkj dk
fuokZfpr lnL; dk fooj.k
uke
27-
ef.kiqj
MkWñ vksdjke bZcksepk flag] funs'kd]
LokLF; lsok,a] ef.kiqj
[la- ohñ 11013@1@2013&,e bZ ih&I]
vfer fc'okl] voj lfpo
ikn fVIi.kh% fnukad 9 tuojh] 1960 ds dkñvkñ 138 ds rgr Hkkjr
ds jkti= esa eq[; vf/klwpuk izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh vkSj
Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn ¼la'kks/ku½] f}rh; v/;kns'k]
2013 ¼2013 dk 11½ ds rgr vafre ckj la'kks/ku
fd;k x;k FkkA
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of Health and Family Welfare)
New Delhi, the 20th March, 2015
S.O. 573.—Whereas on 6th November, 2013, the
Medical Council of India was re-constituted in exercise of
the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3A of
the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013.
And Whereas the Central Government, in pursuance
of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) and in consultation
with the respective State Governments have nominated
the following to be a member of the Medical Council of
India for four years with effect from the date of issue of this
notification.
Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of sub-
section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby makes the following amendment in the
Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry
of Health number S.O. 138 dated the 9th January, 1960,
namely:
In the notification of the Government of India in the
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare number S.O. 3323(E)
dated the 6th November, 2013 after the last entry and entry
relating thereto, the following shall be inserted, namely:
S.No.
Name of the
Details of the Nominated
State Government Memebr
27. Manipur
Dr. Okram Ibomcha Singh,
Director of Health Services,
Manipur
[No. V.11013/1/2013-MEP-I]
AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.
Foot Note: The principal notificiation was published in
the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 138 dated
the 9th January, 1960 and was last amended
vide Indian Medical Council (Amendment)
Second Ordinance, 2013 (11 of 2013).
ubZ fnYyh] 20 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 574-—tcfd Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ¼la'kks/ku½ v/
;kns'k] 2013 dh /kkjk 3d dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq, fnukad 6 uoacj] 2013 dks Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn
dk iquxZBu fd;k x;k%
vkSj tcfd dsUnz ljdkj us Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn vf/kfu;e]
1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds
vuqlj.k esa vkSj lacaf/kr fo'ofo|ky;ksa@LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;ksa
}kjk ;Fkk lwfpr] fuEufyf[kr O;fDr dks bl vf/klwpuk ds tkjh gksus
dh frfFk ls pkj o"kks± ds fy, Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn ds lnL; ds
:i esa fuokZfpr fd;k x;k gSA
vr% vc mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds mica/k
ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnz ljdkj }kjk Hkkjr ljdkj ds rRdkyhu LokLF;
ea=ky; dh fnukad 9 tuojh] 1960 ds vf/klwpuk la[;k dkñvkñ
138 esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku fd, tkrs gSa] vFkkZr~%µ
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1393
Hkkjr ljdkj] LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky; dh fnukad 6 uoacj] 2013 dh vf/klwpuk lañ dkñvkñ 3325¼v½ vkSj mlds la'kks/ku esa
vafre izfof"V rFkk rRlaca/kh izfof"V esa fuEufyf[kr dks tksM+k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%
Øñ lañ
fo'ofo|ky; dk uke
fuokZfpr lnL; dk fooj.k
pquko dk rjhdk
41-
chñ,uñ eaMy
izksñ v#.k dqekj vxzoky] ,eñ lh,pñ ¼U;wjks ltZjh½]
fo'ofo|ky; dh lhusV
fo'ofo|ky;] e/ksiqjk] fcgkj dfVgkj esfMdy dkWyst] dfVgkj] fcgkj
ds lnL;ksa }kjk fuokZfpr
42-
vyhx<+ eqfLye
izksñ rkjhd ealwj] izkpk;Z] tsñ,uñ esfMdy dkWyst
fo'ofo|ky; dh lhusV
fo'ofo|ky;] vyhx<+
vLirky] vyhx<+ eqfLye fo'ofo|ky;] vyhx<+
ds lnL;ksa }kjk fuokZfpr
43-
fdax tktZ esfMdy
izksñ jfodkar] v/;{k] ekuo vax izR;kjksi.k foHkkx rFkk
fo'ofo|ky; dh lhusV ds
fo'ofo|ky;] mÙkj izns'k
v/;{k] lftZdy vkWUdksykWth foHkkx vkSj dqyifr] fdax
lnL;ksa }kjk fuokZfpr
tktZ fpfdRlk fo'ofo|ky;] mÙkj izns'k] y[kuÅ
[la- oh&11013@2@2013&,e bZ ih&I]
vfer fc'okl] voj lfpo
ikn fVIi.kh% fnukad 9 tuojh] 1960 ds dkñvkñ 138 ds rgr Hkkjr ds jkti= esa eq[; vf/klwpuk izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh vkSj Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku
ifj"kn ¼la'kks/ku½] f}rh; v/;kns'k] 2013 ¼2013 dk 11½ ds rgr vafre ckj la'kks/ku fd;k x;k FkkA
New Delhi, the 20th March, 2015
S.O. 574.—Whereas on 06th November, 2013, the Medical Council of India was re-constituted in exercise of the
powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3A of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013.
And whereas the Central Government, in pursuance of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) and as informed by the respective Universities/health science Universities, have elected the
following to be a member of the Medical Council of India for four years with effect from the date of issue of the notification.
Now, therefore, in pursuance of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby makes the
following amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry of Health number S.O. 138, dated
the 9th January, 1960, namely:—
In the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare number S.O. 3325(E) dated the
6th November, 2013 and amendments thereto after the last entry and entry relating thereto, the following shall be inserted,
namely:
S.No.
Name of the University
Details of the Elected Member
Mode of Election
41.
B. N. Mandal
Dr. Arun Kumar Agarwal, M. Ch. (Neuro
Elected by members
University, Madhepura, Bihar
Surgery), Katihar Medical College, Katihar, Bihar
of the Senate of the
University
42.
Aligarh Muslim
Prof. Tariq Mansoor, Principal, J. N. Medical
Elected by Executive
University, Aligarh
College Hospital, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh
Council of the
University
43.
King George's Medical
Prof. Ravi Kant, Head of the Department of
Elected by Executive
University, Uttar Pradesh
Human Organ Transplant and Head of the
Council of the
Department of Surgical Oncology &
University
Vice Chancellor, King George's Medical
University Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow
[No. V. 11013/2/2013-MEP-I]
AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.
Foot Note:
The principal notification was published in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 138 dated the 9th January,
1960 and was last amended vide Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2013 (11 of 2013).
1394
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dks;yk ea=ky;
vkns'k
ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 575-—dks;yk èkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½
vfèfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr
vfèfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds vèhu Hkkjr
ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=ky; dh vfèlwpuk la[;kad dkñvkñ 1029]
rkjh[k] 12 ekpZ] 2014] }kjk tkjh dh xbZ tks Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx II]
[kaM 3] mi&[kaM] ¼II½] rkjh[k 22 ekpZ] 2014 esa izdkf'kr gksus ij]
mDr vfèlwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe vkSj Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij
ds lHkh vfèdkj ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k gS½
mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 10 dh mièkjk ¼1½ ds vèhu] lHkh foYyaxeksa
ls eqDr gksdj] vkR;kafrd :i ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gks x, Fks(
vkSj] dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g lekèku gks x;k gS fd ukFkZ bZLVuZ
dksyQhYM~l] dksy bafM;k fyfeVsM] ekj?ksfjVk&786181] vle ¼ftls
blesa blds i'pkr~ ljdkjh dEiuh dgk x;k gS½] ,sls fucaèuksa vkSj
'krks± dks tks dsUnzh; ljdkj bl fufeÙk vfèjksfir djuk mfpr le>s]
vuqikyu djus ds fy;s rS;kj gS(
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 11 dh mièkjk
¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs'k nsrh gS fd bl
izdkj fufgr mDr 500-00 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 1235-00 ,dM+
¼yxHkx½ Hkwfe vkSj ml ij ds lHkh vfèdkj] rkjh[k 22 ekpZ] 2014
ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr cus jgus ds LFkku ij] fuEufyf[kr
fucaèukas vkSj 'krks± ds vèhu jgrs gq,] mDr ljdkjh dEiuh esa fufgr
gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~%—
1- ljdkjh dEiuh] mDr vfèfu;e ds micaèksa ds vèhu
;Fkk voèkfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlku vkSj oSlh gh enksa
dh ckcr fd, x, lHkh lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
izfriwfrZ djsxh(
2- ljdkjh dEiuh }kjk 'krZ ¼1½ ds vèhu] dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks lans; jdeksa dk voèkj.k djus ds iz;kstu ds fy;s
vfèfu;e dh èkjk 14 ds vèhu ,d vfèdj.k dk xBu
fd;k tk,xk rFkk ,sls fdlh vfèdj.k vkSj ,sls vfèdj.k
dh lgk;rk djus ds fy;s fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds lacaèksa esa
mixr lHkh O;;] dEiuh }kjk ogu fd;s tk,axs vkSj blh
izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vfèdkj ds fy;s
;k mlds lacaè esa tSls vihy vkfn lHkh fofèd dk;Zokfg;ksa
dh ckcr mixr] lHkh O;; Hkh] blh izdkj ljdkjh dEiuh
}kjk ogu fd;s tk,axs(
3- ljdkjh dEiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds inèkfj;ksa dh]
,sls fdlh vU; O;; ds lacaè esa] {kfriwfrZ djsxh tks bl
izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vfèdkjksa ds ckjs
esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds inèkfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo#)
fdUgha dk;Zokfg;ksa ds lacaè esa vko';d gksa(
4- ljdkjh dEiuh dks] dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds
fcuk] mDr Hkwfe vkSj Hkwfe esa ;k mlds Åij bl izdkj
fufgr vfèdkj dks fdlh vU; O;fDr dks varfjr djus
dh 'kfDr ugha gksxh( vkSj
5- ljdkjh dEiuh] ,sls funs'kksa vkSj 'krks± dk] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko';d gks] mDr Hkwfe ds fof'k"V
{ks=ksa ds fy;s fn, tk,a ;k vfèjksfir dh tk,] ikyu
djsxhA
[Qkñlañ 43015@07@2011&ihvkjvkbZMCY;wµI]
nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF COAL
ORDER
New Delhi, the 24th March, 2015
S.O. 575.—Whereas on the publication of the
notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Coal number S.O. 1029, dated the 12th March, 2014
published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, sub-
section (ii), dated the 22nd March, 2014 issued under sub-
section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957)
(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the land and all
rights in or over the said land described in the Schedule
appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to
as the said land) vested absolutely in the Central
Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section
(1) of section 10 of the said Act;
And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that
the North Eastern Coalfields, Coal India Limited,
Margherita-786181 Assam (hereinafter referred to as the
Government Company) is willing to comply with such terms
and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to
impose in this behalf;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby direct that the land measuring 500.00
hectares (approximately) or 1235.00 acres (approximately)
and all rights in or over the said lands so vested shall with
effect from the 22nd March, 2014 instead of continuing to
so vest in the Central Government shall vest in the
Government Company subject to the following terms and
conditions, namely:—
1. The Government Company shall reimburse to the
Central Government all payments made in respect
of compensation, interest, damages and the like
as determined under the provisions of the said
Act;
2. A Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14
of the said Act for the purpose of determining the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1395
amounts payable to the Central Government by
the Government Company under conditions (1)
and all expenditure incurred in connection with
any such Tribunal and persons appointed to
assist the Tribunal shall be borne by the
Government Company and similarly, all
expenditure incurred in respect of all legal
proceedings like appeals etc. for or in connection
with the rights in or over the said lands so vesting
shall also be borne by the Government Company.
3. The Government Company shall indemnify the
Central Government or its officials against any
other expenditure that may be necessary in
connection with any proceedings by or against
the Central Government or its officials regarding
the rights in or over the said lands so vesting;
4. The Government Company shall have no power
to transfer the said lands to any other persons
without the prior approval of the Central
Government; and
5. The Government Company shall abide by such
direction and conditions as may be given or
imposed by the Central Government for particular
areas of the said lands as and when necessary.
[F. No. 43015/07/2011-PRIW-I]
DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.
vkns'k
ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 576-—dks;yk èkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½
vfèfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr
vfèfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh èkjk 9 dh mièkjk ¼1½ ds vèhu tkjh
Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=ky; dh vfèlwpuk la[;kad dkñvkñ
1523] rkjh[k] 13 ebZ] 2014] ftlds Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx II] [kaM
3] mi[kaM ¼ii½] rkjh[k 24 ebZ] 2014 esa izdkf'kr gksus ij] mDr
vfèlwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~
mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k gS½ esa [kfut ds [kuu] [knku] cksj djus] mudh
[kqnkbZ djus vkSj [kfutksa dks ryk'k djus] mUgsa izkIr djus] mu ij
dk;Z djus vkSj mUgsa ys tkus ds fy, vfèdkj] mDr vfèfu;e dh
èkjk 10 dh mièkjk ¼1½ ds vèhu] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj]
vkR;kafrd :i ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gks x, Fks(
vkSj] dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lekèku gks x;k gS fd osLVuZ
dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] ukxiqj ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ ljdkjh
dEiuh dgk x;k gS½] ,sls fucaèuksa vkSj 'krks± dk ftUgsa dsUnzh; ljdkj
bl fufeÙk vfèjksfir djuk mfpr le>s] vuqikyu djus ds fy;s
rS;kj gS(
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 11 dh mièkjk
¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs'k nsrh gS fd bl
izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds iwoksZDr vfèdkj dsUnzh;
ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr cus jgus ds ctk,] rkjh[k 24 ebZ] 2014
ls fuEufyf[kr fucaèukas vkSj 'krks± ds vèhu jgrs gq,] ljdkjh dEiuh
esa fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~%µ
1- ljdkjh dEiuh] mDr vfèfu;e ds micaèksa ds vèhu
;Fkk voèkfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlkfu;ksa vkSj oSlh gh
enksa dh ckcr~ fd, x, lHkh lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
izfriwfrZ djsxh(
2- ljdkjh dEiuh }kjk 'krZ ¼1½ ds vèhu] dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks lans; jdeksa dk voèkj.k djus ds iz;kstuksa ds fy;s
mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 14 ds vèhu ,d vfèdj.k dk
xBu fd;k tk,xk rFkk ,sls fdlh vfèdj.k vkSj ,sls
vfèdj.k dh lgk;rk djus ds fy;s fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds
lacaèksa esa mixr lHkh O;;] ljdkjh dEiuh }kjk ogu fd;s
tk;saxs vkSj blh izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k muds lacaè esa
vihy vkfn vkSj lHkh vU; fofèd dk;Zokfg;ksa dh ckcr~
mixr] lHkh O;; Hkh] ljdkjh dEiuh }kjk ogu fd;s tk,axs(
3- ljdkjh dEiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds inèkfj;ksa ds
fo#)] ,sls fdlh vU; O;; ds lacaè esa] {kfriwfrZ djsxh]
bl izdkj fufgr iwoksZDr vfèdkjksa ds ckjs esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
;k mlds inèkfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo#) fdUgha dk;Zokfg;ksa
ds lacaè esa vko';d gksa(
4- ljdkjh dEiuh dks] dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds
fcuk] mDr Hkwfe esa iwoksZDr vfèdkjksa dks fdlh vU; O;fDr
dks varfjr djus dh 'kfDr ugha gksxh( vkSj
5- ljdkjh dEiuh] ,sls funs'kksa vkSj 'krks± dk] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko';d gks] mDr Hkwfe ds fof'k"V
{ks=ksa ds fy;s fn, tk,a ;k vfèjksfir dh tk,] ikyu
djsxhA
[Qkñlañ 43015@4@2011&ihvkjvkbZMCY;wµI]
nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo
ORDER
New Delhi, the 24th March, 2015
S.O. 576.—Whereas on the publication of the
notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Coal number S.O. 1523, dated the 13th May, 2014 in Part II,
Section 3, Sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India, dated the
24th May, 2014, under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the
Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act,
1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act),
the rights to mine, quarry, bore, dig and search for win,
work and carry away minerals in the lands described in the
Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter
referred to as the said land) vested absolutely in the Central
1396
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section
(1) of section 10 of the said Act;
And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that
the Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur (hereinafter
referred to as the Government Company) is willing to
comply with such terms and conditions as the Central
Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby directs that the aforesaid rights in or
over the said lands so vested, shall, with effect from the
24th May, 2014 instead of continuing to so vest in the
Central Government, vest in the Government Company,
subject to the following terms and conditions, namely:—
1. The Government Company shall reimburse to the
Central Government all payments made in respect
of compensation, interest, damages and the like,
as determined under the provisions of the said
Act;
2. A Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14
of the said Act, for the purpose of determining
the amounts payable to the Central Government
by the said Government Company under
conditions (1) and all expenditure incurred in
connection with any such tribunal and persons
appointed to assist the Tribunal shall be borne
by the said Government Company and similarly,
all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal
proceedings like appeals, and other proceedings
for in connection with the rights, in the said lands,
so vesting, shall also be borne by the Government
Company.
3. The Government Company shall indemnify the
Central Government or its officials against any
other expenditure that may be necessary in
connection with any proceedings by or against
the Central Government or its officials regarding
the aforesaid rights in the said lands so vesting;
4. The Government Company shall have no power
to transfer the aforesaid rights in the said lands
so vested, to any other persons without the prior
approval of the Central Government; and
5. The Government Company shall abide by such
directions and conditions as may be given or
imposed by the Central Government for particular
areas of the said land as and when necessary.
[F.No. 43015/4/2011-PRIW-I]
DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 577-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,uñ,yñlhñ,yñ ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè eas
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 137@2005½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@70@2005&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2015
S.O. 577.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 137/2005), of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Neyveli Lignite Corp. Ltd., and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/03/
2015.
[No. L-22012/70/2005-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, ASANSOL
REFERENCE NO. 137 OF 2005
Management of Bahula Colliery under Kenda Area
of M/s. E.C.L.
VS.
Sri Ram Briksh Bhula
SETTLEMENT IN LOK ADALAT
HELD ON 19TH DECEMBER, 2014 AT CGIT-CUM-LC,
ASANSOL
AWARD
On amicable setttlement by both parties the dispute is
resolved in the Lok Adalat. The form 'H' containing the
terms of agreement of this settlement to be executed by
both the parties in due course. Award is passed and signed
accordingly.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1397
IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
LOK ADALAT SETTLEMENT
Place: Asansol
Date: 19.12.2014
Ref. 137 of 2005
Bahula Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. E.C.L.
VS.
Sri Ram Briksh Bhula
Both the parties hereby mutually and amicably settle
up the dispute for the interest of both sides and to help
securing a healthy & conducive relationship for
maximization of output in the industry.
Terms:
Both the parties submit that the dispute have been
amicably settled between the parties and the concerned
workman. He has already been re-instated in his service
without any back wages.
Employer/Management
Employee/Union
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 578-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñlhñ,yñ ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k eas
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 78@2006½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13&03&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@52@2006&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2015
S.O. 578.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 78/2006 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
13-03-2015.
[No. L-22012/52/2006-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
Reference No.: 78/ITC/2006
Management of Nav Kajora Colliery of E.C.L.
VS.
Sri Ranjit Bouri
SETTLEMENT IN LOK ADALAT
Held on 20th February, 2015 at Mines Rescue Station,
ECL, Sitarampur.
AWARD
On amicable settlement by both parties the dispute is
resolved in the Lok Adalat. The form 'H' containing the
terms of agreement of this settlement to be executed by
both the parties in due course. Award is passed and signed
accordingly.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
LOK ADALAT SETTLEMENT
Place: Mines Rescue Station, Sitarampur
Date: 20.02.2015
Ref. No. 78/2006
The Agent: Nav Kajora Colliery, ECL
VS.
Sri Ranjit Bouri
Both the parties hereby mutually and amicably settle
up the dispute for the interest of both sides and to help
securing a healthy & conducive relationship for
maximization of output in the industry.
Terms:
The workman agrees to be reinstated without book
wages and 14 terms and condition (attached).
1. [MOUMITA JOARDAR, Asstt. Mgr. (HR/P),
NKC]
2. [AJAY KUMAR SHRINET, Manager (PERS)
Kajora Area]
Employer/Management
Employee/Union
1398
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
TERMS OF RE-INSTATEMENT
i. The concerned candidate shall furnish
unequivocal acceptance of offence committed by
him with unconditional apology thereof and an
undertaking that in future he will never commit
such offence.
ii. The re-instatement of the ex-employee will be
subject to medical fitness for employment by the
AMO of the Area. In case, a candidate is found to
unfit on medical ground, case will not be
processed further.
iii. The concerned ex-employee shall be reinstated in
service as Cat-I Mazdoor at initial basic of the
scale.
iv. The ex-employee concerned shall not be entitled
to any back wages for the period of his idleness.
v. The ex-employee on re-instatement shall be
posted in the under-ground wherever there is
requirement, in case any approach/request for
change of work/place of posting, appointment will
cease immediately.
vi. The ex-employee on re-instatement shall be on
probation for a minimum period of 1 (One) year
and the ex-employee shall be confirmed only on
receipt of satisfactory Performance Certification
on expiry of probation period by CGM/GM of the
Area. In case his performance is not found
satisfactory, his service should be terminated
forthwith.
vii. The concerned ex-employee shall un-
conditionally withdraw all pending claims/
disputes raised by him or any union in any forum/
Court of Law relating to his "Dismissal" and shall
submit no dispute certificate to the management.
viii. The period of absence/idleness of the ex-employee
shall be treated as dies-non.
ix. The ex-employee shall be allowed the benefit of
continuity of service for the period of his idleness
for the purpose of computation of his final gratuity
payment only.
x. If the ex-employee has already withdrawn his
gratuity amount prior to re-instatement, shall
refund the same to the management prior to his
re-instatement in service. In case Management
has deposited it with the ALC(C)/Controlling
Authority due to any reason whatsoever may be,
it will be called back by the depositing on the
ground of re-instatement.
xi. If the ex-employee has already withdrawn his
CMPF accumulation prior to re-instatement his
case shall be regulated as per the CMPF Act/Rules.
If the ex-employee is drawing Pension the same
shall be regulated as per the CMPS/Rules.
xii. The instant order/approval for re-instatement on
the above terms & conditions in respect of
concerned ex-employee/ex-employees shall
remain valid for a period 2 (two) months from the
date of its communication to the ex-employee/ex-
employees by area and shall stand inoperative on
expiry of the said period.
xiii. Before allowing re-instatement as above a mutual
agreement in 'Form-H' under the I.D. Act, 1947/
Rules be entered, based on above terms of re-
instatement (from 3 to 13), between the
management, the ex-employee and the sponsoring
Union, if there is any and the copy of same shall
be endorsed to ECL, HQ.
xiv. Prior to re-instatement, the identity of the ex-
employee shall be verified by the concerned Area/
Colliery authority.
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 579-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñlhñ,yñ ds izca/
kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas 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; vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 06@2013½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13&03&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la. ,y&22012@58@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2015
S.O. 579.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 06/2013 of the Central
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between
the management of Nimcha Colliery, Satgram Area, and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 13-03-2015.
[No. L-22012/58/2013-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1399
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT ASANSOL
Reference No.: 06/ITC/2013
Management of Nimcha Colliery of E.C.L.
Vs.
Sri Rabi Bouri
SETTLEMENT IN LOK ADALAT
Held on 20th February, 2015 at Mines Rescue Station,
ECL, Sitarampur.
AWARD
On amicable settlement by both parties the dispute is
resolved in the Lok Adalat. The Form 'H' containing the
terms of agreement of this settlement to be executed by
both the parties in due course. Award is passed and signed
accordingly.
PROMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT ASANSOL
Ref. 06/2013
LOK ADALAT SETTLEMENT
Place: Mines Rescue Station, Sitarampur
Date: 20.02.15
Nimcha Colliery, ECL
Vs.
Sri Rabi Bouri
Both the parties hereby mutually and amicably settle
up the dispute for the interest of both sides and to help
securing a healthy & conducive relationship for
miaximization of output in the industry.
Terms: The workman agrees to be reinstated without
back wages and into other 14 terms and conditions.
Employer/Management
Employee/Union
TERMS OF RE-INSTATEMENT
i. The concerned candidate shall furnish
unequivocal acceptance of offence committed by
him with unconditional apology thereof and an
undertaking that in future he will never commit
such offence.
ii. the re-instatement of the ex-employee will be
subject to medical fitness for employment by the
AMO of the Area. In case, a candidate is found to
unfit on medical ground case will not be processed
further.
iii. The concerned ex-employee shall be reinstated in
service as Cat-I Mazdoor at initial basic of the
scale.
iv. The ex-employee concerned shall not be entitled
to any back wages for the period of his idleness.
v. The ex-employee on re-instatement shall be
posted in the under-ground wherever there is
requirement in case any approach/request for
change of work/place of posting appointment will
cease immediately.
vi. The ex-employee on re-instatement shall be on
probation for a minimum period of 1(One) year
and the ex-employee shall be confirmed only on
receipt of statisfactory Performance Certification
on expiry of probation period by CGM/GM of the
Area. In case his performance is not found
satisfactory, his service should be terminated
forthwith.
vii. The concerned ex-employee shall un-
conditionally withdraw all pending claims/
disputes raised by him or any union in any forum/
Court of Law relating to his "Dismissal" and shall
submit no dispute certificate to the management.
viii. The period of absence/idleness of the ex-employee
shall be treated as dies-non.
ix. The ex-employee shall be allowed the benefit of
continuity of service for the period of his idleness
for the purpose of computation of his final gratuity
payment only.
x. If the ex-employee has already withdraw his
gratuity amount prior to re-instatement, shall
refund the same to the management prior to his
re-instatement in service. In case Management
has deposited it with the ALC(C)/Controlling
Authroity due to any reason whatsoever may be,
it will be called back by the depositing authority
on the ground of re-instatement.
xi. If the ex-employee has already withdraw his CMPF
accumulation prior to re-instatement his case shall
be regulated as per the CMPF Act/Rules. If the
ex-employee is drawing Pension the same shall
be regulated as per the CMPS/Rules.
xii. The instant order/approval for re-instatement on
the above terms & conditions in respect of
concerned ex-employee/ex-employees shall
remain valid for a period 2 (two) months from the
date of its communication to the ex-employee/ex-
employees by area and shall stand inoperative on
expiry of the said period.
1400
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xiii. Before allowing re-instatement as above a mutual
agreement in 'Form-H' under the I.D. Act, 1947/
Rules be entered, based on above terms of re-
instatement (from 3 to 13), between the
management, the ex-employee and the sponsoring
Union, if there is any and the copy of same shall
be endorsed to ECL, HQ.
xiv. Prior to re-instatement, the identity of the ex-
employee shall be verified by the concerned Area/
Colliery authority.
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 580-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñlhñ,yñ ds izca/k
ra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas 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;
vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 16@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13&03&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@123@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2015
S.O. 580.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 16/2013 of the Central
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between
the management of Nimcha Colliery, and their workman,
received
by
the
Central
Government
on
13-03-2015.
[No. L-22012/123/2013-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT ASANSOL
Reference No.: 16/ITC/2013
Management of Nimcha Colliery of E.C.L.
Vs.
Sri Suku Majhi
SETTLEMENT IN LOK ADALAT
Held on 20th February, 2015 at Mines Rescue Station,
ECL, Sitarampur.
AWARD
On amicable settlement by both parties the dispute is
resolved in the Lok Adalat. The Form 'H' containing the
terms of agreement of this settlement to be executed by
both the parties in due course. Award is passed and signed
accordingly.
PROMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT ASANSOL
Ref. No. 16/2013
LOK ADALAT SETTLEMENT
Place: Mines Rescue Station, Sitarampur
Date: 20.02.15
The Agent, Nimcha Colliery, ECL
Vs.
Sri Suku Majhi
Both the parties hereby mutually and amicably settle
up the dispute for the interest of both sides and to help
securing a healthy & conducive relationship for
miaximization of output in the industry.
Terms: The workman agrees to be reinstated without
back wages with other 14 terms and conditions.
Employer/Management
Employee/Union
TERMS OF RE-INSTATEMENT
i. The concerned candidate shall furnish
unequivocal acceptance of offence committed by
him with unconditional apology thereof and an
undertaking that in future he will never commit
such offence.
ii. The re-instatement of the ex-employee will be
subject to medical fitness for employment by the
AMO of the Area. In case, a candidate is found to
unfit on medical ground, case will not be
processed further.
iii. The concerned ex-employee shall be reinstated in
service as Cat-I Mazdoor at initial basic of the
scale.
iv. The ex-employee concerned shall not be entitled
to any back wages for the period of his idleness.
v. The ex-employee on re-instatement shall be
posted in the under-ground wherever there is
requirement in case any approach/request for
change of work/place of posting, appointment will
cease immediately.
vi. The ex-employee on re-instatement shall be on
probation for a minimum period of 1 (One) year
and the ex-employee shall be confirmed only on
receipt of satisfactory Performance Certification
on expiry of probation period by CGM/GM of the
Area. In case his performance is not found
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1401
satisfactory, his service should be terminated
forthwith.
vii. The concerned ex-employee shall un-
conditionally withdraw all pending claims/
disputes raised by him or any union in any forum/
Court of Law relating to his "Dismissal" and shall
submit no dispute certificate to the management.
viii. The period of absence/idleness of the ex-employee
shall be treated as dies-non.
ix. The ex-employee shall be allowed the benefit of
continuity of service for the period of his idleness
for the purpose of computation of his final
gratuity payment only.
x.. If the ex-employee has already withdrawn his
gratuity amount prior to re-instatement, shall
refund the same to the management prior to his
re-instatement in service. In case Management
has deposited it with the ALCCC)/Controlling
Authority due to any reason whatsoever may be,
it will be called back by the depositing authority
on the ground of re-instatement.
xi. If the ex-employee has already withdrawn his
CMPF accumulation prior to reinstatement his case
shall be regulated as per the CMPF Act/Rules. If
the ex-employee is drawing Pension the same shall
be regulated as per the CMPS/Rules.
xii. The instant order/approval for re-instatement on
the above terms and conditions in respect of
concerned ex-employee/ex-employees shall
remain valid for a period 2 (two) months from the
date of its communication to the ex-employee/ex-
employees by area and shall stand inoperative on
expiry of the said period.
xiii. Before allowing re-instatement as above a mutual
agreement in 'Form-H' under the I.D. Act, 1947/
Rules be entered based on above terms of
reinstatement (from 3 to 13), between the
management, the ex-employee and the sponsoring
Union, if there is any and the copy of same shall
be endorsed to ECL, HQ.
xiv. Prior to reinstatement, the identity of the ex-
employee shall be verified by the concerned Area/
Colliery authority.
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 581-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñlhñ,yñ 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; vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 35@2006½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13&03&2015 dk izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@211@2005&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2015
S.O. 581.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 35/2006 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Madhujore Colliery of M/s. ECL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
13-03-2015.
[No. L-22012/211/2005-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT ASANSOL
Reference No.: 35/ITC/2006
Management of Madhusudanpur Colliery of
E. C. L.
Vs
Sri Shamlal Murmu
SETTLEMENT IN LOK ADALAT
Held on 20th February, 2015 at Mines Rescue Station,
ECL, Sitarampur.
AWARD
On amicable settlement by both parties the dispute is
resolved in the Lok Adalat. The Form 'H' containing the
terms of agreement of this settlement to be executed by
both the parties in due course. Award is passed and signed
accordingly.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer.
IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
LOK ADALAT SETTLEMENT
Place: Mines Rescue Station Sitarampur
Date: 20.02.2015
Ref. 35/2006
The Agent, Madhusudanpur Colliery of ECl
Vs.
Sh. Shyamlal Murmu
1402
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Both the parties hereby mutually and amicably settle
up the dispute for the interest of both sides and to help
securing a healthy and conductive relationship for
maximization of output in the industry.
Terms: The workman agrees to be reinstated without
back wages and other 14 terms and condition (attached).
1. 20.2.15
[JAGDISH KARMAKAR, Dy Manager (PERS),
MSP]
2. [AJAY KUMAR SHRINET, MANAGER (PERS)
KAJORA AREA]
Employer/Management
SHYAMLAL MURMU
Employee/Union
TERMS OF RE-INSTATEMENT
i. The concerned candidate shall furnish
unequivocal acceptance of offence committed by
him with unconditional apology thereof and an
undertaking that in future he will never commit
such offence.
ii. The re-instatement of the ex-employee will be
subject to medical fitness for employment by the
AMO of the Area. In case, a candidat is found to
unfit on medical ground, case will not be
processed further.
iii. The concerned ex-employee shall be reinstated in
service as Cat-I Mazdoor at initial basic of the
scale.
iv. The ex-employee concerned shall not be entitled
to any back wages for the period of his idleness.
v. The ex-employee on re-instatement shall be
posted in the under-ground wherever there is
requirement in the case any approach/request
for change of work/place of posting, appointment
will cease immediately.
vi. The ex-employee on re-instatement shall be on
probation for a minimum period of 1 (One) year
and the ex-employee shall be confirmed only on
receipt of satisfactory Performance Certification
on expiry of probation period by CGM/GM of the
Area. In case his performance is not found
satisfactory, his service should be terminated
forthwith.
vii. The concernced ex-employee shall un-
conditionally withdraw all pending claims/
disputes raised by him or any union in any forum/
Court of Law relating to his "Dismissal" and shall
submit no dispute certificate to the management.
viii. The period of absence/idlensess of the ex-
employee shall be treated as dies-non.
ix. The ex-employee shall be allowed the benefit of
continuity of service for the period of his idleness
for the purpose of computation of his final
gratuity payment only.
x. If the ex-employee has already withdran his
gratuity amount prior to re-instatement, shall
refund the same to the management prior to his
re-instatement in service. In case Management
has deposited it with the ALCCC)/controlling
Authority due to any reason whatsoever may be,
it will be called back by the depositing authority
on the ground of re-instatement.
xi. If the ex-employee has already withdrawn his
CMPF accumulation prior to reinstatement his case
shall be regulated as per the CMPF Act/Rules. If
the ex-employee is drawing Pension the same shall
be regulated as per the CMPS/Rules.
xii. The instant order/approval for re-instatement on
the above terms and conditions in respect of
concerned ex-employee/ex-employees shall
remain valid for a period 2 (two) months from the
date of its communication to the ex-employee/ex-
employees by area and shall stand inoperative on
expiry of the said period.
xiii. Before allowing re-instatement as above a mutual
agreement in 'Form-H' under the I.D. Act, 1947/
Rules be entered based on above terms of
reinstatement (from 3 to 13), between the
management, the ex-employee and the sponsoring
Union, if there is any and the copy of same shall
be endorsed to ECL, HQ.
xiv. Prior to reinstatement, the identity of the ex-
employee shall be verified by the concerned Area/
Colliery authority.
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 582-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñlhñ,yñ 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; vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 36@2007½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13&03&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@7@2007&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2015
S.O. 582.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1403
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 36/2007 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
13-03-2015.
[No. L-22012/7/2007-IR (CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
Reference No.: 36/ITC/2007
Management of Ratibati Colliery of E.C.L
Vs.
Shri Haren Bouri
SETTLEMENT IN LOK ADALAT
Held on 20th February, 2015 at Mines Rescue Station,
ECL, Sitarampur.
AWARD
On amicable settlement by both parties the dispute is
resolved in the Lok Adalat. The Form 'H' containing the
terms of agreement of this settlement to be executed by
both the parties in due course. Award is passed and signed
accordingly.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
Misc. 01/2012 (Original Ref. No. 36/2007)
LOK ADALAT SETTLEMENT
Place: Mines Rescue Station, Sitarampur
Date: 20.02.15
Chapuikhas Colliery,
Vs.
Sri Haren Bouri
Both the parties hereby mutually and amicably settle
up the dispute for the interest of both sides and to help
securing a healthy & conducive relationship for
maximization of output in the industry.
Haren Bouri concerned workman is the employee of Ratibati
Colliery instead of Chapuikhas Colliery
Employer/Management
Employee/Union
H.L. SONI
—Sd—
—Sd—
Asst. General Secy.
Illeligible Illeligible
KMC
TERMS OF RE-INSTATEMENT
i. The concerned candidate shall furnish
unequivocal acceptance of offence committed by
him with unconditional apology thereof and an
undertaking that in future he will never commit
such offence.
ii. The re-instatement of the ex-employee will be
subject to medical fitness for employment by the
AMO of the Area. In case, a candidate is found to
unfit on medical ground, case will not be
processed further.
iii. The concerned ex-employee shall be reinstated in
service as Cat-I Mazdoor at initial basic of the
scale.
iv. The ex-employee concerned shall not be entitled
to any back wages for the period of his idleness.
v. The ex-employee on re-instatement shall be
posted in the under-ground wherever there is
requirement in case any approach/request for
change of work/place of posting, appointment will
cease immediately.
vi. The ex-employee on re-instatement shall be on
probation for a minimum period of 1(One) year
and the ex-employee shall be confirmed only on
receipt of satisfactory Performance Certification
on expiry of probation period by CGM/GM of the
Area. In case his performance is not found
satisfactory, his service should be terminated
forthwith.
vii. The concerned ex-employee shall un-
conditionally withdraw all pending claims/
disputes raised by him or any union in any forum/
Court of Law relating to his "Dismissal" and shall
submit no dispute centificate to the management.
viii. The period of absence/idleness of the ex-employee
shall be treated as dies-non.
ix. The ex-employee shall be allowed the benefit of
continuity of service for the period of his idleness
for the purpose of computation of his final gratuity
payment only.
x. If the ex-employee has already withdrawn his
gratuity amount prior to re-instatement, shall
refund the same to the management prior to his
re-instatement in service. In case Management
has deposited it with the ALC(C)/Controlling
Authority due to any reason whatsoever may be,
it will be called back by the depositing authority
on the ground of re-instatement.
xi. If the ex-employee has already withdrawn his
CMPF accumulation prior to re-instatement his
case shall be regulated as per the CMPF Act/Rules.
If the ex-employee is drawing Pension the same
1404
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
shall be regulated as per the CMPS/Rules.
xii. The instant order/approval for re-instatement on
the above terms and conditions in respect of
concerned ex-employee/ex-employees shall
remain valid for a period 2 (two) months from the
date of its communication to the ex-employee/ex-
employees by area and shall stand inoperative on
expiry of the said period.
xiii. Before allowing re-instatement as above a mutual
agreement in ‘Form-H’ under I.D. Act, 1947/Rules
be entered, based on above terms of re-instatement
(from 3 to 13), beween the management, the ex-
employee and the sponsoring Union, if there is
any and the copy of same shall be endorsed to
ECL, HQ.
xiv. Prior to re-instatement , the identity of the ex-
employee shall be verified by the concerned Area/
Colliery authority.
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 583-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QñlhñvkbZñ 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; uñ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 74@2005½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-03-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ 22012@386@2004&vkbZñvkjñ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2015
S.O. 583.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 74/2005 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 1, Dhanbad as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Food Corporation of India, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
13.03.2015.
