1672 GI/2015

(1801)

foÙk ea=ky;

¼jktLo foHkkx½

¼fgUnh vuqHkkx&2½

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 827-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e ¼4½

ds vuqlj.k esa jktLo foHkkx ds vèhu eq[; vk;qDr dk;kZy;]

dsUnzh; mRikn 'kqYd] ubZ fnYyh ds varxZr vk;qDr dk;kZy; dsUnzh;

mRikn 'kqYd ,oa lsok dj iapdqyk dks] ftuds 80 izfr'kr ls vfèd

deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Z lkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vfèlwfpr

djrh gSA

[Qkñlañ bZ&11017@1@2015&,Mh ¼fgUnh&2½]

pUnzHkku ukjukSyh] funs'kd ¼jktHkk"kk½

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

(Hindi Section-2)

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2015

S.O. 827.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of

the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby Notifies

the Office of Commissioner of Central Excise, Custom and

Service Tax, Panchkula of Chief Commissioner office, Central

Excise, New Delhi. Under the department of Revenue, where

more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge

of Hindi.

[F.No.E-11017/1/2015-AD (Hindi-2)]

CHANDERBHAN NARNAULI, Director (OL)

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- 17]

ubZ fnYyh] vizSy 19—vizSy 25] 2015] 'kfuokj@pS=k 29—oS'kk[k 5] 1937

No. 17]

NEW DELHI, APRIL 19—APRIL 25, 2015, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 29—VAISAKHA 5, 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)

1802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 828-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e ¼4½

ds vuqlj.k esa jktLo foHkkx ds vèhu dsUnzh; mRikn 'kqYd ,oa

lhek 'kqYd vk;qDrky; cM+ksnjk II dks] ftuds 80 izfr'kr ls vfèd

deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Z lkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vfèlwfpr

djrh gSA

[Qkñlañ bZ&11017@1@2015&,Mh ¼fgUnh&2½]

pUnzHkku ukjukSyh] funs'kd ¼jktHkk"kk½

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2015

S.O. 828.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of

the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby Notifies

the Central Excise & Custom Commissioner Vadodra-II.

Under the department of Revenue, where more than 80%

staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F.No. E-11017/1/2015-AD (Hindi-2)]

CHANDERBHAN NARNAULI, Director (OL)

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 829-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e ¼4½

ds vuqlj.k esa jktLo foHkkx ds vèhu vk;qDr dk;kZy;] lhek

'kqYd ¼vk;kr½ ubZ fnYyh dks] ftuds 80 izfr'kr ls vfèd deZpkfj;ksa

us fgUnh dk dk;Z lkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vfèlwfpr djrh gSA

[Qkñlañ bZ&11017@1@2015&,Mh ¼fgUnh&2½]

pUnzHkku ukjukSyh] funs'kd ¼jktHkk"kk½

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2015

S.O. 829.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of

the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby Notifies

the Office of Commissioner Customs (Import) New Delhi.

Under the department of Revenue, where more than 80%

staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F.No. E-11017/1/2015-AD (Hindi-2)]

CHANDERBHAN NARNAULI, Director (OL)

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 830-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e ¼4½

ds vuqlj.k esa jktLo foHkkx ds vèhu dsUnzh; mRikn 'kqYd ,oa lsok

dj vk;qDr dk;kZy;] Qjhnkckn gfj;k.kk dks] ftuds 80 izfr'kr ls

vfèd deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Z lkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS]

vfèlwfpr djrh gSA

[Qkñlañ bZ&11017@1@2015&,Mh ¼fgUnh&2½]

pUnzHkku ukjukSyh] funs'kd ¼jktHkk"kk½

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2015

S.O. 830.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of

the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby Notifies

the Office of Commissioner of Central Excise, and Service

Tax, Faridabad Haryana under the department of Revenue,

where more than 80% staff have acquired the working

knowledge of Hindi.

[F.No. E-11017/1/2015-AD (Hindi-2)]

CHANDERBHAN NARNAULI, Director (OL)

¼dsUnzh; izR;{k dj cksMZ½

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 831-—loZlkèkj.k dh tkudkjh ds fy, ,rn~}kjk ;g

vfèlwfpr 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 vfèfu;e] 1961 ¼mDr vfèfu;e½ dh èkjk 35 dh mièkjk

¼1½ ds [kaM ¼ii½ ds iz;kstukFkZ baLVhV~;wV vkWQ dsfedy VsDuksykWth

ukFkkyky ikjs[k ekxZ] ekVqaxk] eqacbZ ¼iSu&,,,VhvkbZ 4915 ts½ uked

laxBu dks fuèkZj.k o"kZ 2014&15 vkSj blls vkxs dh vofè ds fy,

fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds vèhu vuqlaèku dk;Zdykiksa esa yxs

^^fo'ofo|ky; dkWyst vFkok vU; laLFkku** dh Js.kh esa vuqeksfnr

fd;k tkrk gS] uker%—

¼i½ vuqeksfnr laxBu dks iznRr jkf'k dk mi;ksx oSKkfud

vuqlaèku ds fy, fd;k tk,xk(

¼ii½ vuqeksfnr laxBu vius ladk; lnL;ksa vFkok vius

ukekafdr Nk=ksa ds ek/;e ls oSKkfud vuqlaèku djsxk(

¼iii½ vuqeksfnr laxBu oSKkfud vuqlaèku ds fy, blds }kjk

izkIr jkf'k ds lacaè esa vyx ys[kk cfg;ka j[ksxk ftuesa

vuqlaèku djus ds fy, iz;qDr jkf'k n'kkZbZ xbZ gks] ,slh

[kkrk&cfg;ksa dh mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 288 dh

mi èkjk ¼2½ ds Li"Vhdj.k esa ;FkkifjHkkf"kr fdlh ys[kkdkj

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1803

ls ys[kk ijh{kk djk,xk vkSj mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 139

dh mi èkjk ¼1½ ds varxZr vk; fooj.kh izLrqr djus dh

fu;r frfFk rd ,sls ys[kkdkj }kjk fofèor lR;kfir ,oa

gLrk{kfjr ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ ekeys esa {ks=kfèdkj j[kus

okys vk;dj vk;qDr vFkok vk;dj funs'kd dks izLrqr

djsxk(

¼iv½ vuqeksfnr laxBu oSKkfud vuqlaèku 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 fofèor

lR;kfir ,sls fooj.k dh izfr izLrqr djsxkA

2- dsanz ljdkj ;g vuqeksnu okil ys ysxh ;fn vuqeksfnr

laxBu%—

¼d½ iSjkxzkQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkQ ¼iii½ esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr vyx

ys[kk cfg;ka j[kus esa vlQy jgrk gS( vFkok

¼[k½ iSjkxzkQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkQ ¼iii½ esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr viuh

ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ izLrqr djus esa vlQy jgrk gS( vFkok

¼x½ iSjkxzkQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkQ ¼iv½ esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr oSKkfud

vuqlaèku ds fy, izkIr nku ,oa iz;qDr èujkf'k dk fooj.k

izLrqr djus esa vlQy jgrk gS( vFkok

¼?k½ vius vuqlaèku dk;Zdykiksa dks djuk can dj nsrk gS

vFkok blds vuqlaèku dk;Zdykiksa dks okLrfod ugha

ik;k tkrk gS( vFkok

¼³½ mDr fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 5x vkSj 5³ ds lkFk ifBr mDr

vfèfu;e dh èkjk 35 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼iii½ ds

izkoèkuksa ds vuq:i ugha gksxk rFkk mudk ikyu ugha djsxkA

[vfèlwpuk lañ 42@2015@Qkñlañ&203@13@2014&vkdfu&II]

_pk jLrksxh] voj lfpo

(Central Board of Direct Taxes)

New Delhi, the 16th April, 2015

S.O. 831.—It is hereby notified for general information

that the organization Institute of Chemical Technology,

Nathalal Parekh Marg, Matunga, Mumbai (PAN-

AAATI4951J) 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

under the category "University College or 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;

(b) fails to furnish its audit report as referred to in

sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1; or

received and sums applied for scientific

research as referred to in sub-paragraph (iv) of

paragraph 1; or

(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its

research activities are not found to be genuine;

(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. 42/2015/F.No.203/13/2014/ITA-II]

RICHA RASTOGI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 15 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 832-—loZlk/kkj.k dh tkudkjh ds fy, ,rí~okjk ;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

1804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[kaM (ii) ds iz;kstukFkZ Hkkjrh; izkS|ksfxdh laLFkku lkearkiqjh] Hkqous'oj

¼iSu&,,,vkbZ2760,½ uked laxBu dks fu/kkZj.k o"kZ 2014&15

vkSj blls vkxs dh vof/k ds fy, fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/khu oSKkfud

vuqla/kku dk;Zdykiksa esa yxs ^^fo'ofo|ky; dkWyst vFkok vU;

laLFkku** dh Js.kh esa vuqeksfnr fd;k tkrk gS] uker%—

(i) vuqeksfnr laxBu dks iznÙk jkf'k dk mi;ksx dsoy vU;

fdlh LVªhe ds fy, ugha fd;k tk,xkA 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 oSKkkfud vuqla/kku ds fy, blds }kjk

izkIr jkf'k ds laca/k esa vyx ys[kk cfg;ka j[ksxk ftuesa

vuqla/kku djus ds fy, iz;qDr jkf'k n'kkZbZ xbZ gks] ,slh

[kkrk&cfg;ksa dh mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 288 dh

mi /kkjk ¼2½ ds Li"Vhdj.k esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr fdlh

ys[kkdkj ls 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

2- dsUnz ljdkj ;g vuqeksnu okil ys ysxh ;fn vuqeksfnr

laxBu%—

¼d½ iSjkxzkQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkQ (iii) esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr vyx

ys[kk cfg;ka j[kus esa vlQy jgrk gS( vFkok

¼[k½ iSjkxzkQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkQ (iii) esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr viuh

ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ izLrqr djus esa vlQy jgrk gS( vFkok

¼x½ iSjkxzkQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkQ (iv) esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr oSKkfud

vuqla/kku ds fy, izkIr nku ,oa iz;qDr /kujkf'k dk fooj.k

izLrqr djus esa vlQy jgrk gS( vFkok

¼?k½ vius vuqla/kku dk;Zdykiksa dks djuk can dj nsrk gS

vFkok blds vuqla/kku dk;Zdykiksa dks okLrfod ugha ik;k

tkrk gS( 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 40@2015@Qkñ lañ 203@3@2014&vkñdñfuñ&II]

_pk jLrksxh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 15th April, 2015

S.O. 832.—It is hereby notified for general information

that the organization Indian Institute of Technology

Samantapuri Bhubaneswar (PAN - AAAA12760A) 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 under the category of "University

College or other Institution", engaged in scientific research

activities subject to the following conditions, namely:—

(i) The sums paid to the approved organization shall

be utilized only for scientific research; and not for

other streams;

(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 wihdraw the approval

if the approved organization:—

(a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts as

referred to in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1;

(b) fails to furnish its audit report as referred to in

sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1; or

received and sums applied for scientific research

as referred to in sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph

1; or

(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its

research activities are not found to be genuine;

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1805

(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. 40/2015/F.No. 203/3/2014/ITA-II]

RICHA RASTOGI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 833-—loZlk/kkj.k dh tkudkjh ds fy, ,rí~okjk ;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 iafMr nhun;ky isVªksfy;e

fo'ofo|ky; jk;lsu] xka/khuxj] xqtjkr ¼iSu&,,chVhih3856,½

uked laxBu dks fu/kkZj.k o"kZ 2014&15 vkSj blls vkxs dh vof/k

ds fy, fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/khu dsoy oSKkfud vuqla/kku

dk;Zdykiksa esa yxs blds rRoko/kku ds varxZr foHkkxksa@fo|ky;ksa ds

fy, ^^fo'ofo|ky; dkWyst vFkok vU; laLFkku** dh Js.kh esa vuqeksfnr

fd;k x;k gS] uker% %—

(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 ys[kk cfg;ka j[ksxk ftuesa

vuqla/kku djus ds fy, iz;qDr jkf'k n'kkZbZ xbZ gks] ,slh

[kkrk&cfg;ksa dh mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 288 dh mi

/kkjk ¼2½ ds Li"Vhdj.k esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr fdlh ys[kkdkj

ls 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

2- dsUnz ljdkj ;g vuqeksnu okil ys ysxh ;fn vuqeksfnr

laxBu%—

¼d½ iSjkxzkQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkQ (iii) esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr vyx

ys[kk cfg;ka j[kus esa vlQy jgrk gS( vFkok

¼[k½ iSjkxzkQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkQ (iii) esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr viuh

ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ izLrqr djus esa vlQy jgrk gS( vFkok

¼x½ iSjkxzkQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkQ (iv) esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr oSKkfud

vuqla/kku ds fy, izkIr nku ,oa iz;qDr jkf'k dk fooj.k

izLrqr djus esa vlQy jgrk gS( vFkok

¼?k½ viuk vuqla/kku dk;Z can dj nsrk gS vFkok blds

vuqla/kku dk;Z dks okLrfod ugha ik;k tkrk gS( 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 43@2015@Qkñ lañ 203@11@2014&vkdfu&II]

_pk jLrksxh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th April, 2015

S.O. 833.—It is hereby notified for general information

that the organization Pandit Deendayal Petroleum

University Raisan Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat, (PAN-

AABTP3856A) 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 AY - 2014-2015 and onwards under the

category of "University, College or Other Institution", for

the Departments/schools under its aegis which are

engaged in scientific research activities only, 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 in the above fields 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 in respect

of concerned Departments and a copy of such

1806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

statement duly certified by the auditor shall

accompany the report of audit referred to above.

2. The Central Government shall wihdraw the approval

if the approved organization:—

(a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts

referred to in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1;

(b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub-

paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1; or

received and sums applied for scientific research

referred to in sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph 1;

(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its

research activities are not found to be genuine;

(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. 43/2015/F.No. 203/11/2014/ITA-II]

RICHA RASTOGI, Under Secy.

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

¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½

¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½

ubZ fnYyh] 31 ekpZ] 2015

dk-vk- 834-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e ¼4½ ds mi&fofu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rnn~okjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, g®] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, g®%—

vuqlwph

Øe ykblsal la[;k

Lohd`r djus

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke

Hkkjrh; ekud dk

Hkk ek

Hkkx

vuq

o"kZ

la[;k

lh,e@,y

dh frfFk

o irk

'kh"kZd

01- ,y&2709460

21-07-2014

eSñ vksyafid flyS.Mj

Lopy mi;ksx ds fy,

14899

2000

izkñ fyñ] IykWV uañ 147@7@1]

nzfor iSVªksfy;e xSl

44 QqV jksM] xk¡o jksgn]

,yñihñthñ ds /kkjd

43 ds ,e ekbyLVksu ds ikl]

cgknqjx<+ & 124507]

ftyk >Ttj] ¼gfj;k.kk½

02- ,y&2708761

25-07-2014

eSñ t+soj iSysl]

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a

1417

1999

'kkWi uañ 4 ,] ,uñ,pñ 2]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

1&2 pkSd] ,uñvkbZñVhñ]

'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

Qjhnkckn & 121001]

¼gfj;k.kk½

03- ,y&2711952

08-08-2014

eSñ rjax ToSYl izkñfyñ]

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a

1417

1999

'kkWi uañ 20 vkSj 21]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

u;k frdksuk ikdZ]

'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

Qjhnkckn & 121001]

¼gfj;k.kk½

04- ,y&2714150

08-08-2014

eSñ fo'kky ToSylZ]

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a

1417

1999

'kkWi uañ 19@20]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

ekfdZV uañ 1] ,uñvkbZñVhñ]

'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

Qjhnkckn & 121001]

¼gfj;k.kk½

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1807

05- ,y&2713249

11-08-2014

eSñ yoyh ToSylZ]

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a

1417

1999

esu cktkj]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

ckn'kkgiqj xk¡o]

'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

ftyk xqM+xk¡o]

¼gfj;k.kk½

06- ,y&2716356

11-08-2014

eSñ dSiczksl jcM+ izksMDVl

nzfor iSVªksfy;e xSl

9573

1998

izkñfyñ] ,e lh ,Q 176]

¼,yñihñthñ½ ds

,LdkVZl ghfj;u fyñ ds lkeus]

fy, jcM+ gkSt+

lSDVj & 24] eqtslj]

ftyk Qjhnkckn & 121004]

¼gfj;k.kk½

07- ,y&2714251

20-08-2014

eSñ ihñdsñ ToSylZ]

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a

1417

1999

th 08] Mh,y,Q

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

dqrqc Iykt+k] buj LDok;j]

'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

Mh,y,Q flVh Qsl 1]

ftyk xqM+xk¡o & 122002]

¼gfj;k.kk½

08- ,y&2716457

22-08-2014

eSñ vthr izdk'k ,.M

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a

1417

1999

dEiuh] ljkQk xyh]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

ekud pkSd] ukjukSy]

'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

ftyk egsUnzx<+ & 123001]

¼gfj;k.kk½

09- ,y & 2716558

22-08-2014

eSñ vthr izdk'k ,.M

pkWnh ,oa pkWnh]

2112

2003

dEiuh]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

ljkQk xyh]

'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

ukjukSy]

ftyk egsUnzx<+ & 123001

¼gfj;k.kk½

10- ,y & 2717257

27-08-2014

eSñ tsñdsñ lhesaV odZl]

iksVZyS.M ikstsykuk&

1489

1991

>kjyh eksguckjh jksM]

lhesaV Hkkx 1]

>kjyh ekVughy]

QykbZ ,'k vk/kkfjr

ftyk >Ttj & 124106]

¼gfj;k.kk½

11- ,y & 2717358

28-08-2014

eSñ fgUnqLrku csojsftl]

iSdstcUn is; ty

14543

2004

xkWo nsoj[kkuk]

¼iSdstcUn izkd`frd

ftyk >Ttj&124105]

feujy ty ds vykok½

¼gfj;k.kk½

12- ,y & 2717863

01-09-2014

eSñ bZ'oj dqekj

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a

1417

1999

jktsUnz izlkn]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

1333@6] lnj cktkj]

'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

xqM+xkWo & 122001]

¼gfj;k.kk½

13- ,y & 2717964

01-09-2014

eSñ t; izdk'k ,.M lUl

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a

1417

1999

ToSylZ]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

819@8] lnj cktkj]

'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

xqM+xkWo & 122001]

¼gfj;k.kk½

1808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14- ,y & 2718461

01-09-2014

eSñ bZ'oj dqekj

pkWnh ,oa pkWnh

2112

2003

jktsUnz izlkn]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

1333@6] lnj cktkj]

'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

xqM+xkWo & 122001]

¼gfj;k.kk½

15- ,y & 2718562

01-09-2014

eSñ HkkbZ HkkbZ ToSylZ odZ]

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a

1417

1999

'kkWi uañ 150]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

ekfdZV uañ 1]

'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

Qjhnkckn & 121001]

¼gfj;k.kk½

16- ,y & 2718966

01-09-2014

eSñ t; izdk'k ,.M lUl

pkWnh ,oa pkWnh

2112

2003

ToSylZ]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

819@8] lnj cktkj]

'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

xqM+xkWo & 122001]

¼gfj;k.kk½

17- ,y & 2719059

02-09-2014

eSñ luVkbe gkse

nzfor iSVªksfy;e xSlksa ds

4246

2002

,IykblSal izkñ fyñ

lkFk iz;qDr ?kjsyw xSl pwYgs

/keZ dkaVk jksM] eqtslj]

Qjhnkckn & 121001]

¼gfj;k.kk½

18- ,y & 2719867

03-09-2014

eSñ Jh 'kfDr Xykscy

iSdsftl Qksj ,Dliyks&

10212

1986

dksjksxsVjl izkñ fyñ]

flol Hkkx 1% dkWef'kZ;y

IykWV uañ 108] lSDVj & 7]

gkbZ ,DliyksflDl

vkbZ,eVh ekuslj]

ftyk xqM+xkWo & 122001]

¼gfj;k.kk½

19- ,y & 2720650

03-09-2014

eSñ tsñ dsñ lhesaV odZl]

lk/kkj.k iksVZysaM flesaV

12269

1987

xkWo ckthriqj]

53 xzsM

Mkd?kj >kejh]

rglhy ekVughy

ftyk >Ttj & 123305]

¼gfj;k.kk½

20- ,y & 2720751

03-09-2014

eSñ tSu ToSylZ]

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a

1417

1999

pwjh okyh xyh]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

lnj cktkj]

'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

xqM+xkWo & 122001]

¼gfj;k.kk½

21- ,y & 2721450

08-09-2014

eSñ twuwu iSdsftax]

iSdstcUn is; ty

14543

2004

izkñ fyñ]

¼iSdstcUn izkd`frd

IykWV uañ 1134] lSDVj & 58]

feujy ty ds vykok½

vkS|ksfxd {ks=]

Qjhnkckn & 121004]

¼gfj;k.kk½

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1809

22- ,y & 2722957

11-09-2014

eSñ iadt iSVªksdse izkñ fyñ]

fljSfed VkbYl vkSj

15477

2004

fglkj jksM]

iPphdkjh esa iz;qDr

xkWo o Mkd?kj cgqvdcjiqj]

vklatd

fyad eks[kjk jksM]

ftyk jksgrd]

¼gfj;k.kk½

[lañ lh,eMh@13%11]

fcUnq dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 31st March, 2015

S.O. 834.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

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

the following schedule:—

Schedule

Sl. Licences

Grant

Name & Address

Title of the

IS No.

Part.

Sec.

Year

No. No. CM/L-

Date

of the Licensee

Standard

01. L-2709460

21.07.2014

M/s Olympic Cylinder

Liquefied Pertroleum

14899

—

2000

Pvt. Ltd.

Gas (LPG) containers

Plot No. 147/7/1,

For Automative use

44. Ft. Road,

Village Rohad,

Near 43 K.M. Milestone,

Bahadurgarh - 124507,

Distt. Jhajjar,

(Haryana)

02. L-2708761

25.07.2014

M/s Zever Palace

Gold & Gold Alloys,

1417

—

1999

Shop No. 4-A, NH-2,

Jewellery/Artefacts-

1-2 Chowk, NIT,

Fineness and Marking

Faridabad-121001,

(Haryana)

03. L-2711952

08.08.2014

M/s Tarang Jewels

Gold & Gold Alloys,

1417

—

1999

Private Limited.

Jewellery/Artefacts-

Shop No. 20 & 21,

Fineness and Marking

New Tikona Park,

Faridabad - 121001,

(Haryana)

04. L-2714150

08.08.2014

M/s Vishal Jewellers

Gold & Gold Alloys,

1417

—

1999

Shop No. 19/20

Jewellery/Artefacts-

N.I.T. 1,

Fineness and Marking

Faridabad - 121001,

(Haryana)

1810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

05. L-2713249

11.08.2014

M/s Lovely Jewellers,

Gold & Gold Alloys,

1417

—

1999

Main Bazar,

Jewellery/Artefacts-

Village Badshapur,

Fineness and Marking

Sohna Road,

Distt. Gurgaon - 122001,

(Haryana)

06. L-2716356

11.08.2014

M/s Kapbros Rubber

Rubber Hose for

9573

—

1998

Products Pvt. Ltd.,

Liquefied Petroleum

MCF 176,

Gas (LPG)

Opp Escorts Herion Ltd.,

Sector 24, Mujesar,

Distt. Faridabad - 121004,

Haryana

07. L-2714251

20.08.2014

M/s P.K. Jewellers

Gold & Gold Alloys,

1417

—

1999

G. 08, DLF Qutub Plaza,

Jewellery/Artefacts-

Inner Square,

Fineness and Marking

DLF City Phase 1,

Distt. Gurgaon - 122002,

(Haryana)

08. L-2716457

22.08.2014

M/s Ajeet Prakash &

Gold & Gold Alloys,

1417

—

1999

Company,

Jewellery/Artefacts-

Saraffa Gali,

Fineness and Marking

Manak Chowk, Narnaul,

Distt. Mahendergarh - 123001

(Haryana)

09. L-2716558

22.08.2014

M/s Ajeet Prakash &

Silver & Silver Alloyes,

2112

—

2003

Company,

Jeweller/Artefacts -

Saraffa Gali,

Fineness and Marking

Manak Chowk, Narnaul,

Distt. Mhendergarh - 123001

(Haryana)

10. L-2717257

27.08.2014

M/s J.K. Cement

Portland Pozzolana

1489

—

1991

Works,

Cement Part 1: Fly

Jharli Mohanbari Road,

Ash Based

Jharli Matanhail,

Distt. Jhajjar - 123106

Haryana

11. L-2717358

28.08.2014

M/s Hindustan Beverages

Packaged Drinking Water 14543

—

2004

Village Deverkhana,

(Other Than Packaged

Distt. Jhajjar - 124105,

Natural) Mineral Water

Haryana

12. L-2717863

01.09.2014

M/s Ishwar Kumar,

Gold & Gold Alloys,

1417

—

1999

Rajinder Prasad,

Jewellery/Artefacts-

1333/6, Sadar Bazar,

Fineness and Marking

Gurgaon - 122001,

(Haryana)

13. L-2717964

01.09.2014

M/s Jai Prakash and Sons,

Gold & Gold Alloys,

1417

—

1999

Jewellers,

Jewellery/Artefacts-

819/8, Sadar Bazar,

Fineness and Marking

Gurgaon - 122001,

(Haryana)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1811

14. L-2718461

01.09.2014

M/s Ishwar Kumar,

Silver & Silver Alloys,

2112

—

2003

Rajinder Prasad,

Jewellery/Artefacts-

1333/6, Sadar Bazar,

Fineness and Marking

Gurgaon - 122001,

(Haryana)

15. L-2718562

01.09.2014

M/s Bhai Bhai Jewellers,

Gold & Gold Alloys,

1417

—

1999

Work,

Jewellery/Artefacts-

Shop No. 150,

Fineness and Marking

Faridabad - 121001,

(Haryana)

16. L-2718966

01.09.2014

M/s Jai Prakash and Sons,

Silver & Silver Alloys,

2112

—

2003

Jewellers,

Jewellery/Artefacts-

819/8, Sadar Bazar,

Fineness and Marking

Gurgaon - 122001,

(Haryana)

17. L-2719059

02.09.2014

M/s Suntime Home,

Domestic Gas Stoves

4246

—

2002

Appliances Pvt. Ltd.,

for Use With Liquefied

Plot No. 4,

Petroleum Gases

Dharm Kanta Road,

Mujesar, Faridabad - 121001,

Haryana

18. L-2719867

03.09.2014

M/s Shree Shakti Global

Packages for Explosives

10212

1986

Corrugators Pvt. Ltd.,

Part 1: Commercial High

Plot No. 108, Sector-7,

Explosives

IMT Manesar, Distt.

Gurgaon-122001, Haryana

19. L-2720650

03.09.2014

M/s J.K. Lakshmi Cement

53 Grade Ordinary

12269

1987

Ltd., Village

Portland Cement

Bajitpur, P.O. Jhamri,

Tehsil Matanhail, Distt.

Jhajjar-123305, Haryana

20. L-2720751

03.09.2014

M/s Jain Jewellers,

Gold & Gold Alloys,

1417

1999

Churi Wali Gali,

Jewellery/Artefacts-

Sadar Bazar,

Fineness and Marketing

Gurgaon-122001, Haryana

21. L-2721450

08.09.2014

M/s Junoon Packaging

Packaged Drining Water

14543

2004

Pvt. Ltd.,

(Other Than Packaged

Plot No. 1134, Sector-58,

Natural) Mineral

Industrial Area,

Water)

Faridabad-121004, Haryana

22. L-2722957

11.09.2014

M/s Pankaj Petrochem

Adhesives for use with

15477

2004

Pvt. Ltd., Hisar Road,

Ceramic Tiles & Mosaics

VPO Bahuakbarpur, Link

Mokhra Road, Distt.

Rohtak, Haryana

[No. CMD/13:11]

BINDU KUMAR, Section Officer

1812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 835-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn}kjk

vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%—

vuqlwph

Øñ

ykblsal la

Lohd`r djus dh

ykblsalèkjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZ

Hkk ek la ¼Hkkx@

lañ

frfFk o"kZ@ekg

vuqHkkx½% o"kZ

6500003493

20150316

esllZ ,elhih LVhYl ,.M ,yks¸l

lkekU; lajpuk bLikr esa

IS 2830:2012

izk;osV fyfeVM ,l ,Q la 128&129]

iquosZYyu ds fy, dkWcZu]

lqYrkuisVS jksM] lsykdjpy xk¡o] lqywj]

<yok¡ bLikr fcysV baxV]

dks;EcÙkwj&641 675

fcysV] Cywe ,oa LySc

6500003392

20150317

esllZ dqeju psbu 'kkWi

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJèkrq,a]

IS 1417% 1999

323] dqeju ,uVhvkj dkWEIysDl

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh&'kq)rk

la 1] jktk LVªhV]

,oa eqgjkadu

dks;EcÙkwj&641 001

[lañ lh ,e Mh@13%11]

,eñ lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2015

S.O. 835.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

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

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant

Name and Address (Factory)

Title of the Standard

IS No. Part/

No.

Date

of the Party

Sec. Year

6500003493

20150316

M/s. MCP Steel And Alloys

Carbon Steel Cast Billet

IS 2830: 2012

Private Limited SF No. 128-129,

Ingots, Billets, Blooms and

Sulthanpettai Road, Selakarachal

Slabs for re-rolling into Steel

Village, Sulur, Coimbatore-641 675

for general Structural purposes

6500003392

20150317

M/s. Kumaran Chain Shop

Gold and Gold Alloys,

IS 1417: 1999

323, Kumaran NTR Complex

Jewellery/Artefacts-

No. 1, Raja Street,

Fineness and Marking

Coimbatore- 641 001

[No. CMD/13:11]

M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 836-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mifofu;eu ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZbZ xbZ rkjh[k ls jí@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gS%&

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1813

vuqlwph

Øñ

ykblsal lañ

ykblsalèkjh dk uke o irk

LFkfxr fd, x,@jí fd, x, ykblsal ds varxZr

jí gksus dh

lañ

lh ,e@,y&

oLrq@izØe lEc) Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZ

frfFk

ekpZ 2015&'kwU;

[lañ lh ,e Mh@13%13]

,eñ lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2015

S.O. 836.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

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

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

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence No.

Name & Address of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant

Date

No.