[No. L-22012/386/2004-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
Before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
No.1, Dhanbad
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act,
1947
Ref. No. 74 of 2005
Employer in relation to the management of Food
Corporation of India, Gaya
AND
Their workmen
Present:—Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :—None
For the workman :—Sri V. Kumar, Rep.
State : Jharkhand
Industry :—Food
Dated 27.02.2015
AWARD
By Order No. L-22012/386/2004-IR (CM-II), dated.
29.06.2000, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India in terminating the service of
workmen Sh. Deepak Kumar and other (list enclosed
w.e.f. 01.09.95 and 01.10.96 insteed of regularizing
their service is legal and justified. If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled?"
Sl.
Name of the workmen
Date of
Date of
No.
engagement retrenchment
1.
Shri Deepak Kumar
01.09.94
01.09.95
2.
Shri Anjani Kumar
01.09.94
01.09.95
3.
Shri Girish Kr. Sinha
01.09.94
01.09.95
4.
Shri Bipin Kumar
01.09.94
01.09.95
5.
Shri Roshan Kr. Kashyap
01.09.94
01.09.95
6.
Shri Santosh Kumar
01.09.94
01.09.95
7.
Shri Kukesh Kumar
01.09.94
01.09.95
8.
Shri Babloo
01.09.94
01.09.95
9.
Shri Sushil Kumar
01.09.94
01.09.95
10.
Shri Dilip
01.09.94
01.09.95
11.
Shri Vinod Kumar
01.09.95
01.10.96
12.
Shri Manoj Kr. Sinha
01.09.95
01.10.96
13.
Shri Om Kumar
01.09.95
01.10.96
14.
Shri Sanjay Kumar
01.09.95
01.10.96
15.
Shri Rakesh Kumar
01.09.95
01.10.96
16.
Shri Ajoy Kumar
01.09.95
01.10.96
17.
Shri Uday Sharma
01.09.95
01.10.96
18.
Shri Raj Kumar Singh
01.09.95
01.10.96
19.
Shri Sanjeev Kumar
01.09.95
01.10.96
20.
Shri Anil Kumar
01.09.95
01.10.96
21.
Shri Gopal Prasad
01.09.95
01.10.96
2. This Case is received from the Ministry of Labour &
Employment on 12.09.2005. After receipt of reference, both
parties are noticed. The workman files their written statement
on 23.09.2005. But the management after long delay files
written statement on 01.04.2010. Document marked by the
workman as W-1 Series and W-2. The workman also filed
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1405
three affidavit evidence, he has not been cross examined
by the management, due to lapses of management.
3. The short point involved in this reference is that,
whether the termination of the workman is just and proper
or not. The workmen have been terminated by the
management without assigning any rhyme or reason.
4. On the other hand the workman submitted, they
were rendering proper service to the management and they
were also availling LTC etc. and in support of that they
filed photo copies of such documents. They have also
filed the photo copies of the Attendance sheets of all the
workmen. As per document available on the record and as
per the affidavit filed by the workman, there are many post
vacant in category IV.
5. Workman files many documents, marked as W-1 &
W-2 series, which shows that they have completed 240
days in the calendar year.
6. Moreover the management has not adduce any
evidence, nor turn up since last 7 to 8 dates to pursue and
did not choose to cross examine the workmen witnesses.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
I holds that the termination of the workman is totally illegal,
Hence they be allowed to continue in the job without any
back wages against the regular post.
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 584-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QñlhñvkbZñ 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;
uañ 1] p.Mhx<- ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 13@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-03-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ 22011@2@2004&vkbZñvkjñ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2015
S.O. 584.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 13/2011 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 1, Chandigarh as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Food Corporation of India, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
11.03.2015.
[No. L-22012/2/2011-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Case No. ID 13 of 2011
Reference No. L-22011/2/2011-IR(CM-II) dated
18.05.2011.
The General Secretary, FCI Class IV Karamchari Sangh,
Central Office, 1185/1, B-17, Lal Kothi, Azad Nagar,
Ludhiana.
Workman
Versus
1. The General Manager, (IR) Food Corporation of
India, 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi. 110001.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation
of India, Punjab Region, Sector-31, Chandigarh.
Respondents
Appearances
For theWorkman:
None
For the Management:
Shri Arun Batra proxy for Shri N.K.
Zakhmi Advocate.
AWARD
Dated: 26.02.2015
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification L-22011/2/2011-IR(CM-II) dated 18.05.2011 has
referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
TERM OF REFERENCE
"Whether the action of the management of FCI,
Punjab Region in not deploying the security guard
on Direct Payment System as recommended by Three
Member Committee and not regularizing the 34 casual
workers by the FCI department is just, fair and legal?
To what relief the concerned workers are entitled
and from which date?"
2. On receipt of the reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Earlier the parties were appearing. Union filed
the statement of claim to which the management filed
written statement. During the course of proceedings Shri
Mangat Nath Bali, President FCI Class IV Karamchari Sangh
filed application withdrawing the demand regarding not
regularizing the 34 regular workers by the management.
3. The case was adjourmed for filing the affidavit in
evidence by the workmen since May 2012. The Union
stopped attending hearing and did not file any affidavit in
evidence. For the last about three years the case was
adjourned time and again for filing of affidavit in evidence
by the union. None is appearing on behalf of the Union
from the several dates. It appears the Union is not interested
1406
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
to pursue the present reference. As the Union is not
appearing, therefore, no purpose would be served in keeping
the case pending. In view of the above, the present
reference is returned is to the Central Govt. for want of
prosecution.
4. The reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh
26.2.2015
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 585.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsnzh; ljdkj ,Q-ñlhñvkbZñ 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; uñ 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 615@2005½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y- 22012@290@1999&vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2015
S.O. 585.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 615/2005 of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
dispute between the management of Food Corporation of
India, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 11/03/2015.
[No. L-22012/290/1999-IR (CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer,
Case No. I.D. No. 615/2005
Registered on 24.8.2005
Workmen through Food Corporation of India Ancillary
Labour Workers Union, C/o President, Charan Singh son
of Sh. Gurnam Singh, Choor Chak, District Moga.
....Petitioner
Versus
1. Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Sector
34, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager.
2. The District Manager, Food Corporation of India,
804, Gurdev Nagar, Ludhina.
3. The Assistant Manager, Food Storage Depot, FCI,
Jagraon, District Ludhiana.
.... Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
Sh. Harmandeep Singh Adv.
For the Management
Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 21/1/2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-22012/290/
99 IR(CM-II) Dated 24.1.2000, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 of Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-
section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
“Whether the action of the management of FCI, in
not regularizing the services of workers concerned
is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman
are entitled and from which date?”
Briefly stated the facts are that according to 18 workers
whose names find mentioned in para 2 of the statement of
claim, worked for several years under Assistant Manager,
FCI, Jagraon. They were working in the premises and control
of the FCI Officers. It is pleaded that their services have
not been regularized and the FCI has been appointing
persons on regular basis which is a discrimination and
injustice. It is further pleaded that daily wage workers are
entitled to minimum pay scales as is given to regular
employees. That the management be directed to regularize
their services and they be paid salary as being paid to
regular employees.
Respondent management filed written reply
controverting the averments and pleaded that the workmen
whose names find mention in the statement of claim never
worked with the FCI Depot at Jagraon. As per Ishwari Prasad
report, the persons who were working with the contractors
for a period of three years prior to February, 1997 were to
be covered under the direct payment system and since the
names of the workers did not find mention in the gate entry
register, acquaintance rolls and EPF Schedule, they were
not entitled to benefit. All other averments were
controverted.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their respective
evidence.
Some of the labourers namely Nirmal Singh, Jarnail
Singh, Prakash Nath, Yograj Singh, Butta Singh, Baijnath,
Gurmail Singh, Ballaur Singh, Hansjit Singh, Sarabjit Singh,
Charan Singh, Shamsher Singh and Iqbal Singh appeared
in the witness box; and filed their respective affidavits
reiterating the stand taken by them in the statement of
claim.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1407
On the other hand the management has examined Anuj
Tyagi, who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand of
respondent management as taken in the written statement.
I have heard Sh. Harmandeep Singh, Counsel for the
workmen and Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management
and perused ther file carefully.
It was vehemently Argued by learned counsel for the
workmen that workmen have been working with the FCI
since long and some of them even have been working since
1979, 1983 and 1984 and from the copies of the gate passes,
it is clear that the were working fom the respondent
management and they are entitled to regularization of their
services.
Suffice it to say, that the respondent management i.e.
Food Corporation of India, denied that the workmen actually
did work for it at any point of time. In these circumstances,
it was incumbent on the workmen to prove that they actually
did work for the respondent management. Photocopies of
gate passes Mark 1 to Mark 14 has been placed on the file
which were put to Anuj Tyagi, a witness of the management.
But these copies do not depict any where that any of the
workmen ever worked for the FCI at any point of time. The
workers did not produce or prove any document to
establish that they were engaged by the respondent
department or they have ever received any salary from it.
From the bare statements of the workmen who appeared in
the witness box, it cannot be said that they were ever
engaged by the respondent department. The witness had
deposed that they were called by Mr. Dadwal, AG-2 and
Harbans Singh, AG-2 meaning thereby that they were
employed by them but there is nothing on the file to show
that Mr. Dadwal, AG2 and Mr. Harbans Singh, AG 2 were
ever authorized to employ them. Since it is not proved on
the file that workmen ever received any salary from the
FCI, it cannot be said that they ever worked or employed
by the FDI. The workmen simply claim regularization of
their services on the strength of the period they allegedly
worked for the respondent management. Even if it is taken
that they worked as alleged by them, they cannot claim
regularization of their services as person to the post is to
be appointed by following the Rules and Regulations and
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the latest pronouncement in
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in
A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 1806, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed
that employees who were not appointed by observing the
regular procedure and rules are not entitled to regularization
of their services. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed in para
1of the judgement as follows:—
Public employment in a sovereign socialist secular
democratic republic, has to be as set down by the
Constitution and the laws made thereunder. Our
constitutional scheme envisages employment by the
government and its instrumentalities on the basis of
a procedure established in that behalf. Equality of
opportunity is the hallmark, and the Constitution has
provided also for affirmative action to ensure that
unequals are not treated equals. Thus, any public
employment has to be in terms of the constitutional
scheme.
It was further observed in para 5 of the judgement as
follow:—
The power of a state as an employer is more limited
than that of a private employer inasmuch as it is
subjected to constitutional limitations and cannot
be exercised artitrarily Article 309 of the Constitution
gives the Government the power to frame rules for
the purpose of laying down the conditions of service
and recruitment of persons to be appointed to public
services and posts in connection with the affairs of
the Union or any of the States. The article
contemplates the drawing up of a procedure and rules
to regulate the service conditions of appointees
appointed to public posts. It is well acknowledged
that because of this, the entire process of recruitment
and for services of controlled by detailed procedures
which specify the necessary qualifications, the mode
of appointment etc. It rules have been made under
Article 309 of the Constitution, then the Government
can make appointments only in accordance with the
rules.
The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed in para 34
of the judgment as follows:—
Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality
in public employment if a basic feature of our
constituion and since the rule of law is the core of
our constitution, a court would certainly be disabled
from passing an order upholding a violation of Article
14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to
comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with
Article 16 of the constitution. Therefore, consistent
with the scheme for public employment, this court
while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold
that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant
rules and after a proper competition among qualified
persons, the same would not confer any right on the
appointee. It is is a contractual appointment,
appointment comes to an end at the end of the
contract, if it were an engagement of appointment on
daily wages or casual basis; the same would come to
an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary
employee could not claim to be made permanent on
the expiry of the terms of his term of appointment. It
has also to be clarified that merely because a
temporary employees or a casual wage worker is
continued for a time beyond the term of his
appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed
in regular service of made permanent merely on the
1408
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
strength of such continuance, if the original
appointment was not made by following a due
process of selection as envisaged by the relevant
rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular
recruitment at the instance of temporary employees
whose period employment has come to an end or of
ad hoc employee who by the very nature of their
appointment, do not acquire any right. High Courts
acting under article 226 of the constitution of India,
should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption,
regularization, or permanent continuance unless the
recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of
the constitutional scheme. Merely because an
employee had continued under cover of an order of
court, which we have described as litigious
employment in the earlier part of the judgment, he
would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or
made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases
the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim
directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee
approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be
possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner
that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him,
whereas an interim direction to continue his
employment would hold up the regular procedure
for selection or impose on the state the burden of
paying an employee who is really not required. The
courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not
interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of
its affairs by the state or its instrumentalities or lend
themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing
of the constitutional and statutory mandate.
Thus, the workmen cannot claim right for the
regularization of their services simply on account of the
fact that they were employed by the FCI, which fact is also
not proved on the file.
Though it is pleaded that daily wage workers are
entitled to minimum pay scales as is being given to regular
employees but this question need no determination as the
reference is only regarding whether the workers are entitled
to regularization of their services and the said fact is not
proved on the file and they are not entitled to regularization
of their services.
In result, the reference is decided against the workers
and it is held that workmen are not entitled to any relief.
The reference is accordingly answered against the
workmen. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to
the Central Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 586-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lhñihñ MCY;wñ 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;
uañ 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 530@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ 42012@147@2003&vkbZñvkjñ ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2015
S.O. 586.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 530/2005 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 2, Chandigarh as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Central Public Works Department, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/
03/2015.
[No. L-42012/147/2003-IR (CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No. 530/2005
Registered on 22.8.2005
1.
The Zonal Secretary, All India CPWD (MRM)
Karamchari Sanghathan (Regd) CPWD Store Building
Sector 7B, Chandigarh,
2.
Sh. Krishan Kumar, Son of Sh. Dalip Singh,
Carpenter C/O All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari
Sangathan (Regd) through Zonal Secretary, CPWD Store
Building, Sector 7B, Chandigarh.
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. The Director General (Works), CPWD, Nirman
Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Executive Engineer, Chandigarh Central
Division-I, CPWD, Kendriya Sadan, Sector 9A,
Chandigarh
....Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
Sh. S.D. Sharma, Adv.
For the Management
Sh. G.C. Babbar, Adv.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1409
AWARD
Passed on 8.1.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/
147/2003 IR(CM-II) Dated 29.7.2004, by exercising its
powers under Section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d) and
sub-section (2-A) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the contract between the management of
CPWD and the contractor is sham? if so, the demands
of AII India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan
for reinstatement/regularization of Sh. Krishan Kumar
in the establishment of CPWD is justified and to
what relief he is entitled?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared and
submitted statement of claim pleading that he was employed
by the respondent managment as carpenter through a
contractor w.e.f. 28.12.1996. That he worked under the
complete control of the management and the work entrusted
to him of perennial in nature. The workman continued
working under different contractors i.e.M/s Ahluwalia,
M/s Subhash Chand Goyal and Sons, M/s Flair Agencies,
M/s Diwan Chand Singla and M/s Fire Well and others in
pursuance of the contract awarded to them, but he was
working under the direct supervision and control of the
management continuously and without any break; and as
such, there is a direct relationship of employer and
employee between the respondent management and the
workman and the contract entered into between the
management and the contractor is a sham transaction and
the arrangement was made just to escape the responsibility
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That the Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi gave certain directions in Civil Writ
Petition No. 8741 of 1998 to absorb the contract workers
and the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board submitted
the recommendations dated 18.12.2001. Though the
workman has been working regularly for the last so many
years but his services were not regularized by the
management. That his services are liable to be regularized
as there are vacant posts of Pump Operators. He is also
entitled to claim pay as is being given to regular employees
performing the same function as is being performed by the
workman. Since he has been working for the last more than
seven years, his services are to be regularized.
The respondent management filed written reply
controverting the averments and pleaded that there is no
relationship of employer and employee between the parties.
That the mamagement entered into a contract with the
contractor for the maintenance of General Pool
Accommodation who deployed certain persons as per terms
and conditions of the agreement. That the workman was
not paid any wages by the department and he was not
employed by it as Carpenter. That the amount was paid to
the contractors who may be paying the wages to the
persons engaged by him. All other averments were also
controverted.
In the replication, the workman reiterated the stand as
set out in the statement of claim.
Parties were given opportunities to lead its evidence.
In support of its case, workman appeared in the witness
box and examined Raj Kumar as well as Rajiv Kumar
Bhardwaj.
Workman filed his affidavit reiterating the stand taken
by him in the statement of claim.
Raj Kumar also filed his affidavit supporting the
version of the workman. Rajiv Kumar Bhardwaj, a Junior
Engineer of the management, had deposed that the workman
was working under him as Carpenter and he used to report
to him for duty. He produced the attendance sheets Exhibit
WW1 to WW57.
On the other hand, the mamagement has examined
Sh. U.C. Sachdeva, Executive Engineer who filed his
affidavit reiterating the stand taken by the management in
the written statement.
I have heard Sh. S.D. Sharma, counsel for the workman
and Sh. G.C. Babbar, counsel for the mamagement and
perused the file carefully.
It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for
the workman that workman has been working with the
respondent management since 28.12.1996 who has direct
supervision and control over the workman and contract
entered into by the management with the contractor is a
sham transaction. He has further pointed out that the
workman worked under various contractors which is
sufficient to prove that he has actually been working under
the control of the management and the same is also clear
from the attendance sheets Exhibit WW1 to WW57 as
deposed by Rajiv Kumar Bhardwaj and therefore he is
entitled for the regularization of his services. A contention
was also raised that department has failed to examine the
contractor and also failed to produce the summoned record
and an adverse inference be drawn against it and the
workman be granted the relief as claimed by him.
I have considered the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the workman.
It may be added that it is the case of the workman
himself that he was engaged through a contractor and it is
nowhere his case that he was employed by the management
on contract basis. Since he was employed through a
contractor, he cannot claim himself to be an employee of
the respondent management. Though the statement of Rajiv
Kumar Bhardwaj prove that the workman has been working
with the respondent management continuously, but the
same does not itself prove that he is actually an employee
of the respondent management as it is not proved on the
file that he was selected by the management or he was ever
1410
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
paid any wages by it. Again there is nothing on the file to
suggest that management has role in making the selection
and taking any disciplinary action against him. Thus, it
cannot be said that he is an employee of the respondent
management simply by considering the length of service
he did with the respondent management through the
contractor and the contract entered into between the
management and the contractor for providing services is a
sham transaction. In the circumstances non-examination
of the contractor and the production of any record is of no
consequence.
Raj Kumar, a witness of the workman has admitted
that the job of a carpenter is in 'Group C' category and there
are Recruitment Rules for the recruitment of the Carpenter.
There is nothing on the file that their workman was
appointed as carpenter by following any rules for the
obvious reason that he was employed by the contractor.
In the circumstances, the workman is not entitled to the
regularization of his services. In the latest pronoucement,
Secretary State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in A.I.R.
2006 S.C. 1806, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that
employees who were not appointed by observing the
regular procedure and rules are not entitled to regularization
of their services. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed in para
1 of the judgement as follows:—
Public employment in a sovereign socialist secular
democratic republic, has to be as set down by the
Constitution and the laws made thereunder. Our
constitutional scheme envisages employment by the
government and its instrumentalities on the basis of a
procedure established in that behalf. Equality of
opportunity is the hallmark, and the Constitution has
provided also for affirmative action to ensure that unequals
are not treated equals. Thus, any public employment has
to be in terms of the constitutional scheme.
It was further observed in para 5 of the judgment as
follows:—
The power of a state as an employer is more limited
than that of a private employer in as much as it is subjected
to constitutional limitation and cannot be exercised
arbitrarily. Article 309 of the Constitution gives the
Government the power to frame rules for the purpose of
laying down the conditions of service and recruitment of
persons to be appointed to public services and posts in
connection with the affairs of the Union or any of the States.
The article contemplates the drawing up of a procedure
and rules to regulate the service conditions of appointees
appointed to public posts. It is well acknowledged that
because of this, the entire process of recruitment and for
specify the necessary qualifications, the mode of
appointment etc. If rules have been made under Article 309
of the Constitution, then the Government can make
appointments only in accordance with the rules.
The Hon'ble Apex Court observed in para 34 of the
judgment as follows:—
Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality
in public employment is a basic feature of our
constitution and since the rule of law is the core of
our constitution, a court would certainly be disabled
from passing an order upholding a violation of Article
14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to
comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with
Article 16 of the constitution. Therefore, consistent
with the scheme for public employment, this court
while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold
that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant
rules and after a proper competition among qualified
persons, the same would not confer any right on the
appointee. If it is a contractural appoitment,
appointment comes to an end at the end of the
contract, if it were an engagement of appointment on
daily wages or casual basis; the same would come to
an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary
employee could not claim to be made permanent on
the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to
be clarified that merely because a temporary employee
or casual wage worker is constinued fro a time
beyond the term of his appointment, he would not
be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made
permanent, merely on the strength of such
continuance, if the original appointment was not made
by following a due process of selection as envisaged
by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to
prevent regular recruitment at the instance of
temporary employees whose period employment has
come to an end or of ad hoc employee who by the
very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any
right. High Court acting under article 226 of the
constitution of India, should not ordinarily issue
directions for obsorption, regularization, or
permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself
was made regularly and in terms of the contitutional
scheme. Merely because an employee had continued
under cover of an order of court, which we have
decribed as litigious employment in the earlier part
of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any
right to be obsorbed or made permanent in the
service. In fact, in such cases the High Court may
not be justified in issuing interim directions, since,
after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is
found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to
mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no
prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim
direction to continue his employment would hold up
the regular procedure for selection or impose on the
state the burden of paying an employee who is really
not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1411
that they do not interfere unduly with the economic
arragement of its affairs by the state or its
instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments
to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and
statutory mandate.
Thus an employee who is not appointed as per terms
of the relevant rules and regulations, his services cannot
be regularized as stated above. Since the workman was not
appointed as per any rules, he is not entitled to the
regularization of his services as claimed by him.
Though it is not in the reference, the workman has
claimed equal pay for equal work by stating that the job
performed by him is also being done by the regular
employees and he is entitled to the same pay as is given to
he regular employees. As it is found that he is not n employee
of the respondent management but is of the contractor,
therefore, he cannot claim any parity with the regular
employees of the respondent management.
In result it is held it is not proved that there is a
relationship of employer nd employees between the parties
and the contract between the management and the
contractor is a sham transaction. The workman is not entitled
to regularization of his services or any other relief and
accordingly the reference is answered against him. Let hard
and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central
Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 587-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QñlhñvkbZñ 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@Je
U;k;ky; y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 06@2010½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[ lañ ,y&22011@68@2009&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2015
S.O. 587.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 06/2010 of
the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Lucknow
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of Food Corporation of India,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
17/03/2015.
[No. L-22011/68/2009-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUKNOW
PRESENT
RAKESH KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No. 06/2010
Ref. No. L-22011/68/2009-IR(CM-II) dated 30.03.2010
BETWEEN
Shri Ved Ram & others
C/o Shri Chandra Mohan Shukla
365/7 Sadar Bazar
Lucknow
AND
1. The Regional Manager
Food Corporation of India
TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
2. The Distt. Manager
Food Corporation of India
Depot Rauser Kothi
Shahjahanpur (U.P.)
AWARD
1. By order No. L-22011/68/2009-IR(CM-II) dated
30.03.2010 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this
industrial dispute between Shri Ved Ram & other, C/o Shri
Chandra Mohan Shukla, 365/7, Sadar Bazar, Lucknow and
the Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, TC/3V,
Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow & the Distt. Manager,
Food Corporation of India, Depot Rauser Kothi,
Shahjahanpur (U.P.) for adjudication to this CGIT-cum-
Labour Court, Lucknow.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
"Whether the demand of Shri Vedram & 261 others
(As per list enclosed) for the their regulaziation with
the management of FCI at Rouserkothi depot & Rail
Head, Shahjahanpur is legal and justified? To what
relief are the claimant workman entitled for?'
3. The case of the workman, in brief, is that the workman,
Ved Ram & 261 others have been working at the Depot
Raouser Kothi and Rail head District Shahjanpur of several
years; and they have been engaged in loading and
uploading work. It is submitted by the workmen that the
management introduced the direct payment system in
8 depots, including Shahjahanpur but the management
failed to do so. It is submitted that the contract system has
been abolished in other 7 depots at Shahjahanpur by the
1412
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
FCI vide their order dated 05.12.1994 and 06.12.1994; and
accordingly, the workers at other depot are getting wages
and other benefits from FCI only these 262 workmen
involved in the present industrial dispute are deprived of
the benefits. Accordingly, the workmen have prayed that
their services may be regularized form 1972 onwards.
4. The management of the Food Corporation of India
has disputed the claim of the workmen and stated that
direct payment system has never been implemented at FSD,
Rouserkothi depot and contract labour system is prevalent
at Rourserkothi depot since its inception. In this regard it
has been specifically submitted that Government of India
has issued a notification of selected depots on 23.04.2010
in which name of FSD, Rouserkthi was not included. It is
also submitted by the management of FCI that the workmen
are not their employees rather they are engaged by some
contractor, therefore they cannot raise any dispute against
the FCI as the Food Corporation of India is not the employer
of contract labours. The management has also raised
objection against the manner of representation of the
workmen by an unregistered union. Accordingly, the
management of FCI has prayed that the claim of the workmen
be rejected being devoid of any merit.
4. The workmen have filed its rejoinder wherein apart
from reiterating the averments already made in the statement
of claim, it has submitted that a committee constituted by
the workmen under Industrial Disputes Act is authorized
and empowered to spouse the cause of the workmen.
5. The parties have filed photocopy of documentary
evidence in support of their respective claim. The workmen
have filed evidence of Shri Ved Ram, Siya Nand, Amar Singh,
Zahoor. The management cross-examined the workmen's
witnesses; whereas the management has not produced
any evidence in support of their claim. The parties
forwarded oral argument in support of their respective
stands.
6. Heard authorized representatives of the parties and
perused entire evidence available on record.
7. The case of the workmen is that they are working
with the management of FCI for more than 20 years and the
management is treating them as contractual workmen and
making payment accordingly. It is also the case of the
workman that the contract labour system has been
abolished by the Government of India vide notification
dated 23.04.2010, prohibiting works of loading, unloading,
stacking, destacking, restacking, standardization,
weitghment, sweeping and cleaning in the godowns and
depots of the FCI. The name of Shahjahanpur Depot finds
its reference in the schedule attached to it. It is also
submitted by the workmen's representative that direct
payment system has already been introduced in many
depots of FCI, including Shahjahanpur depot of U.P. Region
vide letter dated 06.02.75, therefore, after abolition of
contract labour system the labourers may be regularized
and made payment and other benefits.
8. In rebuttal, the management has contended that the
applicants are contractor's worker and they are not the
employee of the FCI. Moreover, it is also argued that the
notification dated 23.04.2010, prohibiting contract labour
practive in Shahjahanpur Depot, has been challenged before
Hon'ble High Court and the writ is pending, therefore, the
statement of claim has no merit. Further, it has also been
contended by the management that the direct payment
system is not applicable in Rouser Kothi Depot, where the
wormen discharge their duties.
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival contentions of the parties.
10. The management of the FCI has come forward with
the contention that the applicants under dispute are not
their workmen rather they are workmen of the contracting
agency. In rebuttal, the workmen's case is that the practice
of contract labour has been abolished in FCI depot vide
notification dated 23.04.2010 and the name of Shahjahanpur
Depot finds its reference at serial No. 01, therefore, all the
workmen alleged to be the workers of the Contractor be
treated/deemed to be workmen of FCI. Though the
management has contended that the said notification dated
23.04.2010, abolishing contract labour system has been
challenged in a Writ Petition. Here it is necessary to mention
that there is no order, on the record, staying the above
notification dated 23.04.2010; neither is there any stay order
by the Hon'ble High Court on the proceedings before this
Tribunal. It is also noteworthy to mention that the
notification dated 23.04.2010 has been issued by the
Competent Government with in wake of the powers
conferred upon it vide Section 10 (1) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the above
provision of the Act has not been declared void or ultra
virus by the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, the notification
issued in pursuance to the provision contained in the Act
prevails good.
Hon'ble Apex Court in Air India's case (1997 AIR SCW
430) has observed as under:
"In this behalf, it is necessary to recapitulate that on
abolition of the contract labour system, by necessary
implication, the principal employer is under statutory
obligation to absorb the contact labour. The linkage
between the contractor and the employee stood
snapped and direct relationship stood restored
between principal employer and the contract labour
as its employees. Considered from this perspective,
all the wormen in the respective services working on
contract labour are required to be absorbed in the
establishment of the appellant."
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1413
Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of
the case it is apparent that the workmen who are serving
the FCI, the principal employer, since long through
contracting agencies become emploees of the FCI, on
abolition of contract labour system in FCI vide notification
dated 23.04.2010. Accordingly, on becoming employees of
the FCI; and accordingly, the workmen become eligible for
payment of wages and other benefits at par with other
regular workmen of FCI w.e.f. 23.04.2010 so far as any order
is not passed by any Competent Court/forum over
notification dated 23.04.2010.
11. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the
case and discussions made hereinabove, I am of considered
opinion that the workmen Shri Ved Ram and 261 others are
entitled for regularization of their services and other
consequential benefits at par with the other regular
employees of the Food Corporation of India at Rourserkothi
Depot and Rail Head, Shahjahanpur.
12. The reference under adjudication is answered
accordingly.
13. Awards above.
LUCKNOW.
19th January, 2015.
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 588-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñlhñ,yñ ds izcaè
ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 09@2004½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@173@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2015
S.O. 588.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 09/2004) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Chinakuri Mine No. II of M/s Eastern
Coalfield Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 17/03/2015.
[No. L-22012/173/2003-IR (CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT: Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 09 OF 2004
PARTIES: The management of Chinakuri Mine No. II,
ECL.
Vs.
Sri Chandrika Kaloya
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management:
Shri P.K, Das, Ld. Advocate
For the union (Workman) Shri R.K. Tripathi, Org. Secy.,
KMC
INDUSTRY: COAL
STATE: WEST BENGAL
Dated: 03.03.2015
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/
173/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 06.02.2004 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Chinakuri
Mine No. II of M/s. ECL is not correcting the date of
birth in respect of Sri Chandrika Kaloya as 1949
instead of 1943 mentioned in 'B' form is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the workmen is
entitled?"
Having received the Order No. L-22012/173/2003-IR
(CM-II) dated 06.02.2004 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 09 of 2004
was registered on 16.02.2004 and accordingly an order to
that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of
witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the
said order notices by the registered post were sent to the
parties concerned.
Sri R.K. Tripathi Chief Organizing Secretary of the
Union (Koyla Mazdoor Congress) and Sri P.K. Das, Ld.
Adv., for the management (Chinakuri Mine No.-II, ECL) are
present.
Sri R.K. Tripathi submits that the case may be closed
as the workman is no more interested to proceed with the
1414
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
case further. Since the workman is now not interested to
proceed with the case further the case is closed and a 'No
Dispute Award' may be passed accordingly.
ORDER
Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute
existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.
The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 589-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñlhñ,yñ ds izca/k
ra= 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;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 39@1998½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@170@1997&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2015
S.O. 589.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 39/1998 of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfield Ltd.
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
17/03/2015.
[No. L-22012/170/1997-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
Before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol
Present : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
Reference No. 39 of 1998
Parties : The management of Madhavpur Colliery, ECL
Vs.
Sri Kameshwar Tanti
Representatives:
For the Management
: Shri P.K. Das, Ld.
Advocate
For the Union (Workman)
: Shri Rakesh Kumar,
President, KMC
Industry
: Coal
State
: West Bengal
Dated
: 02.03.2015
AWARD
In exercise of power conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/
170/97-IR(C-II) dated 30.07.1998 has been pleased to refer
the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of
Madhavpur Colliery under Kajora Area,
P.O. Kajoragram, Dist. Burdwan in not granting pay
protection to Sh. Kemeshwar Tanti, Underground
Loader on his conversion from piece rated to time
rated workman is justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled?"
Having received the Order No. L-22012/170/97-IR
(C-II) dated 30.07.1998 of the above said reference from the
Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 39 of 1998
was registered on 10.08.1998 and accordingly an order to
that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of
witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the
said order notices by the registered post were sent to the
parties concerned.
Sri Rakesh Kumar, President of the Union (Koyala
Mazdoor Congress) appears but none appears on behalf
of the management (Madhavpur Colliery, ECL).
Sri Rakesh Kumar has made an endoresement on the
order sheet to the effect that the workman has retired and
not interested to proceed with the case futher. This is a
very old reference of the year 1998. Since the workman has
already retired from service and does not want to proceed
with the case further, the case is closed and accordingly a
'No Dispute Award' may be passed.
ORDER
Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute
existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.
The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1415
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 590-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñlhñ,yñ 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;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 48@2007½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@47@2007&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2015
S.O. 590.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 48/2007 of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd.
and their workmen received by the Central Government on
13/03/2015.
[No. L-22012/47/2007-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
Present : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
Reference No. 48 of 2007
Parties : The management of Jambad Colliery, ECL
Vs.
Sri Nirmal Bouri
Representatives:
For the Management : Shri P.K. Goswami, Ld. Advocate
For the Union (Workman) : Shri Rakesh Kumar,
President, KMC
Industry
: Coal
State
: West Bengal
Dated
: 11.02.2015
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/
47/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 05.07.2007 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Jambad
Colliery in dismissing Shri Nirmal Bouri w.e.f.
03.03.2003 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
is the workman entitled?"
Having received the Order No. L-22012/47/2007-IR
(CM-II) dated 05.07.2007 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 48 of 2007
was registered on 18.07.2007 and accordingly an order to
that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of
witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the
said order notices by the registered post were sent to the
parties concerned.
On perusal of the case record I find that the union/
workman has not filed written statement till date in-spite of
several opportunities. Registered notices were issued to
the union on 19.07.2007, 03.08.2009, 09.12.2011, 21.05.2012
and 08.08.2014 but to no effect. It seems that the union/
workman is not at all interested to proceed with the case
further. As such the case is closed and accordingly a "No
Dispute Award" may be passed.
ORDER
Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute
existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.
The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 591-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñlhñ,yñ 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;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 8@2007½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@263@2006&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2015
S.O. 591.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 08/2007 of the Central
1416
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Bankola Area of M/s. ECL and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/
03/2015.
[No. L-22012/263/2006-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT: Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 08 OF 2007
PARTIES: The management of Shyamsunderpur Colliery,
ECL.
Vs.
Shri Ram Pratap Harijan
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management
: Shri P.K. Goswami, Ld.
Advocate
For the union (Workman)
: Shri Rakesh Kumar,
President (KMC)
INDUSTRY
:
COAL
STATE
:
WEST BENGAL
Dated: 10.02.2015
A W A R D
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/
263/2006-IR (CM-II) dated 18.01.2007 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
''Whether the action of the management of
Shyamsunderpur Colliery under Bankola Area of
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, in dismissing
Mr. Ram Pratap Harijan from service w.e.f. 06.1.2005
is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the
workman entitled?''
Having received the Order NO. L-22012/263/2006-IR
(CM-II) dated 18.1.2007 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 08 of 2007
was registered on 19.02.2007 and accordingly an order to
that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of
witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the
said order notices by the registered post were sent to the
parties concerned.
On perusal of the case record I find that a petition has
been filed by Sri Rakesh Kumar, President of the union on
01.09.2014 praying therein that the case may be closed as
the workman has died and his wife and son are not
interested to proceed with the case further, Since the
workman has died and his heirs are not interested to proceed
with the case further, the case is closed. As such the case
is closed a 'No Dispute Award' may be passed accordingly.
ORDER
Let an ''Award'' be and same is passed as no dispute
existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.
The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYYkh] 17 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 592-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ-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;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 33@2002½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnZh; ljdkj dks 13@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@2@2002&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2015
S.O. 592.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 33/2002 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Chora 7&9 Pit, Kenda Area of M/s E.C.Ltd.
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
13/03/2015.
[No. L-22012/2/2002 - IR (CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1417
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT: Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 33 OF 2002
PARTIES: The management of 7 & 9 Pit of Chora
Colliery, ECL.
Vs.
Smt. Chand Muni Bhuia
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management
:
Shri P.K. Goswami, Learned
Advocate
For the union (Workman) :
None
INDUSTRY
:
COAL
STATE
:
WEST BENGAL
Dated: 04.02.2015
A W A R D
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/
2/2002-IR (CM-II) dated 14.08.2002 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
''Whether the action of the management of 7 & 9 Pit
of Chora Colliery, Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited in not providing employment to
Smt. Chand Mun Bhuia, W/o Late Gopal Bhuia, U.G.
Loader is legaland justified, if not to what relief is the
workman entitled?"
Having received the Order NO. L-22012/2/2002-IR
(CM-II) dated 14.8.2002 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 33 of 2002
was registered on 10.09.2002 and accordingly an order to
that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of
witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the
said order notices by the registered post were sent to the
parties concerned.
Sri P.K. Goswami, Learned Advocate for the
management appears but none appears on behalf of the
union/workman.
On perusal of the case record I find that the case was
registered on 10.09.2002. First notice was issued on
31.02.2002. I also find from the record that the workman
last appeared before the Tribunal on 17.01.2008 through
his advocate Mr. M. Mukherjee. After 17.01.2008 the
workman neither appeared nor took any step. 34 dates after
17.01.2008 were granted to the union/workman but to no
effect. 3 notices were issued to the parties after 17.01.2008.
Last notice was issued on 30.09.2014. Four months have
already passed after last notice. It seems that the workman
is now not at all interested to proceed with the case further.
As such the case is closed a 'No Dispute Award' may be
passed accordingly.
ORDER
Let an ''Award'' be and same is passed as no dispute
existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.
The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYYkh] 17 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 593-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñlhñ,yñ 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; vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 12@2010½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzZh; ljdkj dks 13@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@67@2009&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2015
S.O. 593.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 12/2010 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of M/s Eastern Coal- fields Limited, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/03/
2015.
[No. L-22012/67/2009 - IR (CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 12 OF 2010
1418
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
PARTIES : The management of Khas Kajora Colliery,
ECL.
Vs.
Sri Ram Niwas Rajbhar
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the managment
: None
For the union (Workman)
: None
INDUSTRY
: COAL
STATE
: WEST BENGAL
Dated: 02.02.2015
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/
67/2009-IR (CM-II) dated 26.02.2010 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
''Whether the action of the management of M/s. ECL
in dismissing Shri Ram Niwas Rajbhar w.e.f.
01.12.2007 is legal and justified? To what relief is the
claimant entitled for?
Having received the Order NO. L-22012/67/2009-IR
(CM-II) dated 26.02.2010 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 12 of 2010
was registered on 18.03.2010 and accordingly an order to
that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of
witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the
said order notices by the registered post were sent to the
parties concerned.
On perusal of the case record I find that neither the
workman/union nor the management appeared before the
court even for a single day. Registered notices were sent to
the parties on 19.03.2010, 11.01.2012, 14.06.2012 and
18.09.2014. But all are in vain. Even more than two months
have already elapsed from the issue of last notice. Neither
party turned up. It seems that the parties are not interested
to proceed with the case further. Since the workman is not
interested to proceed with the case further I think it
reasonable to close this case. As such the case is closed
and accordingly a 'No Dispute Award' may be passed.