CM/L-

Indian Standard covered by the

Cancellation

licence cancelled/suspension

MARCH 2015-NIL

[No. CMD/13:13]

M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 837-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn}kjk

vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%&

vuqlwph

Øñ

ykblsal la

Lohd`r djus dh

ykblsalèkjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZ

Hkk ek la ¼Hkkx@

lañ

frfFk o"kZ@ekg

vuqHkkx½% o"kZ

6500003089

20150309

esllZ feMkl lsQVh izksMDV~l izkbosV fyfeVM

vkS|ksfxd lqj{kk gSYesV dh

IS 2925: 1984

2@31&A] rsUueiky;e] vUuwj jksM] vjlwj]

fof'k"V

dks;EcÙkwj&641 407

6500003190

20150313

esllZ vkWyfou ikbIl

is;ty vkiwfrZ ds fy,

IS 4985% 2000

196@1] rksV~Vhiky;e jksM] is:UnqjS] CykWd

vIykfLVd`r ih oh lh ikbIl

ukMqiV~Vh] fot;keaxye] is#UnqjS&638 056

3500003291

20150316

esllZ tsñ tsñ iEIl izkbosV fyfeVM

lkQ] BaMs ikuh ds fy,

IS 8472% 1998

76@1B&2 vksjSdkyIy;e] dqUurwj

vidsasnzh; iqu#Riknd iEi

iqnqj iksLV] dks;EcÙkwj&641 107

[lañ lh ,e Mh@13%11]

,eñ lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

1814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2015

S.O. 837.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

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

following schedule:—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant

Name and Address (Factory) of the

Title of the Standard

IS No. Part/

No.

Date

Party

Sec. Year

6500003089

20150309

M/s. Midas Safety Products Pvt. Ltd.

Specification for Industrial IS 2925: 1984

2/31-A, Thennampalayam,

Safety Helmets

Annur Road, Arasur,

Coimbatore-641 407

6500003190

20150313

M/s. Allwin Pipes,

Unplasticized PVC Pipes

IS 4985: 2000

196/1, Thottipalayam Road, Perundurai,

for potable water supplies

Block Nadupatti, Vijayamangalam,

Perundurai-638 056

3500003291

20150316

M/s. J.J. Pumps Private Limited

Centrifugal Regenerative

IS 8472: 1998

76/1B&2. Oraikalpalayam,

Pumps for clear, cold water

Kunnathur Pudur (P.O.),

Coimbatore-641 107

[No. CMD/13:11]

M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 9 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 838-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk

vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%—

vuqlwph

Øñ

ykblsal la

Lohd`r djus dh

ykblsalèkjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZ

Hkk ek la ¼Hkkx@

lañ

frfFk o"kZ@ekg

[k.M½% o"kZ

2902959

6@8@2014

vkWfj;aV iSdsftax

,xzks&oL=kfn&ofeZdypj ds

Hkk ek 15907% 2010

IykWV lañ 101@1] 'ksM lañ lh

fy, mPp ?kuRo ikWfyfFkyhu

dnS;k foyst] neu b.Mñ bLVsV] neu

¼,pMhihbZ½ vksou csMl

neu ,oa nho&396210

2903658

7@8@2014

ehjkdWy dscYl bafM;k izkñfyñ

ØklfyaDM ikWyhfFkyhu

Hkk ek 7098%

ds 29@2] ,fM'ku vEcjukFk

fo|qrjksèh ¼ihohlh½vkofjr

Hkkx 1%1988

vkuan uxj] ,evk;Mhlh]

dscy Hkkx 1] 1100 oksñ rd

vEcjukFk iwoZ] Fkkus&421501

,oa lfgr dk;Zdkjh oksYVrk gsrq

egkjk"Vª

2908668

20@8@2014

ekSuh ,xzks dsfedy b.MLVªht izkñfyñ

uhe vkèkfjr bZlh lfefJr

Hkk ek 14300%1995

IykWV lañ ,&78] 79 ,oa 80

vtkfnjpfVu &fof'k"V

flUuj rkyqdk b.Mñ dks&vkijsfVo

bLVsV eqlyxkWo rkyqdk flUuj]

ftyk ukfld&422112

2909468

26@8@2014

,Qlhth ikojØkIV]

,DlIyksflo ,sVeWfLQvlZ&

Hkkñek@vkbZlh

xyh lañ 5] IykWV lañ 5] ,lvkj

Hkkx&1 QyseizwQ buDykstu

60079%Hkkx&1% 2007

lañ 36523 izhfe;j b.Mñ bLVsV]

^Mh* }kjk miLdj laj{kk

dkphxke] ukuh neu] neu ,oa

nho&396210

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1815

2908870

27@8@2014

izdk'k ,xzks IykLV

flapkbZ miLdj Qqgkjk ikbZi

Hkkñekñ 14151%

xsV lañ119, IykWV lañ 30

fof'k"V Hkkx 2 'kh?kz ;qXed

Hkkx&2% 2008

yksuokMs] ekysxkWo]

ikWyhfFkyhu ikbi

ukfld&423203 egkjk"Vª

[lañ dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11]

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

New Delhi, the 9th April, 2015

S.O. 838.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

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

the following schedule:—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant

Name and address (factory)

Product

IS No/Part/Sec. Year

No.

Date

of the party

2902959

6/8/2014

Orient Packaging

Agro Textiles-High Density

IS 15907:2010

Plot No 101/1, Shed No. C

Polythelene (HDPE) Woven

Kadaiya Village, Daman Ind. Estate

Beds for Vermiculture

Daman, Daman & Div-396 210

2903658

7/8/2014

Micracle Cables (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Crosslinked polyethylene

IS 7098 :

K-29/2, Additional Ambernath,

insulated pvc sheathed

Part 1 : 1988

Anand Nagar, Midc,

cables: Part 1 for working

Ambernath-East

voltage upto and including

Distt: Thane-421501

1100 V

Maharashtra

2908668

20/8/2014

Mauni Agro Chemical Industries

Neem based ec containing -

IS 14300: 1995

Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. A-78, 79 & 80,

azadirachtin specification

Sinnar Taluka Ind. Co-Operative

Estate, Musalgaon, Tal: Sinnar

Distt: Nashik-422112

2909468

26/8/2014

FCG Powercraft

Explosive atmospheres

IS/IEC 60079 :

Gali No. 5, Plot No. 5,

Part 1 equipment protection

Part I : 2007

SR No. 36523,

by flameproof enclosures "d"

Premier Ind. Estate, Kachigam,

Nani Daman, Daman &

Diu-396210

2908870

27/8/2014

Prakash Agro Plast

Irrigation equipment-sprinkler-

IS 14151 :

Gate No. 119, Plot No. 30,

pipes specification-part 2:

Part 2 : 2008

Lonwade, Malegaon

quick coupled polyethylene

Nashik- 423203 Maharashtra

pipes

[No. CMD/13:11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)

Øñ

ykblsal lañ

Lohd`r djus dh

ykblsalèkjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZ

Hkk ek la ¼Hkkx@

lañ

frfFk o"kZ@ekg

[k.M½% o"kZ

1816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 9 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 839-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mifofu;e ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

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

vuqlwph

Øñ

ykblsal la

ykblsalèkjh dk uke o irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe lEc)

jí djus dh

lañ

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZ

frfFk

dqN ugha

[lañ dsanzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%13]

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

New Delhi, the 9th April, 2015

S.O. 839.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

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

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

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence No.

Name & Address of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant

Date

No.

Indian Standard covered by the

Cancellation

licence

NIL

[No. CMD/13:13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)

ubZ fnYyh] 15 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 840-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e 5 ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk

vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa dks ykblsal iznku fd, x, gS%—

vuqlwph

Øñ

ykblsal

Lohd`r djus

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke

Hkkjrh; ekud dk

Hkk ek

Hkkx

vuq

o"kZ

lañ

dh frfFk

,oa iÙkk

'kh"kZd

la[;k

01 7600005011

04 Qjojh 2015

eSllZ ,edks bUthfu;¯jx dksñ

vkx cq>kkus ds fy, uku

636

1988

IykWV uañ lh@1] CykWd uañ 2 ,oa 3]

ijdksys¯Vx ¶ysfDlcy

thñvkbñMhñlhñ m|ksxuxj]

fMyhojh gkst&fof'kf"V

xkWo egqok] ftyk Hkkouxj]

xqtjkr&364290

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1817

02 7600005811

09 Qjojh 2015

eSllZ ,lñ vkjñ oqM ,aM fouh;j

CykWd cksMZ

1659

2004

izkbZosV fyfeVsM

losZ uañ 57@1 & 57@2]

xkao vtkij] ftyk dPN]

xqtjkr&370110

03 7600006409

10 Qjojh 2015

eSllZ oaf'kdk IykboqM izkbZosV

CykWd cksMZ

1659

2004

fyfeVsM losZ uañ 56 ¼if'pe½]

xkao ojlk.kk, rkyqdk vatkj]

ftyk dPN] xqtjkr&370240

04 7600006106

10 Qjojh 2015

eSllZ ,lñ vkjñ oqM & fouh;j

ydM+h ds likV njokts

2202

1999

izkbZosV fyfeVsM

ds 'kVj ¼Bksl dksj Vkbi½

losZ uañ 57@1 & 57@2]

Hkkx 1 IykbZoqM ds lrg

xkao vtkij] ftyk dPN]

;qDr iYys

xqtjkr&370110

05 7600006308

10 Qjojh 2015

eSllZ oaf'kdk IykboqM izkbZosV

ydM+h ds likV njokts

2202

1999

fyfeVsM losZ uañ 56 ¼if'pe½]

ds 'kVj ¼Bksl dksj Vkbi½

xkao ojlk.kk] rkyqdk vatkj]

Hkkx 1 IykbZoqM ds lrg

ftyk dPN] xqtjkr&370240

;qDr iYys

06 7600006005

10 Qjojh 2015

eSllZ ,lñ vkjñ oqM & fouh;j

leqnzh mi;ksx ds fy,

710

2010

izkbZosV fyfeVsM losZ uña 57@1

iykbZoqM

& 57@2] xkWo vtkij]

ftyk dPN] xqtjkr&370110

07 7600005508

10 Qjojh 2015

eSllZ vkbfM;y iaIl

fueTtuh; iEilsV dh

8034

2002

Dykfld bZaMfLVª;y ,fj;k]

fof'kf"V

xyh uañ 2] eky/kkjh gksVy ds ihNs]

dksBkjh;k jksM] jktdksV]

xqtjkr 360004

08 7600006207

10 Qjojh 2015

eSllZ oaf'kdk IykboqM izkbZosV

lkekU; iz;kstuksa ds fy,

303

1989

fyfeVsM losZ uañ 56 ¼if'pe½]

IykbZoqM

xkao ojlk.kk] rkyqdk vatkj]

ftyk dPN] xqtjkr&370240

09 7600005912

11 Qjojh 2015

eSllZ ,lñ vkjñ oqM ,aM

lkekU; iz;kstuksa ds fy,

303

1989

fouh;j izkbZosV fyfeVsM losZ

IykbZoqM

uañ 57@1 ,oa 57@2] xkWo vtkij]

ftyk dPN] xqtjkr&370110

10 7600006510

12 Qjojh 2015

eSllZ vXxjoky ,aM daiuh

rIr csfYyr e/;e ,oa

2062

2011

losZ uañ 27] 28] 50] ,oa 51]

mPp rU;rk ds lajpuk

xkao rkulk] rkyqdk ?kks?kk]

bLikr&fof'k"V

ftyk Hkkouxj] xqtjkr&364120

11 7600006712

13 Qjojh 2015

eSllZ ueZnk dkWudkLV izkñ fyñ

dadhV izoyu ds fy,

1786

2008

IykWV uña 6@7] losZ uañ 159]

mPp lkeF;Z fodflr

xkao ekyij] rkyqdk ?kks?kk]

bLikr NM+ vkSj rkj

ftyk Hkkouxj] xqtjkr&364002

1818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12 7600006611

13 Qjojh 2015

eSllZ ftxj bUMLVªht

ok;oh; xqfPNr dscy

14255

1995

IyksV uañ 164@15] tkeokMh]

1100 oksYV rd vkSj

thñ vkbñ Mhñ lhñ &2] xksaMy]

lfgr dh dk;Zokjh

thyk jktdksV] xqtjkr&360311

oksYVrk ds fy,

13 7600006813

13 Qjojh 2015

eSllZ fl)kFkZ csojstsl

iSdstcan is; ty

14543

2004

IykWV uañ 2&B@1] uwru Hkkjrh

¼iSdstcUn izkd`frd

lksl;Vh] lsaV tsfo;lZ ifCyd

feujy ty ds vykok½

Ldwy ds lkeus] ?kks?kk jksM]

ftyk Hkkouxj xqtjkr&364001

14 7600006914

16 Qjojh 2015

eSllZ dSIVu bathfu;¯jx izkñ fyñ

fueTtuh; iEilsV dh

8034

2002

losZ uañ 257] IykV uañ 11] us'kuy

fof'k"V

gkbos ua 8B] 'kkikj ¼osjkoy½

rkyqd dksVMk lkaxk.kh]

ftyk jktdksV] xqtjkr&360024

15 7600007007

17 Qjojh 2015

eSllZ okWVj¯dx bUMLVªht

fueTtuh; iEilsV dh

8034

2002

IyksV uña 102] tksxh eksVj LVªhV]

fof'k"V

iou bathfu;¯jx ds lkeus]

ohjk.kh v?kkr] <scj jksM

(S)] jktdksV] xqtjkr&360002

16 7600007108

17 Qjojh 2015

eSllZ okWVj¯dx bUMLVªht

[kqys dq,a ds fy,

14220

1994

IyksV uañ 102] tksxh eksVj LVªhV]

fueTt; iEilsV

iou bathfu;¯jx ds lkeus]

ohjk.kh v?kkr] <scj jksM (S½]

jktdksV] xqtjkr&360002

17 7600007209

17 Qjojh 2015

eSllZ dkslkZ dscYl

1100 oksYV rd dh

694

2010

ohjk.kh v?kkr] IykWV uañ 50@51]

dk;Zdkjh oksYVrk ds fy,

<scj jksM ¼nf{k.k½

ih oh lh jksf/kr dscy

dksBkfj;k ¯jx jksM] jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360002

18 7600007310

18 Qjojh 2015

eSllZ Jh jkes'oj LVhy bUMLVªht

daØhV izcyu ds fy,

1786

2008

IykWV uañ 4&A] CykWd uña 173 iSdh] mPp lkeF;Z fodflr

losZ uañ 274] Hkkouxj ryktk jksM]

bLikr NM vkSj rkj

xkWo m[kjyk] rkyqdk ?kks?kk]

ftyk Hkkouxj] xqtjkr&364050

19 7600007411

18 Qjojh 2015

eSllZ xqtjkr iEi bUMLVªht

[kwys dq,a ds fy,

14220

1994

IyksV uña 24] losZ uañ 19] okoMh]

fueTt; iEilsV

vkse dk¯LVx ds ikl]

gksVy d`".k ikdZ ds ihNs]

jktdksV] xqtjkr&360004

20 7600007512

18 Qjojh 2015

eSllZ xqtjkr iEi bUMLVªht

fueTtuh; iEilsV dh

8034

2002

IykWV uañ 24] losZ uañ 19] okoMh]

fof'k"V

vkse dk¯LVx ds ikl]

gksVy d`".k ikdZ ds ihNs]

jktdksV] xqtjkr&360004

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1819

21 7600007908

20 Qjojh 2015

eSllZ osLV dksLV MhtYl

d`f"k iz;kstuksa ds fy,

11170

1985

,yñ,yñihñ us'kuy gkbos 27]

¯ujrj xfr laihMu

xksaMy jksM] gkbos] xqMfoy

bfXu'ku ¼fMty½ batu

dUtwej izksMDV~l ds ckn]

ds fy, izn'kZu

dkaxlh;kyh] jktdksV]

vko';drkvksa

xqtjkr&360001

¼19 fdyksokV rd½

22 7600008009

23 Qjojh 2015

eSllZ esVy Øk¶V bUMLVªht

foLQksVh i;kZoj.k Hkkx 1 vkbZ,l@

2007

IyksV uañ th 2609] ihñthñohñlhñ,yñ]

Tokyklg vkoj.k

vkbZblh

dkUrh xsV] yks/khdk]

^^Mh** }kjk midj.k

60079

thñ vkbZñ Mhñ lhñ]

laj{k.k

ftyk jktdksV] xqtjkr&360021

23 7600008211

25 Qjojh 2015

eSllZ Msdksjk izksMDV~l

lkekU; iz;kstu ds fy,

996

2009

losZ uañ 39] IyksV uañ 13]

,d Qsth ,lh izsj.k

okoMh baMfLVª;y ,fj;k

eksVjsa

QkYdu iEi ds lkeus]

jktdksV] xqtjkr&360004

[lañ dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11]

lañ prqosZnh] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 15th April, 2015

S.O. 840.—In Pursuance of sub-regulation(5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certificate) Regulations,

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

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences

Grant

Name and Address

Title of the

IS No.

Part.

Sec.

Year

No.

Date

of the Licensee

Standard

01 7600005011

04.02.2015

M/s Amco Engineering Co.

Non-percolating flexible

636

1988

Plot No. C/1, Block No.

fire fighting delivery

2 & 3, GIDC Udognagar,

hose (third revision)

At Mahuva, District

Bhavnagar, Gujarat-364290

02 7600005811

09.02.2015

M/s. S.R. Wood & Veneers

Block boards

1659

2004

Pvt. Ltd.

Survey No. 57/1 & 52/2,

Village Ajapar,

District Kachchh,

Gujarat-370110

03 7600006409

10.02.2015

M/s. Vanshika Plywood

Block boards

1659

2004

Private Limited

Survey No. 56, (Westside)

Village Varsana, Taluka Anjar,

Kachchh, Gujarat-370203

1820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

04 7600006106

10.02.2015

M/s. S.R. Wood & Veneers

Wooden flush door

2202

1999

Pvt. Ltd. Survey No. 57/1

shutters (solid core type):

& 52/2, Village Ajapar,

part I plywood face panels

District Kachchh,

Gujarat-370110

05 7600006308

10.02.2015

M/s. Vanshika Plywood

Wooden flush door

2202

1999

Private Ltd.

shutters (solid core

Survey No. 56, (Westside)

type): part 1 plywood

Village Varsana, Taluka

face panels

Anjar, Kachchh,

Gujarat-370203

06 7600006005

10.02.2015

M/s. S.R. Wood & Veneers

Marine plywood

710

2010

Pvt. Ltd.

Survey No. 57/1 & 52/2,

Village Ajapar,

District Kachchh,

Gujarat-370110

07 7600005508

10.02.2015

M/s. Ideal Pumps

Submersible pumpsets

8034

2002

Classic Industrial Area,

Street No. 2, B/h Maldhari

Hotel, Kothariya Road,

Rajkot, Gujarat-360004

08 7600006207

10.02.2015

M/s. Vanshika Plywood

Plywood for general

303

1989

Private Ltd.

purposes

Survey No. 56, (Westside)

Village Varsana, Taluka Anjar,

Kachchh, Gujarat-370203

09 7600005912

11.02.2015

M/s. S.R. Wood & Veneers

Plywood for general

303

1989

Pvt. Ltd.

purposes

Survey No. 57/1 & 52/2,

Village Ajapar,

District Kachchh,

Gujarat-370110

10 7600006510

12.02.2015

M/s. Aggarwal and Company Steel for general structural 2062

2011

Survey No. 27, 28, 50 & 51, purposes

Village Tanasa, Taluka

Ghogha, District :

Bhavnagar,

Gujarat-364120

11. 7600006712

13.02.2015

M/s. Narmada Concast

High strength deformed

1786

2008

Private Ltd.

steel bars and

Plot No. 6/7, Sr. No. 159,

wires for concrete

At : Malpar, Tal: Ghogha,

reinforcement

District Bhavnagar

Gujarat-364002

12 7600006611

13.02.2015

M/s. Gigar Industries

Aerial bunched cables for 14255

1995

Plot No. 164/15,

working voltagess upto and

Jamvadi G.I.D.C.-2,

including 1100 volts-

Gondal, District Rajkot,

Gujarat-360311

13 7600006813

13.02.2015

M/s. Siddharth Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Plot No. 2-B/1,

(other than packaged

Nutan Bharti Society,

natural mineral water)-

Ghogha Road, Near

Sent Zeviers School,

Bhavnagar, Gjarat-364001

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1821

14 7600006914

16.02.2015

M/s. Captain Engineering

Submersible pumpsets

8034

2002

Pvt. Ltd.

Survey No. 257, Plot No. 11,

N.H. No. 27, Shapar,

District Rajkot

Gujarat-360024

15 7600007007

17.02.2015

M/s.Waterking Industries

Submersible pumpsets-

8034

2002

Plot No. 102, Goji Motor

Street, Opp. Pawan

Engineering, Virani Aghat,

Dhebar Road (S),

Rajkot, Gujarat-360002

16 7600007108

17.02.2015

M/s. Waterking Industries

Openwell submersible

14220

1994

Plot No. 102, Goji Motor

pumpsets-

Street, Opp. Pawan

Engineering, Virani Aghat,

Dhebar Roads (S),

Rajkot, Gujarat-360002

17 7600007209

17.02.2015

M/s. Corsa Cables

Pvc Insulated cables for

694

2010

Virani Aghat, Plot No. 50/51, working voltages upto

Dhebar Road (South)

and including 1100v

Kothariya Ring Road,

Rajkot, Gujarat-360002

18 7600007310

18.02.2015

M/s. Shri Rameshwar

High stength deformed

1786

2008

Steel Industries

steel bars and wires

Survey No. 274,

for concrete reinforcement

Block No. 173P,

Plot No. 4A, Near

Mahalaxmi Cinema,

Neswad Road,

Mamsa, Village Ukharla

Bhavnagar, Gujarat-364002

19 7600007411

18.02.2015

M/s. Gujarat Pump

Openwell submersible

14220

1994

Industries

pumpsets-

Plot No. 24, Survey No. 19,

Vavdi, Nr. Om Casting,

B/H Hotel Krishna Park,

Rajkot, Gjarat-360004

20 7600007512

18.02.2015

M/s. Gujarat Pump

Submersible pumpsets-

8034

2002

Industries

Plot No. 24, Survey No. 19,

Vavdi, Nr. Om Casting,

B/H Hotel Krishna Park,

Rajkot, Gujart-360004

21 7600007908

20.02.2015

M/s. West Coast Diesels

Performance reqirements

11170

1985

LLP N.H. 27, Gondal Road, for constant speed com-

Highway, Next to Goodwill

pression ignition (diesel)

Consmer Products,

engines for agricultural

Kangasiali,

purposes (up to 20 kw)

Rajkot, Gujarat 360001

22 7600008009

23.02.2015

M/s Metal Craft Industries

Explosive atmospheres

IS/IEC

2007

Plot No.-G 2609, Opp.

part 1 equipment

60079

PGVCL, Kranti Gate,

protection by flame-

Lodhika G.I.D.C.,

proof enclosures "d"

Metoda, Rajkot,

Gujarat-360021

1822

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

23 7600008211

25.02.2015

M/s Decora Products

Single-phase small ac and

996

2009

Survey No. 39, Plot No. 13, universal electric motors

Vavdi Industrial Area,

Opp. Falcon Pump,

Vavdi, Rajkot,

Gujarat-360004

[No. CMD/13:11]

S. CHATURVEDI, Scientist 'F'. and Head

ubZ fnYyh] 15 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 841-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;u] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e 5 ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk

vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa dks ykblsal iznku fd, x, gSa%—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

Lohd`r djus dh

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke

Hkkjrh; ekud dk

Hkk ek

Hkkx

vuq

o"kZ

la[;k

frfFk o"kZ ekg

o irk

'kh"kZd

la[;k

1 7600001912

02 tuojh 2015

eSllZ fQusDl baftVSd izkbZosV fyfeVsM

[kqys dq,a ds fy, fueTt;

14220

1994

IykWV uañ 13] losZ uañ 266]

iEilsV &fof'k"V

egknso bUMfLVª;y ,fj;k&3]

dksBkfj;k lkWYosUV esu jksM]

xksaMy jksM] dksBkfj;k ftyk]

jktdksV] xqtjkr&360004

2 7600002005

02 tuojh 2015

eSllZ fQusDl baftVSd izkbZosV fyfeVsM

fueTtuh; iEi lsV

8034

2002

IykWV uañ 13] losZ uañ 266]

egknso bUMfLVª;y ,fj;k&3]

dksBkfj;k lkWYosUV esu jksM]

xksaMy jksM] dksBkfj;k ftyk]

jktdksV] xqtjkr&360004

3 7600002611

06 tuojh 2015

eSllZ isafXou IykbZoqM izkbZosV fyfeVsM

ydM+h ds likV njokts ds

2202

1999

losZ uañ 107@1 o 107@4]

'kVj ¼Bksl dksj Vkbi½Hkkx 1

xkWo dczko] rkyqdk Hkpkm]

IykbZoqM ds lrg ;qDr iYys

ftyk dPN] xqtjkr&370140

4 7600002712

06 tuojh 2015

eSllZ isafXou IykbZoqM izkbZosV fyfeVsM

CykWd cksMZ

1659

2004

losZ uañ 107@1 o 107@4]

xkWo dczko] rkyqdk Hkpkm]

ftyk dPN] xqtjkr&370140

5 7600002805

06 tuojh 2015

eSllZ isafXou IykbZoqM izkbZosV fyfeVsM

lkekU; iz;kstuksa ds fy,

303

1989

losZ uañ 107@1 o 107@4]

IykbZoqM

xkWo dczko] rkyqdk Hkpkm]

ftyk dPN] xqtjkr&370140

6 7600002906

06 tuojh 2015

eSllZ isafXou IykbZoqM izkbZosV fyfeVsM

leqnzh mi;ksx ds fy, IykbZoqM 710

2010

losZ uañ 107@1 o 107@4]

xkWo dczko] rkyqdk Hkpkm]

ftyk dPN] xqtjkr&370140

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1823

7 7600003007

06 tuojh 2015

eSllZ ,l vkj Mh iaIl

fueTtuh; iEilsV dh

8034

2002

4 ?ku';ke uxj] fojkuh v?kkr]

fof'kf"V

<scj jksM ¼nf{k.k½ dksBkfj;k]

ftyk jktdksV] xqtjkr&360004

8 7600003108

06 tuojh 2015

eSllZ Jh tksxh ikbi bUMLVªht

ikuh dh vkiwfrZ ds fy, mPp

4984

1995

losZ uañ 39] iSdh] IykWV uañ 4]iSdh]

?kuRo okys ikWfy,fFkyhu ikbi&

'ksM uañ 1] ckykth bUMfLVª;y ,fj;k]

fof'k"V

'kkikj ¼osjkoy½] ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360024

9 7600003310

06 tuojh 2015

eSllZ jk/ks QwM o csojstsl

iSdstCn is; ty ¼iSdstcUn

14543

2004

IykWV uañ 2@23] losZ uañ 71@1]

izkd`frd feujy ty ds vykok½

'kkcj lkek iknj] lkojdqaMyk]

ftyk vejsyh] xqtjkr&364515

10 7600003209

07 tuojh 2015

eSllZ f'ko bysDVªhdYl

[kqys dq,a ds fy, fueTt;

14220

1994

5] jkeuxj] ds jlhdyky ds ihNs]

iEilsV &fof'k"V

80 QhV jksM] jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360004

11 7600004009

20 tuojh 2015

eSllZ ueZnk dkWudkLV izkñ yhñ

lkekU; lajpuk bLikr esa

2830

2012

IykWV uañ 6@7] losZ uañ 159]

iquosZYyu ds fy;s dkcZu

xkWo ekyij] rkyqd ?kks?kk]

<yokW bLikr fcysV baxV]

ftyk Hkkouxj]

fcysV] Cywe vkSj LySc dh

xqtjkr&364002

fof'k"V

12 7600004110

20 tuojh 2015

eSllZ lkbu bUthfu;fjax

vaxzsth VfV;ks rFkk ew=ky;ksa ds 7231

1994

IykWV uañ th 108] 109,]

fy, IykfLVd dh iz/kkou

th vkbZ Mh lh yks/khdk]

Vafd;ksa dh fof'kf"V

dkykokM jksM] xkWo esVksMk]

rkyqdk yks/khdk] ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360021

13 7600004211

22 tuojh 2015

eSllZ U;w xqtjkr dksyk izkñ fyñ

iSdstCn is; ty ¼iSdstcUn

14543

2004

losZ uañ 122 ih 1]

izkd`frd feujy ty ds

jktqyk] ftyk vejsyh]

vykok½

xqtjkr&365560

14 7600004708

23 tuojh 2015

eSllZ tykjke lceflZcy iaIl

fueTtuh; iEilsV dh fof'kf"V 8034

2002

losZ uañ 43@1] xkSre cq) uxj ds ikl]

d`".kk ,UVjizkbt ds lkeus]

150 QhV jksM] ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360004

15 7600004809

27 tuojh 2015

eSllZ fjyk;cy okWYol

tydy ds fy, jsthfy,V

14845

2000

IykWV uEcj 505] fd'kku xsV]

lhfVM <yoka yksgs ds ok;q

yksf/kdk thñvkbZñMhñlhñ]

fudkl okYo fof'k"V

esVksMk] ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360035

16 7600004910

27 tuojh 2015

eSllZ fjyk;cy okWYol

tydy ds fy, Lywl

14846

2000

IykWV uEcj 505] fd'kku xsV]

okYo ¼50 ls 1200 feeh

yksf/kdk thñvkbZñMhñlhñ]

lkbt d½ fof'k"V

esVksMk] ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360035

[lañ dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13 % 11]

lañ prqosZnh] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

1824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th April, 2015

S.O. 841.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certificate) Regulations,

1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notify the grant of licences particulars of which are given below in the

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences

Grant

Name & Address

Title of the

IS No.

Part.

Sec.

Year

No.

Date

of the Licensee

Standard

01 7600001912

02.01.2015

M/s Finex Engitech

Openwell Submersible

14220

1994

Private Ltd.

Pumpsets-Specifrication

Plot No. 13, Survey No. 266,

Mahadev Ind. Area-3,

Kothariya Solvant Main Road,

Gondal Road, Kothariya,

District : Rajkot,

Gujarat-360004

02 7600002005

02.01.2015

M/s Finex Engitech

Submersible Pumpsets-

8034

2002

Private Ltd.

Specification

Plot No. 13, Survey No. 266,

Mahadev Ind. Area-3,

Kothariya Solvant Main Road,

Gondal Road, Kothariya,

District : Rajkot,

Gujarat-360004

03 7600002611

06.01.2015

M/s Penguin Plywood

Wooden flush door shutters 2202

1999

PVt. Ltd.