ORDER
Let an ''Award'' be and same is passed as no dispute
existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.
The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 594-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñlhñ,yñ 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; vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 49@1997½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@140@1996&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2015
S.O. 594.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 49/1997 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
13/03/2015.
[No. L-22012/140/1996-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT: Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 49 OF 1997
PARTIES: The management of Kottadih Colliery, ECL.
Vs.
Sri Dinabandhu Kanjia
REPRESENTATIVES
For the management
:
None
For the union (Workman)
:
None
INDUSTRY
:
COAL
STATE
:
WEST BENGAL
Dated: 27.01.2015
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1419
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/
140/1996-IR(C-II) dated 11.07.1997/15.07.1997 has been
pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by
this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of
Shyamsunderpur Colliery under Bankola Area of
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, in dismissing Mr.
Ram Pratap Harijan from service w.e.f. 06.01.2005 is
legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the
workman entitled?"
Having received the Order No. L-22012/140/1996-IR
(C-II) dated 11.07.1997/15.07.1997 of the above said
reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New
Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No.
47 of 1997 was registered on 28.07.1997 and accordingly
an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through
the registered post to the parties concerned directing them
to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their
written statements along with the relevant documents and
a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance
of the said order notices by the registered post were sent
to the parties concerned.
On perusal of the case record I find that my predecessor
(Late Jayanta Kumar Sen, the then P.O.) had reserved an
award in this case because the workman is neither appearing
nor taking any step since long. It seems that the workman
is now no more interested to proceed with the case further.
The case is also too old-1997. Under such circumstance I
think it reasonable to pass a No Dispute Award in this
case. As such the case is closed and a 'No Dispute Award'
may be passed accordingly.
ORDER
Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute
existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.
The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 595-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñlhñ,yñ 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; vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 17@2010½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@65@2009&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2015
S.O. 595.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 17/2010 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Kenda Area of M/s. ECL, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 13/03/2015.
[No. L-22012/65/2009-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra.
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 17 OF 2010
PARTIES : The management of Shankarpur O.C.P.,
Kenda Area, ECL.
Vs.
Sri R.S. Ghosh and 29 others
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management
:
None
For the union (Work-woman) :
None
INDUSTRY
:
COAL
STATE
:
WEST BENGAL
Dated: 27.01.2015.
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/
65/2009-IR(CM-II) dated 07.06.2010 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of
Shankarpur O.C.P. Kenda Area M/s. ECL in denying
payment of LTC/LLTC to Sri R.S. Ghosh and 29 others
(as per annexure) is legal and justified? To what relief
are their workmen concerned entitled for?”
1420
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Having received the Order No. L-22012/65/2009-
IR(CM-II) dated 07.06.2010 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 17 of 2010
was registered on 21.06.2010 and accordingly an order to
that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of
witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the
said order notices by the registered post were sent to the
parties concerned.
On perusal of the case record I find that none of the
parties appeared before the court for a single day. Registered
notices were issued to both of the parties on 13.12.2011,
18.05.2012 and 08.10.2014 but nobody turned up. A/D card
shows that registered notice was duly received by the
General Secretary of the union on 18.10.2014 but to no
effect. It seems that none of the parties are interested to
proceed with the case further. As such the case is closed
and accordingly a 'No Dispute Award' may be passed.
ORDER
Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute
existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.
The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PROMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 596-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947
¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñlhñ,yñ
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 48@2002½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@120@2002&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2015
S.O. 596.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 48/2002 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 13/03/2015.
[No. L-22012/120/2002-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
Present
:
Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 48 OF 2002
Parties
:
The management of Madhujore Colliery, ECL
Vs.
Shri Jagdish Haldar
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management
:
Shri P.K. Das, Ld.
Advocate
For the union (Workman)
:
Shri Rakesh Kumar,
President, KMC
INDUSTRY
:
COAL
STATE
:
WEST BENGAL
Dated: 22.01.2015
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/
120/2002-IR(CM-II) dated 28.11.2002 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of
Madhujore Colliery of M/s. ECL in not considering
the date of birth of Shri Jagdish Haldar i.e. 19.11.1954
as recorded in his Matriculation Certificate. Identity
Card etc. and sending him before the Age
Assessment Committee is legal and justified? If not,
to what relief is the workman entitled?"
Having received the Order No. L-22012/120/2002-
IR(CM-II) dated 28.11.2002 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 48 of 2002
was registered on 30.12.2002. Accordingly an order to that
effect was passed to issue notices through the registered
post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in
the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements
along with ther elevant documents and a list of witnesses
in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order
notices by the registered post were sent to the parties
concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal,
through their representative.
The workman has pleaded in his written statement
that Sri Jagdish Haldar, Electrician of J.K. Unit of Madhujore
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1421
Colliery of M/s. ECL was appointed on 16.08.1974 as
permanent worker of the company. At the time of
appointment workman, Sri Jagdish Haldar submitted
Matriculation Certificate. In Matriculation certificate the
age of Sri Jagdish Haldar was recorded as 19.11.1954. This
date of birth 19.11.1954 was recorded in colliery register. In
his identity card also the date of birth was recorded as
19.11.1954. Service except was served to him in which the
date of birth of the workman was recorded as 19.11.1954.
Management instructed the workman to appear before the
Age Assessment Committee with Matriculation Certificate.
But Age Assessment Committee without considering the
Matriculation Certificate of the workman and I. I. No. 76
issued by JBCCI assessed the age of the workman, Sri
Jagdish Haldar as 07.04.1941 on 07.10.1993. Workman
represented before authorities concerned at headquarter
level but management paid no heed. Management did not
follow the guidelines of JBCCI. Workman has prayed that
his date of birth should be accepted by the management as
19.11.1954 which is recorded in his Matriculation certificate
and he should be allowed to resume his duties with full
back wages and all consequential benefits.
Management on other hand has pleaded in their written
statement that Sri Jagdish Haldar never disclosed his date
of birth as 19.11.1954 at the time of his appointment at the
colliery i.e. 01.10.1974. Therefore no date of birth was
recorded in the Service Record of the workman. Workman
was directed to appear before the Age Assessment
Committee on 07.10.1993 vide Office Order No. MJ/SRPO/
93/1274 dated 29.09.1993/01.10.1993. The Age Assessment
Committee assessed the age of the workman as 50/55 years
as on 17.10.1993. Workman filed suite No. 14 of 1999 in civil
court and writ petition in hon'ble Kolkata high court. But
both civil suite and writ petition was dismissed.
Management has denied that the age of the workman as
19.11.1954 was recorded in any record or register of the
company. Industrial dispute is not maintainable workman
is not entitled to any relief.
Workman has filed the following documents:—
(1) Xerox copy of Identity Card, age recorded
19.11.1954.
(2) Xerox copy of the Service excerpts in which age
recorded as 19.11.1954.
(3) Xerox copy of the Admit Card and Matriculation
certificate in which the date of birth recorded as
19.11.1954.
(4) Xerox copy of the letter of agent of Madhujore
Colliery direction the workman to appear before
the area Dy. CPM, Kajora Area along with original
documents.
(5) Xerox copy of employment exchange card of
Sri Jagdish Haldar.
(6) Xerox copy of national Apprenticeship certificate
of Sri Jagdish Haldar.
(7) Xerox copy of the letter of PM (Estd.) ECL H.Q.
addressed to PM, Kajora Area dated 05.03.1996
to confirm the fact that during assessment of Age
of Sri Jagdish Haldar produced the Matriculation
certificate or not?
(8) Xerox copy of the reply of the letter of H.Q. dated
05.03.1996 by PM (IC), Kajora Area dated
18.03.1996 confirming the fact that Sri Jagdish
Haldar produced the Matriculation Certificate
before Age Determination Committee but
committee (ADC) not accepted the same.
(9) Xerox copy of the letter of PM (IC), Kajora Area
dated 18.01.1995 in which similar case of date of
birth dispute of Sri Pareshnath Sikdar was
accepted on the basis of Matriculation and Mining
Sirdarship certificate the basis of I.I. No. 76 point
B1(b).
(10) Xerox copy of the I.I. No. 76 issued by JBCCI.
(11) Xerox copy of the Affidavit and certificate issued
by Pradhan that Jagadish Ch. Haldar and Jagdish
Haldar is the same and identical person.
The workman, Sri Jagdish Haldar examined himself as
witness.
Management has not filed any oral or documentary
evidence in their support.
I have heard the argument of Sri Rakesh Kumar on
behalf of the union/workman and Sri P.K. Das Learned.
Advocate on behalf of the management.
Sri P.K. Das Ld. Advocate of the management has
argued that at the time of appointment the date of birth is
recorded as disclosed by the workman. At the fag end of
career if any worker disputes his date of birth that cannot
be accepted. Management has relied on FLR 393 2012 (135).
C.W.J.O.S.W.P. No. 1089 of 2010. Jamadar Ahmed Vs. State
of West Bengal and others. Sri Rakesh Kumar, union
representative have argued that the fact of this reference is
different from the case law cited by the management. The
workman Sri Jagdish Haldar has disclosed his date of birth
as 19.11.1954 as recorded in the Matriculation certificate.
The date of birth was recorded in his service record by the
management at the time of appointment. He was served
with copies of service excerpts which confirm his date of
birth as 19.11.1954. Later on he was forced by the
management to appear before Age Assessment Committee.
He submitted his Matriculation certificate before Age
Assessment Committee. But Age Assessment Committee
neither considered his Matriculation certificate nor followed
the guidelines issued by JBCCI. Age Assessment
Committee whimsically recommended his date of birth as
07.04.1941 which should not have been accepted.
1422
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
It is admitted fact that Sri Jagdish Haldar is permanent
employee of Madhujore Colliery of M/s. ECL. He has filed
his Appointment Letter dated 16.08.1974. He was appointed
as Mechanical/Electrical Trainee. Workman, Sri Jagdish
Haldar has submitted copy of Implementation Instruction
No. 76 issued by JBCCI, prescribed as follows:—
(A) Determination of the age at the time of
appointment:—
(i) Matriculates:
In the case of appointees who have passed
Matriculation or equivalent examination, the date
of birth recorded in the said certificate shall be
treated as correct date of birth and the same will
not be altered under any circumstances.
(B) Review/determination of date of birth in respect
of existing employees:—
1. (i) In case of the existing employees
Matriculation certificate or Higher
Secondary Certificate issued by the
recognized Universities or Board of
Middle Pass Certificate issued by the
Board of Education and/or Department
of Public instruction and admit cards
issued by the aforesaid Bodies should
be treated as correct provided they were
issued by the said Universities/Boards/
Institutions prior to the date of
employment.
(ii) Similarly, Mining Sirdarship, Winding
Engine or similar other statutory
certificates where the Manager had to
certify the date of birth will be treated as
authentic. Provided that where both
documents mentioned in 1(i) and l(ii)
above are available, the date of birth
recorded in 1(i) will be treated as
authentic.
2.
Wherever there is no variation in records,
such cases will not be reopened unless
there is a very glaring and apparent wrong
entry brought to the notice of the
Management. The Management after being
satisfied on the merits of the case will take
appropriate action for correction through
Age Determination Committee/Medical
Board.
(C) Age determination Committee/Medical Board for
the above will be constituted by the Management.
In the case of employees whose date of birth can
not be determined in accordance with the
procedure mentioned in (B) 1 (i) or (B) 1 (ii) above,
the date of birth recorded in the records of the
company, namely, Form B Register, CMPF
Records and Identity Cards (un-tampered) will be
treated as final. Provided that where there is a
variation in the age recorded in the records
mentioned above, the matter will be referred to
the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board
constituted by the Management for determination
of age.
The workman has filed the copy of excerpts issued to
him by the management as WE-2. In his service record his
date of birth was recorded as 19.11.1954 (Nineteenth
November Nineteen Hundred Fifty Four), his date of
appointment is 01.10.1974 and his educational qualification
is B.Sc. Workman has filed a copy of I.D. card. In I.D. card
his date of birth is recorded as 19.11.1954. Workman filed a
copy of admit card of West Bengal Board of Secondary
Education and copy of Matriculation certificate as WE-XIV.
WE-XIII. In both of these documents his date of birth was
recorded as 19.11.1954. It is worth to mention that the
management has not denied his educational qualification as
per Service Record of Sir Jagdish Haldar maintained by the
colliery. His educational qualification is B.Sc. and his date of
birth is 19.11.1954. As per guidelines of BCCI at the time of
appointment the age record in Matriculation certificate shall
be recorded in the Service Record and that will be the final.
The allegation of management in Para 3 of their written
statement is absolutely wrong. That at the time of
appointment of Sri Jagdish Haldar no date of birth was
recorded in the Service Record. The copy of Service Record
has been issued by the management himself to the workman
concerned. I am unable to understand when there is no
variation regarding his date of birth in Service Record of
concerned workman then why the management instructed
Sri Jagdish Haldar to appear before the Age Assessment
Committee. The copy of letter of agent and manager of
Madhujore Colliery of M/s. ECL has been filed by
Sri Jagdish Haldar. Sri Jagdish Haldar was instructed by
the agent of Madhujore Colliery to appear before Dy. C.M.
along with his School Leaving Certificate for his age
dispute. He was directed to appear before Age Assessment
Committee. It is surprising that Age Assessment Committee
did not consider the date of birth recorded in Matriculation
certificate rather assessed his date of birth as 07.04.1941.
Workman Sri Jagdish Haldar filed affidavit. He has
supported his version of written statement in his affidavit.
He has stated in his cross-examination that at the time of
appointment he had filed the Higher Secondary Certificate
and Admit Card. In his Service Record his date of birth was
recorded as 19.11.1954. He was forced to appear before the
Age Assessment Committee who wrongfully assessed his
date of birth as 07.04.1941.
The management has placed reliance on FLR 393 2012
(135), C.W.J.O.S.W.P. No. 1089 of 2010, Jamadar Ahmed vs.
State of West Bengal and others, in this case petitioner
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1423
joined service in 1975. At the time of appointment he signed
Declaration and Nomination Form and mentioned his year
of birth as 1941. During 30 years of service he never applied
for correction of date of birth in his Service Record. At the
time of retirement he disputed his date of birth. Hon'ble
Kolkata High Court held that at the fag end of career a
party can not be allowed to raise a dispute regarding his
date of birth. I am in respectful agreement with the view
propounded by Hon'ble Kolkata High Court. But the fact
of this reference is different. In this reference date of birth
of concerned workman was correctly recorded in Service
Record as per Matriculation Certificate. But management
without any reason instructed the workman to appear before
the Age Assessment Committee. Even the Age Assessment
Committee did not consider the date of birth recorded in
the Medical Certificate of the workman concerned.
In view of the discussion above the action of the
management of Madhujore Colliery of M/s. ECL in not
taking into consideration the date of birth of Sri Jagdish
Haldar in Matriculation Certificate as 19.11.1954 and
sending him before the Age Assessment Committee is totally
unjustified. The workman is entitled that this age should
be recorded in his service record as per Matriculation
Certificate as 19.11.1954. He is also entitled to get 50%
back wages and all consequential benefits.
ORDER
Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per
above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt.
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and
needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 597-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñlhñlhñ,yñ
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; xksnkojh[kUuh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 52@2000½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-03-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22013@1@2015&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2015
S.O. 597.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award of the Indus. Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/52/2000) as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 17.03.2015.
[No. L-22013/1/2015-IR (C-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, GODAVARIKHANI
PRESENT
:
Sri G.V. Krishnaiah
Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 52 OF 2000
Thursday, the 31st day of July, 2014
BETWEEN:
R. Syam Sundar, S/o. Rajanna, Age 47 years,
R/o 16-9-749/41/1, Race Course Road,
Malakpet, Hyderabad.
.... Petitioner.
AND
The General Manager,
Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Ramagundam-I,
Ramagundam, Dist. Karimnagar.
.... Respondent.
This case coming before me for final hearing in the
presence of Sri P. Vishweswar Rao and Sri R. Damodar,
Advocates for the petitioner and of Sri D. Krishna Murthy,
Advocate for the Respondent; and having been heard and
having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court
delivered the following:—
AWARD
This petition is filed U/Sec. 2-A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 praying this court to set aside the
termination order dt. 6-1-1999 passed by the respondent
and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into
service with continuity of service, back wages and other
attendant benefits.
2. The averments of the petition are that the petitioner
joined as Badli Filler on 13-09-1947 at 7/7A Incline.
Subsequently petitioner was transferred to the medical
department, area hospital Godavarikhani in the year 1977.
Since 1988 the petitioner has been entrusted with the duties
of clerical grade-III. The petitioner's duties were to issue
on patient slips and to make entry in the registers. The
petitioner was working at Kakatiya Dispensary and certain
irregularities were found in the performance of his duties.
3. The petitioner was issued with charge sheet dt.
27-7-1998 with the following charges:—
i. "Not sending the unfits to concerned mines
knowingly.
ii. Keeping the hospital records at residence without
permission from superiors.
iii Not maintaining the triplicate copy in the unfit
book and fit books.
1424
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
iv. Serveral workers declared unfit at Kakatiyanagar
Dispensary without advise of the concerned
Doctor. The above said acts of your, amounts to
misconduct under company standing orders No.
25.1, 25.3 & 25.5".
Petitioner submitted his detailed explanation to the
said charges on 2-8-1998 denying the charges levelled
against him. However, the respondent without considering
the facts and circumstances, appointed an enquiry officer
to conduct enquiry into the charges. The enquiry officer
conducted the enquiry in gross violation of principles of
natural justice. The enquiry officer did not give any
opportunity to the Petitioner to cross examine the
management witnesses during the course of enquiry. The
enquiry officer did not consider any of the evidence put
forth by the Petitioner and he acted in a biased manner and
made the Petitioner guilty of the charges in his enquiry
report dt. 9-9-1998. Basing on the said enquiry report, the
respondent dismissed the Petitioner from service. The said
dismissal order was completely illegal and based on no
merits. Therefore the Petitioner prays to set aside the
termination order dt. 6-1-1999 passed by the respondent
and direct the respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into
service with continuity of service, back wages and other
attendant benefits.
4. The respondent filed his counter denying all the
allegations in the petition putting the Petitioner to strict
proof of all those allegations. The Petitioner was appointed
as General Mazdoor w.e.f., 13-9-1974 at GDK. No. 7A Incline.
Later the Petitioner was transferred to area hospital w.e.f.,
27-7-1977. The Petitioner was promoted as Ward Boy w.e.f.,
1-1-1978. The Petitioner was suspended for 10 days from
20-5-1980 to 29-5-1980 as per the standing orders for the
misconduct of demanding illegal gratification from the newly
appointed persons.
5. On behalf of the respondent, it is contended that
the charges levelled against the Petitioner stand proved
on account of the abundance of the evidence available on
record and the same have been proved by giving full and
fair opportunity to the Petitioner at each and every stage
of the case. Therefor, the respondent prays to dismiss the
petition.
6. On behalf of the respondent, Ex. M-1 to Ex. M-11
were already marked. No documents are marked on behalf
of the Petitioner.
7. Heard both sides. Perused the material papers on
record.
8. Now the point for consideration is:—
"Whether the findings in the domestic enquiry are
bassless and if the enquiry findings are supported
by evidence, whether the punishment is justified"?
9. After this I.D., was remanded by the Hon'ble High
Court, order was passed on 11-10-2013 upholding the
procedure in the enquiry. In order to interfere with the
enquiry report, there must be material to show that the
findings are perverse and baseless. At the outset I may
state that the explanation of the Petitioner to the charge
sheet is silent regarding the 4th charge. During the enquiry,
Petitioner asserted that he can defend himself and stated
that he has no evidence to adduce. He admitted the charges
against him. There is nothing on record now to show that
Petitioner admitted the charges out of coercoin or mistake.
Records which should have been kept in the office were
found in the possession of the Petitioner in his residence
and he kept them for four days. Those records were
collected by another clerk by name Gangadhar Rao. Under
these circumstances, I do not find any reason to disagree
with the findings of the enquiry officer.
10. Regarding the punishment of dismissal, the acts of
misconduct committed by the Petitioner make out that he
did not act in good faith and he forfeited the confidence of
his employer. Therefore, I hod that the punishment is
justified.
11. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by
me in open Court, on this the 31st day of July, 2014.
SHRI G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-
cum-Presiding Officer
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For workman:—
For Management:—
-Nil-
-Nil-
EXHIBITS
For workman:—
-Nil-
For Management:—
Ex. M-1
Dt.
15.05.1980
Warning letter issued to
petitioner by respondent,
x. copy
Ex. M-2
Dt.
30.04.1980
Charge sheet issued to
petitioner reg. bribery, x.
copy
Ex. M-3
Dt.
27.07.1998
Charge sheet
Ex. M-4
Dt.
02.08.1998
Reply to the charge sheet
dt. 27-7-1998
Ex. M-5
Dt.
02.08.1998
Enquiry notice
Ex. M-6
Dt.
07.08.1998
Enquiry proceedings along
with enquriy material
record
/
documents
(hospital
medical
prescriptions)
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1425
Ex. M-7
Dt.
07.08.1998
Enquiry report
Ex. M-8
Dt.
20.10.1998
Show-cause notice
Ex. M-9
Dt.
23.10.1998
Ack, to show-cause notice
Ex. M-10
Dt.
06.01.1999
Dismissal order
Ex. M-11
Dt.
29.03.1999
Letter issued to the
petitoner by the Director
(CP&P) for dismissal order
of petitioner is confirmed.
ubZ fnYyh] 17 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 598.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñlhñlhñ,yñ ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; xksnkojh[kUuh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 06@2010½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22013@1@2015&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2015
S.O. 598.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award of the Indus. Tribunal-cum-
Labour Cout, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/06/2010) as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 17.03.2015.
[No. L-22013/1/2015-IR(C-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM-VI ADD. DISTRICT &
SESSION COURT, GODAVARIKHANI
Present : Sri G.V. Krishnaiah,
Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer
Tuesday, the 5th Day of August, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 06 OF 2010
Between:
Sk. Raj Mohammad, S/o Ramzan, 39 Yrs,
Occ: Ex. Badli Filler,
EC. No. 2364191, KK, 5 Incline, House No. 4-2-96, Tekula
Basti, PO: Bellampalli, Dist. Adilabad. (A.P.)
..... Petitioner/Workman
AND
1. The Dy. General Manager, SCCo. Ltd., KK-5 Incline,
PO: Mandamarri, Dist. Adilabad (A.P).
2. The General Manager, SCCo. Ltd., Mandamarri
Area-1, PO: Mandamarri, Dist. Adilabad (A.P).
3. The Chairman & Managing Director, SCCo. Ltd.,
PO: Kothagudem, Dist., Khammam (A.P).
.... Respondents/Management
This Industrial Dispute petition coming on before me
for final hearing in the presence of Sri N. Kishan Rao,
Advocate, for the petitioner and Sri D. Krishna Murthy,
Advocate, for the respondents, and the matter having stood
over before me for consideration till this date, the Court
passed the following:—
AWARD
1. This Industrial Tribunal Case was filed on 08.01.2010
to set aside the dismissal order dt. 14.09.2007 issued by
second respondent.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he worked as Badli
Filler in the Respondent's company and without proper
enquiry he was dismissed from service. It is alleged in the
petition that petitioner met with road accident in the year
2004 and due to that he could not attend his duties regularly
and therefore following charge was framed against him
under Company's Standing Order No. 25.25 alleging that
"For your habitual absence from duty without
sufficient cause during January to December, 2004
and worked for (11) musters."
Petitioner submitted his explanation dt. 22.07.2005
explaining his ill-health and inability to attend coal filling
undergound duty but without conducted proper enquiry
and without considering his explanation Enquiry Officer
gave biased finding and as a consequence petitioner was
dismissed from service. It is alleged that the harsh
punishment of dismissal is contrary to principals of natural
justice and amounts to unfair labour practice and
victimization. Petitioner was not given any Show-Cause
Notice before his dismissal.
3. Respondent No. 1 filed counter with the following
objections. This tribunal has no jurisdiction and it is
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad
established for adjudication of industrial disputes, which
has got jurisdiction. The petitioner was appointed as Badli
Filler on 12.04. 1999 and has undergone Mines Vocational
Training as per the Mines Act. The attendance of the
petitioner from the year 2000 to 2007 is as follows:
Sl.
Year
No. of musters
No.
1.
2000
107
2.
2001
71
1426
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sl.
Year
No. of musters
No.
3.
2002
60
4.
2003
101
5.
2004
11
6.
2005
95
7.
2006
53
8.
2007
42 (01.01.2007-
19.09.2007)
and the petitioners' attendance was very poor from January,
2004 to December, 2004 i.e. (11) days of duty performed by
the petitioner, charge sheet was issued to him on 11.07.2005.
Petitioner received charge sheet and submitted his
explanation, attended enquiry on 24.08.2005 and admitted
his guilt. Petitoner was given ample opportunity in the
enquiry proceedings. Enquiry Officer gave report dt.
02.09.2005 holding that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct
of Company's standing order. After completion of enquiry
petitioner was issued Show Cause Notice dt. 25.03.2006
along with copies of enquiry proceedings giving him an
oportunity to make his representation if any. The petitioner
received notice on 11.11.2006 but failed to submit any
explanation. Petitioner was counseled for improving his
attendance and was put on observation on two occasions.
For the first time on 25.08.2005 the petitioner was counseled
soon after issuance of charge sheet. The petitioner assured
to improve his attendance. Petitioner was put on
observation from 1.09.2005 to 30.11.2005 with a condition
to put in atleast 18 filling musters per month and to fill two
tubs per muster. But the petitioner failed to do so. Later on
petitioner was counseled on 11.11.2006 for the second time
after issuing show-cause notice dt. 25.03.2006. The
petitioner attended counseling on 11.11.2006 and assured
to improve his attendance and accordingly he was put on
observation from 1.11.2006 to 31.01.2007. The petitioner
was asked to put in atleast 16 musters per month and to fill
two tubs per muster. The attendance of the petitioner during
the observation period is as follow:
Sl.No. Observation
No. of actual
No. of tubs
period
muster put in
filled
Filling
Acting
1.
01.09.2005
25
6
35
to
30.11.2005
2.
01.11.2006
Nil
13
Nil
to
31.01.2007
The petitioner failed to improve his performance, he
was dismissed from service vide proceedings dt. 14.09.2007
with effect from 19.09.2007. Therefore the imposition of
punishment against the petitioner is justified. According
to Sec. 52(2) of Mines act, the underground employee must
put in minimum musters of (190) days in a Calender year.
But petitioner's performance shows that he is a chronic
and habitual absentee. Therefore the petition may be
dismissed.
4. This Counter filed by Respondent No. 1 was adopted
by respondents 2 & 3.
5. When the matter came up for hearing Advocate for
petitioner filed a memo u/s. 11(A) of I.D. Act., stating that
petitioner is not disputing validity of enquiry. Subsequently
the matter is heard and Exs. M-1 to M-10 are marked on
behalf of the Management and Ex. W-1 to W-4 are marked
on behalf of the petitioner.
6. Now the point for consideration is whether the
dismissal of the petitioner from service is justified?
7. Point:—Most of the facts are admitted in this case.
That the petitioner worked only for (11) days during the
year 2004 and subsequently during the two periods of
observation also he did not put in necessary musters are
admitted fact. In this particular case, the petitioner was not
dismissed from service soon after the enquiry Officer gave
his report. Subsequently also he was given a change to
improve his performance. He failed in both the period of
counseling. In the second period of counseling from
1.11.2006 to 31.7.2007 petitioner did not work as filler. In the
first period of observation he worked as filler for (25) days
but the number of tubs filed is only 35 and the required
number of tubs to be filled was (50) for (25) days. Even if
we look at the performance of petitioner prior to 2004 he
had never worked for more than 200 days in the year 2000
and 2003 and for all the years his attendance was averaging
60 to 70 days. Even after he was issued charge sheet he
worked only for (53) days in the year 2006.
8. Coming to the inclination on the part of the petitioner
to get reinstated, he approached Tribunal 21/2 years later
for reinstatement. In the petition it is contended that
petitioner was not issued a notice before being dismissed
for service but Ex. M-7 shows that he was issued a
comprehensive notice about the enquiry report. Thus the
record shows that the petitioner was given more than
sufficient opportunities to mend himself but he failed to do
so. With regard to the reason for the poor attendance of
the petitioner during the year 2004, no material is produced
before this Tribunal about the injuries sustained by the
petitioner in the accident and the treatment taken by him.
In the absence of any supporting evidence the plea of the
petitioner can not be accepted. Petitioner failed to mention
in his petition about the two counselings given to him.
There is also an explanation as to why he could not improve
his performance during the two periods of observation
mentioned above. Therefore this is a clear case where the
petitioner was not inclined to attend duties regularly and
though the delay of 2 1/2 years is not a big delay in
approaching this Tribunal, it shows the nonchalant attitude
of the petitioner in asserting his rights.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1427
9. Therefore viewed from any angle, the petitioner is
unable to make out that he was prevented from attending
duties because of reasons beyond his control. This is a
case where disinclination to attend duties is apparent.
Therefore this Tribunal is compelled to hold that petitioner
is not entitled to any relief.
10. In the result, the peition is dismissed.
Dictated to Stenographer Gr. I, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
the 5th day of August, 2014.
G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For workman:—
For Management:—
-Nil-
-Nil-
EXHIBITS
For workman:—
Ex. W-1
Dt.
14-09-2007
Dismissal order
Ex. W-2
Dt.
18-09-2007
Memo
regarding
petitioner's
name
removed from the rolls
Ex. W-3
Dt.
13-07-2009
Demand notice
Ex. W-4
Dt.
15-07-2009
Postal Act., card of
respondent
For Management:—
Ex. W-1
Dt.
11-07-2005
Charge sheet
Ex. W-2
Dt.
22-07-2005
Reply to charge sheet
Ex. W-3
Dt.
19-08-2005
Enquiry notice
Ex. W-4
Dt.
24-08-2005
Proc., of enquiry
Ex. W-5
Dt.
25-08-2005
1st
counseling
proceedings
Ex. W-6
Dt.
02-09-2005
Enquiry report
Ex. W-7
Dt.
25-03-2006
Show cause notice
Ex. W-8
Dt.
11-11-2006
2nd
counseling
proceedings
Ex. W-9
Dt.
26-11-2006
Letter issued to the
petitioner to improve
attendance
Ex. W-10 Dt.
14-09-2007
Dismissal order, X. copy
ubZ fnYyh 20 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 599-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSlwj lhesaV~l fyfeVsM
ds izcaèr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k
,oa Je U;k;ky;] c®xyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 25@2012½ izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&29012@54@2004&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th March, 2015
S.O. 599.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 25/2012) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court ,
Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Mysore Cements Limited and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 13.03.2015.
[No. L-29012/54/2004-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFOR THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
"Shram Sadan"
G G Palya, Tumkur Road,
Yeswanthpur, Bangalore-560 022.
DATED
:
13th February 2015
PRESENT
:
Shri S N NAVALGUND
Presiding Officer
CR No. 25/2012
I Party
II Party
Sh. Mallaiah,
The Managing Director,
S/o Sh. Alagappa, 558,
Mysore Cements Limited,
New Cross Colony,
Ammasandra Post,
Mysore Cements Limited,
Thuruvekere Taluk,
Ammasandra,
TUMKUR DIST- 572 211.
TUMKUR-572 211.
APPEARANCES
I Party
: Shri S.B. Mukkannappa
Advocate
II Party
: Sh. D. Leelakrishnan
Advocate
AWARD
1. The Central Government vide order No. L-29012/54/
2004-IR(M) dated 29.06.2010 in exercise of the powers
1428
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section
2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made
this reference for adjudication with following Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of M/s.
Mysore Cements Limited in allegedly superannuating
Shri Mallaiah prematurely w.e.f. 30/5/2004 is just and
legal? What relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in C R
25/2010 when notices were issued to both the parties they
entered their appearance through their respective
advocates and I Party filed his claim statement on 01.09.2010
and II Party filed its counter statement on 30.11.2010.
3. The I party in his claim statement alleges that he
who was born on 12.06.1949 and studied upto middle school
first year at Government Higher Primary School, Dandinshira
was appointed by the II Party as Khalasi on 13.02.1971 and
posted to work in the maintenance department issuing Card
No. 442 and being promoted for time to time during 2004
was holding the post of Fitter and that at the time of his
appointment or any point of time he was called upon to
produce any evidence about his Age Proof or date of birth
but through letters dated 01.02.1995 and 15.07.1995 he was
called upon to produce the documents regarding his date
of birth and educational testimony and pursuant to the
same he obtained duplicate transfer certificate from the
School on 10.02.1995 and produce the same in the year
1995 itself and subsequently vide letter dated 15.07.2000
and that he was under the bonafide intention that it was
recorded as 12.06.1949 in the Service Register but to his
surprise stating that his date of birth has been recorded as
30.05.1946 he came to be superannuated on 30.05.2004 and
that prior to his superannuation he gave representation
dated 27.05.2004 to continue him in service but he was
issued with an endorsement on 01.06.2004 stating that he
was retired from services of the company after 29.05.2004
on the basis of the date of birth mentioned in the service
Register as 30.06.1946 and thereby he has been deprived
of almost three years of service illegally. With these
assertions he has prayed for issue of direction to the II
Party to record his date of birth as 12.06.1949 based on the
Transfer Certificate produced by him and to pay the full
salary from the date of premature retirement till the date of
normal retirement and other consequential benefits.
INTERALIA, the II party contended that it appointed the I
Party as a casual Helper in the plumbing section of its
company at Ammasandra w.e.f. 01.01.1969 and confirmed
him in the said post in E Grade w.e.f. 13.02.1971 and at the
time of confirmation he had declared his date of birth as
30.05. 1946 without producing any proof indicating his date
of birth and accordingly in his service record his date of
birth was entered as 30.05.1946 and that he came to be
promoted as Khalsai and then as Fitter w.e.f. 01.01.1994
and as he had not produced any proof for his date of birth
he was advised to submit the same on or before 30.04.1986
vide letter No. PF/86 dated 28.04.1986 and subsequent letter
dated 10.05.1098, 01.02.1986, 15.07.2000 but he did not care
to produce any proof being born on 12.06.1949. It is further
contended he has also declared his date of birth on
29.12.1988 as 30.05.1946 in his ESI Declaration form and in
his Provident Fund declaration Form 2 on 29.01.1997. In
view of these declarations the age of retirement being
58 years he was to be retired after the working hours of
29.05.2004. Accordingly, through letter dated 26.12.2003
the intimation was given to him and that on the last date of
his superannuation i.e. 29.05.2004 he came up with a letter
dating as 27.05.2004 enclosing a School Certificate of one
Sh. A. Mallaiah, S/o Halagaiah in which the date of birth
was mentioned as 12.06.1949 and copy of a letter dated
30.12.2003 purported to have been given by him to the
Factory Manager with an ulterior motive of continuing in
service for three more years and having regard to the above
stated facts he was informed through letter dated 01.06.2004
that the school certificate produced by him cannot be
accepted as the name of the person is mentioned as Sh. A.
Mallaiah, S/o Halagaiah whereas, the name given by him at
the time of appointment and subsequent declaration is
Sh. Mallaiah, S/o Halagappa and that he has been rightly
superannuated after working hours of 29.05.2004 on
attaining the age of 58 years as per the age declared by
him. Thus it is contended the I party who at the time of his
appointment and subsequently in his ESI declaration form
and Provident Fund Declaration having declared his date
of birth as 30.05.1946 coming up with a claim based on
some school records of a person appears to have similarity
with his name on the last date of his superannuation is
nothing with an ulterior motive of continuing in service for
three more years illegally his claim is liable to be rejected.
4. After close of the pleadings when the matter was
posted for evidence the learned advocate appearing for
the II party while filling the affidavit of Sh. Sannarangaiah,
General Manager (HR) examining him on oath as MW 1 got
marked copies of Employee Service Record; Declaration
form date 29.12.1988 submitted to ESI; Declaration Form
dated 29.01.1997 submitted to EPF Authorities; letter dated
28.04.1986, 10.05.1986, 01.02.1995 and 15.07.2000 requesting
I party to submit proof of his date of birth; Retirement
Notice dated 26.12.2003 issued to the I party; letter dated
27.05.2004 submitted by I party to II party; School Transfer
Certificate on one Mr. A. Mallaiah; Identity Card of I party;
letter dated 30.12.2006 addressed by I party to the II party
regarding Company's Superannuation letter; copy of letter
dated 26.12.2003 addressed by II party to the I party; letter
dated 01.06.2004 addressed by II party to the I party
rejecting the I party claim; Letter dated 28/29.10.2004
addressed by II party to ALC(C), Bangalore along with DD
of Rs. 1,34,300.00 towards payment of Gratuity amount of
I party; Gratuity Application of the I party dated 19.11.2004;
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1429
Order of ALC(C), Bangalore dated 16.12.2004 under
Payment of Gratuity Act; letter dated 12.04.2005 along with
Cheque of Rs. 2450.00 as final settlement of I Party account;
final settlement letter dated 01.04.2005 addressed by II Party
to I Party; Postal Acknowledgement card dated 04.04.2005;
statement of final settlement of account of I Party with his
acknowledgement and letter dated 19.10.2010 addressed
by PF Authorities to II Party in respect of settlement of PF
claims of I Party as Ex M-1 to Ex M-22 respectively and
closed his side. Inter-alia, the learned advocate appearing
for the I Party while filing the affidavit of the I Party
examined him on oath as WW 1 and did not produce any
documentary evidence and closed his side.
5. After close of the evidence the learned advocate
appearing for the I Party addressed his oral arguments
whereas the learned advocate appearing for the II Party
filed his written arguments. Before the award could be
passed the learned advocate appearing for the I Party
reporting his death brought his wife, a son and a daughter
on record as his legal representatives.
6. On appreciation of the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence brought on record in the light of
the arguments put forward by the learned advocates, I
have arrived at conclusion there is no pre-mature
superannuation and that he is superannuation on
30.05.2004 is based on the entry made in his service record
on the declarations he had given at the time of confirmation
of the service and subsequently in the ESI and PF forms
submitted on 29.12.1988 and 29.01.1997 respectively for
the following.