(solid core type): Part 1

Survey No. 107/1, & 107/4,

Plywood face panels

Village Kabrav, Taluka

Bhachau, District : Kachchh,

Gujarat-370140

04 7600002712

06.01.2015

M/s Penguin Plywood

Block board

1659

2004

Pvt. Ltd.

Survey No. 107/1 & 107/4,

Village Kabrav, Taluka

Bhachau, District : Kachchh,

Gujarat -370140

05 7600002805

06.01.2015

M/s Penguin Plywood

Plywood for general

303

1989

Pvt. Ltd.

purposes

Survey No. 107/1 & 107/4,

Village Kabrav, Taluka Bhachau,

District : Kachchh,

Gujarat-370140

06 7600002906

06.01.2015

M/s Penguin Plywood

Specification for Marine

710

2010

Pvt. Ltd.

Plywood

Survey No. 107/1 & 107/4,

Village Kabrav, Taluka Bhachau,

District : Kachchh,

Gujarat-370140

07 7600003007

06.01.2015

M/s SRD Pumps

Submersible Pumpset-

8034

2002

4, Ghanshyam Nagar,

Specification

Virani Aghat, Dhebar Road

(South) Kothariya,

District : Rajkot,

Gujarat- 360004

08 7600003108

06.01.2015

M/s Shree Jogi Pipe Industries High Density Polyethylene 4984

1995

Survey No. 39, Paikee,

Pipes for Water Supply-

Plot No. 4 paikee,

Specification

Shed No. 1, Balaji

Industrial Area, Shapar

(Veraval), District : Rajkot,

Gujarat-360024

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1825

09 7600003310

06.01.2015

M/s Radhe Food & Beverages

Packaged Drinking Water

14543

2004

Plot No. 2/23, Survey

(other than Packaged

No. 71/1, Savar Sama Padar,

Natural Mineral Water)

Savarkundla, District : Amreli, -Specification

Gujarat-364515

10 7600003209

07.01.2015

M/s Shiv Electricals

Openwell Submersible

14220

1994

5, Ramnagar, B/H K. Rasiklal, Pumpsets-Specification

80 Feet, Road, Rajkot

Gujarat-360003

11. 7600004009

20/01/2015

M/s Narmada Concast

Carbon stell cast billet

2830

2012

Private Limited

ingots, billets, blooms and

Survey No. 159/160,

slabe for re-rolling into

Plot No. 6/7, Village Malpar

steel for general

(Mamsa), Taluka Gogha,

structural purposes

District : Bhavnagar,

Gujarat-364022

12. 7600004110

20/01/2015

M/s Shine Engineering,

Plastic Flushing Cisterns

7231

1994

Plot No. G 108-109A,

for Water closets and

GIDC Lodhika Kalawad

Urinals

Road, Village Metoda,

Taluka Lodhika,

District : Rajkot

Gujarat-360021

13. 7600004211

22/01/2015

M/s New Gujarat Cola

Packaged Drinking Water

14543

2004

Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 122

(other than Packaged

P-I, Rajula, District : Amreli

Natural Mineral Water)-

Gujarat-365560

Specification

14. 7600004708

23/01/2015

M/s Jalaram Submersible

Submersible Pumpsets-

8034

2002

Pumps, Survey No. 43/1,

Specification

Near Gautam Buddh Nagar,

Opp. Krishna Enterprise,

50 Feet Road,

Distric : Rajkot,

Gujarat-360004

15. 7600004809

27/01/2015

M/s Reliable Valves

Resilient Seated Cast Iron

14845

2000

Plot No. G-505, Kishan Gate, Air Relief Valves for Water

Lodhika GIDC, Metoda,

Works Purposes-

District : Rajkot,

Specification

Gujarat-360035

16. 7600004910

27/01/2005

M/s Reliable Valves

Sluice Valve for Water

14846

2000

Plot No. G-505, Kishan Gate, Works Purposes (50 to

Lodhika GIDC, Metoda,

1200 mm Size)-

District : Rajkot,

Specification

Gujarat-360035

[No. CMD/13:11]

S. CHATURVEDI, Scientist 'F'. and Head

ubZ fnYyh] 15 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 842-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;u] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e 5 ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk

vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa dks ykblsal jí fd, x, gS%

1826

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqlwph

Øñlañ

ykbZlsal la[;k

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe lEc)

jn~nhdj.k frfFk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

01-

3958890

eSllZ Jh lkabZukFk Msdksj ,y,yih]

ltkoVh FkeksZlsVhax laf'y"V jsftuc) ijrnkj

14 tuojh 2015

losZ uañ 52] IykWV uañ 19]

pknjsaµfof'k"V

';ke thuhax ds lekus] xk¡o gMerkyk]

Vkyqdk dksVMk lkaxkuh] ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360311

[lañ dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13 % 11]

lañ prqosZnh] oSKkfud ^,y* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 15th April, 2015

S.O. 842.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certificate) Regulations,

1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licencess particulars of which are given below have

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

SCHEDULE

Sl.

License No.

Name & Address of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant Indian

Date

No.

CM/L-

Standards covered by the licence

Cancellation

cancelled/suspension

01.

3958890

M/s Shri Sainath Decor LLP,

Decorative Thermosetting Synthetic Resin

14.01.2015

Survey No. 52, Plot No. 19,

Bonded Laminated Sheets-Specification

Opposite Shyam Gining, At Hadamatala,

Taluka Kotda Sangani,

District : Rajkot

Gujarat-360311

[No. CMD/13:11]

S. CHATURVEDI, Scientist 'F' and Head.

ubZ fnYyh] 15 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 843-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.k½ fofu;u] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e 5 ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk

vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa dks ykblsal iznku fd, x, gS%

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

Lohd`r djus dh

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke

Hkkjrh; ekud dk

Hkk ek

Hkkx

vuq

o"kZ

la[;k

frfFk o"kZ ekg

o irk

'kh"kZd

la[;k

1- 2947779

09 fnlEcj 2014

eSllZ HkkX;y{eh csojstsl

iSdstcUn is; ty ¼iSdstcUn 14543

2004

losZ uañ ,u 3 th] 'ks[kij]

izkd`frd feujy ty ds

rkyqdk eqyh] ftyk lqjsUnzuxj]

vykok½

xqtjkr&363510

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1827

2- 7600000199

11 fnlEcj 2014

eSllZ tyØkfUr bysfDVªdYl

fueTtuh; iEilsV dh fof'kf"V 8034

2002

IykWV uañ D-105/A,

esVksMk th vkbZ Mh lh]

rkyqdk yksf/kdk]

ftyk jktdksV] xqtjkr&360021

3- 7600000405

12 fnlEcj 2014

eSllZ VkWiySUM iaIl izkbZosV fyfeVsM

d`f"k vkSj tyiwfrZ ds fy;s

9079

2002

ijlk.kk QkmUMªh ds lkeus]

lkQ vkSj VaMs ikuh ds

mekdkUr iafMr m|ksxuxj]

fctyh ds eksukslsV

eoMh IykWV] jktdksV]

iEi&fof'kf"V

xqtjkr&360003

4- 7600000607

15 fnlEcj 2014

eSllZ ekbØkWu bUMLVªht

iEi iqu;ksZth LoLN BaMs ikuh

8472

1998

losZ uEcj 39@3] us'kuy gkbos 8B,

ds fy, fof'kf"V

d`"uk ikdZ gksVy ds ihNs] xksaMy jksM]

jktdksV] xqtjkr&360004

5- 760000708

16 fnlEcj 2014

eSllZ ,sysfDVªdYl bfUtfu;fjax

[kqys dq,a ds fy, fueTt;

14220

1994

lskeukFk bUMfLVª;y ,fj;k]

iEilsV &fof'kf"V

IykWV lañ 13@14 dksBkfj;k losZ uañ 224]

d`".kk ikdZ ds lkeus] jsyos ØkWflax ds ikl]

xksaMy gkbos jksM] jktdksV] xqtjkr

6- 7600000809

16 fnlEcj 2014

eSllZ vkjñ dsñ ikWfyelZ

[kqys dq,a ds fy, fueTt;

14220

1994

IykWV uañ G-1097] jksM IC,

,EilsV µfof'k"V

eksathuhl csdjh ds lkeus]

fd'kku xsV] esVksMk] rkyqdk yksf/kdk]

ftyk jktdksV] xqtjkr&360024

7- 7600000910

22 fnlEcj 2014

eaSllZ Jh gfj feujy okWVj

iSdstcUn is; ty ¼iSdstcUn 14543

2004

IykWV uañ 53] jkes'oj Vkmuf'ki

izkd`frd feujy ty ds

ds lkeus gyon jksM] jktij]

vykok½

rkyqdk&/kzkax/kzk]

ftyk lqjsUnzuxj]

xqtjkr&363310

8- 7600001003

23 fnlEcj 2014

eSllZ f'kokatyh ikbi

vkiwfrZ ds fy, mPp ?kuRo

4984

1995

IykWV uañ 5] jkes'oj bUMfLVª;y ,fj;k]

okys ikWfy,fFkyhu ikbi&

ijhu QuhZpj ds ihNs] xksaMy jksM]

fof'kf"V

okoMh] ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360004

9- 7600001407

26 fnlEcj 2014

eSllZ fueZy csojstsl

iSdstcUn is; ty ¼iSdstcUn 14543

2004

IykWV uañ 30] xk;=h xkMZu]

izkd`frd feujy ty ds vykok½

,p ih xSl xksMkmu ds ikl]

ftUnky lkW xsV&2 ds ikl]

ukuk dik;k] rkyqdk eqUnzk]

ftyk dPN] xqtjkr&370421

10- 7600001508

29 fnlEcj 2014

eSllZ i`Foh iEi

[kqys dq,a ds fy, fueTt;

14220

1994

IykWV uañ 28@29] ckykth

iEilsV &fof'kf"V

bUMfLVª;y ,fj;k] gksVy d`".kk ikdZ

ds lkeus] xksaMy jksM]

,uñ,pñ&88] jsyos dkWflax ds ihNs]

dksBkjh;k] ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360002

[lañ dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13% 11]

lañ prqosZnh] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

1828

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th April, 2015

S.O. 843.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certificate) Regulations,

1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notify the grant of licences particulars of which are given below in the

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant

Name & Address

Title of the

IS No.

Part.

Sec.

Year

No.

Date

of the Licensee

Standard

01. 2947779

09/12/2014

M/s Bhagyalaxmi Bevereges

Packaged drinking water

14543

—

2004

Survey No. N3G,

(other than packaged

At-Shekhpar, Taluka:muli,

natural mineral water)-

District: Surendranagar,

Gujarat-363510

02. 7600000199

11/12/2014

M/s Jalkraanti Electricals

Submersible pumpsets-

8034

2002

Plot No. D-105/A, Metoda

GIDC, Taluka-Lodhika,

District: Rajkot,

Gujarat-360021

03. 7600000405

12/12/2014

M/s Topland Pumps Pvt. Ltd. Electric monoset pumps

9079

2002

Opp Parsana, Foundry,

for clear, cold water

Umakant, Pandit Udyognagar, for agricultural and water

Mavdi Plot Rajkot,

supply purpose-

Gujarat-360004

04. 7600000607

15/12/2014

M/s Micron Industries

Pumps-regenerative or

8472

1998

Survey No. 39/3,

clear, cold water-

National Highway 8B,

B/H Krishna Park Hotel,

Gondal Road, Rajkot,

Gujarat-360004

05. 7600000708

16/12/2014

M/s Active Electricals

Openwell submersible

14220

1994

Engineering

pumpsets-

Somnath Industrial Area,

Plot No. 13/14, Kothariya,

Survey No. 224,

Opposite Krishna Park,

Inside railway crossing,

Gondal highway road,

Rajkot, Gujarat

06. 7600000809

16/12/2014

M/s R.K. Polymers

Openwell submersible

14220

1994

Plot No. G-1097, Road IC,

pumpsets-

Opp. Monginis Bakery,

Kishan Gate, Metoda,

Taluka Lodhika,

District: Rajkot,

Gujarat-360024

07. 7600000910

22/12/2014

M/s Shri Hari Mineral Water

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Plot No. 53, Opp. Rameshwar (other than packaged

Township, Halvad Road,

natural mineral water)-

Rajpar, Taluka-Dhrangadhra

District-Surendranagar,

Gujarat-363310

08. 7600001003

23/12/2014

M/s Shivanjali Pipe

High density polyethylene

4984

1995

Plot No. 5, Rameshwar

pipes for potable

Ind. Area, B/H Parin

water supplies

Furniture, Gondal Road,

Vavdi, Rajkot,

Gujarat-360004

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1829

09. 7600001407

26/12/2014

M/s Nirmal Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Plot No. 30, Gayari,

(other than packaged

Garden, Near HP Gas,

Natural mineral water)—

Godown, Near Jindal Saw

Gate-2, Kachchh,

Nana Kapaya,

Gujarat-370421

10. 7600001508

29/12/2014

M/s Prithvi Pump

Openwell submersible

14220

1994

Plot No. 28/29, Balaji Ind.

pumpsets—

area, opp. Hotel Krishna

Park, Gondal road, N.H.-88

B/H Railway Crossing,

Kothariya, Rajkot,

Gujarat-360002

[No. CMD/13:11]

S. CHATURVEDI, Scientist 'F' and Head

ubZ fnYyh] 15 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 844-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;u] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e 5 ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn}kjk

vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa ds ykblsal jí fd, x, gSa%

vuqlwph

Øñlañ

ykbZlsal la[;k

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe lEc)

jn~nhdj.k frfFk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

2859782

eSllZ [ksMwr bfjxs'ku ¼bafM;k½ izkbZosV fyfeVsM

ty vkiwfrZ gsrq mPp

10@12@2014

IyksV uañ 13] 14] 15] 16] vkSj 19]

?kuRo ikWyhbFkkbyhu

vkj ,l uañ 53] gMerkyk]

ikbi

f'ko d`ik dsfedy ds ikl]

jktdksV xksaMy gkbZos] rkyqdk xksaMy]

ftyk jktdksV] xqtjkr 360311

2859883

eSllZ [ksMwr bfjxs'ku ¼bafM;k½ izkbZosV fyfeVsM

flapkb miLdj & fLizadyj

10@12@2014

IyksV uañ 13] 14] 15] 16 vkSj 19]

ikbi & fof'kf"V

vkj ,l uañ 53] gMerkyk]

f'ko d`ik dsfedy ds ikl]

jktdksV xksaMy gkbZos] rkyqdk xksaMy]

ftyk jktdksV] xqtjkr 360311

[la- dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11]

lañ prqosZnh] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 15th April, 2015

S.O. 844.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certificate) Regulations,

1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given below have

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

1830

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

Sl.

License No.

Name & Address of the

Article/Process with relevant Indian

Date

No.