REASONS
7. The claim of the I Party that he was appointed and
confirmed in the service without he furnishing the date of
birth is not at all unacceptable. Because unless a person
gives his date of birth no establishment will give him
appointment and confirm in the service. The II Party in order
to substantiate its claim that he had given his date of birth as
30.05.1946 and accordingly it was entered in his service record
produced his Service Record and the copies of declaration
form given by him to ESI subscription and PF Nomination at
Ex M-1, Ex M-2 and Ex M-3 respectively wherein the date of
birth of the employee declared is 30.05.1946 and his name as
Mallaiah, S/o Alagappa. Further the II Party produced the
copies of its letter dated 28.04.1986, 10.05.1986, 01.02.1995
and 15.07.2000 calling upon him to produce documents
regarding his age proof at Ex M-4, Ex M-5, Ex M-6 and
Ex M-7 respectively and II Party in respect of his allegation
that after service of notice dated 01.02.1995 he had produced
the Transfer Certificate failed to substantiate the same by
producing any documentary evidence. The documentary
evidence produced by the II Party since disclose that the
I Party who declared his date of birth at the time of his
appointment/confirmation of the service as 30.05.1946
mentioning his name as Mallaiah, S/o Alagappa and later in
his declaration to ESI subscription and PF nomination
declared the same name and date of birth practically remaining
silent till he was served with an intimation that he is going to
be superannuated on 30.05.2004 through letter dated
26.12.2003 further waiting till 29.05.2004 the last working day
came up with a representation his date of birth in the Service
Record be altered as 12.06.1949 enclosing copy of a Transfer
Certificate issued by Government Higher Primary School,
Dandinshira wherein the name of Student is A. Mallaiah and
his father's name as Halagaiah which also do not tally with
the name and father's name he has given to record in his
service record and in the ESI subscription and PF
Nomination. These circumstances arising out of the
documentary evidence do suggest or probabilizes the
contention taken by the II Party that the I Party who all
along declared his date of birth as 30.05.1946 on the last
working day came up with such a false claim his date of birth
being 12.06.1949 with an ulterior motive of continuing in
service three more years illegally. Under the circumstances,
I have arrived at conclusion the action of the management of
M/s Mysore Cement Limited Superannuating Sh. Mallaih
w.e.f. 30.05.2004 is just and legal based on the declarations
given by him only from time to time and that he/his legal
representatives who have come on record are not entitle for
any relief. Hence, I pass the following
ORDER
The action of the management of M/s. Mysore
Cements Limited Superannuating Sh. Mallaiah w.e.f.
30.05.2004 is just and legal and that he/his legal
representatives who have come on record are not entitle
for any relief.
(Dictated to UDC, transcribed by him, corrected and
signed by me on 13th February 2015)
S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 600-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dqnzseq[k vk;ju vksj
daiuh fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqca/k eas fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] c®xyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 20@2000½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@03@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&26011@6@99&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
1430
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 20th March, 2015
S.O. 600.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2000) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,
Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Limited and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 13/03/2015.
[No. L-26011/6/99-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
"Shram Sadan",
G G Palya, Tumkur Road,
Yeswanthpur, Bangalore-560 022.
DATED : 26th December, 2014
PRESENT : Shri S.N. Navalgund
Presiding Officer
C.R. No. 20/2000
I Party
II Party
The Assistant General
The Dy. General Manager (P),
Secretary, Kudremukh
Kudremukh Iron Ore
Employees Union, KIOCL,
Company Limited,
Panambur,
KUDREMUKH-577 142.
MANGALORE - 575 010.
Appearances
I Party
:
Shri J.R. Naik, Advocate
II Party
:
Smt. K. Subha Ananthi, Advocate
AWARD
1. The Central Government vide order No. L-26011/6/
99/IR(M) dated 15.02.2000 in exercise of the power conferred
by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 (14 of 1947)
made this reference for adjudication with the following
schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of
Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd., Panambur, Mangalore,
in fixing the pay of Shri G.S. Chandrashekarappa Staff
No. 34507 Store Keeper, Pellet Plant Dept.,
Mangalore, at Rs. 2,754/- in the revised scale of pay
of Rs. 2200-3432 as on 1-1-1992 excluding fixed
dearness allowance as against their letter No. Pers/
M/05/3450 dated 27.4.90 is justified? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in CR
20/2000 when notices were issued to both sides I party
entered his appearance through Sh. J. R. Naik, Advocate
and filed his claim statement on 23.5.2001, whereas, the II
party appeared through Smt. K. Subha Ananthi, Advocate
and filed his counter statement on 16.10.2001. The I party
in the claim statement claims that Sh. G. S.
Chandrashekarappa, Staff No. 34507 store keeper, Pellet
Plant Department, Mangalore (hereinafter referred as I party
workman) who joined the service of the II party on
05.08.1992 as Store man and was promoted as Assistant
Store Keeper by virtue of memorandum of settlement dated
12.12.1998 entered into between the II party and the I party
Union his scale of pay came to be revised from the then
scale of pay existing earlier thereto (R3 585-16-697-18-823)
in the technical scale of pay of N3 1415-28-1611-32-1835.
Since the I party Union in order to ensure better career
path for the cadre of the Assistant Store Keeper demanded
the Ministerial scale of pay as against the technical scale
of pay earlier existing the scale of pay from them came to be
changed to ministerial scale of pay MI i.e. 1425-43-1726-
53-2203 w.e.f. 01.02.1990 as against the technical scale of
pay of Rs. 1415-28-1611-32-1835 as such w.e.f. 01.02.1990
he comes in the pay scale of Rs. 1425-43-1726-53-2203 vide
order No. Pers./M/05/1/3450 dated 27.04.1990. It is further
asserted that his pay drawn as on 01.02.1990 in the technical
scale of pay as originally prescribed for Assistant Store
Keeper under the settlement dated 12.12.1989 had been
fitted in the ministerial scale of pay in the appropriate stage
protecting the then existing total pay drawn as on 01.02.1990
with a rider that if there was no equivalent stage in the
ministerial scale of pay the pay would be fixed at the available
nearest lowest stage in the ministerial scale of pay and the
difference thereto would be allowed as personal pay and
such personal pay being treated as pay for all purposes
including for determination of fixed dearness allowances,
mining allowances etc. and as technical scale of pay to
which the Assistant Store Keepers were originally entitle
Rs. 1415-28-1611-32-1835 was being not identical to the
said ministerial scale of pay to which they were later on
entitle to from 01.02.1990 it had been made clear by the
management that any such personal pay arising out of
such fixation would be absorbed fully in the event of any
general wage revisions that would come into force
subsequent to 01.02.1990 and accordingly as on 01.01.1992
the I party workman was drawing a basic scale of Rs. 1683.00
in the ministerial scale of pay along with personal pay of
Rs. 14/- and by virtue of subsequent memorandum of
settlement dated 27.11.1995 when wage revision was
effected for all the workman of the II party company the
ministrial scale of pay was revised from 1425-43-1726-53-
2203 to 2220-69-2703-81-3432 w.e.f. 01.02.1992 and
consequent to the said wage revision the scale of pay of
the I party workman came to be revised and fixed @ 2784.00
w.e.f. 01.01.1992 showing a sum of Rs. 11.00 as personal
pay as per office order No. PERS/04/31.50 dated 30.11.1995
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1431
but the complete personal pay of Rs. 14.00 was to be
absorbed by which it ought to have been fixed at Rs. 2865.00
and on his representation the same was unjustly denied
placing reliance on clause 50 of settlement dated 27.11.1995,
therefore his claim he was entitle for fixation at Rs. 2865.00
in the scale of 2220-69-2703-81-3432 is just and proper. Thus,
it is prayed to answer the schedule of reference in favour
of the I party workman with exemplary cost and interest @
2% p.a. on the amount due to him. Inter alia, in the counter
statement without disputing the fact that Sh. G. S.
Chandrashekarappa, Staff No. 34507 Store Keeper, Pillate
Plant Department, Mangalore who joined the service of
the II party on 05.08.1992 as Store Man was promoted as
Assistant Store Keeper and by virtue of memorandum of
settlement dated 12.12.1989 entered into between the II
party and the I party Union his scale of pay came to be
revised from the then scale of pay existing earlier thereto
(R3 585-16-697 18 823) in the technical scale of pay of N3
1415-28-1611-32-1835 and as the I party Union in order to
ensure better career path for the cadre of the Assistant
Store Keeper demanded the ministerial scale of pay as
against the technical scale of pay earlier existing the scale
of pay for them came to be changed to ministerial scale of
pay MI i.e., 1425-43-1726-53-2203 w.e.f. 01.02.1990 as against
the technical scale of pay of Rs. 1415-28-1611-32-1835 as
such w.e.f. 01.02.1990 he came in the pay scale Rs. 1425-43-
1726-53-2203 vide order No. Pers./M/05/1/3450 dated
27.04.1990 and that his pay drawn as on 01.02.1990 in the
technical scale of pay as orginally prescribed for Assistant
Store Keeper under the settlement dated 12.12.1989 had
been fitted in the ministerial scale of pay in the appropriate
stage protecting the then existing total drawn as on
01.02.1990 with a rider that if there was no equivalent stage
in the ministerial scale of pay the pay would be fixed at the
available nearest lowest stage in the ministerial scale of
pay and the difference there to would be allowed as personal
pay and such personal pay being treated as pay for all
purposes including for determination of fixed dearness
allowances, mining allowances etc. and as technical scale
of pay to which the Assistant Store Keepers were orginally
entitle Rs. 1415-28-1611-32-1835 was being not identical to
the said ministerial scale of pay to which they were later on
entitled from 01.02.1990 it had been made clear by the
management that any such personal pay arising out of
such fixation would be absorbed fully in the event of any
general wage revisions that would come into force
subsequent to 01.02.1990 and accordingly as on 01.01.1992
the I party workman was drawing a basic scale of Rs. 1683.00
in the ministerial scale of pay along with personal pay of
Rs. 14/- and by virtue of subsequent memorandum of
settlement dated 27.11.1995 when wage revision was
effected for all the workman of the II party company the
ministerial scale of pay was revised from 1425-43-1726-53-
2203 to 2220-69-2703-81-3432 w.e.f. 01.01.1992 and
consequent to the said wage revision the scale of pay of
the I party workman came to be revised and fixed
@ Rs. 2784.00 w.e.f. 01.01.1992 showing a sum of Rs. 11.00
as personal pay as per office order No. Pers./M/04/31.50
dated 30.1.1995 it is contended the Union Representatives
sought for rectification of anomaly in respect of 11 Store
Keeper Personnel but the management while identifying
the similar anomaly for six more store keeper personnel
rectified the anomaly of in all 17 store keeper personnel by
virtue of discussion held on 11.07.1996 and 25.07.1996, the
pay scale of I party workman in the ministerial scale was
being fixed as per the understanding arrived between the
Union Representative and management during the minutes
of the meeting held on 11.07.1996 and 25.07.1996 and as at
that time the Union gave an undertaking any anomalies
raising out of the same will not be taken up in future for any
reason whatsoever the present claim in respect of
Sh. Chandrashekar is not justifiable and is liable to be
rejected.
3. After completion of the pleadings when the matter
was posted for as evidence the learned advocate appearing
for the II party examined Sh. Ashok Kumar, Deputy
Manager as MW 1 who has reiterated the contention in
the counter statement and got marked copies of letter of II
party dated 27.04.1990 addressed to Sh. G. S.
Chandrasekarappa; minutes of the meeting held on
11.07.1996; minutes of the meeting held on 25.07.1996;
rectification of pay fixation statement as on 01.01.1992;
memorandum of settlement dated 27.11.1995; note submitted
by the II party to the Chairman for approval; approval of
the Chairman of the note as Ex M-1 to Ex M-7 and during
the cross-examination of 1 party workman/WW 1 got
marked copy of the Office Order showing the revision of
pay w.e.f. 01.01.1992 as Ex M-8, Inter alia, the learned
advocate appearing for the I party while filing the affidavit
of I party workman reiterating the averments of the claim
statement examining him on oath as WW 1 got exhibited
copy of settlement dated 27.11.1995; order regarding fitment
of scale dated 27.04.1990; office order dated 30.11.1999;
reply sent to I party by the II party dated 15.02.1996; reply
given by the II party to I party grievances letter dated
26.02.1999; letter sent by the I party to the management
dated 02.03.1998; leter sent by I Party to the II party dated
05.08.1998; Lawyers notice dated 13.04.1999; settlement
dated 12.12.1989 and 27.11.1995 as Ex W-1 to Ex W-12.
4. After close of the evidence of both sides their learned
advocates have filed their written arguments wherein they
have reiterated the contents of the claim and counter
statements respectively.
5. On appreciation of the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence brought on record by both the sides
in the light of the arguments put forward by the learned
advocates, I have arrived at conclusion the action of the
management of KIOCL in fixing the pay of Sh. G.S.
Chandrashekarappa Staff No. 34507 Store Keeper, Pellet
Plat Dept., Mangalore, at Rs. 2784/- in the revised scale of
pay of Rs. 2200-3432 as on 1-1-1992 excluding fixed dearness
1432
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
allowance as against their letter No. Pers./M/05/1/3450
dated 27.04.1990 is not justified and that the said workman
is entitle for fixation of his pay @ Rs. 2865.00 as claimed for
the following:
REASONS
6. As already adverted to by me above almost the
facts mentioned in the claim statement are not at all disputed
and the II party relying on the minutes of the meeting held
on 25.07.1996 copy of which is produced at Ex M-3 opposes
the claim of the I party workman contending that as the
Union Representatives agreed that consequent upon this
pay rectification any anomalies arising out of the same will
not be taken up in future for any reason whatsoever. With
due respect to the management/II party and its counsel the
claim now made is not for setting right the anomaly in
respect of the pay scale of the I party workman consequent
upon the rectification of 17 Store Keeper Assistants and
that his claim is that he was also entitle for rectification on
par with those 17 Store Keeper Assistants for rectification
of anomaly, therefore, it is not for rectification of anomalies
arising out of the fixation made through minutes held on
25.07.1996. MW 1 the only witness examined for the
management in his cross-examination having unequivocally
admitted the suggestion that if pay scale of the I party was
to be fixed at Rs. 2795.00 his next pay fixation will be
Rs. 2865.00 and as the documentary evidence do disclose
that the pay scale of the I party was being fixed at
Rs. 2795.00 in the pre-revised scale in the subsequent pay
fixation it was to be Rs. 2865.00 as claimed by him. Only
because the I party Union and the management failed to
identify the I party Workman while rectifying the anomaly
in the meetings held on 11.07.1996 and 25.07.1996 he cannot
be denied of his claim. Only because his anomaly being
Store Keeper Assistant was unnoticed by the Union as
well as the management at the time of rectification when
the same was brought to their notice he too would have
been given the same benefit that was given to the other
17 Store Keeper Assistants. Under the circumstances, the
claim of the I party is just and proper and its Rejection by
the management is not justified. In the result, I pass the
following
ORDER
The referenc is allowed holding that the action of the
management of KIOCL in fixing the pay of Sh. G. S.
Chandrashekarappa Staff No. 34507 Store Keeper, Pellet
Plat Dept., Mangalore, at Rs. 2784/- in the revised scale of
pay of Rs. 2200-3432 as on 1-1-1992 excluding fixed dearness
allowance as against their letter No. Pers./M/05/1/3450
dated 27.04.90 is not justified and that he is entitle for fixation
of his pay as on 01.01.1992 by Rs. 2865.00 as claimed by
him.
(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and
signed by me on 26th December, 2014)
S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 601-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSlwj feujYl 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;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 59@2008
,oa vU;½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@03@2015 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&29012/68] 69] 71] 72]
73] 78] 92] 91] 85] 97] 98]
102] 103/2008&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½(
,y&29012/3] 4/2009&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th March, 2015
S.O. 601.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 59/2008 & others) of
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,
Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Mysore Minerals Limited and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 13.03.2015.
[No. L-29012/68, 69, 71, 72,
73, 78, 92, 91, 85, 97, 98,
102, 103/2008-IR (M);
L-29012/3, 4/2009-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
"Shram Sadan",
G. G. Palya, Tumkur Road,
Yeswanthpur, Bangalore-560 022
DATED
:
9th January 2015
PRESENT
:
Shri S. N. Navalgund,
Presiding Officer
C R No. 59/2008
I PARTY
II PARTY
Sh. D. Krishnajppa, S/o Late
The Managing Director,
Shri Dasappa, Virupakshapura
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Village, Belaguli Post,
No. 39, M.G. Road,
Naggehalli Hobli, C R Patna Tq
Bangalore-560 001.
Hassan Distt.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1433
C R No. 62/2008
I PARTY
II PARTY
Sh. L. Somanna, S/o Late
The Managing Director,
Latchma Naik, R @ Yogimalali
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Village, Domlapura Post,
No. 39, M.G. Road,
Thirthahalli Taluk,
Bangalore-560 001.
Shimoga Distt.
C R No. 63/2008
I PARTY
II PARTY
Smt. Minukkamma, W/o late
The Managing Director,
Narayan, R @ Chowdi Gadde
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Village, Near Bukkivare
No. 39, M.G. Road,
Village Bellur Post, Hosanagar
Bangalore-560 001.
Taluk, Shimoga Distt.
C R No. 64/2008
I PARTY
II PARTY
Sh. Madhava, S/o Late
The Managing Director,
Shri Narayan Shetty, R @
Mysore Minerals Limited,
J D Gani Village, Devangi Post,
No. 39, M.G. Road,
Thirthahalli Taluk,
Bangalore-560 001.
Shimoga Distt.
C R No. 65/2008
I PARTY
II PARTY
Sh. Venkataraman, W/o late
The Managing Director,
Shri Anappa Gowda, MML
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Worker, R @ J D Gani Village,
No. 39, M.G. Road,
Devangi Post, Thirthahalli Tq
Bangalore-560 001.
Shimoga Distt.
C R No. 66/2008
I PARTY
II PARTY
Sh. B. Narayan, S/o late
The Managing Director,
Batchappa, R @ Yogimalali
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Village, Domlapura Post,
No. 39, M.G. Road,
Thirthahalli Taluk,
Bangalore-560 001.
Shimoga Distt.
C R No. 68/2008
I PARTY
II PARTY
Sh. C. Batcha, S/o late
The Managing Director,
Sh. C. Rama, R @ J D Gani
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Village, Devangi Post,
No. 39, M.G. Road,
Thirthahalli Taluk,
Bangalore-560 001.
Shimoga Distt.
C R No. 75/2008
I PARTY
II PARTY
Sh. Basavaiah, S/o Late
The Managing Director,
Shri Rangaiah, MML Worker,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Beechagondanahalli Village,
No. 39, M.G. Road,
Voleagerhalli Post, Bagur
Bangalore-560 001.
Hobli, C R Patna Taluk,
Hasan Distt.
C R No. 01/2009
I PARTY
II PARTY
Sh. Talwar Marakka, W/o Late
The Managing Director,
Nagappa, Murarapuram,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Taranagar Post, Sandur Taluk,
No. 39, M.G. Road,
Bellary District.
Bangalore-560 001.
C R No. 06/2009
I PARTY
II PARTY
Sh. Veerupakshappa, S/o
The Managing Director,
Pampapathi, Ward No. 3,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Bhajangnagar, Vill. & P.O.,
No. 39, M.G. Road,
Sandur Taluk Bellary Distt.
Bangalore-560 001.
C R No. 10/2009
I PARTY
II PARTY
Sh. K. Gaffar since deceased
The Managing Director,
represented by Smt. Khrusheeda
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Begum and 6 others, S/o Late
No. 39, M.G. Road,
Salam Sab, R/o Kumbeshwara
Bangalore-560 001.
Beedhi, Shimoga Taluk and
District, Kumsi - 577 423.
C R No. 11/2009
I PARTY
II PARTY
Sh. A. Muniyamma, W/o Late
The Managing Director,
Appadorai, MML Worker, R @
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Kallukoppa Village, Sirigere
No. 39, M.G. Road,
Post, Shimoga Tq & Distt.
Bangalore-560 001.
C R No. 22/2009
I PARTY
II PARTY
Smt. P. Puttananjamma, W/o
The Managing Director,
Late Puttasbasavaiah, Matangi
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Badavane, Kumsi Post,
No. 39, M.G. Road,
Shimoga Tq & Distt.
Bangalore-560 001.
C R No. 23/2009
I PARTY
II PARTY
Sh. K. Kannan since deceased
The Managing Director,
represented by Smt. K.
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Chennamma & 3 others, W/o
No. 39, M.G. Road,
Late K. Kannan, Tuppooru
Bangalore-560 001.
Village, Shimoga Tq & Distt.
C R No. 27/2009
I PARTY
II PARTY
Sh. Nanjundappa, S/o Late
The Managing Director,
Sh. Ramanna R @ Haarnahalli
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Village, Shanthinagar,
No. 39, M.G. Road,
Haaranahalli Post, Shimoga
Bangalore-560 001.
Taluk and District.
C R No. 28/2009
I PARTY
II PARTY
Sh. K. Kannan since deceased
The Managing Director,
represented by Smt. K.
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Chennamma & 4 others, W/o
No. 39, M.G. Road,
Late K. Kannan, R/o Tuppooru
Bangalore-560 001.
Village, Tuppor Post,
Shimoga Taluk and District.
1434
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearences
I Party
:
Shri K. T. Govinde Gowda,
Advocate
II Party
:
Shri A. K. Vasanth,
Advocate
COMMON AWARD
I.The Central Government vide order Nos. L-29012/
68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 78, 92, 91/2008-IR(M) dated 04.08.2008,
23/24.12.2008, 20.01.2009 in exercise of the power conferred
by clause (D) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
section 10 of the industrial disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)
made these references for adjudication with similar schedule
which read as under:
"whether the management of Mysore Minerals
Limited, Bangalore is removal from service of (naming
I party and date of termination in each case)? If not,
to what relief is the said workman entitled to?"
and under order No. L-29012/85, 97, 98, 102, 103/2008-
IR(M) dated 03.11.2008, 27.02.2009, 20.05.2009; L-29012/
3, 4/2009-IR(M) dated 02.06.2009 with a similar schedule
which reads as under:
"wheather the management of Mysore Minerals
Litmited is justified in terminating the services of
(naming I Party and date of terminating in each case)?
if not, to what relief is the said workmen entitled
to?"
2. Since the II Party/Management is common and the
workmen in all the cases and II party management in all the
cases through filled seprate claim statements and counter
statements all of them are being prototype and the cross-
examination of the workmen and management witness are
also similar in all the cases and even common arguments
were addressed by the learned advocates appearing for
both the sides, I have taken up all these references for
passing award through common award.
3. While registering the above references in C R Nos.
59, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 75/2008, 01, 06, 10, 11, 22, 23, 27,
and 28/2009 respectively, when notices were issued the I
party and II Party entered their appearances through their
respective common advocates in all the 16 references and
filed their claim statement and counter statement which are
practically prototype.
4. Though the Ministry in relation to C R 59/2008, 62/
2008, 63/2008, 64/2008, 65/2008, 66/2008, 68/2008 and 06/
2009 mentioned the impugned punishment as Removal from
service and as the contention of the I party as well as the II
Party is that the punishment is that of termination and
even copy of orders produced states the punishment
imposed being termination.
5. The I Parties in all 16 references in their claim
statement claim that they were all appointed by the II Party
Management in its different Mining Units at Shimoga
District, Karnataka under different designations like Mining
Worker, Watchman, Foreman and that they had furnished
their date of birth as per the Horoscope manitained by their
parents as per the family tradition and custom and same
was accepted by the II Party Management by entering the
same in their respective EPF, B Register and Service Records.
They further calim that in the year 1998 the II party
management abruptly conducted an eye wash illegal
medical examination through an MBBS Doctor and not by
any Assistant Civil Surgeon as defined under Rule 29-C of
the Mines Rules 1955 and on the basis of the reports
obtained form that Doctor illegally terminated or
prematurely superannuated or forcefully made them to take
VRS from the services without complying the provisions
of Section 2(OO) and Section 25F, G, H & N of Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 and also failed to issue three months
prior notice or tendor payment of three months salary before
terminating or prematurely supernnuating or forcefully
making them to retire form the services. With these
assertions the I Party workman in each reference have
prayed to direct the management to reinstate them into
service with continuity of service, full backwages and other
consquential benefits. INTERALIA, in the counter
statements filed for the II Party which are all prototype it is
contended that the dispute raised by the I party are time
barred and belated and that as per Mines Rules, 1955 it has
conducted Medical Examination of all the employees and
workers working at Mines Unit during the year 1997-98
which is mandatory as per law under the advise of Director
of mines Safety through a team of qualified and Senoir
Medical Officers from Hutti Gold Mines Company Limited
and as per the report of the experts the I party workmen
were incapacitated to work in a mine in view of the fact that
that they were aged more than 58 years as on the date of
the medical examination. Though the I party were given an
opportunity to prefer an appeal before Appellate Medical
Board within 30 days the same was not availed and on the
other hand they received the monetary benefits arising out
of termination i.e, EPF, Gratuity, Leave, Pension and all
other benefits without any protest and thereby there existed
no Employer and Employee relationship between the II
Party Management and the I party workmen. It is further
contended all the I Party workmen who did not avail the
opportunity extended to them to prefer an appeal and
received the benefits, after their co-workers succeeded in
getting relief in Writ Petition No. 5615/2001 and 5616/2001
on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka after lapse
of 8 years to their respective termination of services having
raised these disputes the exercise of power by the Central
Government under Section 10 (1) of the ID Act is not
reasonable, rationale and it ought to have refused to make
these references. With these contentions the II Party has
prayed for rejection of the references.
6. After close of the pleadings when the matters were
posted for evidence, counsel for II Party while filing the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1435
similar affidavits of Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager in all
the 16 matters examining him on oath as MW 1(M) got
exhibited in few cases copy of B Register and Service
Records as narrated in the annexure. Inter Alia, the learned
advocate appearing for the I Party who had got exhibited
some documents in each case while cross-examining MW
1(M) in the respective case as narrated in the annexure to
the Award while filing the affidavit of the respective
workman in each case examining them on oath as WW
1(M) closed his side.
7. With the above pleadings and evidence brought on
record by both the sides, counsel for I Party filed his
written arugments and though several opportunities were
provided to the II Party counsel to address his arguments
as he has not availed the same the matter same to be posted
for Award.
8. On appreciation of the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence brought on record by both the sides,
in the light of the arugments put forward by their learned
advocates, I have arrived at conclusion of allowing the
referencess for the following
REASONS
9. There is no dispute as to the joining of service by
the I Party workmen as well as entry of their date of birth as
furnished by them in their service records by the II Party
and it is stated in the evidence of MW 1(M) that in view of
the request made by the Employees Union (without
specifying which Union) it conducted their Medical
Examination through qualified Senior Medical Officers and
as per their report they were found to be incapacitated to
work in mine in view of the fact that they were aged more
than 58 years as on the date of their medical examination
and based on that reports it took the decision to terminate
their services and terminated on different dates giving an
opportunity to prefer, an appeal before the Appellate
Medical Board and the same was not availed and they
received the terminal benefits and after the result in W P
No. 5615/2001 and 5616/2001 preferred by their co-workers
having raised these disputes they are not maintainable. In
view of the admission of the II Party that the I Party workmen
had joined its services on different dates as claimed by
them and the date of birth were recorded in their respective
service records as furnished by them while joining the
service as per the Horoscope maintained by their parents,
the claim of the workmen in their respective references
about their joining of the service and recording of their
date of birth in their service record as furnished by them
based on the Horoscope maintained by their respective
parents being not in dispute it was for the II Party to
establish that the Employees Union of which these
workmen were members had made request for conducting
their medical examination through qualified Senior Medical
Officers and accordingly they got conducted their medical
examination through qualified Senior Medical Officers and
were found to be incapacitated to work in mine being aged
more than 58 years of age on the date of their respective
examination but the II Party failed to place on record any
evidence to substantiate this contention put forward by
them. MW 1(M) the only witness examined for the II Party/
Management having categorically stated in the very
beginning of the affidavit evidence that he who is working
as Assistant Manager being conversant with the facts
from records, he has no personal knowledge about the
each workman subjected to the medical examination and
their medical reports being as claimed in the counter
statements. Under the circumstances in support of the
contention taken in the counter statements which is
reiterated in the affidavit evidence he ought to have
producted the documentary evidence to substantiate that
there was a request made by the Employees Union of
which these workmen were members for conducting their
medical examination to ascertain their fitness to work and
age and accordingly they subjected to medical examination
through qualified Senior Medical Officers and were found
to be incapacitated to work in Mine being aged about more
than 58 years as on the date of their respective Medical
Examinations. In the absence of production of medical
records/documents in that regard his/MW 1(M) testimony
in the affidavit which is reiteration of the contention in the
counter statement is baseless and of no value. Further
since it has come in the evidence of MW 1(M) by way of
admission in the cross-examination that during the years
1998 there were around 4000 mining workers in all the 40
mining units in MML in Karnataka State and out of them
around 2000 were working in the Mines of Shimoga District
namely, Kumsi Clay Mines, Byrapura Chromite Mines,
Thimmappanagudi Iron Ore Mines, Jamboor Chromite
Mines, and Mathod Limestone Mines and that it suffered
loss of about Rs. 21 crores in Shimoga District and due to
the said loss it thought of reducing the number of workers
and at his juncture it ordered for medical examination of all
mining workers. In view of this admission in the cross-
examination of MW 1(M) the claim of the II Party that the
medical examination of workmen were got done on the
request of the Employees Union in the absence of any
record in that regard has to be said to be far from truth. The
II Party which had accepted the date of birth of the workman
as furnished by them based on the Horoscope maintained
by their respective parents without any reason/doubt being
entertained in respect of their date of birth there was no
occasion for them to subject those workmen for medical
examination to ascertain their correct age. Moreover, there
being no evidence for the II Party that they had called
upon the workmen to undergo a medical check up to find
out their correct age without there being any enquiry in
that regard changing their date of birth is unsustainable,
because once the age is entered into service record it
cannot be changed unless the procedure prescribed for
changing the date of birth is followed. Under these
circumstances viewd from any angle the action of II Party
1436
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
terminating the services of the I Party workmen covered in
these references do amount to premature superannuation
or imposing the punishment of forceful retirement from
services by way of order of termination and are
unsustainable.
10. In the upshot of the above, the workmen covered
in these references are entitle for their reinstatement into
service and to continue in service till they attain the age of
superannuation which was 58 years till 16.07.2008 and came
to be raised to 60 years w.e.f. 17.07.2008 by virtue of the
Office Order dated 22.08.2008 copy of which have been got
exhibited in the cross-examination of MW 1(M) and in case
of workmen who died before date of superannuation till
the date of their death. But having regard to the nature of
the work for which they were engaged and raising these
disputes after around 8 years of their termination from the
services looking to the judgements rendered in WP No.
5615/2001 and 5616/2001 preferred by their co-workers, I
feel it just and appropriate to direct the II Party to pay them
30% of the salary/wages payable to the respective workmen
from the date of their respective references made by the
Ministry with other consequential benefits that they would
have received in the absence of their impugned termination
orders. In the result, I pass the following
ORDER
All the 16 references are allowed holding that the
management of Mysore Minerals Limited is not justified in
Removing/terminating the services of Sh. D Krishnappa,
Sh. L Somanna, Smt. Minukkamma, Sh. Madhava, Smt.
Venkataramana, Sh. B Narayana, Sh. C Batcha, Sh.
Basavaiah, Smt. Talwar Marakka, Shr. Veerupakashappa,
Sh. K. Gaffar, Smt. A Muniyamma, Smt. P Puttananjamma,
Sh. K Kannan, Sh. K Najundappa and Smt. K Chennamma
w.e.f. the respective dates mentioned in their references
and II Party is liable to reinstate them into the service/
designation that they were holding at the time of impugned
termination/removal from Service and to continue their
services till they attain the age of superannuation and in
case of workmen who died before date of superannuation
till the date of their death and pay them 30% of the salary/
wages payable to them from the date of their respective
references for adjudication with all other consequential
benefits that they would have received in the absence of
their impugned termination from service deducting the
benefits already given to them. It is made clear that in cases
of workmen who attain the age of 58 years prior to 16.07.2008
are entitled for being continued in service till they attain
the age of 58 years and who still do not complete the age of
58 years as on 17.07.2008 are entitled to be continued in
service till they attain the age of 60 years as per its office
Order dated 22.08.2008.
(Typed to my dictation by UDC, corrected and signed
by me on 9th January 2015)
S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
ANNEXURE-I
Documents exhibited on behalf of management:
C R 59/2008
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 62/2008
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 63/2008
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 64/2008
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 65/2008
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 66/2008
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 68/2008
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 75/2008
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
C R 01/2009
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Register of I Party
CR 11/2009
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Registar of I party
CR 22/2009
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Registar of I party
CR 23/2009
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Registar of I party
C R 27/2009
Ex M-1
:
Copy of B Registar of I party
Documents exhibited on behalf of workman:
CR 59/2008
Ex W-1
:
Order passed in WP No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in WA No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001(SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in WA No. 26101/01 and
others
Ex W-4
:
Office Order No. PIR: 7: GEN: 2008-09:1891
dated 22.08.2008 enhancing the age from
58 years to 60 years
CR 62/2008
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Membership Application
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination Order dated 16.06.1998
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1437
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in WP No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in WA No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001(SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in WA No. 26101/01 and
others
Ex W-6
:
Office Order No. PIR: 7: GEN: 2008-09:1891
dated 22.08.2008 enhancing the age from
58 years to 60 years
CR 63/2008
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Membership Application
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination Order dated 17.06.1998
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in WP No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in WA No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001(SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in WA No. 26101/01 and
others
Ex W-6
:
Office Order No. PIR: 7: GEN: 2008-09:1891
dated 22.08.2008 enhancing the age from
58 years to 60 years
CR 64/2008
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Membership Application
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination Order dated 17.06.1998
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in WP No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in WA No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001(SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in WA No. 26101/01 and
others
Ex W-6
:
Office Order No. PIR: 7: GEN: 2008-09:1891
dated 22.08.2008 enhancing the age from
58 years to 60 years
CR 65/2008
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Membership Application
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination Order dated 22.06.1998
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in WP No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in WA No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001(SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in WA No. 26101/01 and
others
Ex W-6
:
Office Order No. PIR: 7: GEN: 2008-09:1891
dated 22.08.2008 enhancing the age from
58 years to 60 years
CR 66/2008
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Membership Application
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination Order dated 17.06.1998
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in WP No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in WA No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001(SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in WA No. 26101/01 and
others
Ex W-6
:
Office Order No. PIR: 7: GEN: 2008-09:1891
dated 22.08.2008 enhancing the age from 58
years to 60 years
CR 68/2008
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Membership Application
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination Order dated 16.06.1998
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in WP No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in WA No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001(SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in WA No. 26101/01 and
others
Ex W-6
:
Office Order No. PIR: 7: GEN: 2008-09:1891
dated 22.08.2008 enhancing the age from
58 years to 60 years
CR 75/2008
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Medical Examination Report
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination Order dated 29.06.1998
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in WP No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in WA No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001(SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in WA No. 26101/01 and
others
Ex W-6
:
Office Order No. PIR: 7: GEN: 2008-09:1891
dated 22.08.2008 enhancing the age from
58 years to 60 years
CR 01/2009
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Termination Order dated 06.06.1998
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in WP No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in WA No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in WA No. 26101/01/ and
others
Ex W-5
:
Office Order No. PIR: 7: GEN: 2008-09:1891
dated 22.08.2008 enhancing the age from
58 years to 60 years
CR 06/2009
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Termination Order dated 29.06.1998
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in WP No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in WA No. 3460/2001 c/w 6459/
2001(SS)
1438
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in WA No. 26101/01/ and
others
Ex W-5
:
Office Order No. PIR: 7: GEN: 2008-09:1891
dated 22.08.2008 enhancing the age from
58 years to 60 years
CR 10/2009
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Form O issued by the II Party
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination Order dated 31.08.1998
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in WP No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in WA No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001(SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in WA No. 26102/01 and
others
Ex W-6
:
Office Order No. PIR: 7: GEN: 2008-09:1891
dated 22.08.2008 enhancing the age from
58 years to 60 years
CR 11/2009
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Termination Order dated 06.06.1998
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in WP No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in WA No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in WA No. 26101/01 and
others
Ex W-5
:
Office Order No. PIR: 7: GEN: 2008-09:1891
dated 22.08.2008 enhancing the age from
58 years to 60 years
CR 22/2009
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Termination Order dated 11.05.1998
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in WP No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in WA No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in WA No. 26101/01 and
others
Ex W-5
:
Office Order No. PIR: 7: GEN: 2008-09:1891
dated 22.08.2008 enhancing the age from
58 years to 60 years
CR 23/2009
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Termination Order dated 06.06.1998
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in WP No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in WA No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in WA No. 26101/01 and
others
Ex W-5
:
Office Order No. PIR: 7: GEN: 2008-09:1891
dated 22.08.2008 enhancing the age from
58 years to 60 years
Ex W-6
:
Family Tree given by the Village Accountant
Ex W-7
:
Death Certificate of my Husband dated
06.07.2002
CR 27/2009
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Membership application form
Ex W-2
:
Copy of Termination Order dated 31.08.1998
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in WP No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in WA No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001(SS)
Ex W-5
:
Order passed in WA No. 26101/01 and
others
Ex W-6
:
Office Order No. PIR: 7: GEN: 2008-09:1891
dated 22.08.2008 enhancing the age from
58 years to 60 years
CR 28/2009
Ex W-1
:
Copy of Termination Order dated 06.06.2008
Ex W-2
:
Order passed in WP No. 5615/2001(SS)
Ex W-3
:
Order passed in WA No. 3460/2001 c/w
6459/2001(SS)
Ex W-4
:
Order passed in WA No. 26101/01 and
others
Ex W-5
:
Office Order No. PIR: 7: GEN: 2008-09:1891
dated 22.08.2008 enhancing the age from
58 years to 60 years.
ubZ fnYyh] 23 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 602-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u ,xzhdYpjy
fjlpZ bafLVV~;wV] ubZ fnYyh 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;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 29@2012½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
20@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-42011/91/2011-vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd March, 2015
S.O. 602.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby published the award (I.D. No. 29/2012) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute,
New Delhi and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 20/03/2015.
[No. L-42011/91/2011-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1439
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT
NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX,
DELHI
ID No. 29/2012
Shri Ram Pratap Rai & 41 others,
Represented by Bhartiya Krishi Karamchari Sangh,
C/o Room No. 95, Barrack No. 1/10,
Jam Nagar House,
New Delhi
..........Workman
VERSUS
The Director,
Indian Agricultural Research Institute,
Pusa Road,
New Delhi
...........Management
AWARD
Brief facts given rise to the reference petition are that
Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, vide letter No. L-42012/
91/2011-IR(DU) dated 19.01.2012 referred the following
dispute for adjudication under 10(2)(a) read with clause
1(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act):
"Whether the action of the management of IARI Pusa in
not granting (A) equal pay (B) temporary status and
regularization of Shri Ram Pratap and 41 others (as per list
enclosed), casual workers with effect from 01.09.1993 is
legal and just? What relief the workman are entitled to and
from which date?"
2. It is apparent from the statement of claim filed on
behalf of the workman (Shri Ram Pratap Rai and 41 others)
that they have been performing their duties for the last
20—26 years and they were not granted regular status nor
regular pay scale was given to them, which is an unfair labour
practice under V Schedule of the Act. Management has been
following rules and regulations formulated by the
Government of India, including office memorandum of
Department of Personnel and Training dated 07.06.1988 as
per which casual workers doing the same job equivalent to
the regular employees, the casual workers are allowed
minimum pay scale plus dearness allowance but the
management denied the said wages and only paid the
minimum wages. Government of India has also sanctioned
posts for regularization of the services for their regularization
and the time limit for their regularization is also mentioned in
para 2 of the memorandum (Annexure A), which is as follows:
2. The following time limit for completing the review
has been prescribed in respect of the various Ministries/
Departments:
a.
Ministry of Railways
2 years
b.
Department of Post, Department of
Telecommunication and Department
1 year
of Defence Production
c.
All other Ministries/Departments/
6 months
Office
3. Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) is a
constituent of ICAE and functioning under the Ministry of
Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. According to Para
2(c) of the Department of Personnel in their memorandum
dated 07.06.1988 granted the six month for review and
regularization of the casual workers but the management
of IARI ignored the said office memorandum of the
Government of India and indulged in unfair labour practice
as defined under section 2(ra) of the Act.
4. Thereafter, Department of Personnel and Training
issued Office Memorandum dated 10.09.1993 and granted
temporary status and regularization of casual workers who
were employed after issuance of office memorandum dated
07.06.1988 were liable to be regularized. The policy has
further been reviewed in the light of the judgement of Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
delivered on 16.02.1990 in writ petition filed by Shri Raj
Kamal and others vs. Union of India and it has been decided
that while existing guidelines contained in office
memorandum dated 07.06.1988 may continue to be followed,
grant of temporary status to the casual employees who
have rendered one year of continuous services in Central
Government office, other than Department of
Telecommunication, Posts and Railways may be regularized
by the scheme as appended. Thus, management was
required to review the case and take suitable action, but it
has ignored the office memorandum dated 07.06.1988 as
well as office memorandum date 10.09.1993. Management
has granted temporary status w.e.f. 01.09.1993. Management
has granted temporary status with effect from 01.09.1993 to
50 other casual workers who are junior to the workman
herein and this action of the management is illegal,
discriminatory and unfair labour practice. Copy of the office
order dated 03.02.1995 is annexed as Annexure C.
5. It is also averred that the workman herein have been
performing same and similar duty equivalent to their
counterparts called 'Supporting Staff'. As such they are
also entitled to equal pay for equal work. As per policy,
casual workers who have completed one year of service as
on 01.09.1993 were not granted temporary status, including
other allowances, increments etc. and the management of
IARI is exploiting the workman. Services of employees
1440
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
junior to those who were engaged as daily rated workers
after engagement of the workmen herein were regularized
vide appointment No. 4/7/96-III dated 26.09.1998 and there
date of regularization is discriminatory, inasmuch as the
workers are entitled to regularization from the date
mentioned in the office memorandum. Even the Department
of Personnel and Training vide their office memorandum
No. 49014/18/84 dated 07.05.1985 has relaxed the conditions
of sponsorship on employment of casual workers for their
regularization, who have not been recruited through
Employment Exchange before 07.05.1985. All these workmen
have been denied equal treatment by the management of
IARI. As per office order No. 4-7/96-P. III dated 26.09.1995,
services of junior persons to the workmen connected with
the dispute were regularized arbitrarily without regularizing
the services of senior persons. Services of juniors
belonging to the OBC category were regularized with effect
from 01.04.1998, unreserved category with effect from
31.05.1998, SC category with effect from 31.03.1998 and ST
category with effect from 01.04.1998. Accordingly, workmen
herein are entitled to be regularized from the same date as
belonging to the category of OBC, SC, ST and unreserved
in Group D post.
6. Reference petition was contested by the
management by filing written statement wherein
management had taken certain preliminary objections and
it is alleged that the reference is totally misconceived, false
and untenable. The same is not legally maintainable as
Bhartiya Krishi Karamchari Sangh has no locus standi or
authorized to file claim on behalf of employees of IARI.
IARI has been paying the employees their legitimate dues
and other facilities in accordance with law. Thus claim has
been filed by the trade union to disturb peach and with
ulterior motive. The Union has raised frivolous demands
and in order to harass the respondent, present claim petition
has been filed. On merits, it was alleged that the dispute
has been referred without application of mind and in a
mechanical manner. It is denied that the workmen herein
had been working with respondent for the last 20—26
years. Nature of work of these claimants was not regular
and same was seasonal or intermittent in nature. However,
they were engaged from 1998 on the basis of availability of
work. It is specifically denied that the management has
adopted unfair labour practice. IARI is governed by rules
framed by Government of India. The Institute is regularizing
the DPLs upto 1998 on the basis of availability of posts but
in the year 1999, ADRP came into existence and also made
of 10% in the total number of supporting staff and as such
number of posts were reduced drastically and regularization
of the DPLs was accordingly reduced. It is also alleged
that the workman in the present claim are engaged only for
performing work of seasonal nature. They are being paid
minimum wages as fixed by the Central/State Government,
whichever is higher. Services of the claimant herein cannot
be compared to that of regular employees as they were not
doing equivalent job to that of regular employees. The
management also denied other averments made in the
reference petition.
7. Against the factual backdrop, my learned
predecessor, vide order dated 26.03.2012, framed the
following issues:
i. Whether there is no industrial dispute for want of
proper espousal?
ii. As in terms of reference
8. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary
evidence in support of the stand taken in their respective
pleadings. Workman, i.e. Shri Ram Pratap Rai examined
himself as WW1 and tendered in evidence his affidavit as
Ex. WW1/A and supporting documents, i.e. Chart Ex.
WW1/1 showing names of workman posted at Regional
Station, Pusa, Bihar, was also tendered in evidence.
Avertments contained in the affidavit are on the same lines
as has been taken in the statement of claim. Shri Ram Prakash
Rai has specifically averred that the date of his initial
engagement is 27.04.1987 and he belongs to the OBC
category. It is further clear from perusal of details of the
workman contained in Ex.WW1/1 that there is mention of
the workmen here in the said list wherein date of birth as
well as date of initial engagement of the workman is
mentioned in the respective columns. During the course of
arguments, learned counsel for the management has not
disputed the list of workman, i.e. Ex.WW1/1.
9. Workman also examined Shri Ram Naresh Rai as is
witness, whose affidavit is Ex. WW2/A. He has primarily
relied upon office memorandum dated 07.06.1988, office
mamorandum dated 10.09.1993 as well as office order
03.02.1995. This is the order on the strength of which
temporary status was granted to the claimants.
10. Management, in support of its case, examined
Shri Chetan Swaroop as Ex.MW1, whose affidavit is Ex.
MW1/A. Contents of the affidavit are on the same lines as
the stand taken by the management in its written statement.
In his cross examination (22.07.2013), he has state that the
workman herein were not entitled for grant of temporary
status. As such, there was no question of regularization of
their services by the management. Employees on whom
temporary status has been conferred are regularized on the
basis of their seniority and the criteria laid down by the
Department of Personnel and Training. He has admitted that
Ex. WW2/1 and Ex.WW2/2, which contain instructions and
criteria to be followed for grant of temporary status etc., to
the workman is correct. He has further admitted that Shri
Ram Pratap Rai joined the management on 27.04.1983 as a
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1441
daily wager. Initially, he could not reply in cross examination
as to how many days continuous service was rendered by
Shri Ram Pratap Rai upto 31.12.1983. In his subsequent cross
examination (09.10.2013), Shri Chetan Swaroop, MW1,
submitted a chart showing the number of days of the
workmen in a given year and the said chart is Ex.MW1/W2.
He has neither satisfied himself regarding correctness of the
contents of the above chart nor has he compared it with the
attendance record. He has also referred to the seniority list
of casual labour, which is Ex.MW1/W3. Senior list does not
project names of the persons on whom temporary status
was accorded. In his subsequent cross examination
(27.11.2013), he has admitted that 12 casual labourers whose
names are mentioned in seniority list Ex.MW1/W3 were
regularized in services of the management without grant of
temporary status. He also admitted that the scheme issued
by the Government in 1993 regarding grant of temporary
status was a one time scheme. He has further admitted that
Shri Bhageran Rai, whose name is at serial No. 13 of the
senior list, Ex.MW1/W3 was not regularized, though he is
from the backward caste (OBC). He has further admitted that
all the claimants except Japshi Sahni and Shri Arun Takkar
belong to SC and OBC category. He has also tendered in
evidence, list Ex.MW1/W4 projecting the name of casual
employees whose services regularized by the management.
11. I have heard Shri B.K. Prasad, A/R for the claimant
and Shri Anil Singhal, A/R for the management.
Findings : Issue No. 1 and 2
12. Both the issues are being taken up together with
the reference for the purpose of discussion as they are
inter related and can be conveniently disposed of.
13. Shri Prasad strongly urged that the workmen who
have filed the reference petition are in fact senior to the several
other workmen. However, neither temporary status was
granted to them as per time schedule and policy of the
year 1993 nor their services were regularized as per office
memorandum discussed above. Non-grant of temporary status
and regularization of workman herein his highly arbitrary and
discriminatory and the same is not supported by any rule of
regularization. He also invited the attention of the Tribunal of
seniority list Ex.WW1/W3 wherein names of all 41 workmen
are mentioned. Since the workmen herein were doing the work
of beldar, which is being performed by regular beldars also, as
such, they were entitled to the time-scale which has been
given to the regular beldars in view of the judgement in case
of Surender Singh. Since the management has admitted that
the workmen herein to be daily paid labour and most of such
workmen were in job since the year 1983 onwards, as such, in
the year 1993, as per policy of the Government, temporary
status was required to be conferred upon them and thereafter
they were required to be made regular.
14. Admittedly, management has regularized services
of several arguments, this Tribunal wanted to know from the
management as to what criteria has been followed by the
management to regularize services of the workmen mentioned
in the list MW1/W4. Since some of the workman herein are
senior to the workmen mentioned in the List Ex.MW1/W4,
claim of the workmen herein was required to be considered
first in preference to the other workmen. It is settled principle
of law that seniority is not to be disturbed in respect of
those workmen who are doing similar job while considering
the question of grant of temporary status of regularizing
their services. It is not clear from the consolidated list,
Ex.MW1/W3 as to what was the criteria followed by the
management while granting temporary status or regularizing
services of the workmen mentioned in Ex.MW1/W4.
15. During the course of arguments, it was admitted
that office memorandum dated 07.06.1988, Ex.WW2/1 was
issued by Government of India in which policy regarding
engagement of casual workers has been reviewed by the
Government, keeping in view the judgement rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surender Singh
and others Vs. Union of India. Here is also office memorandum
Ex.WW2/2 which deals with the grant of temporary status
and regularization of the casual workers. It is clear from
perusal of the same that grant of temporary status to casual
worker is available to all these who have rendered one year
continuous service in Central Government offices, except
Department of Telecommunication, Post and Railways. Thus,
as per the said memorandum, temporary status was required
to be accorded to the workmen herein, who have rendered
one year continuous service. It is further clear that a period
of 240 days (offices having six day week) and 206 days
(offices observing five day week) is to be taken in a calendar
year, for the purpose of continuous service.
16. The office memorandum Ex.WW2/2 dated
10.09.1993 clearly requires that the grant of temporary status
of the casual employees be done strictly in accordance
with the above memorandum and cases of negligence would
be viewed seriously and the same be brought to the notice of
the appropriate authority for taking prompt and suitable
action. Thus, a conjoint reading of office memorandum dated
07.06.1988 Ex.WW2/1 read with office memorandum Ex.
WW2/2 clearly provides the mode to be followed by the
employer for grant of temporary status to the casual workman
and thereafter their regularization. Learned authorized
representative appearing on behalf of the management could
not convince the Tribunal as to what was the method followed
by the management when services of he workman as contained
in Ex.MW1/W4 dated 31.07.2013 were regularized. Whether
any committee was constituted at the time of regularization of
the services of the workman or what criteria was followed
when conferring status of as well as evidence led by the
management. It is further clear from perusal of the list
1442
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex. MW1/W4 that the workmen who were regularized were in
fact not senior to the workmen herein. For e.g. Shri Harvinder
Sah whose name is mentioned at Serial No. 11 in the list
Ex. MW1/W4 belongs to OBC category and was regularized
on 20.10.2006. It is clear from the join seniority list of the
workmen, Ex. MW1/W3 that Shri Harvinder Sah engaged as
workmen on 27.04.1983. Shri Ram Pratap Raj, workman herein
also belongs to OBC category and was also initially engaged
as workman on 27.04.1983. Reasons as to why he was not
regularized earlier are not clear from the perusal of the evidence
led by the management. Similarly, there are other employees/
workmen whose names apperar in the seniority list. Ex.
MW1/W3 who are having the same seniority but have neither
so far been conferred either temporary status nor their services
have been regularized in terms of office memorandum dated
07.06.1988. Ex. WW2/1 and office memorandum Ex. WW2/2. It
is pertinent to note here that shri Chetan Swaroop,
Administrative Officer examined by the management as MW1
admitted in his cross examination (27.11.2013) that 12 casual
labour whose names have been mentioned in seniority list
Ex, MW1/W3 were regularized in service by the management
without grant of temporary status was issued by the
Government in the year 1993. Shri Bhagender Rai, whose name
apperar as Serial No. 1 of the seniority list was not regularized
though he belongs to OBC category. He has further admitted
that all the workmen herein, except Shri Jhapsi Sahni and Shri
Arun Kumar Thakur belogn to ST or OBC category. Thus,
when majority of the workmen herein belong to OBC or SC/ST
category, their names were also required to be considered by
the management for the purpose of grant of Temporary status
as well as regularization of their service.
17. During the coruse of arguments, it was not disputed
that at the time of grant of temporary status, length of
service of workman is the major consideration to be followed
by the management. There is also no dispute that the
workmen herein are doing the same job and performing the
same work which was being performed by the workmen
whose services have been regularized. It has been held by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bal Kishan Vs. Delhi
Administration (1 LLJ 61) that when persons belong to the
same cadre, in the eventuality, juniors cannot be confirmed
or promoted without considering the cases of the seniors
and any deviation from the above principle in contrary to
the spirit of Article 16 (1) of the Constitution.
18. Reliance was also placed upon the case of Durgapur
Casual workers Unions Vs. Food Corporation of India (Civil
apeal No. 10856 of 2014 (decided on 09.12.2014). It was
also a Case of casual workmen who were working as
contract labour in rice mill, which was later on closed.
Thereafter, workmen were directly employed by Food
Corporation of India in 1991 on daily wages for the purpose
of sweeping of godown and wagon floor etc. Since the
workmen were not made regular when absorbed, as such,
reference under Section 10 of the Act was made to the
Industrial Tribunal, who decided the case in favour of the
workmen and held that a continuous casualization of
services of workmen amount to 'unfair labour practice' as
defined in Item No. 10 in Para 1 of the Fifth Schedule of the
Act. Matter was later on taken to the High Court by the
management by filing writ petition, which was dismissed
resulting in affirmation of the award. Thereafter, intra court
appeal was filed before Division Bench of Calcutta High
Court and one of the grounds taken here was appointment
of most of the workmen were back-door appointment. Strong
reliance was placed upon Constitution Bench Judgement
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka & others Vs. Uma Devi (3) (2006 4 SCC1) wherein
the Hon'ble Apex Court held that any appointment in
derogation of the rules or back-door entry is totally illegal
and workman cannot claim regularization as a matter of
right if their initial appointment was totally against the
regulation. This plea of the management was rejected by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court by holding that the decision of
the Constitution Bench in Uma Devi case (supra) is not
attracted or applicable when the question simply is of
regularization or grant of temporary Status. Relevant
observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court are as under:
"34. It is true that the case of Dharwad District PWD
Literate Daily Wage Employees Association Vs. State
of Karnataka (1990 2 SCC 396) arising out of industrial
adjudication has been considered in Umadevi (3) (2006
(4) SCC1) and that decision has been held to be not
laying down the correct law but a careful and complete
reading of decision of Umadevi (3) leaves no manner of
doubt that what this Court was concerned in
Umadevi (3) was the exercise of power by the High
Courts under Article 226 and this Court under Article 32
of the Constitution of India in the matters of Public
employment where the employees have been engaged
as contractual, temporary or casual workers not based
on proper selection as recognized by the rules or
procedure and yet orders of their regularization and
conferring them status of permanency have been
passed.
35. Umadevi (3) is an authoritative pronouncement for
the proposition that Supreme Court (Article 32) and
High Courts (Article 226) should not issue directions
of absorption, regularization or permanent
continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily
wage or ad-hoc employees unless the recruitment itself
was made regularly in terms of constitutional scheme.
36. Uma Devi (3) does not denude the Industrial and
Labour Courts of their statutory power under
Section 30 read with section 32 of MRTU & PULP
Act to order permanency of the workers who have
been victim of unfair labour practice on the part of
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1443
the employer under item 6 of Schedule IV where the
posts on which they have been working exists. Uma
Devi (3) cannot be held to have overridden the
powers of Industrial and Labour Courts in passing
appropriate order under Section 30 of MRTU & PULP
Act, once unfair labour practice on the part of the
employer under item 6 of Schedule IV is established."
19. Shri B.K. Prasad also placed strong reliance upon
the case of Director General Works CPWD Vs. Davinder
Singh (LPA 13 of 2008 decided on 12.02.2008) wherein also
same question relating the regularization of wireman on
muster roll was involved. There were 50 workers working
as wiremen whose services were regularized ignoring claim
of the petitioners who was senior to them and ultimately a
dispute was raised before the Tribunal, who held that the
action of the management in not regularizing the services
of the workman, i.e. wireman, is totally illegal and as such
not justified under the law. Thereafter, matter was taken to
the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, who upheld the award of
the Tribunal and held as under:
"9. On going through the records, we are of the
considered opinion that there is a finding of fact
recorded by the Industrial Adjudicator that his junior
has since been regularized in service w.e.f. from
31st March, 1993. The appeallant could not in any
manner challenge the said finding of fact which is
arrived at. We are also not inclined to re-appreciate
the evidence inasmuch as there is ample evidence
on record to prove and establish that his juniors
have since been regualrised in service. Therefore, it
is a case of discrimination and not a case where the
ratio of the decision of the case of Uma Devi case
(supra) would be attracted.
10. In this cannection we may appropriately refer to
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bal
Kishan Vs. Delhi Administration and another (1990)
1 LLJ 61. In paragraph 10 of the said judgment the
Supreme Court has also held as under:
"10. In service, there could be only one norm
for confirmation of promotion of persons
belonging to the same cadre. No junior shall
be confirmed or promoted without considering
the case of his senior. Any deviation from this
principle will have demoralizing effect in service
apart from being contrary to Article 16(1) of
the Constitution."
11. In U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra
Pandey and Others 2007 (12) Scale 304 the Supreme
Court has held that the judgment in Uma Devis case
cannot be applied mechanically without seeing the facts
of a particular case. It was also held in the said decision
that the decision in Uma Devi’s case (supra) is clearly
distinguishable. The said decision cannot be applied
to a case where regularization has been sought for in
pursuance of Article 14 of the Constitution."
20. Thus, it is clear from the law laid down in the above
authorities that services of casual workers is required to be
regularized in terms of the office memorandum of the year
1993 and thereafter status of regularization is to be conferred
upon the workman, who were eligible to be regularized in
accordance with the law. Since most of the workmen herein
were senior to the workmen whose names are mentioned in
the list, Ex. MW1/W4, as such, claim of the workmen herein
regarding grant of temporary status from the year 01.09.1993
is required to be considered in the light of the office
memorandum dated 10.09.1993. It is clear from perusal of the
list Ex.MW1/W4 that workman mentioned at serial No.29,
167 and 307, i.e. Smt. Laxmi Devi, Shri Rajinder Kumar and
Shri Jangliya are junior to Shri Ram Pratap Rai, and other. As
discussed above, Shri Ram Pratap Rai was engaged in the
1983 and most of the workmen mentioned in the list Ex.MW1/
W4 have also been recruited almost in the same year. As
such case of workmen herein was required to be considered
in the light of the scheme called 'Casual Labour—Grant of
Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme of Government
of India, 93.' They were also entitled to pay scales, including
dearness allowance, house rent allowance, city compensatory
allowance, travelling allowance, increments etc. from time to
time. Therefore, action of the management in not considering
the case of the workmen whose names are mentioned in
Ex.WW1/1 is held to be totally illegal and against the scheme.
Consequently, it is held that all the above workmen whose
case is covered by office memorandum Ex.WW2/1 and office
memorandum Ex.WW2/2, except Shri Phudeni Mehto, S/o /
Shri Laxman Mehto and Shri Bhola Mehto, S/o late
Rameshwar Mehto, whose names appear at serial No. 14
and 41 and whose initial date of engagement is 17.12.1994
and 20.04.1998 respectively in the list Ex.WW1/1, are liable
to be granted temporary status and regularization. Cases of
Phudeni Mehto and Shri Bhola Mehto may be considered
for temporary status and regularization in due course as per
their eligibility.
21. In view of the above discussions, it is held that
there exists industrial dispute between the partices
inasmuch as workmen herein fall within the definition of
'workman' and action of the management in not granting
equal pay as well as temporary status, including
consequential benfits from the due date and regularization
of the workmen Shri Ram Pratap Rai and others is total
illegal and not in accordance with the office memorandum
discussed above. Both the issues are decided accordingly.
An award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to
the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
Dated: March 18, 2015
1444
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 603.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948
dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 vizSy] 2015 dks ml rkjh[k ds
:i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vfèfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o
45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gSa½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6
[èkjk&76 dh mi èkjk&¼1½ vkSj èkjk &77] 78 79 vkSj 81 ds flok;
tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSa] ds micaè rfeyukMq jkT; ds
fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%—
dsUnz
{ks= ds varxZr vkus okys fuEu
jktLo xk¡o
okyikjS {ks=
1- okyikjS rkyqd esa
okyikjS o
okyikjS
iksYykph rkyqd
2- iksYykph rkyqd esa
dks;Ecrwj ftyk
vkueyS fgYl
[lañ ,l&38013@19@2015&,lñ,lñ&1]
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th March, 2015
S.O. 603.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government
hereby appoints the 1st April, 2015 as the date on which
the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45
which have already been brought into force) and
Chapter-V and VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and
Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought
into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the
following areas in the State of Tamil Nadu namely:—
Centre
Area Comprising the
Revenue Villages of
Valparai area
1. Valparai
Valparai &
in Valaparai Taluk
Pollachi Taluk
2. Anamalai Hills.
Coimbatore District
in Pollachi Taluk
[No. S-38013/19/2015-SS.-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 604.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948
¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 vizSy] 2015 dks ml
rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vfèfu;e ds
v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gSa½
v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [èkjk 76 dh mi èkjk ¼1½ vkSj èkjk &77] 78] 79
vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gSa] ds micaè vkUèz
izns'k jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%µ
^^vkUèz izns'k ds d`".kk ftys ds xqMhokMk eaMy ds vèhu vkus
okys lHkh {ks=**
[lañ ,l&38013@20@2015&,lñ,lñ&1]
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th March, 2015
S.O. 604.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government
hereby appoints the 1st April, 2015, as the date on which
the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45
which have already been brought into force) and Chapter
V and VI [except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections
77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into
force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following
areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh namely:—
"All the areas falling in the Gudivada Mandal
Krishana district of Andhra Pradesh."
[No. S-38013/20/2015-SS.-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 605.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948
dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 vizSy] 2015 dks ml rkjh[k ds
:i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vfèfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o
45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gaS½ v/;k;&5
vkSj 6 [èkjk&76 dh mi èkjk ¼1½ vkSj èkjk 77] 78 79 vkSj 81 ds
flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSa] ds micaè vkUèz izns'k jkT;
ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%µ
^^vkUèz izns'k ds usYyq: ftys ds eqFkqdqj eaMy ds eqFkqdqj]
czãnsoe] taxky&dUn`xk] fiMkFkkiksyq:] xksikyiqje vkSj
d`".kkiVue dh jktLo lhek ds vèhu vkus okys lHkh {ks=**
[lañ ,l&38013@21@2015&,lñ,lñ&1]
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th March, 2015
S.O. 605.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government
hereby appoints the 1st April, 2015, as the date on which
the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1445
which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-
V and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections
77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into
force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following
areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh, namely:—
"All the areas falling in Muthukur, Brahmadevam,
Jangala-Kandriga, Pidathapoluru, Gopalapuram and
Krishnapatnam in Muthukur Mandal of Nellore
district of Andhra Pradesh."
[No. S-38013/21/2015-SS.-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 606.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948
¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 vizSy] 2015 dks ml
rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vfèfu;e ds
v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gaS½
v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [èkjk&76 dh mi èkjk ¼1½ vkSj èkjk &77] 78 79
vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gaS] ds micaè vkUèz
izns'k jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%
^^vkUèz izns'k ds xq.Vqj ftys ds if'peh ckiVyk] iwohZ ckiVyk]
dksaMkcksRyokfuiyse] fiuhcksf;uofuiyse vkSj osnqYykiYyh
ckiVyk eaMy dh jktLo lhek ds vèhu vkus okys lHkh {ks=**
[lañ ,l&38013@22@2015&,lñ,lñ&1]
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th March, 2015
S.O. 606.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government
hereby appoints the 1st April, 2015, as the date on which
the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45
which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-
V and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections
77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into
force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following
areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh, namely:—
"All the areas in the Revenue Village of Bapatla and
the Hamlet Villages of West Bapatla, East Bapatla,
Kondabotlavanipalem, Pinniboyinavani-palem and
Vedullapalli of Bapatla Mandal in Guntur district of
Andhra Pradesh."
[No. S-38013/22/2015-SS.-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 607.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948
dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 vizSy] 2015 dks ml rkjh[k ds
:i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vfèfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o
45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gSa½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6
[èkjk&76 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ vkSj èkjk &77] 78 79 vkSj 81 ds flok;
tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gSa] ds micaè vkUèz izns'k jkT; ds
fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%
^^vkUèz izns'k ds usYyq: ftys ds bUnqdqjisV eaMy ds MsfolisV
xk¡o dh jktLo lhek ds vèhu vkus okys lHkh {ks=**
[lañ ,l&38013@23@2015&,lñ,lñ&1]
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th March, 2015
S.O. 607.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government
hereby appoints the 1st April, 2015, as the date on which
the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45
which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-
V and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections
77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into
force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following
areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh namely:—
"All the areas falling in Devispet revenue village in
Indukurpet Mandal Nellore district of Andhra
Pradesh."
[No. S-38013/23/2015-SS.-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 608.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948
dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01vizSy] 2015 dks ml rkjh[k ds
:i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vfèfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o
45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6
[èkjk&76 dh mi èkjk&¼1½ vkSj èkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds
flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS] ds micaè rsyaxkuk jkT; ds
fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%
^^rsyxkauk jkT; ds jaxkjsìh ftys ds dhljk eaMy ds jktLo xk¡o
vafdjsìh iYyh** dh lhek ds varxZr vkus okys lHkh {ks=A
[lañ ,l&38013@24@2015&,lñ,lñ&1]
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
1446
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2015
S.O. 608.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government
hereby appoints the 1st April, 2015, as the date on which
the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45
which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-
V and VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections
77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into
force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following
areas in the State of Telangana namely:-
"All the areas falling within the limits of Revenue
Village of Ankireddypally of Keesara Mandal in
Ranga Reddy District of Telangana State."
[No. S-38013/24/2015-SS-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 609.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948
dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01vizSy] 2015 dks ml rkjh[k ds
:i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vfèfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o
45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6
[èkjk&76 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ vkSj èkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds
flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS] ds micaè rfeyukMq jkT;
ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%—
dsUnz
{ks= ds varxZr vkus okys fuEu
jktLo xk¡o
fr:oYywj ¼fr:oYywj½
1- vfÙkiV~M
ftysa esa ikséksjh rkyqd
vfÙkiV~M {ks=
[lañ ,l&38013@25@2015&,lñ,lñ&1]
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2015
S.O. 609.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government
hereby appoints the 1st April, 2015, as the date on which
the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45
which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-
V and VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections
77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into
force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following
areas in the State of Tamil Nadu namely:—
Centre
Area Comprising the
Revenue Villages of
Attipattu area
1. Attipattu
Ponneri Taluk
Tiruvallur district
[No. S-38013/25/2015-SS-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 610.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948
dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01vizSy] 2015 dks ml rkjh[k ds
:i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vfèfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o
45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj
6 [èkjk&76 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ vkSj èkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds
flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS] ds micaè rfeyukMq jkT;
ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%
dsUnz
{ks= ds varxZr vkus okys fuEu
jktLo xk¡o
lsye ftys
1- eks:j bZLV
ladjh rkyqd
2- eks:j osLV
eks:j {ks=
[lañ ,l&38013@26@2015&,lñ,lñ&1]
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2015
S.O. 610.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government
hereby appoints the 1st April, 2015, as the date on which
the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45
which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-
V and VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections
77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into
force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following
areas in the State of Tamil Nadu namely:—
Centre
Area Comprising the
Revenue Villages of
Morur area Sankari Taluk,
1. Morur East
Salem District
2. Morur West
[No. S-38013/26/2015-SS-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1447
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 611.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948
dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mièkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01vizSy] 2015 dks ml rkjh[k ds
:i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vfèfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o
45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6
èkjk&76 dh mièkjk&¼1½ vkSj èkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok;
tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds micaè rfeyukMq jkT; ds
fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%—
dsUnz
{ks= ds varxZr vkus okys fuEu
jktLo xk¡o
fr:usyosyh ftys
1- rqyqDddZqye ¼rqyqDddZqye½
fr:usyosyh rkyqd
2- dksMxuYywj
rqyqDddZqye ¼rqyqDddZqye½
[lañ ,l&38013@27@2015&,l,l&1]
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2015
S.O. 611.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government
hereby appoints the 1st April, 2015, as the date on which
the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45
which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-
V and VI (except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections
77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into
force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following
areas in the State of Tamil-Nadu namely:—
Centre
Area Comprising the
Revenue Villages of
Thulukkarkulam area
1. Thulukkarkulam
Tirunelveli Taluk
2. Kodaganallur
Tirunelveli District
[No. S-38013/27/2015-SS-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 612.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948
dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mièkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01vizSy] 2015 dks ml rkjh[k ds
:i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vfèfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o
45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6
¼èkjk&76 dh mièkjk&¼1½ vkSj èkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok;
tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds micaè rfeyukMq jkT; ds
fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%—
dsUnz
{ks= ds varxZr vkus okys fuEu
jktLo xk¡o
enqjS ftys
1- is:axqMh
enqjS lkmr rkyqd
is:axqMh {ks=
[lañ% ,l&38013@28@2015&,l,l&1]
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2015
S.O. 612.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government
hereby appoints the 1st April, 2015, as the date on which
the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45
which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-
V and VI (except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections
77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into
force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following
areas in the State of Tamil-Nadu namely:—
Centre
Area Comprising the
Revenue Villages of
Perungudi area
1. Perungudi
Maduria South Taluk,
Madurai District
[No. S-38013/28/2015-SS-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 613.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948
dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi/kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 vizSy] 2015 dks ml rkjh[k ds
:i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k; 4 ¼44 o
45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gaS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6
¼/kkjk 76 dh mi/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok;
tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k rfeyukMq jkT; ds
fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksasxs] vFkkZr~%—
dsUnz
{ks= ds varxZr vkus okys fuEu
jktLo xk¡o
fr:ok:j {ks=
1- dqMokly rkyqd esa
dqMokly ,oa
vEe;Iiu
ufUuye rkyqd
2- ufUuye esa
fr:ok:j ftyk
lksjDdqMh
3- byoaxdqZMh
4- dhydoÙkDdqMh
5- dfUu;wj
1448
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6- ekaxqMh
7- fr:ok:j ukFkZ lsrh
8- i"koUDdqMh
9- iwfyoye
10- jkEds
11- laqnj foykxe
12- raMyS
13- fr:ok:j lkmr lsrh
14- fot;iqje
fr:ok:j rkyqd esa
15- foyey
[lañ ,l&38013@29@2015&,l,l 1]
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2015
S.O. 613.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government
hereby appoints the 1st April, 2015, as the date on which
the provisions of Chapter IV (except Section 44 and 45
which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-
V and VI (except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections
77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into
force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following
areas in the State of Tamil-Nadu namely:—
Centre
Area Comprising the
Revenue Villages of
Thiruvarur area
1. Ammaiyappan
Kudavasal & Nannilam
In Kudavasal Taluk
Taluk
2. Sorakkudi
Thiruvarur District
In nannilam Taluk
3. Elavangarkudi
4. Keelakavathakudi
5. Kunniyur
6. Mangudi
7. Thiruvarur North Sethi
8. Pazhavanakkudi
9. Pulivalam
10. Ramkey
11. Sundara Vilagam
12. Thandalai
13. Thiruvarur South Sethi
14. Vijayapuram
15. Vilamal
In Thiruvarur Taluk
[No. S-38013/29/2015-SS-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 614.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948
dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi/kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 vizSy] 2015 dks ml rkjh[k ds
:i esa fu;e djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds
v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gSa½
v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk 76 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79
vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSa½ ds mica/k
vkU/kz izns'k jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksasxs] vFkkZr~%—
^^fcdoksys eaMy vkU/kz izns'k ds iwohZ xksnkojh ftys ds dusMq
cyHknziqje] fcdoksys xkao dh jktLo lhek ds v/khu vkus
okys lHkh {ks=A**
[lañ ,l&38013@30@2015&,l,l&1]
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2015
S.O. 614.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government
hereby appoints the 1st April, 2015, as the date on which
the provisions of Chapter IV (except Section 44 and 45
which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-
V and VI (except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections
77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into
force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following
areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh namely:—
''All the areas falling within the Limits of Revenue
villages of Kanedu Bhalabhadrapuram, Biccavole of
Biccavole Mandal of East Godavari district in Andhra
Pradesh."
[No. S-38013/30/2015-SS-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 615.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
34½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chñlhñlhñ,yñ ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uñ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 190@2001½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@139@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1449
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2015
S.O. 615.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 190/
2001) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
25/03/2015.
[No. L-20012/139/2001-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT
Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.
REFERENCE No. 190 OF 2001
PARTIES:
The Secretary,
National Coal Workers Congress
At: Water Board Colony,
Hirapur, Dhanbad.
Vs.
The Project Officer,
Barora Coal Washery, of M/s.
BCCl, PO: Nawagrah, Dhanbad.
Ministry's Order No L-20012/139/
2001-IR(C-I) dt. 10.07.2001
APPEARANCES
On behalf of the workman/Union
: None.
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. Ganesh
Prasad, Ld. Adv.
State
: Jharkhand
Industry
: Coal
Dated
: Dhanbad the 18th
Dec., 2014
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10 (1)
(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order
No. L-20012/139//2001-IR(C-I) dt. 10.07. 2001 .
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the NCWC from the
Management of BCCL, Barora Coal Washery to regularize
Raj Kumar Rawani as Fitter-cum- Operator is proper and
justified? If so, to what relief is the concerned workman
entitled and from what date?"
2. Not any Union Repersentative for workman Shri Raj
Kumar Rawani nor any witness for the evidence of the
workman appeared. Mr.Ganesh Pd., Ld. Advocate for the
OP/Management is present.
On going through the case record, I find that the case
has been all along pending for the evidence of the workman
since 03.03.2006, for which several notices including the
last three ones dated. 13.9.11, 25.6.14, and 22.12.14 were
issued to the Secretary concerned on his address as noted
in the Reference itself. The Union Representative by his
conduct just as the workman Raj Kumar Rawani appears to
be quite reluctant in pursuing the case for its final disposal.
Moreover despite show cause, the Union Representative
failed to submit any documents for the case of the workman,
which is related to an issue about his regularization as
Fitter-cum-Operator.
Under these circumstances, it seems to be no longer
an Industrial Dispute. Hence the case is closed as No
Industrial Dispute. Accordingly, an order is passed as No
Dispute Award.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 616.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
34½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñlhñ,yñ 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;] uñ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 37@2007½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@67@2007&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2015
S.O. 616.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 37/2007
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.
2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. ECL and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
25/03/2015.
[No. L-20012/67/2007-IR (CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
1450
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS-
TRIAL 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. 37 OF 2007
PARTIES
:
The Secretary,
Koyla Mazdoor Congress
Gorai Mansion, G.T. Road, Asansol,
Vs.
General Manager,
Mugma Area of M/s. ECL
PO: Mugma, Distt; Dhanbad.
Ministry's Order No. : L-20012/67/2007-IR(CM-I)
dt. 23.07.2007
APPEARANCES
On behalf of the workman/Union
: None.
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. D.K. Verma.
Ld.Adv.
State
: Jharkhand
Industry
: Coal
Dated
: Dhanbad,the 31st
Dec., 2014
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10 (1)
(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order
No. L-20012/67/2007-IR(CM-I) dt. 23.07.2007.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Chapapur Colliery of
M/s. ECL in dismissing the services of Shri Babulal Bhuia,
UG Loader, w.e.f. 10.04.2003 is justified and legal? If not, to
what relief is the concerned workman entitled?"
2. The case record put up in the Lok Adalat held today.
None appeared for the Koyla Mazdoor Congress, Asansol
(W.B.), but Mr. D.K. Verma, the Ld. Advocate for
OP/Management is present.
Mr. Verma, has submitted that since Mr. H.L. Soni, the
Secretary of the Union concerned has already by filling a
petition in 24.06.2010 had submitted that both the parties
have amicably settled the Industrial Dispute as per the
Memorandum of Settlement under the signature of Messrs
A.K. Sinha and P.K. Sinha, G.M. and P.M. (I.C.), Mugma
area respectively, and workman Babulal Bhuia as per the
letter No. ECL/CMD/C-60/IL/09/DA/1301 dt. 11/14.2.2010.
Under these circumstances, let an Award of Settlement
be passed on the basis of the Memorandum of Settlement
between both the parties as an integral part of the Award in
the Industrial Dispute/Reference which is related to an
issue over the dismissal of workman Babulal Bhuia, the
U/G Loader. Accordingly, the case is disposed of as 'No
dispute'.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
Memorandum of settlement arrived at between the
Management of Mugma area and their workman
Namely ....................... Design ....................
U.M. No. 886484 Colliery Chapapur
Represented the workman himself.
1. Name of the Party
1. Sri A.K. Singh, General
Representing Employer
Manager, Mugam Area
PO:
Mugma,
Distt;
Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
2. Sri P.K. Sinha, P.M. (IC),
Mugma Area, PO: Mugma,
Distt: Dhanbad.
2. Representing workman:
Sri Babulal Bhuia, Ex-U/G
Loader/Man No. 886484,
Chapapur Colliery.
SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE
Sri Babulal Bhuia, Design. Ex. UCL U.M. No. 886484
Colliery Chapapur was dismissed from service for his
unauthorized absence from duty. Sri Babulal Bhuia,
represented before the Competent Authority of the
Company for consideration of his reinstatement in service.
The appeal for re-instatement was put up before the
Competent Authority, ECL, H.Q. and the Competent
Authority has been pleased to accord approval for re-
instatement in service of Sri Babulal Bhuia, as communicated
vide letter No. ECL/CMD/C-60/IL/09/DA/1301 dated 11/
14.12.2010 the Dy. CPM (L & IR) ECL, HQ, Sri Babulal Bhuia
reported for medical examination before the Area Medical
Officer, Mugma Area on 30.03.2010, i.e., within 30 days of
getting communication that his re-instatement has been
considered subject to the following terms & conditions:—
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Sri Babulal Bhuia, should be declared medically fit by
the Medical Board.