CM/L-

Licensee

Standards covered by the licence

Cancellation

cancelled/suspension

2859782

M/s Khedut Irrigation (India)

High Density Polyethelene Pipes

10/12/2014

Private Limited,

for Water Supply

Plot No. 13, 14, 15, 16, & 19,

R.S. No. 53 of Hadamtala,

Nr. Shivkrupa Chemical,

Rajkot-Gondal highway,

(N.H. 8B) Bhunava,

Taluka: Gondal, Hadamtala

District : Rajkot, Gujarat-360311

2859883

M/s Khedut Irrigation (India)

Irrigation Equipment-Sprinkler

10/12/2014

Private Limited,

Pipes - Specification — Part I:

Plot No. 13, 14, 15, 16, & 19,

Ployethelene Pipes

R.S. No. 53 of Hadamtala,

Nr. Shivkrupa Chemical,

Rajkot-Gondal highway,

(N.H. 8B) Bhunava,

Taluka: Gondal, Hadamtala

District: Rajkot, Gujarat-360311

[No. CMD/13:11]

S. CHATURVEDI, Scientist 'F' and Head

fo|qr ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 845-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e

¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa fo|qr ea=ky; ds iz'kklfud fu;a=.kk/khu ikoj

fxzM dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k fyfeVsM ds ± 800 dsoh if'pe&mÙkj

,pohMhlh] varj la;kstd ifj;kstuk] edku la-&561] gqMk lsDVj&2]

ftany pkSd ds ikl] dq:{ks=&136118 ¼gfj;k.kk½] ftlds 80 izfr'kr

deZpkjhoa`n us fganh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks

,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrh gSA

[lañ 11017@10@2013&fgUnh]

MkW- vkj- lh- 'kekZ] la;qDr funs'kd ¼jk-Hkk-½

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 16th April, 2015

S.O. 845.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of

the Offical Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the Union)

Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify the ± 800

KV West-North HVDC Interconnector Project, H.No. 561,

HUDA Sector-2, Near Jindal Chowk, Kurukshetra-136118

(Haryana) of the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. under

the administrative control of Ministry of Power, where 80%

of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

[No.11017/10/2013-Hindi]

Dr. R.C. SHARMA, Jt. Director (O.L.)

lapkj vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ea=ky;

¼nwjlapkj foHkkx½

¼jktHkk"kk izHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 10 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 846-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr] 1987] 2007

rFkk 2011½ ds fu;e 10¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa eq[; egkizca/kd]

iatkc ifjeaMy ds varxZr dk;kZy; egkizca/kd nwjlapkj] lax:j]

ftlesa 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku

izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrh gSA

2- ;g vf/klwfpuk jkti= esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls ykxw gksxhA

[lañ&11016@01@2015&jktHkk"kk]

lqjs'k pUnz 'kekZ] mi egkfuns'kd ¼lh- ,.M ,-½

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(Department of Telecommunications)

(Department of Official Language)

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2015

S.O. 846.—In pursuance of rule 10(4) of the Offical

Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules,

1976 (as amended 1987, 2007 and 2011), the Central

Government hereby notifies the Office of the General

Manager Telecom, Sangrur under the adminitrative control

of Chief General Managar, Telecom Circle, Punjab, where

more than 80% staff have acquired working knowledge of

Hindi.

2. This notification shall come into force from the date

of its publication in the Official Gazette.

[No.11016/01/2015-O.L.]

SURESH CHANDRA SHARMA, DDG (C.&A.)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1831

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 847-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsnzh; ljdkj vyxIik VsDlVkby

feYl] fFkzLlwj] dsjy 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; ,ukZdqye ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 29@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 16@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- & 42011@16@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

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

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 20th April, 2015

S.O. 847.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 29/2013) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam now

as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of the

Alagappa Textile Mills, Thrissur, Kerala and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 16/04/2015.

[No. L-42011/16/2013-IR (DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

Shri D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B,

Presiding Officer

(Tuesday the 31st day of March, 2015/10th Chaitra, 1937)

ID 29/2013

Union :

The General Secretary

Trichur District Textile Mazdoor Sangam

PO : Alagappa Nagar

Thrissur (Kerala)

By Adv. Shri C.P. Peethambaran

Management :

The General Manager

Alagappa Textile Mills

P.O. Alagappa Nagar

Thrissur (Kerala)

By Adv. Shri P. Ramakrishnan

This case coming up for final hearing on 31.03.2015

and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the same day

passed the following:

AWARD

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 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government/Ministry of Labour vide its Order No-L-42011/

16/2013-IR(DU) dated 07.06.2013 referred the industrial

dispute scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this

tribunal.

2. The dispute is:—

"Whether the action of the management of Alagappa

Textiles (Cochin) Mills in terminating the services of

its workman Shri K Muraleedharan w.e.f. 1.4.2012 is

just and legal? What relief the workman is entitled

to?"

3. On receipt of summons the union and the

management entered appearance. After submission of the

respective pleadings by both parties the ID was posted in

the Lok Adalat as agreed to by them for an amicable

settlement. It was settled between the parties and they

have jointly filed compromise. There is no illegality in

accepting the compromise and hence an award can be

passed in terms of the compromise.

4. In the result an award is passed in terms of the

compromise which will form part of the award.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

NIL

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

I.D. No. 29/2013

The General Manager

Alagappa Textiles Mills

P.O. Alagappa Nagar

Thrissur (Kerala)

..... Management

The General Secretary

Trichur District Textile Mazdoor Sangam

P.O. Alagappa Nagar

Thrissur, (Kerala)

..... Union

The matter was taken up in the Lok Adalat and the

parties agreed to settle the dispute on the following terms:—

(1) The Management has paid Rs. 173943 (Rupees ONE

LAKH SEVENTY THREE THOUSAND NINE

HUNDRED AND FORTY THREE only) to Shri K.

Muraleedharan, the workman involved in I.D. No.

29/2013 toward the gratuity payable to him on

termination. The said payment made by the

1832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

management is in full and final settlement of all the

claims raised by the union in I.D. No. 29/2013.

(2) The workman accepted the above said sum in full

and final settlement and the workman also hereby

undertakes that he will not raise any claim in future

for employment or any other monetary claims

against the management.

Dated this the 26th day of March, 2015

Workman:

-Sd/-

Union:

Sd/-

Management:

Sd/-

Counsel for workman:

Counsel for Management:

Sd/-

Mediator

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 848-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,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; ua- 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 67@2012½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@24@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th April, 2015

S.O. 848.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 67/2012)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.

2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

20/04/2015.

[No. L-20012/24/2012-IR (CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri Kishori Ram

Presiding Officer

In the matter of an industrial Dispute under section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947

REFERENCE NO. 67 OF 2012

PARTIES

The Secretary

Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Jharnapara, Hirapur,

Dhanbad Vs. The General Manager,

P.B Area of M/s. BCCL, PO: Kusunda, Distt; Dhanbad

Order No. L-20012/24/2012-IR(CM-I)

dt. 13.08.2012

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the workman/Union

None

On behalf of the Management

None

State

Jharkhand

Industry

Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 4th Feb., 2015.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal of adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/

23/2012-IR (CM-I) dt. 13.08.2012.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of K.B.5/6

Pits Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not regularizing

Shri S.R.Chakraborty as Store Keeper is fair and justified

To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?"

2. Neither any Representative for Bihar Colliery Kamgar

Union nor workman S.R Chakraborty appeared nor any

written statement with any documents filed on his behalf

just as none appeared for the OP/Management of P.B. Area

of M/s. BCCL, Kusunda.

On perusal of the case record, I find the case has all

along been pending for written statement with documents

since 28.12.2012. For it, three Regd. Notices dtt.02.11.12,

04.10.13 and 28.05.15 were issued to both the parties on

their respective addresses as noted in the reference itself,

yet none could appear nor any written statement with the

documents filed on behalf of the workman. In view of the

circumstances, it clearly appears that No Industrial Dispute

Exists now, as the Union Representative and the workman

by their conducts appear to be quite reluctant and

uninterested to pursue the case upto its finality. Hence the

case is closed as "No Industrial dispute" existing;

accordingly an order of 'No Dispute Award' is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 849-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1833

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

U;k;ky; ] ua- 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 32@2006½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@180@2005&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th April, 2015

S.O. 849.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 32/2006) 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

20/04/2015.

[No. L-20012/180/2005-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. 32 OF 2006

PARTIES

The Area Joint Secretary,

Janta Mazdoor Sangh,

Kenduadih Colliery, PO:Kusunda, Dhanbad

Vs.

The General Manager,

P.B.Area of M/s. BCCL, PO: Kusunda, Distt; Dhanbad

Order No. L-20012/180/2005-IR(CM-I) dt. 10.06.2006

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the workman/Union

Mr. K.N. Singh,

Rep. of the

workman

On behalf of the Management

Mr.S.N.Ghosh,

Ld. Advocate.

State

Jharkhand

Industry

Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 11th Feb.,2015

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise

of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d) of the

I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal fo adjudication vide their Order No.L-20012/180/

2005-IR (CM-I) dt. 10.06.2006.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of BCCL,

Gopalichak Colliery in superannuating Sh. Shivnath

Harijan w.e.f. 1.1.99 treating his date of birth as 1.3.39

instead of 9.3.46 is just, proper and legal? If not, to what

relief is the workman entitled?"

2. Neither any Representative for Janta Mazdoor

Sangh nor the workman Shiv Nath Harijan nor any witness

for evidence of the workman appeared. Mr. S.N. Ghosh,

the Ld. Advocate for the OP/Management is present as

usual.

After going through the case record, I find case has

been pending for the evidence of the workman since

25.06.2014 for which last and final chance were given

for it. Despite giving ample opportunities, the Union

Representative as well as the workman himself failed to

produce any witness on his behalf in the Reference which

is related to an issue of superannuation. The Union

Representative and the workman by their negligent

conducts appear to be uninterested or reluctant to pursue

the case of its final adjudication. Under this circumstances,

the case is closed as "No Industrial Dispute" existing.

Hence it is passed an order of 'No Dispute'.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 850-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsnzh; ljdkj lhlh,y ds izcaèra=

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; ] ua- 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 41@2008½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@18@2008&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th April, 2015

S.O. 850.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 41/2008) 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. CCL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

20/04/2015.

[No. L-20012/18/2008-IR (CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

1834

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 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. 41 OF 2008

PARTIES

The Secretary,

United Coal Workers Union

At/PO: Argada, Hazaribagh

Vs.

The Project Officer

Sirka Colliery of M/s. CCL, PO: Argada, Distt; Hazaribagh

Ministry’s Order No. L-20012/18/2008-IR(CM-I)

dt. 28.04.2008

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the workman/Union

Mr. R.R. Prasad,

Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the Management

Mr. D.K. Verma,

Ld. Advocate

State

Jharkhand

Industry

Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 3rd Feb., 2015

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10

(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.

L-20012/18/2008-IR(CM-I) dt. 28.04.2008.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Sirka

Colliery of M/s. CCL in respect of Sh. Mahendra Yadav,

Shovel Operator in (i) deduction of Rs. 11,840 from his

salary; (ii) demotion to lower grade as Grade-B and (iii)

fixing of initial basic of lower grade is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?"

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/18/2008 IR(CM-I)

dt. 28.04.2008 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. 41 of 2008 was registered on 06.05.2008 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 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 Mahendra Yadav as sponsored

by the United Coal Workers' Union is that he was a

permanent employee of Shirka Colliery of M/s .CCL,

working as a Shovel Operator, Grade B. His service was

unblemished and satisfactory. But the Management issued

him a charge sheet dt. 5/8.03.1999, making a false and

fabricated allegation of misconduct against him. He replied

to it, denying the allegation. The Management

unconsidered his explanation, and initiated a departmental

enquiry. In course of the enquiry, the workman was neither

supplied with the relevant documents as called for by him

nor properly given an opportunity for his defence. The

Enquiry was conducted unfair, improper, and against the

principle of natural justice. The Report of the Enquiry

Officer was perverse, as the charge levelled against him

was unproved. The punishment imposed upon the

workman was harsh and disproportionate. Moreover, the

Project Officer was not a Competent Authority to issue the

chargesheet, and to appoint the Enquiry Officer. So the

order of the punishment passed by the Project Officer is

illegal and liable to be set aside.

The Union in its rejoinder for the workman has also

specifically denied all the allegations for the OP/

Management as incorrect, further stating that the Appellate

Authority without considering the enquiry proceeding

dismissed the appeal of the workman. The punishment

inflicted upon him was illegal and unjustified.

3. Jut contrary to it, the case of the OP/Management is

that the reference is unmaintainable in law or in facts. The

workman was issued a chargesheet-cum-Suspension as

per the letter dt. 5.8.1999 for fraudulently availing LLTC/

LTC in excess against the block years 1986-1989 and 1990-

1993 (two times LLTC and one LTC)—the misconduct under

the Certitified Standing Orders of the Company. The reply

of the workman to it was unsatisfactory, so the Management

appointed the Enquiry Officer to conduct the domestic

enquiry in accordance with principle of natural justice. The

Enquiry Officer fairly conducted the enquiry in presence

of the workman, and submitted his enquiry report, holding

him guilty of the charges, the workman was issued the

second Show Cause with a copy of the enquiry report, but

his explanation to it was also found unsatisfactory. The

workman was liable for his dismissal for his proved

misconduct; he was leniently punished with his demotion.

Even the Appellant Authority after hearing dismissed the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1835

Appeal for the workman. The punishment awarded by the

Disciplinary Authority to the workman was legal and

justified. The OP/Management urged for a permission to

afresh prove the charges in case, the enquiry at the

preliminary point held as unfair and improper.

The OP/Management in their simultaneous rejoinder

has categorically denied all the allegations of the workman

as incorrect, further justifying the action of the management

in awarding the workman with the punishment as referred.

FINDING WITH REASONS

4. In the instant reference, at the preliminary point,

when the OP/Management failed to produce any cogent

evidence on account of not making their document available

before the Tribunal, even after the evidence of the workman,

the Tribunal as per the Order No. 26 dt. 27.06.2013 held the

domestic enquiry unfair, improper and against this principle

of natural justice, directing he OP/Management to

reproduce their witness on merits. Later on, finally on the

due examination of the workman as WW1 on merits

following the failure and closure of the OP/Management to

examine their any witness on their behalf on merits on

25.10.2013, it came up for final disposal.

The submission of Mr. R.R. Prasad, the Learned

Counsel for the Union/workman is that though none of the

charges has been proved against him, nor the OP/

Management could establish it at preliminary point or on

merits even, the Management baselessly awarded him with

the penalty of deduction of Rs. 11,840 from his salary his

demotion to lower Grade as Grade B, and fixing of initial

basis of lower grade which is harsh, illegal, and unjustified,

so it is liable to be set aside. Whereas the contention of

Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate for the OP/Management is

that on proof the charges levelled against the workman,

the OP/Management in view of the grave nature of his

fradulent misconduct as admitted by himself in his appeal

(dateless, but received on 28.06.2004-Ext. M.1) has awarded

the penalty of recovery of the excess amount of LLTC/LTC

and that of his demotion to lower Grade as Grade B, as

such the punishment awarded to him for the grave

misconduct as appropriate, so he is not entitled to any

relief.

5. On perusal and due consideration of the materials

available on the case record, it appears no dispute that the

workman has accepted in his appeal the recovery of the

excess amount LLTC/LTC (for the relevant period 1986-89

and 1990-93) from his salary, but treating his demotion and

fixing of his pay on initial basis of lower category as harsh.

In view of the circumstances, if the deduction of Rs. 11,840

as the excess of LLTC and LTC twice availed by the

workman from his salary was not enough to discipline him,

penalty of deduction of his one increment in his basis scale

of salary would have been more than enough to teach him

the lesson for his such fraudulent misconduct. But the

demotion of the workman to lower grade as Grade B to its

initial basic simultaneously for the same offence appears

to be shocking and disproportionate to the nature of the

misconduct. Hence, the order of his demotion to lower

Grade B with initial basic is liable to be set aside under the

Sec11A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Double

punishment for single misconduct is not sustainable.