2. That the employee concerned will not be entitled to
any back Wages for the period of his idleness.
3. That the ex-employee on reinstatement will be posted
in the underground wherever there is requirement.
4. That the ex-employees on such reinstatement in service
shall be on the probation for a minimum period of
1 (one) years and the same will be confirmed only on
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1451
receipt of satisfactory performance certification on
expiry of probation period by G.M., Mugma Area.
5. That the concerned ex-employee will un-conditionally
withdraw all pending claims/disputes raised, if any, by
him or any union in any forum/court of law relating to
his 'dismissal' and will submit "No Dispute Certificate
to the Management".
6. That the period of absence/idleness of the ex-employee
shall be treated as dies-non.
7. That the ex-employee will be allowed the benefit of
continuity of service for the period of his idleness for
the purpose of computation of his final gratuity
payment only.
8. That the concerned ex-employee in the even of
detection of his already withdrawing payment of
gratuity prior to re-instatement, shall refund the same
to the Management prior to his reinstatement in service.
In case management has deposited it with the ALC©/
Controlling Authority due to any reason whatsoever
may be, it will be allowed back by the depositing
authority on the ground of his re-instatement.
9. That in the event of detection of withdrawal of CMPF
accumulation by the ex-employee prior to re-
instatement, his case will be regulated as per the CMPF
Act/Rules.
Both the parties agreed to the above terms of
settlement and the matter is resolved herewith.
Sd/-
Sd/-
1. (A.K. Sinha), General
(Babulal Bhuia) Ex. U/G
Manager, Mugma Area,
Loader, U.M. No.
886484, Chapapur Colliery
2.
Sd/-
(P.K. Sinha), Personnel Manager (IC),
Mugma Area
WITNESSED BY
1. Makar Bouri, 119020,
2. Gabbar Singh 111009
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 617.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chñlhñlhñ,yñ ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 30@2011½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@2@2011&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2015
S.O. 617.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indutrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 30/2011 of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on25/03/2015.
[No. L-20012/2/2011-IR(CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS-
TRIAL 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. 30 OF 2011
PARTIES
:
The Vice President,
Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Qr. No. D-1-49,
PO: Bhuli Nagar, Distt; Dhanbad.
Vs.
The General Manager,
Lodna Area of M/s. BCCL, PO: Lodna Distt. Dhanbad.
Order No. L-20012/2/2011-IR(CM-I) dt. 18.10.2011.
APPERANCES:
On behalf of the workman/Union
: Mr. Kameshwar
Prasad,
Ld. Advocate
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. U.N. Lal,
Ld Advocate
State
: Jharkhand,
Industry
: Coal
Dated
: Dhanbad, the 30th
Jan. 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-20012/
2/2011-IR(CM-I) dt. 18.10.2011.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of Jayrampur
Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Smt. Bedamia
1452
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Bhuini, Ex. H/C. Stacker from the services of the
Company vide order dated 25.12.2002 is fair and
justified? To what relief the workman concerned is
entitled to?"
On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/2/2011-IR(CM-I)
dt. 18.10.2011 of the above mentioned reference from the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & employment,
New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference
Case No. 30 of 2011 was registered on 14.11.2011 and
accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue
notices through the Registered Posts to the parties
concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the
date fixed, and to file their written statements along with
the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,
notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties
concerned.
Both the parties made their appearances and filed their
pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The Union
and the O.P./Management through their own respective
Ld. Counsels appeared in, and contested the case.
2. The case of workman Bedamia Bhuini as sponsored
by the Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union is that she was a
permanent employee of Jayrampur Colliery working as the
Loading Mazdoor. Her right leg had fractured on 03.04.2001.
She had got herself admitted in the Company's Central
Hospital, Dhanbad on 05.04.2001. Her leg was operated,
plastered, continuously treated by the Compan's Doctor
from 05.04.2001 to 17.07.2003, the date she was declared fit
for resumption of duty. She was advised for complete bed
rest. Meanwhile she was issued the chargesheet on
07.01.2002, but she neither received it, nor got any Notice
of Enquiry, or any 2nd Show Cause. When she reported
the OP/Manager for duty, she got the dismissal order
dt. 25.12.2002 for unauthorized absence immediately, she
got the Industrial Dispute raised. The OP/Management
during conciliation proceedings submitted their negative
stand as per the letter dt. 13.01.2010, without producing
any charge sheet etc. It indicated the dismissal as
fabrication. There was no misconduct of habitual absence
under clause of the Certified Standing Orders of the
Company. Her last there years' attendances 223, 24, and 52
days in the years 1999, 2000 and 2001 (upto 3.4.2001) clearly
indicate she was not a habitual absentee. The period of her
absence was her sick period. The dismissal of the Lady
worker is highly illegal. So she is entitled to reinstatement
with her full back wages and all consequential benefits.
3. In the rejoinder on behalf of the lady worker, all the
allegations of the OP/Management have been specifically
denied, further alleging that the dismissal order was issued
on 25.12.2002 just nine days of the 2nd Show Cause which
waws issued on 16.12.2002. At least 15 days time is alleged
to reply to the 2nd Show Cause. Hence, the decision was
taken in haste and in a forged manner. There is no
prescription of limitation applicable to the I.D. Act., 1947.
The show disciplinary proceeding is fabricated.
4. Whereas the contra case of the OP/Management is
that the Lady worker Bedamia Devi was an Ex-H.C. Stacker
of Jayrampur colliery. She was unauthorisedly absent from
3.4.2001. She was issued the chargesheet dt. 07.01.2002
under clause 6.1.1. of the Certified Standing Order of the
Company for her habitual absence from duty
unauthorisedly. She did not reply to it within 07 days. On
the appointment of Personnel Officer M.P. Singh and
Sri P.K. Singh as the Enquiry Officer and the Management
Representative respectively as per the letter dt. 4.2.2002 of
the Disciplinary Authority for holding the domestic enquiry,
the female employee did not respond to the notice of
enquiry. At last, the Enquiry Officer on 04.10.2002 decided
to hold the enquiry ex-parte. After ex-party enquiry, the
Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report to the
Disciplinary Authority holding the charges proved against
her. The Disciplinary authority considered it and agreed
with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. A second Show
Cause Notice was issued to the female employment, then
the Disciplinary Authority awarded her with the penalty of
dismissal as per his letter dt. 25.12.2002, he Industrial
dispute was raised by the union concerned, on 27.11.2009
before the ALC© after the seven years of her dismissal.
On the notice dt. 08.12.2009 by the ALC©, Dhanbad, the
Project Officer, Jairampur, submitted his comment as per
the letter dt. 13.2.19 to the ALC/Conciliation Officer. The
Industrial dispute on failure of its reconciliation resulted
in the reference for an adjudication. The female employee
was given full opportunity according to the natural justice.
So the action of the Management in dismissing her is
justified.
The OP/Management in their simultaneous rejoinder
has categorically denied all the allegations of the Lady
employee as incorrect, further stating that no intimation
was given by her to the Management at the irrelevant time.
The Management sought a permission to prove the
chargesheet against her, in case the enquiry is found unfair
and improper.
FINDING WITH REASONS
5. In the instant reference, on acceptance of the enquiry
even ex-parte as fair. Mr. Kameshwar Pd. Ld. Advocate for
the Union/Lady worker the domestic enquiry was held as
fair by the Tribunal as per Order No. 19 dt. 03.04.2014. At
the same time the photocopies and the documents of the
Lady worker and the OP/Management as per their own
lists were respectively marked their Exhibits for due
considerations. It resulted in hearing the final arguments
of both the parties on merits.
Mr. U.N. Lal, Ld. Advocate for the OP/Management
has submitted that female employee Smt. Bedamia Bhuini,
the Ex-H.C. Stacker neither replied to her chargesheet for
her miscounduct of habitual absentism w.e.f. 3.4.2001 or to
the enquiry notifies (Extt. M. 3 series) or even to the 2nd
Show Cause (Ext. M. 7) nor appeared in the domestic enquiry
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1453
nor intimated to the OP/Management about herself, so he
was penalized with the penalty of her immediate dismissal
from service as per the letter of the Management's letter dt.
25.12.2002 (Ext. M. 8) wich was just in the nature of her
misconduct; as such, she deserves not any relief. In
response to it, Mr. Kameshwar Ld. Counsel for the
workwoman inter alia submits that she had been all along
under the treatment at the Central Hospital, Dhanbad, for
her right leg fracture from 03.04.2001 to 09.02.2002 as per
(her treatement documents in photocopies (Extt. W. 1
series); meanwhile after an ex-parte enquiry, she was
wrongly dismissed from her service as per the
Management's letter dt. 25.12.2002 (Ext. M. 8), as the alleged
total absence period in the chargesheet was the total period
of the treatment at the Company's Hospital; therefore, it
was purely a case of her sickness, but not that of her
unauthorized absence; and as such his dismissal is illegal
and unjustified, and hence, she is entitled to reinstatement
with full back wages with all consequential benefits.
On due consideration of all the materials, I find that
the delinquent lady employee failed to intimate her long
absence from duty caused by her illness and long absence
from duty caused by her illness and long treatment during
the OP/Management at the relevant time. Nor she took
care of discharging her liability to inform of her critical
position for her right legal fracture, and its treatment as
she was all along treated as the ODT patient at the Central
Hospital, Dhanbad, as evident from the prescriptions.
Under these circumstance, it is awarded that the action
the Management of Jayrmapur Colliery of M/s BCCL in
dismising Smt. Bedamia Bhuini, ex-H/C Stacker from the
services of the Company as per order dt. 25.12.2002 is fair
and justified. Therefore, workman is not entitled to
reinstatement with back wages except her any other legal
services dues, if any from the OP/Management.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 618.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chñlhñlhñ,yñ ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 29@2008½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@24@2008&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2015
S.O. 618.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (4 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 29/2008 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s BCCL and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 25/03/2015.
[No.-L-20012/24/2008-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT
:
Shri Kishori Ram,
Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.
REFENCE NO. 29 OF 2008.
PARTIES
:
The Joint Gen. Secretary.
Bahujan Mazdoor Union, C/o Amresh Prasad
Bhulan Bhuli Type.
Dhanbad.
Vs.
The General Manager,
C.V. Area of M/s BCCL, PO: Barakr, Distt: Burdwan
Order No. L-20012/24/2008-IR(CM-I) dt. 28.04.2008.
APPREARANCES:
On behalf of the workman/Union
: Mr. R. R. Ram,
Ld. Union Repre-
sentative
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. S. N. Ghosh,
Ld. Advocate
State
: Jharkhand
Industry
: Coal
Dhanbad, Dated : the 29th Jan. 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-20012/
24/2008-IR(CM-I) dt. 28.04.2008.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of
Basantimata Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing Sh. Monga
Bouri, Miner from the services of the Compay w.e.f.
12.08.2006 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the
concerned workman entitled?
1454
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. Mr. R.R. Ram, the Representative of the Union
concerned and Mr. S.N. Ghosh, Ld. Advocate for OP/
Management are present, but neither rejoinder of the
workman nor any documents have been filed on behalf of
the either side. Meanwhile the aforesaid Union
Representative as the Joint General Secretary by filling a
petition to day duly seen by Mr. Ghosh under his signature
has submitted that the workman Sri Monga Bauri is
traceless as such the Union is unable to further contest the
case.
In view of the aforesaid situation, I find it is no longer
an Industrial Dispute as referred in the reference which is
related to an issue about the dismissal of the workman.
Hence the case is closed as "No Industrial Dispute" existing.
Therefore' an order of No Dispute Award is passed.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 619.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chñlhñlhñ,yñ ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 03@2008½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@03@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@135@2007&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2015
S.O. 619.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 03/2008 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s BCCL and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 25/03/2015.
[No. L-20012/135/2007-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT
:
Shri Kishori Ram,
Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.
REFENCE NO. 03 OF 2008
PARTIES
:
General Secretary,
Koyla Ispat Mazdoor Panchyat,
At: Chhatabad No. 5. Post: Katras,
Dhanbad (Jharkhand)-826001
Vs.
The General Manager,
Sijua Area of M/s BCCL, PO: Sijua, Dhanbad
Order No. L-20012/135/2007-IR(CM-I) dt. 31.12.2007.
APPREARANCES:
On behalf of the workman/Union
: Mr. B.B. Pandey
Ld. Advocate
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. D. K. Verma
Ld. Advocate
State
: Jharkhand
Industry
: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad : the 20th Jan. 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-20012/
135/2007-IR(CM-I) dt. 31.12.2007.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of Sendra
Bansjora Colliery of M/s M/s BCCL in dismissing the
service of Sh. Kamla Kant Chatterjee, Minor Loader .w.e.f.
20.08.2005 is justified and legal? If not, to what relief is the
concerned workman entitled?
On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/135/2007-IR
(CM-I) dt. 31.12.2007, of the above mentioned reference
from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute,
the Reference Case No. 03 of 2008 was registered on
15.01.2008 and accordingly an order to that effect was
passed to issue notices through the Registered Posts to
the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court
on the date fixed, and to file their wirtten statements along
with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,
notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties
concerned.
Both the parties made their appearances and filed their
pleading and photocopies of their documents. The Union
and the O.P./Mangement through their own respective Ld.
Counsels appeared in, and contested the case.
2. The case of workman Kamlakant Chatterjee as
sponsored by the Koyla Ispat Mazdoor Panchayat,
Dhanbad, is that the workman was a permanent employee
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1455
of M/s BCCL was working as M/Loader at Sendra Bansjra
Colliery under Sijua Area. After taking casual leave from
Feb., 12.14.2005, he had gone to his native village where he
fell sick; he had informed the Management of it on 16.02.2005
and 23.04.2005. On recovery, he had gone to report for his
duty on 09.05.2005 along with his Certificates of UPC and
fitness issued by the Doctor concerned, but he was not
allowed to resume his duty, and finally was dismissed from
his service w.e.f. 20.08.2005. He was forced to remain idle
from 09.05.2005 to 19.08.2005. The alleged departmental
enquiry was not in accordance with the principles of natural
justice, as his points raised by him were unconsidered.
Awarding him with the major penalty dismissal in place of
minor penalty is entitled for reinstatement with the
continuity of his service and other due benefits.
The workman in his rejoinder has specifically denied
all the allegations of the OP/Management.
3. Whereas, challenging the instant Reference as
mintainable, the case of the OP/Management is that the
workman concerned was an employee of Sendra Bansjora
Colliery under Sijua Area, but he was a habitual absentee,
as he was not regular in his work as evident from his three
years past record of attendances-32,14, and 105 days in
the year 2002 to 2004 respectively. He was previously
awarded with censor, stoppage of 3 SPRA, and warning for
his unauthorized absences w.e.f. 7.2.2002, 4.2.2003 and
08.06.2004 respectively. Likewise, he had unauthorizedly
absented from his duty w.e.f 15.02.2005, for the misconduct
of which he was issued the chargesheet dt. 26.5.2005. He
did not submit his reply to it. On the appointment of Senior
Personnel Officer, Ved Prakash as the Enquiry Office by
the Management, the domestic enquiry was fairly
conducted in the presence of the workman according to
the principle of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer
submitted his enquiry report, holding the workman guilty
of the charges. Even on the Second Show Cause Notice
with the enquiry Report to the workman by the Disciplinary
Authority, he had not submitted proper explanation. The
Management dismissed the workman .w.e.f. 20.08.2005 for
his provided misconduct. In case, the domestic enquiry
found unfair by the Tribunal at preliminary point, the OP/
Management sought a permission to adduce evidence
afresh to prove the charges. So the dismissal of the
workman by the Disciplinary Authority is legal, justified
and proportionate to the misconduct, the workman is not
entitled to any relief.
The OP/Management in its simultaneously rejoinder
has categorically denied the allegations of the workman as
wrong, further stating that the workman was a habitual
absentee, and despite several times afforded to the
workman for improving himself, he committed the same
misconduct.
FINDING WITH REASONS
4. In the instant case, in course of hearing at the
preliminary point as to the fairness of the domestic enquiry,
the workman as per his petition dt. 21.07.14 has accepted
the fairness of the enquiry. In result, the Tribunal as per the
Order No. 28 dt. 21.07.14 held the domestic enquiry as fair
and proper. Hence, it comes up for hearing the final
argument of both the parties on merits.
Mr. B.B. Pandey, Learned Advocate for the Union/
workman has submitted that the workman had served the
Company for 14-15 days after his employment on
compassionate ground in the year 1998, but he was issued
the chargesheet to be replied within 48 days, which is meant
for a minor punishment, but not for a major one; he had
also replied, yet he was dismissed from service w.e.f.
20.07.2005 for his absentism; and thus, awarding the
workman with dismissal penalty appears to be
disproportionate to the nature of this absentism, so he is
entitled to reinstatement in service. But adversely, Mr. D.K.
Verma, Ld. Counsel for the OP/Management has contended
that despite the exchequered record of the workman's
services containing same misconducts of absentism, he
was given resumption of his duty subject to the censor
and stoppage of 3 SPRA etc., he failed to improve himself;
hence the dismissal punishment for the instant misconduct
of the workman is quite just and proper; so he is not entitled
to any relief.
5. On the perusal and consideration of the materials, it
appears to be no didpute that the workman was a permanent
M/Loader. It is also beyond dispute that the workman had
gone home by taking two days Casual Leave from Feb., 12
to 14, 2005, thereafter he had fallen sick during the aforesaid
absentee period. Though he claims to have reported to it
to the Management through Under Postal Certificate (UPC)
of which receipt had filed in the enquiry; due to his
sickness, he appears to have absented. Moreover, the
workman appears to have begged pardon for his aforesaid
misconduct otherwise he would be dismissed from such
misconduct, if committed, further.
6. In the instant case, no second Show Cause was
issued to the workman for his proposed such punishment
of dismissal, as the alleged second Show Cause Notice dt.
12/15.07.2005 (Ext. M.7) relates to the issuance of
chargesheet and the appointment of Mr. Ved Prakash Sr.
Personnel Officer as Enquiry Officer. Under these
circumstances, the workman appears to be deprived of the
due opportunity to represent before his dismissal. In view
of the permanent status of the workman, the absolute
dismissal of the workman from his service appears to be
very harsh and shocking in view of his misconduct due to
unavoidable explained reasons. Hence, the Dismissal Order
dt. 18/20.08.2005 is liable to be set aside u/s 11 A of the
industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
In result it is hereby awarded that action of the
Management of Sendra Bansjora Colliery of M/s. BCCL in
dismissing the services of Sh. Kamla Kant Chatterjee, the
1456
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
M/Loader w.e.f. 20.08.2005 is not justified nor legal.
Therefore, the workman concerned is entitled to restatement
in the service of the Company but without back wages yet
maintaining continuity of her service.
The Management is directed to implement the Award
within a month from the date of its receipt following its
publication in the Gazette of India.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 620.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chñlhñlhñ,yñ ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 38@2008½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-03-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@44@2008&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2015
S.O. 620.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 38/2008 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 25.03.2015.
[No. L-20012/44/2008-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT
:
Shri Kishori Ram,
Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
REFERENCE NO. 38 OF 2008
PARTIES
:
The Secretary,
Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,
Jharnapara, Hirapur, Dhanbad.
Vs.
The General Manager,
Katras Area of M/s. BCCL, PO: Katras, Dhanbad.
Order No. L-20012/44/2008-IR(CM-I) dt. 28.05.2008.
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the workman/Union
: Mr. K. Chakraborty
Ld. Advocate
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. D.K. Verma,
Ld. Advocate
State
: Jharkhand
Industry
: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad : the 29th Jan. 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-20012/
44/2008-IR(CM-I) dt. 28.05.2008.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of West
Mudidih Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not regularizing
the services of Shri Dharmendra Kumar as Driver
w.e.f. May, 2000 and as Dumper Operator/Haul Pack
Operator w.e.f. April, 2005 is justified and legal? (ii)
To what relief is the concerned workman entitled and
from what date?"
2. Neither the Union Representative for Bihar Colliery
Kamgar Union nor workman Dharmendra Kumar appeared
nor any rejoinder with documents filed on behalf of the
workmen nor by the Management. But Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld.
Advocate for the OP/Management is present as usual.
From the perusal of the case record, it appears that the
case has been all along pending for filing a rejoinder on
behalf of the workman and the documents on behalf of the
both the parties since 04.04.2012 for which three Regd.
Notices dt. 4.4.12, 16.01.2014 and 31.05.13 were issued to
the Secretary of the Union concerned on the same address
as noted in the Reference itself, yet no response either
from the Union Representative or from the workmen himself.
The very conducts of the Union Representative and the
workmen himself appear to be their uninterestedness and
reluctant to peruse the case for its finality. The instant
reference is related to an issue of regularisation. Under
these circumstances, it is no longer an Industrial Dispute.
Accordingly an order of 'No Dispute' is passed.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 621.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chñlhñlhñ,yñ ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1457
U;k;ky;] uñ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 37@2008½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-03-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@46@2008&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2015
S.O. 621.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 37/2008 of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 25.03.2015.
[No. L-20012/46/2008-IR(CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT
:
Shri Kishori Ram,
Presiding Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
REFERENCE NO 37 OF 2008
PARTIES
:
The Secretary,
Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,
Jharnapara, Hirapur, Dhanbad.
Vs.
The General Manager,
Katras Area of M/s. BCCL, PO: Katras, Dhanbad.
Order No. L-20012/46/2008-IR(CM-I) dt. 28.05.2008.
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the workman/Union
: Mr. K. Chakraborty
Ld. Advocate
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. D.K. Verma,
Ld. Advocate
State
: Jharkhand
Industry
: Coal
Dated : Dhanbad, the 29th Jan. 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-20012/
46/2008-IR(CM-I) dt. 28.05.2008.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of West
Mudidih Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not regularizing S/
Sh. Rambali Dusadh, Mukeshwar Oraon and
Meghala Mahato as Driver w.e.f. May, 2000 and as
Dumper Operator/Haul Pack Operator w.e.f. April,
2005 is justified and legal? (ii) To what relief are the
concerned workman entitled and from what date?"
2. Neither the Union Representative for workmen
S/Sh. Rambali Dusadh, Mukehswar Oraon and Meghalal
Mahato appeared nor rejoinder nor any doduments on their
behalf filed despite three registered notices, each issued to
the Secretary of Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union on the address
as noted in the Reference. But Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate
for the OP/Management is present as usual.
From the perusal of the case record, it appears that it
has all along been pending for filing a rejoinder and the
documents on behalf of the workmen, for which several
opportunities have been given. The Union Representative
as well as the workmen by their conducts appear to be
uninterested or reluctant in pursuing the case for finality.
The instant reference relates to an issue of non-
regularization of three workmen. Under these circumstances,
the case is closed as 'No Industrial Dispute' existing. Hence;
an order to that effect is passed.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 622.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lhñlhñ,yñ 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;] uñ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 80@2000½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-03-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@4@2000&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2015
S.O. 622.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 80/2000 of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour No. 2, Dhanbad as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the managemnet of M/s. CCL and their workmen, received
by the Central Government of 25/03/2015.
[No. L-20012/4/2000-IR(CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
1458
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. 80 OF 2000
Parties
:
Omilal Azad
Area Secretary
United Coal Workers' Union
PO & Distt: Giridih
Vs.
General Manager,
Giridih Area of M/s CCL, PO: Beniadih, Distt; Giridih.
Ministry's Order No. L-20012/4/2000-(C-I) dt. 24.07.2000
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the workman/Union
: None.
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. D.K. Verma
Ld. Adv.
State
: Jharkhand
Industry
: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad: the 8th Jan. 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-
20012/4/2000(C-I) dt. 24.07.2000.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of Giridih
Area of M/s CCL in not regularizing Sri Gujar Das in Time
Rated job as E.P. Greaser/Helper is justified? If not, to what
relief the concerned workman is entitled and from what
date?"
2. Neither union Representative for the United Coal
Workers Union, Giridih nor workman Gujar Das appeared
nor any witness on his behalf produced. But Mr. D.K.
Verma, the Ld. Advocate for the OP/Management of Giridih
Area of M/s CCL is present.
From the perusal of the case record, it appears that
despite three Regd. Notices which were issued to the
Secretary of the Union concerned on his address has noted
in the reference itself on 12.06.14, 14.07.2008 and 17.11.2014,
none appeared on behalf of the workman nor any witness
produced on his behalf. It has been pending for the
evidence of the workman since 14.06.2006. The Union
Representative as well as the workman by his own conduct
appears to be quite unwilling to contest the case for its
finality.
Under these circumstances, it seems nor longer an
Industrial Dispute existing. Hence, the case is closed as
No Industrial Dispute. Accordingly, it is passed on Order
of 'No Dispute Award'.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 623.—tcfd eSllZ bZ,lih,u lkW¶Vos;j bafM;k izkbZosV
fyfeVsM] [dksM la[;k Mh,y@19955 ds varZxr fnYyh ¼lkmFk½ {ks=
esa] ¼,rnqijkUr izfr"Bku ds :i esa lanfHkZr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/
k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k vf/kfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½ ¼,rnqijkUr
vf/kfu;e ds :i esa lanfHkZr½ dh /kkjk 17 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds
[k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA
2- vkSj tcfd dsUnzh; ljdkj ds fopkj esa] va'knku dh njksa ds
laca/k esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/k fu;e mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk
6 esa fofufnZ"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de mi;qDr
ugha gSa vkSj deZpkjh mDr vf/kfu;e vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k
;kstuk] 1952 ¼,rnqijkUr ;kstuk ds :i esa lanfHkZr½ ds varxZr
ln`'k Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/k esa nh
tkus okyh vU; Hkfo"; fuf/k izlqfo/kkvksa dk Hkh ykHk mBk jgs gSaA
3- vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 17 dh
mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,
vkSj bl vf/klwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds v/;/khu] mDr izfr"Bku
dks 01-04-2007 ls vxyh vf/klwpuk rd mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh micaèksa
ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gSA
[lañ ,l&35015@101@2014&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
vuqca/k
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k ;kstuk] 1952 ds mica/kksa ls NwV iznku djus
laca/kh 'krs±
1- fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUnzh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh; Hkfo";
fuf/k vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] }kjk fn, tkus okys ,sls funs'kksa ds
vuqlkj Hkfo"; fuf/k ds izca/ku gsrq viuh v/;{krk esa ,d U;klh
cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fuf/k U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr gksxh tks vU;
ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k laxBu ds izfr Hkfo";
fuf/k esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa vkSj mudh
vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mÙkjnk;h gksxkA bl iz;kstukFkZ] ^^fu;ksDrk**
ls%—
(i) fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds laca/k esa] dkj[kkus
dk Lokeh vFkok vf/k"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk( vkSj
(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds laca/k esa] og O;fDr] vFkok
izkf/kdkjh vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt
ij vafre fu;a=.k gksA
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1459
2- U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj cSBd djsxk
vkSj og dsUnz ljdkj@dsUnh; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr ¼lhih,Qlh½
vFkok mlds }kjk izkf/kd`r fdlh vf/kdkjh }kjk le;≤ ij tkjh
fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj dk;Z djsxkA
3- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2¼p½ esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]
tks Hkfo"; fuf/k ds lnL; cuus ds ik= jgsa gSa] ;fn izfr"Bku dks NwV
iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;ksa ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k tk,xkA
4- tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr izfr"Bku
ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k vFkok Hkfo"; fuf/k dk lnL; gks] mls
mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] tks fu;ksDrk mls rRdky
fuf/k ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA fu;ksDrk ,sls deZpkjh ds
Hkfo"; fuf/k [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk ls lap; jkf'k;ka varfjr
vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxkA
5- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/k dks mlds }kjk vkSj deZpkjh ds }kjk
le;≤ ij vf/kfu;e ds varxZr fu/kkZfjr nj ls ns; va'knku
dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa] mlds ckn ds ekg dh
15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh cksMZ dks
fdUgha ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7
ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj lk/kkj.k C;kt vnk djus dk nk;h gksxkA
6- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/k ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu djsxk vkSj
pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nqfoZfu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k ls Hkfo";
fuf/k dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxkA
7- U;klh cksMZ }kjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh fu;ksDrk }kjk
iwjk fd;k tkuk gksxk vkSj mls lkafof/kd lhek rd ykuk gksxkA
8- fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksf/kr fd, tk,a] leqfpr
izkf/kdkjh }kjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fuf/k ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr
vf/kla[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku ds
lwpuk iV ij iznf'kZr djsxkA
9- izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/k fu;eksa ds varxZr fu/kkZfjr ns; va'knku
dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=k rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj lnL; ds
ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxfBr vkSj U;klh cksMZ }kjk ?kksf"kr] izR;sd
lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vf/kfu;e vkSj mlds varxZr
fufeZr ;kstuk esa fu/kkZfjr fofHkUu mica/kksa ds varxZr dsUnz ljdkj
}kjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxkA
10- ;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kks/ku] tks izfr"Bku ds fo|eku fu;eksa dh
rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vf/kd ykHknk;d gks] mls U;kl ds
fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kks/ku ds yafcr jgrs mu ij Lor% ykxw fd;k
tk,xkA
11- fu;ksDrk }kjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kks/ku {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k
vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=h; Hkfo";
fuf/k vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks viuk #[k
Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxkA
12- fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh Hkfo";
fuf/k laxBu }kjk fu/kkZfjr vf/kdre le; lhek ds Hkhrj] 'kh?kzrk ls
fuiVk,a tk,axsA
13- U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds laca/k esa tek fd, x, va'knku]
fudklh vkSj C;kt n'kkZus ds fy, foLrfjr ys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko djsxkA
,sls vfHkys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko vf/kekur% bySDVªksfud :i ls j[kk
tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkof/kd :i ls tc dHkh dsUnzh; Hkfo"; fuf/k
vk;qDr@{ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr }kjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds
ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls lEizsf"kr djsaxsA
14- U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foÙkh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr gksus ds
N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk okf"kZd
fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa] vfrfjDr
fizaVvkWmV ukeek= ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyC/k djk, tk ldrs gSaA
iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls izLrqr fd, tkus
ij U;kfl;ksa }kjk vkof/kd :i ls v|ru fd;k tk,xkA
15- fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj
VfeZuyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus ds
fy, vko';d izko/kku djsaxsA
16- U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k laxBu }kjk
;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofufnZ"V le; lhek ds Hkhrj
ekfld@okf"kZd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd ekuk
tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj vyx&vyx]
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k laxBu }kjk dh tkus okyh mi;qDr nkf.Md
dkjZokbZ dh Hkkxh gksaxsA
17- U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj
Hkfo"; fuf/k ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj
fuos'k djus esa vlQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj la;qDr
:i ls dsUnzh; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfuf/k }kjk ;Fkk
vf/kjksfir vf/k'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xkA
18- ¼d½ izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl izdkj
izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd ¼MhesV½ :i esa gksuh pkfg, rFkk
U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=ksa esa visf{kr lqfo/kk ds miyC/k u
gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr dks
bldh lwpuk nsaxsA
¼[k½ U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh le;
ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxkA
¼x½ MhesV [kkrk bl laca/k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk tkjh vuqns'kksa
ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vuqeksfnr
fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ek/;e ls [kksyk tk,A
¼?k½ MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;k; }kjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k dk
izklafxd O;; O;; ekuk tk,A izfrHkwfr;ka vkfn dh [kjhn dh nykyh
tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh U;kl }kjk fd, tkus okys
fuos'k dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk,xkA
1460
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
19- izfrHkwfr;kas vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls lHkh fuos'k Hkkjrh;
fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa
dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxsA LFkkiuk
dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k] 1952 ls NwV ij ;g
laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s fuos'k dks
lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds] vuqjks/k ij
lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr dks lh/ks varfjr djsxkA
20- LFkkiuk lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr dks mu fu{ksikxkj
izfrHkkfx;ksa ¼Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vuqeksfnr½
ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftuds ikl rFkk ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk
esa U;kl ds uke ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn esa
fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSaA rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml /kujkf'k dh
mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj vfxzeksa dh
eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL; ds Hkfo";
fuf/k lap;u ds varj.k vkSj izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh }kjk vU; fdlh
izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds
'krkZ/khu fuf/k ds uke esa iM+s vU; fuos'kksa tSls ck/;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk
djus ds fy, visf{kr gksaA
21- U;kl }kjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foÙkh; ;k vU;
laLFkkvksa }kjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu] cksul ;k vU;
vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,aA
22- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus dh
lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFk ;g oSf/kd :i ls fu;ksDrk vkSj
U;klh cksMZ ds mÙkjkf/kdkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'krksa ij muds lkFk&lkFk
ck/;dkjh gksxkA
23- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus dh fLFkfr esa lacaf/kr
{ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr }kjk fofgr le; lhek ds Hkhrj rRdky
fuf/k;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxkA ;g mu ij dkuwuh :i ls
ck/;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fuf/k;ksa ds varj.k esa dksbZ foyac gksus gh
fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh cuk,xkA
24- ¼d½ U;klh cksMZ }kjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fuf/k [kkrk fdlh
;ksX; Lora= pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj }kjk okf"kZd :i ls ys[kk&ijh{kk djus ds
'krkZ/khu gksxkA tgka Hkh vko';d le>k tk,] ogka deZpkjh Hkfo";
fuf/k laxBu dks vf/kdkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU; ;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd
}kjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl izdkj gq, [kpZ fu;ksDrk
}kjk ogu fd, tk,axsA
¼[k½ ys[kk&ijh{kdksa }kjk foÙkh; o"kZ vFkkZr 1 vizSy ls 31 ekpZ
rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj ys[kk&ijh{khr rqyu&i=
lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ dh izfr lh/ks bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr
dh tk,A rqyu&i= dk izk:i vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr dh tkus okyh
tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k laxBu }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh tk,xh rFkk
lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr ds dk;kZy; esa bySDVªkWfud izk:i
ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi esa miyC/k djkbZ tk,xhA
¼x½ ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk
vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vf/kd ds fy, fu;qDr
u fd;k tk,A
25- yxkrkj rhu foÙkh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vk/kkj esa
dVkSrh dks vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr gksxhA
26- fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj fujh{k.k
gsrq ,slh lqfo/kkvksa dk izko/kku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k izHkkjksa dk
Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 17 ds
mi&[k.M ¼3½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr le;≤ ij fn, funsZ'kksa
ds vuqlkj gksaA
27- U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDrk }kjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds fdlh
mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacaf/kr O;fDr dks bl laca/k esa
dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh tk,xhA
28- fdlh Hkh /kks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds QyLo:i
VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr esa fu;ksDrk uqdlku iwjk djus
dk Hkkxh gksxkA
29- fdlh foy;] vfoy; vfHkxzg.k fcØh ,dhdj.k] lgk;d
daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha bR;kfn ds
QyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh cnyko gksrk gS
rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ NwV nsus ds fy,
ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg,A
30- ,d gh Hkfo"; fuf/k VªLV esa ,d ls vf/kd bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa ds
Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkbZ;ksa ds fdlh Hkh VªLVh@fu;ksDrk
}kjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls ,oa vyx ls
ftEesnkj@mÙkjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,Qlh vke Hkfo"; fuf/k VªLV ds
lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo#) mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ djsxkA
31- NwV izkIr U;kl fuf/k ds vf/kxzg.k ds ekeys esa] varjh; C;kt
ds dkj.k gkfu ds vuqekfur fuoy orZeku ewY; dh olwyh izfr"Bku
ls dh tkuh pkfg,A
32- dsUnz ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy, 'krks± dks
c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s izfr"Bku bu
vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ck/; gksaxsA
New Delhi, the 26th March, 2015
S.O. 623.—Whereas M/s. ESPN Software India Pvt.
Limited [under Code No. DL/19955 in Delhi (South) region]
(hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied
for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section
17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as
the Act).
2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central
Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said
establishment with respect to the rate of contribution are
not less favourable to employees therein than those
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1461
specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees are
also in enjoyment of the other provident fund benefits
provided under the said Act or under the Employees'
Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as
the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other
establishment of similar character.
3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said
Act and subject to the conditions annexed with this
notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the
said establishment from the operation of all the provisions
of the said Scheme with effect from 01-04-2007 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/101/2014-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM
THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1. The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees
under his Chairmanship for the management of the
Provident Fund according to such directions as may be
given by the Central Government or the Central Provident
Fund Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time.
The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees
who will be responsible for and accountable to the
Employees Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for
proper accounts of the receipts into and payment from the
Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For this
purpose, the "employer" shall mean:—
(i) In relation to an establishment, which is a factory,
the owner or occupier of the factory: and
(ii) In relation to any establishment, the person who,
or the authority, that has the ultimate control over
the affairs of the establishment.
2. The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in
every three months and shall function in accordance with
the guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the
Central Government/Central Provident Fund Commissioner
(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3. All employees' as defined in section 2(f) of the act,
who have been eligible to become members of the Provident
Fund' had the establishment not been granted exemption,
shall be enrolled as members.
4. Where an employee who is already a member of
Employees' Provident Fund or a Provident Fund of any
other exempted establishment is employed in his
establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him
as a member of the fund. The employer should also arrange
to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account
of such employee with his previous employer transferred
and credited into his account.
5. The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees
the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself
and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from
time to time by the 15th of each month following the month
for which the contributions are payable. The employer shall
be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of
Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues
towards the Board of Trustees.
6. The employer shall bear all the expenses of the
administration of Provident Fund and also make good any
other loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due
to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any
other reason.
7. Any deficiency in the interest declared by the Board
of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to bring it
up to the statutory limit.
8. The employer shall display on the notice board of
the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when
amended thereto along with a translation in the language
of the majority of the employees.
9. The rate of contributions payable, the conditions
and quantum of advances and other matters laid down
under the provident fund rules of the establishment and
the interest credited to the account of each member,
calculated on the monthly running balance of the member
and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower
than those declared by the Central Government under the
various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme framed
thereunder.
10. Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more
beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them
automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of
the Trust.
11. No amendment in the rules shall be made by the
employer without the prior approval of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give a
reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their
point of view.
12. All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers
should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
1462
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
frame prescribed by the Employees' Provident Fund
Organisation.
13. The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed
accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal
and interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance
of such records should preferably be done electronically.
The establishments should periodically transmit the details
of members' accounts electronically as and when directed
by the Central Provident Commissioner/Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner.
14. The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual
statement of accounts or passbooks to every employee
within six months of the close of financial/accounting year
free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be
made available as and when the members want, subject to
nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain
in custody of employee to be updated periodically by the
Trustees when presented to them.
15. The employer shall make necessary provisions to
enable all the members to be able to see their account
balance from the computer terminals as and when required
by them.
16. The Board of Trustees and the employer shall file
such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by
the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation within the
specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a
default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly
and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation.
17. The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of
the provident fund as per the directions of the Government
from time to time. Failure to make investments as per
directions of the Government shall make the Board of
Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may
be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner
or his representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of
Trust. The securities so obtained should be in
dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the required
facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates
the Board of Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script wise
register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India
and Central Government in accordance with the
instructions issued by the Central Government in this
regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should
be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust.
Also all types of investments like brokerage for purchase
of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental cost of
investment by the Trust.
19. All such investments made like purchase of
securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody
of depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of
India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian
of the same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or
cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such
custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the
name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional
PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request
from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that effect.
20. The establishment shall intimate to the Regional
P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),
with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments
made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in
securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the
Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money
as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such
as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules and
transfer of member's PF accumulations in the event of his/
her leaving service of the employer and any other receipts
by sale of the securities or other investments standing in
the name of the Fund subject to the prior approval of the
Regional PF Commissioner.
21. Any commission, incentive, bonus or other
pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other
institutions for the investments made by the Trust should
be credited to its account.
22. The employer and the members of the Board of
Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to
abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding
on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their
successors and assignees.
23. The employer and the the Board of Trustees shall
also give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly
within the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in
the event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally
binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution
in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained
by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a
qualified independent chartered accountant annually.
Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1463
to have the accounts re-audited by any other qualified
auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by the
employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor's report alongwith the
audited balance sheet should be submitted to this office
by the Auditors directly within six months after the closing
of the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The
format of the balance sheet and the information to be
furnished in the report shall be prescribed by the
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation and made
available with the RPFC office in electronic format at well
as signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for
two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding financial
year.
25. Any loss for the three consecutive financial years
or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding financial
year.
26. The employer shall provide for such facilities for
inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central
Government may from time to time direct under clause (a)
of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15 days
from the close of every month.
27. In the event of any violation of the conditions for
grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of
Trustees, the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after
issuing a show-cause notice in this regard to the concerned
persons.
28. In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of
any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc.
the employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29. In case of any change of legal status of the
establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition,
sale, amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether
wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand
revoked and the establishment should promptly report the
matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30. In case there are more than one unit/establishment
participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all the
trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/responsible
for any default committed by any of the trustees/employer
of any of the participating units and the RPFC shall take
suitable legal action against all the trustees of the common
Provident Fund Trust.
31. In case of takeover of the exempted Trust Fund,
estimated net present value of the loss of differential interest
should be recovered from the establishment.
32. The Central Government may lay down further
conditions for continuation of exemption of the
establishment and the establishment shall be bound to
comply with these additional conditions as and when the
same are communicated.
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 624.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k vkSj
izdh.kZ mica/k vf/kfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½ dh /kkjk 14dx
}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, vkSj bl laca/k eas tkjh dh xbZ
vf/klwpuk lañ dkñvkñ 2874] rkjh[k 08-10-2008 dks vf/kØkar djrs
gq,] Øe'k% mu lHkh izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDrksa dks] ftlds {ks=
es LFkkiu ;k mldk eq[; dk;kZy; vkrk gS] iwoksZDr /kkjk ds mica/kksa
ds v/khu dsUnzh; Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr esa fufgRr 'kfDr;ksa dk] iz;ksx
djus ds fy, Hkh izkf/kd`r djrh gSA
vuqlwph
1- jk"Vªh; jkt/kkuh jkT;{ks=] fnYyhA
2- vka/kz izns'k jkT; rFkk iqMqpsjh la?k jkT;{ks= dk ;ue {ks=A
3- vle] v#.kkpy izns'k] ukxky®M] ef.kiqj] es?kky;] fetksje
vkSj f=iqjk jkT;A
4- fcgkj jkT;A
5- NÙkhlx<+ jkT;A
6- xksok jkT;A
7- xqtjkr jkT;] ne.k vkSj }hi rFkk nknjk vkSj ukxj gosyh
la?k jkT;{ks=A
8- gfj;k.kk jkT;A
9- fgekpy izns'k jkT;A
10- >kj[kaM jkT;A
11- dukZVd jkT;A
12- dsjy jkT;] y{k}hi dk la?k jkT;{ks= rFkk iqMqpsjh la?k jkT;{ks=
dk ekgs {ks=A
13- e/; izns'k jkT;A
14- egkjk"Vª jkT;A
15- vksfM'kk jkT;A
16- iatkc jkT; rFkk paMhx<+ la?k jkT;{ks=A
17- jktLFkku jkT;A
18- rfeyukMq jkT; rFkk iqMqpsjh la?k jkT;{ks= ds ekgs vkSj ;ue
{ks= ds flok;A
19- mÙkjk[kaM jkT;A
20- mÙkj izns'kA
21- if'peh caxky jkT; ,oa vaMeku vkSj fudksckj }hi lewg
la?k jkT;{ks= rFkk flfDde jkT;A
22- rsyaxkuk jkT; ¼02-06-2014 dks izHkkoh½A
[lañ ,l&35012@02@2008&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
1464
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 26th March, 2015
S.O. 624.—In exercise of powers conferred by section
14 AC of the Employees' Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) and in
supersession of notification no. S.O. 2874 dated 08.10.2008
issued in this regard, the Central Government hereby
authorizes that the powers vested in the Central Provident
Fund Commissioner under the provisions of the above
said section shall also be exercisable within each of the
regions specified in the Schedule by the respective Regional
Providents Fund Commissioners in whose region the
establishment is covered or has its Head Office.
SCHEDULE
1.
The National Capital Territory of Delhi.
2.
The State of Andhra Pradesh and the Yanam area of
the Union Territory of Puducherry.
3.
The States of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland,
Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tripura.
4.
The State of Bihar.
5.
The State of Chhattisgarh.
6.
The State of Goa.
7.
The State of Gujarat, the Union Territory of Daman
and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli.
8.
The State of Haryana.
9.
The State of Himachal Pradesh.
10.
The State of Jharkhand.
11.
The State of Karnataka.
12.
The State of Kerala, the Union Territory of
Lakshadweep and the Mahe area of the Union
Territory of Puducherry.
13.
The State of Madhya Pradesh.
14.
The State of Maharashtra.
15.
The State of Odisha.
16.
The State of Punjab and Union Territory of
Chandigarh.
17.
The State of Rajasthan.
18.
The State of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of
Puducherry except the Mahe and Yanam area of the
Union Territory.
19.
The State of Uttarakhand.
20.
The State of Uttar Pradesh.
21.
The State of West Bengal and Union Territory of
Andaman and Nicobar Island and the State of Sikkim.
22.
The State of Telangana (w.e.f. 02.06.2014)
[No. S-35012/03/2008-S.S. II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 625.—tcfd eSllZ VkVk ekdksZiksyks eksVlZ fyfeVsM
[dksM la[;k ;wñihñ@43067@ds varxZr y[kuÅ mi&{ks=h; dk;kZy;
esa] ¼,rnqijkUr izfr"Bku ds :i esa lanfHkZr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufè
,oa izdh.kZ micaè vfèfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½ ¼,rnqijkUr
vfèfu;e ds :i esa lanfHkZr½ dh èkjk 17 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds
[k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA
2- vkSj tcfd dsUnzh; ljdkj ds fopkj esa] va'knku dh njksa ds
lacaè esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufè fu;e mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk
6 esa fofufnZ"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de mi;qDr
ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh mDr vfèfu;e vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufè
;kstuk] 1952 ¼,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lanfHkZr½ ds varxZr
ln`'k Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds lacaè esa nh
tkus okyh vU; Hkfo"; fufè izlqfoèkvksa dk Hkh ykHk mBk jgs g®A
3- vr%] vc dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 17 dh
mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq,
vkSj bl vfèlwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds v/;èhu] mDr izfr"Bku
dks bl vfèlwpuk dh rkjh[k ls vxyh vfèlwpuk rd mDr ;kstuk
ds lHkh micaèksa ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gSA
[lañ ,l&35015@114@2014&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
vuqcaè
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufè ;kstuk] 1952 ds micaèksa ls NwV iznku djus
lacaèh 'krs±
1- fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUnzh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh; Hkfo";
fufè vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] }kjk fn, tkus okys ,sls funs'kksa ds
vuqlkj Hkfo"; fufè ds izcaèu gsrq viuh v/;{krk esa ,d U;klh
cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fufè U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr gksxh tks vU;
ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufè laxBu ds izfr Hkfo"; fufè
esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa vkSj mudh vfHkj{kk
esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mÙkjnk;h gksxkA bl iz;kstukFkZ] ^^fu;ksDrk** ls%µ
¼i½ fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds lacaè esa]
dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vfè"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk( vkSj
¼ii½ fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds lacaè esa] og O;fDr] vFkok
izkfèdkjh vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt
ij vafre fu;a=.k gksA
2- U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj cSBd djsxk
vkSj og dsUnz ljdkj@dsUnzh; Hkfo"; fufè vk;qDr ¼lhih,Qlh½
vFkok mlds }kjk izkfèd`r fdlh vfèdkjh }kjk le; le; ij tkjh
fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj dk;Z djsxkA
3- vfèfu;e dh èkjk 2¼p½ esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf'kr lHkh deZpkjh]
tks Hkfo"; fufè ds lnL; cuus ds ik= jgsa g®] ;fn izfr"Bku dks NwV
iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;ksa ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k tk,xkA
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1465
4- tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr izfr"Bku
ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufè vFkok Hkfo"; fufè dk lnL; gks] mls
mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks fu;ksDrk mls rRdky
fufè ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA fu;ksDr ,sls deZpkjh ds
Hkfo"; fufè [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk ls lap; jkf'k;ka varfjr
vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxkA
5- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufè dks mlds }kjk vkSj deZpkjh ds }kjk
le;≤ ij vfèfu;e ds varxZr fuèkZfjr nj ls ns; va'knku
dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg dh
15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh cksMZ dks
fdUgha ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vfèfu;e dh
èkjk 7Fk ds micaèksa ds vuqlkj lkèkj.k C;kt vnk djus dk nk;h
gksxkA
6- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufè ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu djsxk
vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nqfoZfu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k ls
Hkfo"; fufè dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxkA
7- U;klh cksMZ }kjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh fu;ksDrk
}kjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksxk vkSj mls lkafofèd lhek rd ykuk gksxkA
8- fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksfèr fd, tk,a] leqfpr
izkfèdkjh }kjk ;Fkk&vuqeksfnr] fufè ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr
vfèla[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku ds
lwpuk iV ij iznf'kZr djsxkA
9- izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufè fu;eksa ds varxZr fuèkZfjr ns;
va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=k rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj
lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ }kjk ?kksf"kr]
izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vfèfu;e vkSj mlds
varxZr fufeZr ;kstuk esa fuèkZfjr fofHkUu micaèksa ds varxZr dsUnz
ljdkj }kjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxkA
10- ;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kksèu] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku fu;eksa
dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vfèd ykHknk;d gks] mls U;kl ds
fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kksèu ds yafcr jgrs mu ij Lor% ykxw fd;k
tk,xkA
11- fu;ksDrk }kjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kksèu {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufè
vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=h; Hkfo";
fufè vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks viuk :[k
Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxkA
12- fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh Hkfo";
fufè laxBu }kjk fuèkZfjr vfèdre le; lhek ds Hkhrj] 'kh?kzrk ls
fuiVk, tk,axsA
13- U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds lacaè esa tek fd, x,
va'knku] fudklh vkSj C;kt n'kkZus ds fy, foLrfjr ys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko
djsxkA ,sls vfHkys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko vfèekur% bySDVªksfud :i ls
j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkofèd :i ls tc dHkh dsUnzh; Hkfo"; fufè
vk;qDr@{ks=h; Hkfo"; fufè vk;qDr }kjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds
ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls lEizsf"kr djsaxsA
14- U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foÙkh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr gksus
ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk okf"kZd
fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa] vfrfjDr
¯izVvkWmV ukeek= ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyCè djk, tk ldrs g®A
iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls izLrqr fd, tkus
ij U;kfl;ksa }kjk vkofèd :i ls vn~;ru fd;k tk,XkkA
15- fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj
VfeZuyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus ds
fy, vko';d izkoèku djsaxsA
16- U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufè laxBu }kjk
;Fkk&fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofufnZ"V le;&lhek ds Hkhrj
ekfld@okf"kZd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd ekuk
tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj vyx&vyx]
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufè laxBu }kjk dh tkus okyh mi;qDr nkf.Md
dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxsA
17- U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj
Hkfo"; fufè ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj
fuos'k djus esa vlQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj la;qDr
:i ls dsUnzh; Hkfo"; fufè vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfufè }kjk ;Fkk&
vfèjksfir vfè'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xkA
18- ¼d½ izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl
izdkj izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd ¼MhesV½ :i esa gksus pkfg,
rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=ksa esa visf{kr lqfoèk ds miyCè
u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ lacafèr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufè vk;qDr
dks bldh lwpuk nsaxsA
¼[k½ U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh
le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxkA
¼x½ MhesV [kkrk bl lacaè esa dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk tkjh vuqns'kksa
ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ c®d vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vuqeksfnr
fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ek/;e ls [kksyk tk,A
¼?k½ MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl }kjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k dk
izklafxd O;; ekuk tk,A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn dh nykyh tSls
fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh U;kl }kjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k
dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk,xkA
19- izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls lHkh fuos'k Hkkjrh;
fjtoZ c®d vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa
dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxsA LFkkiuk
dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufè] 1952 ls NwV ij ;g
laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s fuos'k dks
lacafèr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufè vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds vuqjksè ij
lacafèr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufè vk;qDr dks lhès varfjr djsxkA
1466
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
20- LFkkiuk lacafèr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufè vk;qDr dks mu fu{ksikxkj
izfrHkkfx;ksa ¼Hkkjrh; fjtoZ c®d vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vuqeksfnr½
ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftuds ikl rFkk ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk
esa U;kl ds uke ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn esa
fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, g®A rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml èujkf'k dh
mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj vfxzeksa dh
eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL; ds Hkfo";
fufè lap;u ds varj.k vkSj izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh }kjk vU; fdlh
izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufè vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds 'krkZèhu
fufè ds uke esa iM+s vU; fuos'kksa tSls ck/;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds
fy, visf{kr gksaA
21- U;kl }kjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foÙkh; ;k vU;
laLFkkvksa }kjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu] cksul ;k vU;
vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,aA
22- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus dh
lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSfèd :i ls fu;ksDrk vkSj
U;klh cksMZ ds mÙkjkfèdkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'krksa ij muds lkFk&lkFk
ck/;dkjh gksxkA
23- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus ds fLFkfr esa lacafèr
{ks=h; Hkfo"; fufè vk;qDr }kjk fofgr le;&lhek ds Hkhrj rRdky
fufè;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxkA ;g mu ij dkuwuh :i ls
ck/;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fufè;ksa ds varj.k esa dksbZ foyac gksus dh
fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh cuk,xkA
24- ¼d½ U;klh cksMZ }kjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fufè [kkrk fdlh
;ksX; Lora= pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj }kjk okf"kZd :i ls ys[kk&ijh{kk djus ds
'krkZèhu gksxkA tgka Hkh vko';d le>k tk,] ogka deZpkjh Hkfo";
fufè laxBu dks vfèdkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU; ;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd
}kjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl izdkj gq, [kpZ fu;ksDrk
}kjk ogu fd, tk,axsA
¼[k½ ys[kk&ijh{kdksa }kjk foÙkh; o"kZ vFkkZr 1 vizSy ls 31 ekpZ
rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj ys[kk&ijh{khr rqyu&i=
lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ dh izfr lhès bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr
dh tk,A rqyu&i= dk izk:i vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr dh tkus okyh
tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufè laxBu }kjk fuèkZfjr dh tk,xh rFkk
lacafèr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufè vk;qDr ds dk;kZy; esa bySDVªkWfud izk:i
ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi esa miyCè djkbZ tk,xhA
¼x½ ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk
vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vfèd ds fy, fu;qDr
u fd;k tk,A
25- yxkrkj rhu foÙkh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vkèkj esa
dVkSrh dks vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr gksxhA
26- fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj fujh{k.k
gsrq ,slh lqfoèkvksa dk izkoèku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k izHkkjksa dk
Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vfèfu;e dh èkjk 17 ds
mi&[k.M ¼3½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr le;≤ ij fn, funsZ'kksa
ds vuqlkj gksaA
27- U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDr }kjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds fdlh
mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacafèr O;fDr dks bl lacaè esa
dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh tk,xhA
28- fdlh Hkh èks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds QyLo:i
VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr esa fu;ksDrk uqdlku iwjk djus
dk Hkkxh gksxkA
29- fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k] lgk;d
daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha bR;kfn ds
QyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh cnyko gksrk gS
rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ NwV nsus ds fy,
ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg,A
30- ,d gh Hkfo"; fufè VªLV esa ,d ls vfèd bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa
ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkbZ;ksa ds fdlh lh
VªLVh@fu;ksDrk }kjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls ,oa
vyx ls ftEesnkj@mÙkjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,Qlh vke Hkfo"; fufè
VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo#) mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ djsxkA
31- NwV izkIr U;kl fufè ds vfèxzg.k ds ekeys esa] varjh;
C;kt ds dkj.k gkfu ds vuqekfur fuoy orZeku ewY; dh olwyh
izfr"Bku ls dh tkuh pkfg,A
32- dsUnz ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy, 'krks± dks
c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s izfr"Bku bu
vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ck/; gksaxsA
New Delhi, the 26th March, 2015
S.O. 625.—Whereas M/s. Tata Marcopolo Motors
Limited [under Code No. UP/43067 in Sub-Regional Office,
Lucknow] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has
applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of
section 17 of the Employee's Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter
referred to as the Act).
2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central
Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said
establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are
not less favourable to employees therein than those
specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees are
also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided
under the said Act or under the Employees' Provident Funds
Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in
relation to the employees in any other establishment of
similar charactor.
3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said
Act and subject to the conditions annexed with this
notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1467
said establishment from the operation of all the provisions
of the said Scheme with effect from the date of notification
until further notification.
[No. S-35015/114/2014-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM
THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1. The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees
under his Chairmanship for the management of the
Provident Fund according to such directions as may be
given by the Central Government or the Central Provident
Fund Commissioner, as the case may be, from time-to-time.
The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees
who will be responsible for and accountable to the
Employees' Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for
proper accounts of the receipts into and payment from the
Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For this
purpose, the "employer" shall mean:—
(i) In relation to an establishment, which is a factory,
the owner or occupier of the factory: and
(ii) In relation to any other establishment, the person
who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control
over the affairs of the establishment.
2. The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in
every three months and shall function in accordance with
the guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the
Central Government/Central Provident Fund Commissioner
(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3. All employees' as defined in section 2(f) of the act,
who have been eligible to become members of the Provident
Fund' had the establishment not been granted exemption,
shall be enrolled as members.
4. Where an employee who is already a member of
Employees' Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any
other exempted establishment is employed in his
establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him
as a member of the fund. The employer should also arrange
to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account
of such employee with his previous employer transferred
and credited into his account.
5. The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees
the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself
and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from
time-to-time by the 15th of each month following the month
for which the contributions are payable. The employer shall
be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of
Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues
towards the Board of Trustees.
6. The employer shall bear all the expenses of the
administration of Provident Fund and also make good any
other loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due
to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any
other reason.
7. Any deficiency in the interest declared by the Board
of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to bring it
up to the statutory limit.
8. The employer shall display on the notice board of
the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when
amended thereto along with a translation in the language
of the majority of the employees.
9. The rate of contributions payable, the conditions
and quantum of advances and other matters laid down
under the provident fund rules of the establishment and
the interest credited to the account of each member,
calculated on the monthly running balance of the member
and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower
than those declared by the Cental Government under the
various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme framed
thereunder.
10. Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more
beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them
automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of
the Trust.
11. No amendment in the rules shall be made by the
employer without the prior approval of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give a
reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their
point of view.
12. All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers
should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees' Provident Fund
Organisation.
13. The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed
accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal
and interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance
of such records should preferably be done
electronically.The establishments should periodically
transmit the details of members' accounts electronically as
and when directed by the Central Provident Commissioner/
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
14. The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual
statement of accounts or pass books to every employee
with six months of the close of financial/accounting year
free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be
made available as and when the members want, subject to
nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain
in custody of employee to be updated periodically by the
Trustees when presented to them.
1468
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15. The employer shall make necessary provisions to
enable all the members to be able to see their account
balance from the computer terminals as and when required
by them.
16. The Board of trustees and the employer shall file
such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by
the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation within the
specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a
default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly
and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation.
17. The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of
the provident fund as per the directions of the Government
from time to time. Failure to make investments as per
directions of the Government shall make the Board of
Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may
be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner
or his representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of
Trust. The securities so obtained should be in
dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the required
facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates
the Board of Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script wise
register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India
and Central Government in accordance with the
instructions issued by the Central Government in this
regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should
be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust.
Also all types of cost of investments like brokerage for
purchase of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental
cost of investment by the Trust.
19. All such investments made like purchase of
securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody
of depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of
India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian
of the same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or
cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such
custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the
name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional
PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request
from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that effect.
20. The establishment shall intimate to the Regional
P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),
with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments
made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in
securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the
Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money
as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such
as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules and
transfer of member's PF accumulation in the event of his/
her leaving service of the employer and any other receipts
by sale of the securities or other investments standing in
the name of the Fund subject to the prior approval of the
Regional PF Commissioner.
21. Any commission, incentive, bonus or other
pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other
institutions for the investments made by the Trust should
be credited to its account.
22. The employer and the members of the Board of
Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to
abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding
on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their
successors and assignees.
23. The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also
give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within
the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the
event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally
binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution
in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained
by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a
qualified independent chartered accountant annually.
Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right
to have the accounts re-audited by any other qualified
auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by the
employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor's report alongwith the audited
balance sheet should be submitted to this office by the
Auditors directly within six months after the closing of the
financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The format of
the balance sheet and the information to be furnished in
the report shall be prescribed by the Employees' Provident
fund Organisation and made available with the RPFC office
in electronic format as well as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for
two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding financial
year.
25. Any loss for the three consecutive financial years
or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding financial
year.
26. The employer shall provide for such facilities for
inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central
Government may from time-to-time direct under clause (a)
of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15 days
from the close of every month.
27. In the event of any violation of the conditions for
grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1469
Trustees, the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after
issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned
persons.
28. In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of
any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc.
the employer shall be liable to made good the loss.
29. In case of any change of legal status of the
establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition,
sale, amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether
wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand
revoked and the establishment should promptly report the
matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30. In case there are more than one unit/establishment
participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all the
trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/responsible
for any default committed by any of the trustees/employer
of any of the participating units and the RPFC shall take
suitable legal action against all the trustees of the common
Provident Fund Trust.
31. In case of takeover of the exempted Trust Fund,
estimated net present value of the loss due to differential
interest should be recovered from the establishment.
32. The Central Government may lay down further
conditions for continuation of exemption of the
establishment and the establishment shall be bound to
comply with these additional conditions as and when the
same are communicated.
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 626.—tcfd eSllZ tsñdsñ VSDukslkW¶V fyfeVsM] [dksM
la[;k Mh,y@20420 ds varxZr fnYyh ¼lkWmFk½ {ks=h; esa] ¼,rnqijkUr
izfr"Bku ds :i esa lanfHkZr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k ,oa izdh.kZ
mica/k vf/kfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½ ¼,rnqijkUr vf/kfu;e ds
:i esa lanfHkZr½ dh /kkjk 17 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds
varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA
2- vkSj tcfd dsUnzh; ljdkj ds fopkj esa] va'knku dh njksa ds
laca/k esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/k fu;e mDr vf/kfu;e dh
/kkjk 6 esa fofufnZ"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de
mi;qDr ugha gSa vkSj deZpkjh mDr vf/kfu;e vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo";
fuf/k ;kstuk] 1952 ¼,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lanfHkZr½ ds varxZr
ln`'k Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/k esa nh
tkus okyh vU; Hkfo"; fuf/k izlqfo/kkvksa dk Hkh ykHk mBk jgs gSaA
3- vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 17 dh
mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,
vkSj bl vf/klwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds v/;/khu] mDr izfr"Bku
dks 22-09-1997 ls vxyh vf/klwpuk rd mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh
mica/kksa ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gSA
[lañ ,l&35015@69@2014&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
vuqca/k
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k ;kstuk] 1952 ds mica/kksa ls NwV iznku djus
laca/kh 'krs±A
1- fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUnzh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh; Hkfo";
fuf/k vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] }kjk fn, tkus okys ,sls funs'kksa ds
vuqlkj Hkfo"; fuf/k ds izca/ku gsrq viuh v/;{krk esa ,d U;klh cksMZ
xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fuf/k U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr gksxh tks vU; ckrksa ds
lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k laxBu ds izfr Hkfo"; fuf/k esa izkfIr;ksa
vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa vkSj mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds
fy, mÙkjnk;h gksxkA bl iz;kstukFkZ] ^^fu;kSDrk** ls%—
¼i½ fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds laca/k esa]
dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vf/k"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk( vkSj
¼ii½ fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds laca/k esa] og O;fDr] vFkok
izkf/kdkjh vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt
ij vafre fu;a=.k gksA
2- U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj cSBd djsxk
vkSj og dsUnz ljdkj@dsUnzh; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr ¼lhih,Qlh½
vFkok mlds }kjk izkf/kd`r fdlh vf/kdkjh }kjk le;≤ ij tkjh
fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj dk;Z djsxkA
3- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2¼p½ esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]
tks Hkfo"; fuf/k ds lnL; cuus ds ik= jgs gSa] ;fn izfr"Bku dks NwV
iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;ksa ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k tk,xkA
4- tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr izfr"Bku
ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k vFkok Hkfo"; fuf/k dk lnL; gks] mls
mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks fu;ksDrk mls rRdky
fuf/k ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA fu;ksDrk ,sls deZpkjh ds
Hkfo"; fuf/k [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk ls lap; jkf'k;ka varfjr
vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxkA
5- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/k dks mlds }kjk vkSj deZpkjh ds }kjk
le;≤ ij vf/kfu;e ds varxZr fu/kkZfjr nj ls ns; va'knku
dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg dh
15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh cksMZ dks
fdUgha ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vf/kfu;e dh
/kkjk 7Fk ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj lk/kkj.k C;kt vnk djus dk nk;h
gksxkA
6- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/k ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu djsxk
vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nqfoZfu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k ls
Hkfo"; fuf/k dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxkA
7- U;klh cksMZ }kjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh fu;ksDrk
}kjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksxk vkSj mls lkafof/kd lhek rd ykuk gksxkA
8- fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksf/kr fd, tk,] leqfpr
izkf/kdkjh }kjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fuf/k ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr
vf/kla[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku ds
lwpuk iV ij iznf'kZr djsxkA
1470
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9- izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/k fu;eksa ds varxZr fu/kkZfjr ns;
va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=k rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj
lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ }kjk ?kksf"kr]
izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vf/kfu;e vkSj mlds
varxZr fufeZr ;kstuk esa fu/kkZfjr fofHkUu mica/kksa ds varxZr dsUnz
ljdkj }kjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxkA
10- ;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kks/ku] tks izfr"Bku ds fo|eku fu;eksa dh
rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vf/kd ykHknk;d gks] mls U;kl ds
fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kks/ku ds yafcr jgrs mu ij Lor% ykxw fd;k
tk,xkA
11- fu;ksDrk }kjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kks/ku {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufè
vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=h; Hkfo";
fuf/k vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks viuk #[k
Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxkA
12- fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh Hkfo";
fuf/k laxBu }kjk fu/kkZfjr vf/kdre le; lhek ds Hkhrj] 'kh?kzrk ls
fuiVk, tk,axsA
13- U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds laca/k esa tek fd, x,
va'knku] fudklh vkSj C;kt n'kkZus ds fy, foLrfjr ys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko
djsxkA ,sls vfHkys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko vf/kekur% bySDVªksfud :i ls
j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkof/kd :i ls tc dHkh dsUnzh; Hkfo";
fuf/k vk;qDr@{ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr }kjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa
ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls lEizsf"kr djsaxsA
14- U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foÙkh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr gksus
ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk okf"kZd
fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa] vfrfjDr
fizaVvkWmV ukeek= ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyC/k djk, tk ldrs gSaA
iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls izLrqr fd, tkus
ij U;kfl;ksa }kjk vkof/kd :i ls v|ru fd;k tk,xkA
15- fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj
VfeZuyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus ds
fy, vko';d izko/kku djsaxsA
16- U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k laxBu }kjk
;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofufnZ"V le; lhek ds Hkhrj
ekfld@okf"kZd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd ekuk
tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj vyx&vyx]
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k laxBu }kjk dh tkus okyh mi;qDr nkf.Md
dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxsA
17- U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj
Hkfo"; fuf/k ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj
fuos'k djus esa vlQy gksus ij UU;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj la;qDr
:i ls dsUnzh; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfuf/k }kjk ;Fkk
vf/kjksfir vf/k'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xkA
18- ¼d½ izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl
izdkj izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ksa vHkkSfrd ¼MhesV½ :i esa gksuh pkfg,
rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=ksa esa visf{kr lqfo/kk ds miyCè
u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr
dks bldh lwpuk nsaxsA
¼[k½ U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh
le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxkA
¼x½ MhesV [kkrk bl laca/k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk tkjh vuqns'kksa
ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vuqeksfnr
fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ek/;e ls [kksyk tk,A
¼?k½ MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl }kjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k dk
izklafxd O;; ekuk tk,A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn dh nykyh tSsls
fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh U;kl }kjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k
dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk,xkA
19- izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls lHkh fuos'k Hkkjrh;
fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa
dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxsA LFkkiuk
dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k] 1952 ls NwV ij ;g
laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s fuos'k dks
lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds] vuqjks/k ij
lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr dks lh/ks varfjr djsxkA
20- LFkkiuk lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr dks mu fu{ksikxkj
izfrHkkfx;ksa ¼Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vuqeksfnr½
ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftuds ikl rFkk ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk
esa U;kl ds uke ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn esa
fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSaA rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml /kujkf'k dh
mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj vfxzeksa dh
eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL; ds Hkfo";
fufè lap;u ds varj.k vkSj izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh }kjk vU; fdlh
izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds
'krkZ/khu fuf/k ds uke esa iM+s vU; fuos'kksa tSls ck/;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk
djus ds fy, visf{kr gksaA
21- U;kl }kjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foÙkh; ;k vU;
laLFkkvksa }kjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu] cksul ;k vU;
vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,aA
22- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus dh
lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSf/kd :i ls fu;ksDrk vkSj
U;klh cksMZ ds mÙkjkf/kdkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'krksa ij muds lkFk&lkFk
ck/;dkjh gksxkA
23- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus dh fLFkfr esa lacafèr
{ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr }kjk fofgr le; lhek ds Hkhrj rRdky
fuf/k;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxkA ;g mu ij dkuwuh :i ls
ck/;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fuf/k;ksa ds varj.k esa dksbZ foyac gksus dh
fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh cuk,xkA
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1471
24- ¼d½ U;klh cksMZ }kjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fuf/k [kkrk fdlh
;ksX; Lora= pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj }kjk okf"kZd :i ls ys[kk&ijh{kk djus ds
'krkZ/khu gksxkA tgka Hkh vko';d le>k tk,] ogka deZpkjh Hkfo";
fuf/k laxBu dks vf/kdkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU; ;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd
}kjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl izdkj gq, [kpZ fu;ksDrk
}kjk ogu fd, tk,axsA
¼[k½ ys[kk&ijh{kdksa }kjk foÙkh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls 31 ekpZ
rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj ys[kk&ijh{khr rqyu&i=
lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ dh izfr lh/ks bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr
dh tk,A rqyu&i= dk izk:i vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr dh tkus okyh
tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k laxBu }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh tk,xh rFkk
lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fuf/k vk;qDr ds dk;kZy; esa bySDVªkWfud izk:i
ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi esa miyC/k djkbZ tk,xhA
¼x½ ,d gh ys[kk ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk
vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV vf/kd ds fy, fu;qDr u
fd;k tk,A
25- yxkrkj rhu foÙkh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vk/kkj esa
dVkSrh dks vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr gksxhA
26- fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj fujh{k.k
gsrq ,slh lqfo/kkvksa dk izko/kku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k izHkkjksa dk
Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 17 ds
mi&[k.M ¼3½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr le;≤ ij fn, funsZ'kksa
ds vuqlkj gksaA
27- U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDrk }kjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds fdlh
mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacaf/kr O;fDr dks bl laca/k esa
dkj.k crkvksa uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh tk,xhA
28- fdlh Hkh /kks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds QyLo:i
VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr esa fu;ksDrk uqdlku iwjk djus
dk Hkkxh gksxkA
29- fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k] lgk;d
daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha bR;kfn ds
QyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh cnyko gksrk gS
rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ NwV nsus ds fy,
ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg,A
30- ,d gh Hkfo"; fuf/k VªLV esa ,d ls vf/kd bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa
ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkbZ;kas ds fdlh Hkh
VªLVh@fu;ksDrk }kjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls ,oa
vyx ls ftEesnkj@mÙkjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,Qlh vke Hkfo"; fuf/k
VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo#) mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ djsxkA
31- NwV izkIr U;kl fuf/k ds vf/kxzg.k ds ekeys esa] varjh;
C;kt ds dkj.k gkfu ds vuqekfur fuoy orZeku ewY; dh olwyh
izfr"Bku ls dh tkuh pkfg,A
32- dsUnz ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy, 'krks± dks
c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s izfr"Bku bu
vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ck/; gksaxsA
New Delhi, the 26th March, 2015
S.O. 626.—Whereas M/s. J.K. Technosoft Limited
[under Code No. DL/20420 in Delhi (South) region]
(hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied
for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section
17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as
the Act).
2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central
Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said
establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are
not less favourable to employees therein than those
specified in Section 6 of the said Act and the employees
are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits
provided under the said Act or under the Employees'
Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as
the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other
establishment of similar character.
3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said
Act and subject to the conditions annexed with this
notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the
said establishment from the operation of all the provisions
of the said Scheme with effect from 22-09-1997 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/69/2014-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM
THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1. The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees
under his Chairmanship for the management of the
Provident Fund according to such directions as may be
given by the Central Government or the Central Provident
Fund Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time.
The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees
who will be responsible for and accountable to the
Employees' Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for
proper accounts of the receipts into and payment from the
Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For this
purpose, the "employer" shall mean:—
(i) In relation to an establishment, which is a factory,
the owner or occupier of the factory: and
(ii) In relation to any other establishment, the person
who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control
over the affairs of the establishment.
2. The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in
every three months and shall function in accordance with
the guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the
1472
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Central Government/Central Provident Fund Commissioner
(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3. All employees' as defined in section 2(f) of the act,
who have been eligible to become members of the Provident
Fund' had the establishment not been granted exemption,
shall be enrolled as members.
4. Where an employee who is already a member of
Employees' Provident Fund or a Provident Fund of any
other exempted establishment is employed in his
establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him
as a member of the fund. The employer should also arrange
to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account
of such employee with his previous employer transferred
and credited into his account.
5. The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees
the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself
and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from
time to time by the 15th of each month following the month
for which the contributions are payable. The employer shall
be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of
Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues
towards the Board of Trustees.
6. The employer shall bear all the expenses of the
administration of Provident Fund and also make good any
other loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due
to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any
other reason.
7. Any deficiency in the interest declared by the Board
of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to bring it
up to the statutory limit.
8. The employer shall display on the notice board of
the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when
amended thereto along with a translation in the language
of the majority of the employees.
9. The rate of contributions payable, the conditions
and quantum of advances and other matters laid down
under the provident fund rules of the establishment and
the interest credited to the account of each member,
calculated on the monthly running balance of the member
and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower
than those declared by the Central Government under the
various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme framed
thereunder.
10. Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more
beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them
automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of
the Trust.
11. No amendment in the rules shall be made by the
employer without the prior approval of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give a
reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their
point of view.
12. All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers
should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees' Provident Fund
Organisation.
13. The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed
accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal
and interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance
of such records shall preferably by done electronically.The
establishments should periodically transmit the details of
members' accounts electronically as and when directed by
the Central Provident Commissioner/Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner.
14. The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual
statement of accounts or pass books to every employee
within six months of the close of financial/accounting year
free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be
made available as and when the members want, subject to
nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain
in custody of employee to be updated periodically by the
Trustees when presented to them.
15. The employer shall make necessary provisions to
enable all the members to be able to see their account
balance from the computer terminals as and when required
by them.
16. The Board of Trustees and the employer shall file
such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by
the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation within the
specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a
default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly
and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation.
17. The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of
the provident fund as per the directions of the Government
from time to time. Failure to make investments as per
directions of the Government shall make the Board of
Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may
be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner
or his representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of
Trust. The securities so obtained should be in
dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the required
facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates
the Board of Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script wise
register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India
and Central Government in accordance with the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1473
instructions issued by the Central Government in this
regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should
be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust.
Also all types of cost of investments like brokerage for
purchase of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental
cost of investment by the Trust.
19. All such investments made like purchase of
securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody
of depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of
India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian
of the same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or
cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such
custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the
name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional
PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request
from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that effect.
20. The establishment shall intimate to the Regional
P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),
with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments
made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in
securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the
Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money
as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such
as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules and
transfer of member's PF accumulation in the event of his/
her leaving service of the employer and any other receipts
by sale of the securities or other investments standing in
the name of the Fund subject to the prior approval of the
Regional PF Commissioner.
21. Any commission, incentive, bonus or other
pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other
institutions for the investments made by the Trust should
be credited to its accounts.
22. The employer and the members of the Board of
Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to
abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding
on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their
successors and assignees.
23. The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also
give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within
the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the
event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally
binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution
in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained
by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a
qualified independent chartered accountant annually.
Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right
to have the accounts re-audited by any other qualified
auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by the
employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor's report alongwith the audited
balance sheet should be submitted to this office by the
Auditors directly within six months after the closing of the
financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The format of
the balance sheet and the information to be furnished in
the report shall be prescribed by the Employees' Provident
Fund Organisation and made available with the RPFC office
in electronic format as well as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for
two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding financial
year.
25. Any loss for the three consecutive financial years
or erosion in the capital base shall be the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding financial
year.
26. The employer shall provide for such facilities for
inspection pay such inspection charges as the Central
Government may from time to time direct under clause (a)
of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15 days
from the close of every month.
27. In the event of any violation of the conditions for
grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of
Trustees, the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after
issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned
persons.
28. In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of
any fund, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc. the
employer shall be liable to made good the loss.
29. In case of any change of legal status of the
establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition,
sale, amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether
wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand
revoked and the establishment should promptly report the
matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30. In case there are more than one unit/establishment
participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all the
trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/responsible
for any default committed by any of the trustees/employer
of any of the participating units and the RPFC shall take
suitable legal action against all the trustees of the common
Provident Fund Trust.
31. In case of takeover of the exempted Trust Fund,
estimated net present value of the loss due to differential
interest should be recovered from the establishment.
32. The Central Government may lay down further
conditions for continuation of exemption of the
establishment and the establishment shall be bound to
comply with these additional conditions as and when the
same are communicated.