6. In lack of the proof of the charges against the

workman, it is, in the terms of the reference, hereby awarded

that the action of the Management of Sirka Colliery of M/s

CCL in respect of Mahendra Yadav, Shovel Operator in (i)

deducting of Rs. 1,840/- from salary, (ii) his demotion to

lower Grade B, (iii) and fixing of his initial basic of lower

Grade is not legal and justified. Hence the workman is

entitled to his reinstatement in Grade A with Fullback wages

with all financial concomitant benefits.

The OP/Management is directed to implement the

awarded with one month from the receipt of it following its

publication in the Gazette of India.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 851-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eqEcbZ b.Vjus'kuy

,vjiksVZ izkbZosV 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@Je U;k;ky;] ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 65@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 20@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&11012@29@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th April, 2015

S.O. 851.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award Ref. 65/2013 of the Cent. Govt.

Indus. Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of M/s. Mumbai International Airports Pv.

Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 20/04/2015.

[No. L-11012/29/2013-IR(CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

1836

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

K.B. KATAKE,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/65 OF 2013

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

(1) Mumbai International Airports Pvt. Ltd.

(2) Avicon Aviation Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Vice President-HR

Mumbai International Airports Pvt. Ltd.

Terminal 1-B, Chhatrapati Shivaji Intl. Airport

Santacruz (E)

Mumbai-400 099

M/s. Avicon Aviation Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd.

Flat No. 04, Kajaria Kunj

Khar (W), Mumbai-400 052

AND

THEIR WORKMAN

The General Secretary

Airport Aviation Employees Union

Terminal 1-B, Above CSI Airport

Santacruz (E)

Mumbai-400 099

APPEARANCES

For The Employer No. 1

: Mrs. Mitra Das,

Advocate

For The Employer No. 2

: No appearance

For The Union/Workman

: No appearance

Mumbai, dated the 20th March, 2015

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No. L-11012/29/2013-IR (CM-

I), dated 24.10.2013 in exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have

referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication:—

"Whether the dispute as raised against M/s. Avicon

Aviation Consultancy Pvt. Ltd, who is contractor in

the case, by the union of contractor's Labourers i.e.

Airports Aviation Employees Union lies against the

Management of M/s. Mumbai International Airport

Ltd. (MIAL) who is principal employer in the case?

If so, what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

2. After receipt of the reference, notices were issued to

both the parties and served on Union vide Ex-5. Till date

neither second party union appeared in the proceeding

nor filed their statement of claim. Since nobody appeared

on behalf of the union and filed statement of claim, it seems

they are not interested in pursuing the matter further.

Without statement of claim award cannot be passed on

merits. Therefore I think it proper to dismiss the reference

for want of prosecution. Thus I pass the following order:

ORDER

Reference stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

No order as to cost.

Date: 20.03.2015

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 852-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,vj bf.M;k 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@Je U;k;ky;] ua- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

65@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@04@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-&11012@17@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th April, 2015

S.O. 852.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 65/2014 of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of M/s. Air India Ltd. and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

20/04/2015.

[No. L-11012/17/2014-IR (CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT O F SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX,

DELHI

ID No. 65/2014

The General Secretary,

Air India Employees Union,

Union Office Air India G.S.D. Complex,

Terminal-2,

New Delhi

.....Workman

Versus

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1837

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

Air India Ltd.,

Airlines House, 113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road,

New Delhi-110001

Delhi

..Management

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No. L-11012/17/2014-

IR (CM-I) dated 07.07.2014, referred the following industrial

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:—

"Whether the action of the management of the Air

India by transferring its employees to AIASTL (Air

India Air Transport Limited) without taking their

consent and without following the mandatory

provisions of Section 9A of the Industrial Dispute

Act and not giving specific and satisfactory answer

with regard to continuance of statutory/non-

statutory facilities like Gratuity, Provident Fund,

Passage Facility and Medical Facility are just and

proper? To what relief the concerned workmen are

entitled to?

2. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent

to the workman as well as the management. None appeared

on behalf of the claimant. As such, this Tribunal ordered

issuance of fresh notice to the workman. Despite sending

notice by registered A.D., workman has not appeared

before the Tribunal so as to pursue his case. Thus, it is

clear that the workman is not interested in the adjudication

of the reference on merits.

3. Since the workman has neither put in his appearance

nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against

the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no

choice, except to pass a 'No Dispute/Claim' award. 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 11, 2015

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 853-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k ds

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

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 28@2001½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-04-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@119@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2015

S.O. 853.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/2001) of the

Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kolkata as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Central Bank of India and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 22/04/2015.

[No. L-12011/119/2001-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

REFERENCE NO. 28 OF 2001

PARTIES

Employers in relation to the management

of Central Bank of India

AND

THEIR WORKMAN

PRESENT : Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCE :

On behalf of the Management : Mr. G.C. Chakraborty, Ld.

Counsel.

On behalf of the Workmen

: None

State :West Bengal

Industry : Banking

Dated: 16th October, 2014

AWARD

By Order No. L-12011/119/2001-IR(B-II) dated

10.10.2001 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:—

"Whether the action of the management of Central

Bank of India in not confirming Shri Sunil Kumar

Maity as Head Cashier 'E' inspite of his officiating as

such since 1.1.1996 is legal and justified? If not, what

relief Shri Maity is entitled to?"

2. When the case is taken up today, none appears on

behalf of the union, though the management is represented

by its Ld. Counsel. It appears from the record that none

also appeared on behalf of the union on the previous three

dates. Nor has any step been taken by it to proceed with

this reference inspite of service of notice and inspite of

specific order of the Tribunal on the last date i.e., 10.07.2014.

3. Considering the above facts and circumstances, it

appears that the union is not at all interested to proceed

with the case further. So, no useful purpose will be served

in keeping the matter pending.

4. Accordingly, the instant reference case is disposed

of by passing a "No Dispute Award".

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, The 16th October, 2014

Kolkata

1838

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 854-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVªy cSad vkWQ

bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 32@2003½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-04-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@114@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼ch-&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2015

S.O. 854.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/2003) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kolkata as shown

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of Central Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 22/04/2015.

[No. L-12011/114/2003-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

REFERENCE NO. 32 OF 2003

PARTIES

Employers in relation to the

management of Central Bank of India

AND

THEIR WORKMAN

PRESENT : Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCE :

On behalf of the Management : Mr. G.C. Chakraborty, Ld.

Counsel.

On behalf of the Workmen

: None

State

: West Bengal

Industry Banking

Dated: 5th January, 2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-12011/114/2003-IR(B-II) dated

23.09.2003 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:—

"Whether employer—employee relationship exist

between the Central Bank of India, Zonal Office,

Kolkata and the 14 Canteen Staff working in the

Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Kolkata?

Whether Mr. Asit Baran Das and 13 others (as per

list attached) are entitle for regularisation in to the

services of the Bank? If so, from when and on what

pay scales they are entitled for regularisation? If not,

to what relief they are entitled?"

LIST OF WORKMEN

Sl. Name and Address

Working at

No.

1. Asit Baran Das,

Central Bank of India,

S/o Late Harish Ch. Das, Zonal Office/Main Office

Vill & P.O. Jerthan,

Building Canteen at 33,

P.S. Egra,

N.S. Road,

Distt. Midnapore (East.)

Kolkata-700001.

2. Pradip Mukherjee,

-do-

S/o Nirmal Mukherjee

Vill, Nalikul Stn. Bazar,

P.O. Nalikul,

Dist. Hooghly.

3. Jhareswar Das,

-do-

S/o. Ramani Kanta Das,

Vill. Madhabpur,

P.O. Purba Madhabpur,

P.S. Egra, Dist. Midnapore

(East).

4. Prabhat Kr. Banerjee,

-do-

S/o. Ajit Kr. Banerjee,

Vill. & Post Khanar Chandi,

Dist. Hooghly, Haripal.

5. Narendra Palai,

-do-

S/o. Late Baidhar Palai,

Vill. & Post Dagarapada,

P.S. Khaira, Dist. Balasore (Orissa)

6. Rabin Roy,

-do-

S/o. Late Adhir Roy,

Vill. Phul Bagan, Post. Batanagar,

P.S. Maheshtala, Distt.

24 Pagarnas (South).

7. Purna Chandra Singh,

-do-

S/o. Harihor Singh,

Vill. Bagberia, P.O. Sabong,

Dist. Midnapore (West).

8. Madhusudan Barui,

-do-

S/o. Late Hemanta Barui,

111, Adharsha Nagar Colony,

Kolkata-100.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1839

9. Shamal Sil,

-do-

S/o. Rohini Sil,

28, Desapran Shamal Road,

Kolkata-700033.

10. Ramesh Sharma,

-do-

S/o Late Nirdhan Sharma,

Vill. Bajitpur Karnal, Post,

Purusottampur, Halai,

Dist. Samastipur (Bihar).

11. Susanta Kr. Jana,

-do-

S/o Late Hari Pada Jana,

Vill. Sapai, P.O. Karolda,

P.S. Morisda, Dist. Midnapore

(West).

12. Smt. Shefali Jana,

-do-

W/o. Late Ajit Kr. Jana,

87, Boser Math, G.I.P.

Colony, Howrah.

13. Smt. Kalpana Singh

-do-

S/o. Late Amar Singh,

Dharasa Chowdhury Para,

G.I.P. Colony, Howrah.

14. Dhananjay Prodhan,

-do-

S/o. Niranjan Prodhan,

Vill. & Post Kasida,

Via Nampo, Dist. Balasore,

Orissa.

2. When the case was taken up for hearing on

16.12.2014, none appeared on behalf of the union/workman

through the management was represented by its Ld.

Counsel. It appears from the record that none had turned

up on behalf of the union on the previous two consecutive

dates.

3. Considering the facts and circumstance, it appears

that the union is not at all willing to proceed with the case

further, So, no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping

the matter pending.

4. In view of the above facts and circumstances,

present reference is disposed of by passing a ''No Dispute

Award.''.

Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated: The 5th January, 2015.

Kolkata

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 855-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ cM+kSnk 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;] dksydrk ds iapkV ¼21@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-04-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@179@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2015

S.O. 855.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2006)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

No. Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

22/04/2015.

[No. L-12011/179/2005- IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

REFERENCE NO. 21 OF 2006

PARTIES

Employers in relation to the management

of Bank of Baroda

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

PRESENT

Justice Dipak Saha Ray,

Presiding Officer

APPEARANCE

On Behalf of the Management : None

On behalf of the Workmen

: None

State

: West Bengal.

Industry Banking.

Dated: 5th January, 2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-12011/179/2005-IR(B-II) dated

24.02.2006 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:—

''Whether the action of the management of Bank of

Baroda. 2/7 Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata 700020 in not

paying House Rent Allowance to Shri Swapan Kr.

Kar. Clerk of Durgapur Branch with retrospective

effect from January. 2004 is justified? If not, to what

relief Shri Kar is entitled?''

1840

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

2. When the case was taken up for hearing on

09.12.2014. none appeared on behalf of either of the parties.

It appears from the record that the union at whose instance

present reference has been initiated did not turn up for

four consecutive dates.

3. Considering the facts and circumstnace, it appears

that the union is not at all willing to proceed with the case

further. So, no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping

the matter pending.

4. In view of the above facts and circumstances,

present reference is disposed of by passing a ''No Dispute

Award''.

Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated : The 5th January, 2015.

Kolkata

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 856-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ cM+kSnk 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;] dksydkrk ds iapkV ¼5@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-04-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y& 12011@282@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2015

S.O. 856.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/2004)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No.

Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Bank of Baroda and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

22/04/2015.

[No. L-12011/282/2003- IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

REFERENCE NO. 05 of 2004

PARTIES

Employers in relation to the management

of Bank of Baroda

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

PRESENT

Justice Dipak Saha Ray,

Presiding Officer

APPEARANCE

On Behalf of the Management : Mr. Satya Ranjan Das,

Manager, Regional Office

(Kolkata Metro Region)

of the Bank.

On behalf of the Workmen :Ramgopal Chattopadhyay,

President of the Bank of

Baroda

Employees'

Association.

State

: West Bengal.

Industry

: Banking.

Dated: 8th October 2014

AWARD

1. By Order No. L-12011/282/2003-IR(B-II) dated

08.03.2004 the Government of India, Ministry of

Labour in exercise of its powers under Section

10 (1)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

1947 referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:—

''Whether the action of the management of

Bank of Baroda. by withdrawing scheme for

reimbursement of educational expenses

incurred by the employees for their children

without issuing notice under Section 9A of

the ID Act is held just and legal? If not,

what relief the workmen are entitled to and

whether recorvery of amounts already

reimbursed to the workmen is barred by

promissory estopel? If not, what relief the

workmen are entitled to?''

2. In the instannt reference, both the unions, namely

Bank of Baroda Employees' Association and Bank

of Baroda Employees' Union, West Bengal

appeared after receiving notice and filed statement

of claims and rejoinders. Ultimately, Bank of Baroda

Employees Union, West Bengal did not contest

the case.

3. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the case of the

Bank of Baroda Employees' Association is as

follows:—

Bank of Baroda by issuing a circular dated

01.03.1997 (Ext. W-01) introduced some staff

welfare schemes including ''scheme for

reimbursement of educational expenses incurred

by the employees for their children''. Thereafter

the Bank issued one circular dated 28.07.1997

(Ext. W-02) declaring the said scheme to be a

continuing scheme. Again by issuance of another

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1841

circular dated 24.07.1998 (Ext. W-03) the Bank

declared that the said scheme was a regular scheme.

Ultimately by issuance of a circular dated 16.04.2003

(Ext. W-04) the Bank has withdrawn the said scheme

and directed its all branches/officers to recover the

reimbursement which was made to the employees

for the academic year 2003.

4. It is contended by the union that since the

employess have enjoyed the benefit of the scheme

for several years, the scheme has become a

‘condition of service’ as a Customary Concession

or Privilege under item No. 8 of the Fourth Schedule

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with

Section 9A of the Act. And as such the said

condition of service cannot be changed by

withdrawing the said scheme without compliance

with the provisions of Section 9A of the Industrial

Disputes Act. It is further contended that in view

of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the circular

dated 16.04.2003 is void abintio and accordingly

the employees are entitled to get the benefit of the

said scheme until the scheme is withdrawn after

observing all the formalities.

5. Regarding the second point of the reference the

union has contended that the Bank has been

extending financial benefit under the said scheme

since 1997 uninterruptedly and as such the said

circular regarding recovery of amounts already

reimbursed to the workmen under the scheme is

barred by the principle of promissory estoppels.

6. The management of Bank of Baroda has contested

the case by filing written statement contending

inter alia that there is a Staff Welfare Fund of the

Bank and the same is managed by a managing

committee constituted with the representatives of

the management, recognized workmen union and

officers' association. The managing committee is

to decide the welfare activities to be undertaken by

the Staff' Welfare Fund. So the welfare activities

undertaken by the Staff' Welfare Fund cannot be

said to be the service conditions of the employees

and any change in the welfare activity cannot be

construed as change in service conditions of the

employees because service conditions of the bank

employees are governed by the Sastry Award,

Desai Award as amended by various Bipartite

Settlements.

7. It is further contended that the managing committee

of Staff Welfare Fund is a joint committee of the

representatives of the management, recognized

majority union and recognized officers association

and as such the decision taken by the managing

committee cannot be said to be the decision of the

bank administration.