1474
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 627.—dsUnzh; ljdkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k vkSj
izdh.kZ mica/k vf/kfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½ dh /kkjk 2 ds [kaM
¼V[k½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, vkSj Hkkjr ljdkj ds
Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk lañ dkñvkñ 796]rkjh[k 4
ekpZ] 1997 vkSj dkñvkñ 666] rkjh[k 9 ekpZ] 2001 dks] mu ckrksa
ds flok; vf/kØkar djrs gq,] ftUgsa ,sls vf/kØe.k ls igys fd;k
x;k gS ;k djus dk yksi fd;k gS uhps mfYyf[kr vuqlwph ds LrEHk ¼2½
esa mfYyf[kr vf/kdkfj;ksa dks mDr vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds v/khu
vkus okys dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiuksa ds laca/k esa mDr vuqlwph ds LrEHk ¼3½
esa mfYyf[kr {ks=ksa ds fy, mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu olwyh
vf/kdkfj;ksa dk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djus ds fy, izkf/kd`r djrh gS]
Øe
vf/kdkjh dk inuke
,sls {ks= ds laca/k esa ftlds
lañ
{ks=kf/kdkj esa mi;ksx fd;k
tkuk gS
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
1-
vka/kz izns'k {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&
vka/kz izns'k jkT; vkSj iqMqpsjh
fuf/k laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd
la?k jkT; {ks= esa ;ue {ks=
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k
lgk;d vk;qDr
2-
fcgkj {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k
fcgkj jkT;
laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd Hkfo";&
fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d
vk;qDr
3-
fnYyh {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k
jk"Vªh; jkt/kkuh jkT;{ks= fnYYkh
laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd Hkfo";&
fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d
vk;qDr
4-
deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds
xqtjkr jkT; rFkk nknjk vkSj ukxj
fnYyh {ks= esa dk;Zjr izknsf'kd
gosyh] ne.k vkSj nho la?k jkT;
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@lgk;d
{ks=
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
5-
gfj;k.kk {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&
gfj;k.kk jkT;
fuf/k laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&
fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
6-
deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds
dukZVd jkT;
dukZVd {ks= esa dk;Zjr izknsf'kd
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@lgk;d
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
7-
dsjy {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k
dsjy jkT; rFkk y{k}hi la?k jkT;
laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd
{ks= vkSj iqMqpsjh la?k jkT; {ks=
Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;dvk;qDr@
esa ekgs {ks=
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
8-
e/; izns'k {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&
e/; izns'k jkT;
fuf/k laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&
fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
9-
egkjk"Vª {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&
egkjk"Vª jkT;
fuf/k laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&
fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
10-
deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds xksok
xksok jkT;
{ks= esa dk;Zjr izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k
vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
11-
iwoksZÙkj {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k
vle] ukxky®M] ef.kiqj] es?kky;]
laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd Hkfo";&
v#.kkpy izns'k] fetksje vkSj
fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d
f=iqjk jkT;
vk;qDr
12-
vksfM'kk {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k
vksfM'kk jkT;
laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd Hkfo";&
fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d
vk;qDr
13-
iatkc {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k
iatkc jkT; vkSj paMhx<+
laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd Hkfo";&
fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d
vk;qDr
14-
fgekpy {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k fgekpy izns'k jkT;
laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd Hkfo";&
fuf/k vk;qDr@lgk;d Hkfo";&fuf/k
vk;qDr
15-
jktLFkku {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&
jktLFkku jkT;
fuf/k laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k
lgk;d vk;qDr
1`6
rfeyukMq {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&
rfeyukMq jkT; vkSj iqMqpsjh
fuf/k laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd
la?k jkT;{ks= esa ;ue vkSj ekgs
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k
dks NksM+dj
lgk;d vk;qDr
17-
mRrj izns'k {ks= esa deZpkjh
mRrj izns'k jkT;
Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds dk;Zjr
izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@
Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
18-
if'peh caxky {ks= esa deZpkjh
if'peh caxky jkT; rFkk
Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds dk;Zjr
vaneku vkSj fudksckj }hi
izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@
lewg la?k jkT; {ks= rFkk
Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
flfDde jkT;
19-
mRrjk[kaM {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&
mRrjk[kaM jkT;
laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd Hkfo";&
fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d
vk;qDr
20-
>kj[kaM {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k
>kj[kaM jkT;
laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd Hkfo";&
fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d
vk;qDr
21-
NRrhlx<+ {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k NRrhlx<+ jkT;
laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd Hkfo";&
fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d
vk;qDr
22-
rsyaxkuk {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k
rsyaxkuk jkT;¹
laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd Hkfo";&
fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d
vk;qDr
23-
eq[; dk;kZy; ds deZpkjh Hkfo";&
tEew&d'ehj jkT; ds
fuf/k laxBu ds izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k
flok; laiw.kZ Hkkjr
vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
¹02-06-2014 ls izHkkoh
[la- ,l&35012@03@2008&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1475
New Delhi, the 26th March, 2015
S.O. 627.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (kb) of section 2 of the Exployees' Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the
Ministry of Labour and Employment number S.O. 796 dated the 4th March, 1997 and S.O. 666 dated 9th March, 2001 except
as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby authorizes the
officers mentioned in column (2) of the Schedule mentioned below the exercise the powers of Recovery Officers under the
said Act for the areas mentioned in column 3 of the said schedule in relation to factories/establishments covered under the
provisions of the said Act.
S.No. Designation of the Officer
Area in relation to which Jurisdiction to be
exercised
1
2
3
1.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The States of Andhra Pradesh and the area of Yanam
Commissioners working in Andhra Pradesh Region of the
area of the Union Territory of Puducherry.
Employees' Provident Fund Organization
2-
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident fund
The State of Bihar.
Commissioners working in Bihar Region of the Employees'
Provident Fund Organization.
3.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The National Capital Territory of Delhi.
Commissioners working in Delhi Region of the Employees' Provident
Fund Organization.
4.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Gujarat and Union Territory of Dadra
Commissioners working in Gujarat Region of the Employees'
and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu.
Provident Fund Organization.
5.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Haryana.
Commissioners working in Haryana Region of the Employees'
Provident Fund Organization.
6.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Karnataka.
Commissioners working in Karnataka Region of the Employees'
Provident Fund Organization.
7.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Kerala, and Union Territory of
Commissioners working in Kerala Region of the Employees'
Lakshadweep and area of Mahe in the territories
Provident Fund Organization.
of Puducherry.
8.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Madhya Pradesh.
Commissioners working in Madhya Pradesh Region of the
Employees' Provident Fund Organization.
9.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Maharashtra.
Commissioners working in Maharashtra Region of the Employees'
Provident Fund Organization.
10.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Goa.
Commissioners working in Goa Region of the Employees' Provident
Fund Organization.
11.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, Meghalaya,
Commissioners working in North Eastern Region of the Employees'
Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Tripura.
Provident Fund Organization.
12.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Odisha.
Commissioners working in Odisha Region of the Employees'
Provident Fund Organization.
13.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Punjab and Union Territory of Chandigarh.
Commissioners working in Punjab Region of the Employees'
Provident Fund Organization.
14.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Himachal Pradesh.
Commissioners working in Himachal Pradesh Region of the
Employees' Provident Fund Organization.
1476
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Rajasthan.
Commissioners working in Rajasthan Region of the Employees'
Provident Fund Organization.
16.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of
Commissioners working in Tamil Nadu Region of the Employees'
Puducherry except Yanam and Mahe areas.
Provident Fund Organization.
17.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Uttar Pradesh.
Commissioners working in Uttar Pradesh Region of the Employees'
Provident Fund Organization.
18.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of West Bengal and Union Territory of
Commissioners working in West Bengal Region of the
Andaman and Nicobar Islands and the State of Sikkim.
Emplyees' Provident Fund Organization.
19.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Uttarakhand.
Commissioners working in Uttarakhand Region of the Employees'
Provident Fund Organization.
20.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Jharkhand.
Commissioners working Jharkhand Region of the Employees'
Provident Fund Organization.
21.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident
The State of Chhattisgarh.
Fund Commissioners working in Chhattisgarh Region of the
Employees' Provident Fund Organization.
22.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Telangana.*
Commissioners working in Telangana Region of the Employees'
Provident Fund Organization.
23.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The whole of India except the State of Jammu amd
Commissioners at head office of the Employees' Provident Fund
Kashmir.
Organization.
* w.e.f. 02.06.2014.
[No. S-35012/03/2008-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 628.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k vkSj izdh.kZ mica/k vf/kfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½ dh /kkjk 14[k }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, vkSj bl laca/k esa tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk lañ dkñvkñ 1553] rkjh[k
17 vizSy] 2002 dks vf/kØkar djrs gq,] mDr vf/kfu;e mica/kksa ds v/khu vkus okys dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiuksa ds laca/k esa uhps mfYyf[kr mDr vuqlwph
ds LrEHk ¼3½ esa mfYyf[kr lacaf/kr {ks=ksa ds fy, vuqlwph ds LraHk ¼2½ esa mfYyf[kr vf/kdkfj;ksa dks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu 'kkfLr ds :i
esa ,sls uqdlkfu;ksa dks fu;kstdksa ls olwy djus dh 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djus ds fy, izkf/kd`r djrh gS A
vuqlwph
Øe
vf/kdkjh dk inuke
,sls {ks= ds laca/k esa ftlds {ks=kf/kdkj esa mi;ksx
lañ
fd;k tkuk gS
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
1-
deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds eq[; dk;kZy; ds dsUnzh; Hkfo";&
tEew&d'ehj jkT; ds flok; laiw.kZ Hkkjr
fuf/k vij vk;qDr
2-
deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds dkjiksjsV eq[;ky; esa izknsf'kd
tEew& d'ehj jkT; ds flok; laiw.kZ Hkkjr
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
1
2
3
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1477
3-
vka/kz izns'k {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds dk;Zjr
vka/kz izns'k jkT; vkSj iqMqpsjh la?k jkT; {ks= esa ;ue dk {ks=
izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
4-
fcgkj {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd Hkfo";&
fcgkj jkT;
fuf/k vk;qDr Hkfo";&fuf/k@ lgk;d vk;qDr
5-
deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds NRrhlx<+ {ks= esa dk;Zjr izknsf'kd
NRrhlx<+ jkT;
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@lgk;d Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
6-
fnYyh {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd
jk"Vªh; jkt/kkuh jkT;{ks= fnYyh
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
7-
deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds xksok {ks= esa dk;Zjr izknsf'kd Hkfo";&
xksok jkT;
fuf/k vk;qDr@lgk;d Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
8-
xqtjkr {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd
xqtjkr jkT; rFkk la?k jkT; {ks= nknjk vkSj ukxj gosyh rFkk
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
ne.k vkSj nho
9-
gfj;k.kk {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd
gfj;k.kk jkT;
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
10-
fgekpy izns'k {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds dk;Zjr
fgekpy izns'k jkT;
izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
11-
>kj[kaM {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd
>kj[kaM jkT;
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
12-
dukZVd {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd
dukZVd jkT;
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
13-
dsjy {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd
dsjy jkT; rFkk la?k jkT; {ks= iqMqpsjh esa ekgs dk {ks=
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
14-
e/; izns'k {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd
e/; izns'k jkT;
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
15-
deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds egkjk"Vª {ks= esa dk;Zjr izknsf'kd
egkjk"Vª jkT;
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
16-
iwoksZÙkj {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd
vle] ukxkySaM] ef.kiqj] es?kky;] v:.kkpy izns'k] etksje vkSj
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
f=iqjk jkT;
17-
deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds vksfM'kk {ks= esa dk;Zjr izknsf'kd
vksfM'kk jkT;
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
18-
deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds iatkc {ks= esa dk;Zjr izknsf'kd
iatkc jkT; rFkk paMhx<+ la?k jkT;{ks=
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@lgk;d Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
19-
jktLFkku {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd
jktLFkku jkT;
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
20-
rfeyukMq {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd
rfeyukMq jkT; rFkk iqMqpsjh la?k jkT;{ks= ds ;ue vkSj ekgs ds
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
{ks= ds flok;
21-
mÙkjk[kaM {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";& fuf/k laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd
mÙkjk[kaM jkT;
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
22-
mÙkj izns'k {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds dk;Zjr izknsf'kd
mÙkj izns'k jkT;
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
1478
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
23-
if'peh caxky {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds dk;Zjr
if'peh caxky vkSj flfDde jkT; rFkk vaMeku vkSj fudksckj
izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
}hi lewg la?k jkT; {ks=
24-
deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds rsyaxkuk {ks= esa dk;Zjr izknsf'kd
rsyaxkuk jkT;¹
Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr@lgk;d Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
¹ 02-06-2014 ls izHkkoh
[lañ ,l&35012@03@2008&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th March, 2015
S.O. 628.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) and in supersession of the notificaiton of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Labour and Employment, number S.O. 1553 dated the 17th April, 2002, issued in this regard, the Central Government hereby
authorizes the officers mentioned in column (2) of the Schedule mentioned below to exercises the powers to recover from
the employers by way of penalty such damages udner the said Act for the respective areas mentioned in column (3) of the
said Schedule in relation to factories/establishments covered under the provisions of said Act.
SCHEDULE
S.
Designation of the Officer
Area in relation to which jurisdiction to be exercised.
No.
(1)
( 2 )
( 3 )
1.
Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioners, Head Office,
The whole of India except the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation.
2.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners /Assistant Provident Fund
The whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
Commissioners at Corporate Headquarters of Employees' Provident
Fund Organization.
3.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners /Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Andhra Pradesh and the area of Yanam in the
Commissioners working in Andhra Pradesh region of the Employees'
Union territory of Puducherry.
Provident Fund Organization.
4.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners /Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Bihar.
Commissioners working in Bihar region of the Employees' Provident
Fund Organization.
5.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners /Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Chhattisgarh.
Commissioners working in Chhattisgarh region of the Employees'
Provident Fund Organization.
6.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners /Assistant Provident Fund
National Capital Territory of Delhi.
Commissioners working in Delhi region of the Employees' Provident
Fund Organization.
7.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Goa
Commissioners working in Goa region of the Employees' Provident
Fund Organization.
8.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Gujarat and Union Territories of Dadra and
Commissioners working in Gujarat region of the Employees,
Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu
'Provident Fund Organization.
9.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident
The State of Haryana.
Fund Commissioners working in Haryana region of the
Employees' Provident Fund Organization.
10.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident
The State of Himachal Pradesh.
Fund Commissioners working in Himachal Pradesh region of the
Employees' Provident Fund Organization.
11.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners /Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Jharkhand.
Commissioners working in Jharkhand region of the Employees'
Provident Fund Organization.
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1479
12.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners /Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Karnataka
Commissioners working in Karnataka region of the Employees'
Provident Fund Organization.
13.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The state of Kerala and Union Territories of Lakshadweep
Commissioners working in Kerala region of the Employees,
and the area of Mahe of Union Territory of Puducherry
' Provident Fund Organization.
14.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Madhya Pradesh
Commissioners working in Madhya Pradesh region of the Employees'
Provident Fund Organization.
15.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Maharashtra
Commissioners working in Maharashtra region of the Employees'
Provident Fund Organization.
16.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, Meghalaya,
Commissioners working in North Eastern region of the Employees'
Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Tripura.
Provident Fund Organization.
17.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Odisha.
Commissioners working in Odisha region of the Employees' Provident
Fund Organization.
18.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners /Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Punjab and Union Territory of Chandigarh.
Commissioners working in Punjab region of the Employees'
Provident Fund Organization.
19.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Rajasthan.
Commissioners working in Rajasthan region of the Employees'
Provident Fund Organization.
20.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of
Commissioners working in Tamil Nadu region of the Employees'
Puducherry except Mahe and Yanam areas.
Provident Fund Organization.
21.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Uttarakhand.
Commissioners working in Uttarakhand region of the Employees'
Provident Fund Organization.
22.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Uttar Pradesh.
Commissioners working in Uttar Pradesh region of the Employees'
Provident Fund Organization.
23.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners /Assistant Provident Fund
The State of West Bengal and Sikkim and Union
Commissioners working in West Bengal region of the Employees'
Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands
Provident Fund Organization.
24.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioners/Assistant Provident Fund
The State of Telangana*.
Commissioners working in Telangana region of the Employees'
Provident Fund Organization.
*w.e.f. 02.06.2014
[No. S-35012/03/2008-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2015
dk-vk- 629.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k vkSj izdh.kZ mica/k vf/kfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½ dh /kkjk 13 dh
mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, vkSj Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk lañ dkñvkñ 1913] rkjh[k
20 twu] 2009 dks] mu ckrksa ds flok; mu vf/kØkar djrs gq,] ftUgsa ,sls vf/kØe.k ls igys fd;k x;k gS ;k djus dk yksi fd;k x;k gS dsUnzh;
ljdkj ds ;k mlds fu;a=.k ds v/khu fdlh LFkkiu ds laca/k esa ;k fdlh jsy daiuh] egkiÙku] [kku] rsy&{ks= ;k fu;af=r m|ksx ls lalDr LFkkiu
ds laca/k esa ;k ,d ls vf/kd jkT;ksa esa foHkkx ;k 'kk[kkvksa okys fdlh LFkkiu ds laca/k esa mDr vf/kfu;e ;k mlds v/khu fojfpr Ldheksa ds
iz;kstu ds fy, uhps dh lkj.kh ds LraHk ¼4½ esa fofufnZ"V {ks= ds fy, mDr lkj.kh ds LraHk ¼3½ esa fofufnZ"V dk;kZy; esa LraHk ¼2½ esa fofufnZ"V
in/kkjh vf/kdkfj;ksa dks fujh{kd fu;qDr djrh gS] vFkkZr~%&
(1)
( 2 )
( 3 )
1480
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Øe
vf/kdkjh
dk;kZy;
{ks=
lañ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
(i) dsUnzh; Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu]
tEew&d'ehj jkT; ds flok;
(ii) dsUnzh; Hkfo";&fuf/k vij vk;qDr ¼vuqikyu½
eq[; dk;kZy;] ubZ fnYyh
laiw.kZ Hkkjr
(iii) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
(iv) izorZu vf/kdkjh
2-
(i) vij dsUnzh; Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu dk
vka/kz izns'k] rsyaxkuk] vksfM'kk jkT;
(ii) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
tksuy dk;kZy;] gSnjkckn
vkSj la?k {ks= iqMqpsjh dk ;ue {ks=
(iii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
(iv) izorZu vf/kdkjh
3-
(i) vij dsUnzh; Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu dk
jk"Vªh; jkt/kkuh jkT; {ks= fnYyh
(ii) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
tksuy dk;kZy;] fnYyh
vkSj mÙkjk[kaM jkT;
(iii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
(iv) izorZu vf/kdkjh
4-
(i) vij dsUnzh; Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu dk
egkjk"Vª vkSj NÙkhlx<+ jkT;
tksuy dk;kZy;] eqEcbZ
(ii) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
(iii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
(iv) izorZu vf/kdkjh
5-
(i) dsUnzh; Hkfo";&fuf/k vij vk;qDr
deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu dk
xqtjkr] e/; izns'k jkT; vkSj
(ii) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
tksuy dk;kZy;] vgenkckn
ne.k vkSj nho rFkk nknjk vkSj
(iii) Hkfo"; fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
ukxj gosyh la?k jkT; {ks=
(iv) izorZu vf/kdkjh
6-
(i) vij dsUnzh; Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu dk
gfj;k.kk vkSj jktLFkku jkT;
(ii) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
tksuy dk;kZy;] Qjhnkckn
(iii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
(iv) izorZu vf/kdkjh
7-
(i) vij dsUnzh; Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu dk
dukZVd vkSj xksok jkT;
(ii) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
tksuy dk;kZy;] caxykSj
(iii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
(iv) izorZu vf/kdkjh
8-
(i) dsUnzh; Hkfo";&fuf/k vij vk;qDr
deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu dk
iatkc] fgekpy izns'k jkT; vkSj
(ii) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
tksuy dk;kZy;] paMhx<+
la?k jkT; {ks= paMhx<+
(iii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
(iv) izorZu vf/kdkjh
9-
(i) dsUnzh; Hkfo";&fuf/k vij vk;qDr
deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu dk
rfeyukMq] dsjy jkT; vkSj ;ue
(ii) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
tksuy dk;kZy;] psUUkbZ
{ks= ls flok; y{k}hi] iqMqpsjh
(iii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
la?k jkT; {ks=
(iv) izorZu vf/kdkjh
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1481
10-
(i) dsUnzh; Hkfo";&fuf/k vij vk;qDr
deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu dk
mÙkj izns'k vkSj fcgkj jkT;
(ii) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
tksuy dk;kZy;] dkuiqj
(iii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
(iv) izorZu vf/kdkjh
11-
(i) dsUnzh; Hkfo";&fuf/k vij vk;qDr
deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu dk
if'peh caxky] >kj[kaM] vle]
(ii) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
tksuy dk;kZy;] dksydkrk
v:.kkpy izns'k] ukxkySaM]
(iii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
ef.kiqj] es?kky;] fetksje] f=iqjk]
(iv) izorZu vf/kdkjh
flfDde jkT; rFkk vaneku vkSj
fudksckj }hi lewg la?k jkT; {ks=
12-
(i) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu dk
jk"Vªh; jkt/kkuh jkT; {ks= fnYyh
(ii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
izknsf'kd @ mi&dk;kZy;] jk"Vªh;
(iii) izorZu vf/kdkjh
jkt/kkuh jkT; {ks= fnYyh
13-
(i) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
vka/kz izns'k jkT; vkSj iqMqpsjh la?k
vka/kz izns'k jkT; vkSj iqMqpsjh la?k
(ii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
jkT; {ks= ds ;eu {ks= esa deZpkjh
jkT; {ks= dk ;ue {ks=
(iii) izorZu vf/kdkjh
Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu dk izknsf'kd@
mi&izknsf'kd dk;kZy;
14-
(i) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
vle] v:.kky; izns'k] ukxkySa.M]
vle] v:.kkpy izns'k] ukxkySaM]
(ii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
ef.kiqj] es?kky;] fetksje vkSj
ef.kiqj] es?kky; fetksje vkSj
(iii) izorZu vf/kdkjh
f=iqjk jkT;ksa esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&
f=iqjk jkT;
fuf/k laxBu ds izknsf'kd@mi&
izknsf'kd dk;kZy;
15-
(i) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
fcgkj jkT; esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&
fcgkj jkT;
(ii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
fuf/k laxBu ds izknsf'kd@ mi&
(iii) izorZu vf/kdkjh
izknsf'kd dk;kZy;
16-
(i) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
NÙkhlx<+ jkT; esa deZpkjh
NÙkhlx<+ jkT;
(ii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds
(iii) izorZu vf/kdkjh
izknsf'kd @ mi&izknsf'kd
dk;kZy;
17-
(i) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
xksok jkT; esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&
xksok jkT;
(ii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
fuf/k laxBu ds izknsf'kd@mi&
(iii) izorZu vf/kdkjh
izknsf'kd dk;kZy;
18-
(i) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
xqtjkr jkT; vkSj ne.k vkSj
xqtjkr jkT; vkSj ne.k vkSj
(ii) lgk;d Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
nho rFkk nknjk vkSj ukxj gosyh
nho rFkk nknjk vkSj ukxj gosyh
(iii) izorZu vf/kdkjh
la?k jkT; {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&
la?k jkT; {ks=
fuf/k laxBu ds izknsf'kd@mi&
izknsf'kd dk;kZy;
19-
(i) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
gfj;k.kk jkT; esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&
gfj;k.kk jkT;
(ii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
fuf/k laxBu ds izknsf'kd@mi&
(iii) izorZu vf/kdkjh
izknsf'kd dk;kZy;
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1482
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
20-
(i) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
fgekpy izns'k jkT; deZpkjh
fgekpy izns'k
(ii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
Hkfo"; fuf/k laxBu ds izknsf'kd@
(iii) izorZu vf/kdkjh
mi&izknsf'kd dk;kZy;
21-
(i) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
>kj[kaM jkT; esa deZpkjh Hkfo";
>kj[kaM jkT;
(ii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
fuf/k laxBu ds izknsf'kd @ mi&
(iii) izorZu vf/kdkjh
izknsf'kd dk;kZy;
22-
(i) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
dukZVd jkT; esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&
dukZVd jkT;
(ii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
fuf/k laxBu ds izknsf'kd@ mi&
(iii) izorZu vf/kdkjh
izknsf'kd dk;kZy;
23-
(i) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
dsjy jkT;] y{k}hi la?k jkT; {ks=
dsjy jkT;] y{k}hi la?k jkT; {ks=
(ii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
vkSj ,oa iqMqpsjh la?k jkT;
vkSj iqMqpsjh la?k jkT; {ks= dk
(iii) izorZu vf/kdkjh
{ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu
ekgs {ks=
ds izknsf'kd@ mi& izknsf'kd dk;kZy;
24-
(i) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
e/; izns'k jkT; esa deZpkjh
e/; izns'k jkT;
(ii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds
(iii) izorZu vf/kdkjh
izknsf'kd@mi& izknsf'kd dk;kZy;
25-
(i) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
egkjk"Vª jkT; esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&
egkjk"Vª jkT;
(ii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
fuf/k laxBu ds izknsf'kd mi&
(iii) izorZu vf/kdkjh
izknsf'kd dk;kZy;
26-
(i) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
vksfM'kk jkT; esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&
vksfM'kk jkT;
(ii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
fuf/k laxBu ds izknsf'kd@mi&
(iii) izorZu vf/kdkjh
izknsf'kd dk;kZy;
27-
(i) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
iatkc jkT; vkSj paMhx<+ la?k
iatkc jkT; vkSj paMhx<+ la?k
(ii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
jkT; {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&
jkT; {ks=
(iii) izorZu vf/kdkjh
fuf/k laxBu ds izknsf'kd@mi&izknsf'kd
dk;kZy;
28-
(i) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
jktLFkku jkT; esa deZpkjh
jktLFkku jkT;
(ii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds
(iii) izorZu vf/kdkjh
izknsf'kd@mi&izknsf'kd dk;kZy;
29-
(i) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
rfeyukMq jkT; rFkk ekgs vkSj
rfeyukMq jkT; rFkk ekgs vkSj
(ii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
;ue {ks=ksa dks NksM+dj iqMqpsjh
;ue {ks=ksa ds flok; iqMqpsjh
(iii) izorZu vf/kdkjh
la?k jkT; {ks= esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&
la?k jkT; {ks=
fuf/k laxBu ds izknsf'kd&mi&
izknsf'kd dk;kZy;
30-
(i) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
mÙkjk[kaM jkT; esa deZpkjh
mÙkjk[kaM jkT;
(ii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds
(iii) izorZu vf/kdkjh
izknsf'kd@mi&izknsf'kd dk;kZy;
31-
(i) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
mÙkj izns'k jkT; esa deZpkjh
mÙkj izns'k jkT;
(ii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds
(iii) izorZu vf/kdkjh
izknsf'kd@mi&izknsf'kd dk;kZy;
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1483
32-
(i) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
flfDde] if'peh caxky
flfDde] if'peh caxky jkT;ksa rFkk
(ii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
vaneku vkSj fudksckj }hi
jkT;ksa rFkk vaneku vkSj fudksckj
(iii) izorZu vf/kdkjh
lewg la?k jkT;{ks= esa deZpkjh
}hi lewg la?k jkT;{ks=
Hkfo";&fuf/k laxBu ds izknsf'kd@
mi&izknsf'kd dk;kZy;
33-
(i) izknsf'kd Hkfo";&fuf/k vk;qDr
rsyaxkuk jkT; esa deZpkjh Hkfo";&
rsyaxkuk jkT;¹
(ii) Hkfo";&fuf/k lgk;d vk;qDr
fuf/k laxBu ds izknsf'kd@mi&
(iii) izorZu vf/kdkjh
izknsf'kd dk;kZy;
¹02-06-2014 ls izHkkoh
[la- ,l&35012@03@2008&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th March, 2015
S.O. 629.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Employees' Provident Funds
and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in
the Ministry of Labour and Employment number S.O. 1913 dated the 30th June, 2009, except as respects things done or
omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby appoints the officers holding the posts
specified in column (2) of the table below in the office specified in column (3) of the said table to be Inspectors for the area
specified in column (4) thereof, for the purposes of the said Act and the Schemes framed there under in relation to any
establishment belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government or in relation to an establishment connected
with a railway company, a major-port, a mine or an oil-field or a controlled industry or in relation to an establishment having
departments or branches in more than one State, namely:—
S.
Officers
Office
Area
No.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
(i) Central Provident Fund Commissioner
Employees' Provident Fund
Whole of India except the State of
(ii) Additional Central Provident
Organisation, Head Office, New Delhi.
Jammu and Kashmir.
Fund Commissioner (Compliance)
(iii) Regional Provident Commissioners
(iv) Enforcement Officers
2.
(i) Additional Central Provident Fund
Zonal Office of Employees' Provident
The States of Andhra Pradesh,
Commissioner
Fund Organisation, Hyderabad
Telangana, Odisha and the Yanam
(ii) Regional Provident Commissioners
.
area of the Union Territory and
(iii) Assistant Provident Fund Commissioners
Puducherry.
(iv) Enforcement Officers
3.
(i) Additional Central Provident
Zonal Office of Employees' Provident
The National Capital Territory of
Fund Commissioner
Fund Organisation, Delhi.
Delhi and the State of Uttarakhand.
(ii) Regional Provident Commissioners
(iii) Assistant Provident Fund Commissioners
(iv) Enforcement Officers
4.
(i) Additional Central Provident
Zonal Office of Employees' Provident
The States of Maharashtra and
Fund Commissioner
Fund Organisation, Mumbai
Chattisgarh.
(ii) Regional Provident Commissioners
(iii) Assistant Provident Fund Commissioners
(iv) Enforcement Officers
5.
(i) Additional Central Provident Fund
Zonal Office of Employees'
The States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh,
Commissioner
Provident Fund Organisation,
and Union Territories of Daman and
(ii) Regional Provident Commissioners
Ahmedabad.
Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli.
(iii) Assistant Provident Fund Commissioners
(iv) Enforcement Officers
6.
(i) Additional Central Provident Fund
Zonal Office of Employees' Provident
The States of Haryana and Rajasthan.
Commissioner
Fund Organisation, Faridabad.
(ii) Regional Provident Commissioners
(iii) Assistant Provident Fund Commissioners
(iv) Enforcement Officers
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1484
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7.
(i) Additional Central Provident
Zonal Office of Employees'
The States of Karnataka and
Fund Commissioner
Provident Fund
Goa.
(ii) Regional Provident Commissioners
Organisation, Bangalore.
(iii) Assistant Provident Fund Commissioners
(iv) Enforcement Officers
8.
(i) Additional Central Provident
Zonal Office of Employees' Provident
The States of Punjab, Himachal Pradesh
Fund Commissioner
Fund Organisation, Chandigarh.
and the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
(ii) Regional Provident Commissioners
(iii) Assistant Provident Fund Commissioners
(iv) Enforcement Officers
9.
(i) Additional Central Provident
Zonal Office of Employees'
The States of Tamil Nadu, Kerala,
Fund Commissioner
Provident Fund Organisation,
and Union Territories of
(ii) Regional Provident Commissioners
Chennai.
Lakshadweep, Puducherry except
(iii) Assistant Provident Fund Commissioners
Yanam area.
(iv) Enforcement Officers
10.
(i) Additional Central Provident
Zonal Office of Employees'
The States of Uttar Pradesh and
Fund Commissioner
Provident Fund Organisation,
Bihar.
(ii) Regional Provident Commissioners
Kanpur.
(iii) Assistant Provident Fund Commissioners
(iv) Enforcement Officers
11.
(i) Additional Central Provident
Zonal Office of Employees'
The States of West Bengal,
Fund Commissioner
Provident Fund Organisation,
Jharkhand, Assam, Arunanchal
(ii) Regional Provident Commissioners
Kolkatta.
Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur,
(iii) Assistant Provident Fund Commissioners
Meghalaya, Mizoram, Tripura,
(iv) Enforcement Officers
Sikkim and Union Territory of
Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
12.
(i) Regional Provident
Regional/Sub-Regional Offices
The National Capital
Fund Commissioners
of the Employees' Provident
Territory of Delhi.
(ii) Assistant Provident
Fund Organisation in the State
Fund Commissioners
of the National Capital
(iii) Enforcement Officers
Territory of Delhi.
13.
(i) Regional Provident
Regional/Sub-Regional Offices
The State of Andhra
Fund Commissioners
of the Employees' Provident
Pradesh and the
(ii) Assistant Provident
Fund Organisation in the State
Yanam area of the
Fund Commissioners
of Andhra Pradesh and the
Union Territory of
(iii) Enforcement Officers
Yanam area of the Union
Puducherry.
Territory of Puducherry.
14.
(i) Regional Provident
Regional/Sub-Regional Offices
The States of Assam,
Fund Commissioners
of the Employees' Provident
Arunachal Pradesh,
(ii) Assistant Provident
Fund Organisation in the
Nagaland, Manipur,
Fund Commissioners
States of Assam, Arunachal
Meghalaya, Mizoram
(iii) Enforcement Officers
Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur,
and Tripura.
Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tripura.
15.
(i) Regional Provident
Regional/Sub-Regional Offices
The State of Bihar.
Fund Commissioners
of the Employees' Provident
(ii) Assistant Provident
Fund Organisation in the State
Fund Commissioners
of Bihar.
(iii) Enforcement Officers
16.
(i) Regional Provident
Regional/Sub-Regional Offices
The State of
Fund Commissioners
of the Employees' Provident
Chhattisgarh.
(ii) Assistant Provident
Fund Organisation in the State
Fund Commissioners
of Chhattisgarh.
(iii) Enforcement Officers
17.
(i) Regional Provident
Regional/Sub-Regional Offices
The State of Goa.
Fund Commissioners
of the Employees' Provident
(ii) Assistant Provident
Fund Organisation in the State
Fund Commissioners
of Goa.
(iii) Enforcement Officers
18.
(i) Regional Provident
Regional/Sub-Regional Offices
The State of Gujarat
Fund Commissioners
of the Employees' Provident
and Union Territories
(ii) Assistant Provident
Fund Organisation in the State
of Daman and Diu and
Fund Commissioners
of Gujarat and Union Territories
Dadra and Nagar
(iii) Enforcement Officers
of Daman and Diu and Dadra
Haveli.
and Nagar Haveli.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 28] 2015@pS=k 7] 1937
1485
19.
(i) Regional Provident Fund
Regional/Sub-Regional Offices
The State of Haryana.
Commissioners
of the Employees' Provident Fund
(ii) Assistant Provident Fund Commissioners
Organisation in the State of Haryana.
(iii) Enforcement Officers
20.
(i) Regional Provident
Regional/Sub-Regional Offices
The State of Himachal Pradesh.
Fund Commissioners
of the Employees' Provident
(ii) Assistant Provident
Fund Organisation in the State
Fund Commissioners
of Himachal Pradesh.
(iii) Enforcement Officers
21.
(i) Regional Provident
Regional/Sub-Regional Offices
The State of Jharkhand.
Fund Commissioners
of the Employees' Provident
(ii) Assistant Provident
Fund Organisation in the State
Fund Commissioners
of Jharkhand.
(iii) Enforcement Officers
22.
(i) Regional Provident
Regional/Sub-Regional Offices
The State of Karnataka.
Fund Commissioners
of the Employees' Provident
(ii) Assistant Provident
Fund Organisation in the State
Fund Commissioners
of Karnataka.
(iii) Enforcement Officers
23.
(i) Regional Provident
Regional/Sub-Regional Offices
The State of Kerala, the
Fund Commissioners
of the Employees' Provident
Union Territory of
(ii) Assistant Provident
Fund Organisation in the State
Lakshadweep and the
Fund Commissioners
of Kerala, the Union
Mahe area of the Union
(iii) Enforcement Officers
Territory of Lakshadweep and in the
Territory of Puducherry.
Mahe area of the Union Territory of
Puducherry.
24.
(i) Regional Provident
Regional/Sub-Regional Offices
The State of Madhya
Fund Commissioners
of the Employees' Provident
Pradesh.
(ii) Assistant Provident
Fund Organisation in the State
Fund Commissioners
of Madhya Pradesh.
(iii) Enforcement Officers
25.
(i) Regional Provident
Regional/Sub-Regional Offices
The State of
Fund Commissioners
of the Employees' Provident
Maharashtra.
(ii) Assistant Provident
Fund Organisation in the State
Fund Commissioners
of Maharashtra.
(iii) Enforcement Officers
26.
(i) Regional Provident
Regional/Sub-Regional Offices
The State of Odisha.
Fund Commissioners
of the Employees' Provident
(ii) Assistant Provident
Fund Organisation in the State
Fund Commissioners
of Odisha.
(iii) Enforcement Officers
27.
(i) Regional Provident
Regional/Sub-Regional Offices
The State of Punjab and
Fund Commissioners
of the Employees' Provident
Union Territory of
(ii) Assistant Provident
Fund Organisation in the State
Chandigarh.
Fund Commissioners
of Punjab and Union
(iii) Enforcement Officers
Territory of Chandigarh.
28.
(i) Regional Provident
Regional/Sub-Regional Offices
The State of Rajasthan.
Fund Commissioners
of the Employees' Provident
(ii) Assistant Provident
Fund Organisation in the State
Fund Commissioners
of Rajasthan.
(iii) Enforcement Officers
29.
(i) Regional Provident
Regional/Sub-Regional Offices
The State of Tamil
Fund Commissioners
of the Employees' Provident
Nadu and the Union
(ii) Assistant Provident
Fund Organisation in the State
Territory of Puducherry
Fund Commissioners
of Tamil Nadu and the
except the Mahe and
(iii) Enforcement Officers
Union Territory of Puducherry
Yanam areas.
except the Mahe and Yaman areas.
30.
(i) Regional Provident
Regional/Sub-Regional Offices
The State of
Fund Commissioners
of the Employees' Provident
Uttarakhand.
(ii) Assistant Provident
Fund Organisation in the State
Fund Commissioners
of Uttarakhand.
(iii) Enforcement Officers
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1486
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 28, 2015/CHAITRA 7, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
31.
(i) Regional Provident
Regional/Sub-Regional Offices
The State of Uttar Pradesh.
Fund Commissioners
of the Employees' Provident
(ii) Assistant Provident
Fund Organisation in the State
Fund Commissioners
of Uttar Pradesh.
(iii) Enforcement Officers
32.
(i) Regional Provident
Regional/Sub-Regional Offices
The State of Sikkim,
Fund Commissioners
of the Employees' Provident
West Bengal and Union
(ii) Assistant Provident
Fund Organisation in the States
Territory of Andaman
Fund Commissioners
of Sikkim, West Bengal
and Nicobar Islands.
(iii) Enforcement Officers
and Union Territory of Andaman
and Nicobar Islands.
33.
(i) Regional Provident
Regional/Sub-Regional Offices
The State of
Fund Commissioners
of the Employees' Provident
Telangana*
(ii) Assistant Provident
Fund Organisation in the State
Fund Commissioners
of Telangana.
(iii) Enforcement Officers
*w.e.f. 02.06.2014
[No. S-35012/03/2008-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi.110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi.110054.