8. It is also contended that the Bank allocates fund to

the Staff Welfare Fund from its Profit & Loss A/c.

keeping in view the Govt. guidelines, the managing

committee of the Staff Welfare Fund decides which

welfare activities are to be undertaken within the

budget allocation so made by the Bank. Accordingly

the scheme is reviewed keeping in view the position

of the Staff Welfare Fund and if the fund does not

permit, the managing committee decides to

discontinue any benefit under the scheme. The

welfare activities undertaken by the Staff Welfare

Fund cannot be construed as customary concession

and/or privilege of the employees and as such Bank

has no obligation to issue notice under Section 9A

of the Industrial Disputes Act before issuing the

circular dated 16.04.2003 marked, Ext. W-04. The

rejection of the statement of claim of the union has

been so prayed for.

9. The Bank of Baroda Employees' Association in

order to prove its case has examined one witness

and proved some documents marked Exts. W-01 to

W-04.

10. The management/Bank has also examined one

witness in support of its case.

11. It has been argued on behalf of the union that the

circulars through which the benefit was given to

the employees were issued by the Personnel

Division of the Bank and the decision to introduce

the scheme extending benefit to the employees was

taken by the management of the Bank. It has been

further contended that by issuing circular dated

24.07.1998 the Bank declared the said scheme to be

a regular scheme and the employees were enjoying

the benefit of the said scheme for several years and

as such the said scheme has become the condition

of service as customary concession or privilege.

So, such benefit cannot be withdrawn without

issuing notice as provided in Section 9A of the

Act.

12. On the other hand, the management has contended

that the decision in the matter of introduction of

the schemes including the scheme for

‘‘reimbursement of educational expenses incurred

by the employees for their children" was not taken

by the management of the Bank and that the said

decision was taken by the managing committee of

1842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

the Staff Welfare Fund which was actually a joint

committee of the representatives of the

management, recognized majority union and

recognized officers' association and as such the

benefits of the scheme extended to the employees

could not be construed as service condition and

accordingly compliance of Section 9A of the Act

was not necessary before withdrawal of the said

benefit.

13. Now from circular dated 01.03.1997, Ext. W-01 it

appears that the Bank decided to introduce the

schemes for the welfare of its staff as per the

decision of the managing committee of the Staff

Welfare Fund with the approval of the Board of

Directors of the Bank and the said decision of the

managing committee was circulated by the

Personnel Division of the Bank. So this circular

does not per se suggest that it was the Bank

Administration which introduced the said scheme.

Similarly, it appears that other decisions of the

managing committee in respect of the said scheme

were circulated by the Bank through circular dated

28.07.1997 and circular dated 24.07.1998, marked

Exts. W-02 and W-03 respectively. Like the aforesaid

circulars the decision of the managing committee

of the Staff Welfare Fund in the matter of withdrawal

of the scheme was circulated through circular dated

16.04.2003 marked Ext. W-04. It is not the case of

the union that no representative of the majority

workmen union was present when the said decision

of withdrawal of scheme was adopted. So it may

reasonably be presumed that the decision of the

managing committee in the matter of withdrawal of

the scheme was taken in presence of all the

representatives including the representative of the

majority recognized workmen union.

14. It is the case of the management that Bank allocates

fund to the Staff Welfare Fund and the Staff Welfare

Fund has to undertake various welfare schemes

within the fund allocated by the Bank. The witness

of the management (MW-01) has corroborated the

above contention of the management. The said fact

has not been controverted either by any oral

evidence or by any documentary evidence.

15. It is also the case of the management that the

managing committee discontinued the scheme on

account of financial constraints. The said

contention also gets corroboration from the

evidence of MW-01. The union has not specifically

challenged the above facts of the management by

stating that inspite of adequate fund, the managing

committee discontinued the said scheme. It may be

presumed that the Bank unions had knowledge that

the managing committee of the Staff Welfare Fund

had to undertake welfare schemes within the fund

allocated by the Bank and that the managing

committee was bound to confine its welfare

activities within the amount of fund so allocated.

Accordingly, no beneficiary can claim that the

welfare scheme once introduced should continue

for ever, notwithstanding the fund crunch. So even

enjoying the benefit under the scheme for 5/6 years,

the employees of the Bank cannot claim the said

benefit as perpetual one.

16. The union has referred to a decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 179 of 1983

wherein it has been held that ‘‘the expression terms

of conditions of employment would ordinarily

include not only the contractual terms and

conditions but those terms which are understood

and applied by the parties in practice or habitually

or by common consent without ever being

incorporated in the contract." But, in this case it

has already been pointed out that the scheme was

introduced by the managing committee of the Staff

Welfare Fund and not by the management of the

Bank. Accordingly, the benefit of the said scheme

enjoyed by the employees for 5/6 years cannot be

considered as the terms of conditions of

employment.

17. The union in support of its case has referred to

another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Civil Appeal No. 377 of 1970. But on careful perusal

of the said decision it appears that the same is not

applicable in the facts and circumstances of the

instant case. In the said decision the management

of Indian Oil Corporation granted compensatory

allowance. But in the present case managing

committee constituted with the representative of

the management, majority workmen union and

majority officers' association took the decision to

introduce the scheme and also to withdraw the said

scheme. Moreover, benefit viz. compensatory or

other allowance has been included in item No. 3 of

the Fourth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 and as such the said benefit is considered as

condition of service and for withdrawal of any such

benefit notice under Section 9A of the Act is

required.

18. By the circular dated 16.04.2003, the benefit of the

said scheme was withdrawn and the branches/

offices were directed to recover the money already

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1843

disbursed to the employees. It was only after the

issuance of the circular dated 16.04.2003 the

employees of the Bank came to know that the said

scheme had been withdrawn. Before getting such

circular the employees were under the impression

that they would get the same benefit even in the

year 2003 and accordingly they got reimbursement

of the money already spent towards the educational

expenses of their children. So, by issuance of such

circular in the midst of the academic year 2003, the

Committee tried to recover the money in respect of

which the employees of the Bank had got

reimbursement. Accordingly, it appears that such

decision of the Committee has not just, proper and

equitable. The views of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

as had been expressed in very many cases is that if

there is not fault on the part of the recipient in

receiving the money, the same cannot be recovered

on the ground of equity. In that view of the matter,

decision to recover the money already received by

the employees cannot be sustained in law and

equity.

19. In view of the above facts and circumstances and

the discussion made above, it appears that there

was no need to issue notice under Section 9A of

the Industrial Disputes Act before withdrawal of

the scheme for reimbursement of educational

expenses incurred by the employees for their

children. However, the authority on the plea of

withdrawal of the benefit, cannot be permitted to

recover the amount which the concerned employees

had already received by way of reimbursement. If

any such recovery was made in pursuance of the

circular dated 16.04.2004, the same should be

refunded to the workmen concerned.

20. The instant order of reference dated 08.03.2004 is

answered accordingly.

Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata, the 8th October, 2014

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 857-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ bafM;k ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè] esa

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

U;k;ky; dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 37@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-04-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@10@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2015

S.O. 857.— In purusance 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, Kanpur as shown

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

managemet of Bank of India and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 22/04/2015.

[No. L-12011/10/2008-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

PRESENT

Sri Shubhendra Kumar, HJS,

Industrial Dispute No. 37 of 2008

BETWEEN

The General Secretary,

Bank of India Staff Union,

C/o Bank of India, Mohini Mension,

PB No. 272,

1 Naval Kishore Road,

Lucknow 226 001.

AND

The General Manager,

Bank of India

H.O. Star House, C-5 'G' Block,

Bandra Kurla Complex,

Bandra East,

Mumbai 400 051.

AWARD

1. Central Government, MoL & Employment, New

Delhi, vide Notification L-12011/10/2008-IR(B-II)

dated 15.05.2008, has referred the following dispute

for adjudication to this tribunal.

2. Whether the action of the management of Bank of

India not allowing graduation increments to

Sri Narvir Singh, Cash-cum-Account-Clerk from the

date of passing the Post Graduate Examination is

just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to?

3. Briefly stated facts of the case of the workman as

set up by the union on behalf of the workman is

that Sri Narvir Singh has passed M.A. Exams. from

Agra University and was declared successful vide

mark sheet No. 1213 dated 25.09.87. He filed

application dated 05.10.87 for grant of two additional

1844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

increments due to acquiring M.A. qualification and

when the request of the workman was not acceded

to by the management he further submitted a

reminder letter dated 27.07.99. The management kept

the matter pending till clarification was received

from Indian Bank's Association vide letter dt.

27.02.2001. It is further alleged that the bank has

conveyed approval for grant of two additional

increments to the employees of similar nature from

24.02.2002, instead of date of acquiring required

decree by means of letter dated 11.05.2002. The

workman made repeated request for grant of two

additional increments from 25th September, 1987,

instead from 24.04.2002. Since the demand of the

two workman could not be settled amicably, the

union took up the matter with the bank for allowing

the workman arrears of two additional increments

as claimed above as here is no rational basis of

grant of two increments from 20.04.2002 considering

the fact that the workman acquired the required

qualification on 25.09.1987. It is further alleged that

the action of the management is illegal and arbitrary;

therefore, the workman is entitled for the relief

claimed by him.

4. The management has filed their reply wherein they

have vehemently denied the claim of the Union/

workman on a number of grounds viz., the reference

is misconceived and vague in as much as there is

no mention of specific date for cause of action in

the reference order as such reference order is not

maintainable and the claim of the union is liable to

be dismissed; that the reference is highly belated

because the claim of the union is with effect from

25.09.87 whereas reference is dated 15.05.2008,

therefore, reference is bad in law and is liable to be

dismissed; reference is bad on account of misjoinder

of parties as the workman has never worked in the

Head Office of the Bank at Mumbai, therefore, claim

is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

5. On merit of the case, the management has pleaded

that the claimant has not passed graduate

examination i.e. B.A, B.Sc. or B. Com., therefore, he is

not entitled for any additional increment. It is further

pleaded by the management that the rationale for

grant of graduation increments is that bank may

derive better quality and efficiency in the work, out

of better academic studies, but those who have

never studied and passed graduate examination

apparently cannot contribute better quality and

efficiency in the work, which also suits to logic and

the purpose of allowing such increments.

6. It is further alleged by the management that workman

was normally not entitled for two additional

increments on the basis of so called Post Graduate

Certificate. However, the matter on principle was

placed in the metter 5 dated 20.04.2002, of Board of

Directors of the Bank who accorded its approval

for payment of two additional increments to the

claimants which were given the claimants on a

policy matter. The above facility came into existence

only with effect from 02.06.2005 through bipartite

settlement and the workman also accepted the same

without any demur, therefore, the claimant does

not have any moral or legitimate right for raising

any demand again, on the same issue. In view of it,

the claimant is not entitled for any relief. The facts

of the case as referred by the workman/union in

paragraph No. 8, of Hon'ble High Court, Bombay

was different and IBA or BOI was not a party to it,

therefore, it is distinguished and do not apply in

the present case.

7. Lastly it is stated that the action of the bank is by

all means just, fair and legal and the claimant is not

entitled to any relief what so ever and the claim is

liable to be dismissed.

8. The Union has filed rejoiner but nothing new has

been pleaded therein except reiterating the facts as

already pleaded in the claim statement.

9. In the instant case after exchange of pleadings

between the parties workman vide his application

dated 13.12.2010 has filed 3 documents out of which

two documents are in original and one is the carbon

copy. The workman has also filed 6 documents vide

application dated 21.06.08. All these documents are

in the nature of photocopies.

10. As the workman has filed his evivdence on affidavit

in support of the claim he was called upon to appear

in the witness box on 11.05.11, for his cross-

examination. On the said date the tribunal observed

that as the workman is absent his statement on

affidavit may not be taken in to consideration and

the case was fixed for evidence of the management

on 08.07.2011.

11. On 08.07.2011 when the case was taken up the

workman again absented and the management was

present. As the workman has not adduced any

evidence in support of his claim, it was endorsed

by the management that they do not want to adduce

evidence in case; as such opportunity to adduce

evidence by both the sides was closed. The case

was fixed for 17.08.2011, for arguments.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1845

12. The workman side moved an application duly

supported with affidavit requesting there in to recall

the order dated 11.05.11. The case was again taken

up on 14.12.11, and after hearing both the sides the

said application of the workman was allowed

subject to cost of Rs.150/- and the order dated

11.05.11 was recalled and the opposite party was

permitted to cross-examine the workman and

23.03.2012 was fixed for the purpose.

13. The case was taken up for hearing on 29.04.2013

workman again did not turn up for his cross-

examination so the management could not get the

opportunity to cross the workman on his evidence

adduced on affidavit. Therefore, evidence of the

workman was closed and the case was again fixed

for evidence of the opposite party.

14. Yet again the opposite party submitted that since

the workman has not adduced any evidence in

support of his claim, therefore, management is not

inclined to adduce any evidence in support of their

case and the management has also made an

endorsement on the order sheet itself on 03.07.2012.

15. The case was finally reserved for award after

hearing the arguments of both the sides.

16. The tribunal has heard arguments of both the sides

at length and has also gone through the entire file

carefully.

17. By a bare perusal of entire records of the file it is

amply clear that the workman has filed certain

documents some of which are in original and some

of which are photocopies. Workman has also filed

his evidence on affidavit. It is settled legal position

that the documents in the nature of photocopies

have got no evidentiary value unless proved by

showing its original. Considering the evidence of

the workman on affidavit, he was given opportunity

twice for his cross-examination at the hands of the

opposite party but on both the occasions the

workman failed to appear.

18. Workman has also filed another affidavit dated

17.10.2012 in evidence along with another affidavit

of the same date stating that he is suffering with

hyper tension, high blood pressure and chest pain

and is running under treatment and showed his

inability to attend the court. After filing this affidavit

also he has not put in his attendance in the Court.

As the management could not get the opportunity

to cross-examine the workman and the workman

deliberately avoided his attendance in the Court,

therefore, both the affidavits filed by him by way of

evidence could not be considered to be the

evidence of the workman.

19. Management has cited a case law of Hon'ble

Allahabad High Court, reported in FLR 1981(29)

VK Raj Industries V. Labour Court, wherein the

Hon'ble High Court has held that in the absence of

any evidence, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction

to hold the order of termination illegal.

20. The law relied upon by the management apply with

full swing to the facts and circumstances of the

present, therefore, applying the above law and in

view of above discussion, tribunal is of the confirm

view that it is a case where in either the Union or

the workman has not adduced any evidence in

support of their claim.

21. Considering the facts and observations of the case,

it is held that neither the Union nor the workman is

entitled for any relief as claimed by them for want

of evidence and proof.

22. Reference is therefore liable to be answered against

the Union and in favour of the management.

Reference is decided accordingly against the

workman/union.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 858-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc uS'kuy cSad

ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 82@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-04-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@29@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2015

S.O. 858.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 82/2012)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Punjab National Bank and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

22.04.2015.

[No. L-12012/29/2012-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

1846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM

LABOUR COURT, KANPUR.

Present—Sri Sbhubhendra Kumar, HJS.

Industrial Dispute No. 82 of 2012

Between—

Sri Rajesh Kumar son of Sri Khetpal Singh,

Resident of Mohalla Kabir Nagar,

Tapakala Road,

Firozabad, U.P.

And

The Regional Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

Regional Office,

Vibhav Nagar,

Agra U.P.

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide

notification No. L-12012/29/2012/IR B-II, dated 05.09.2012,

has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this

tribunal—

2. Whether the action of the management of Punjab

National Bank, Agra, in terminating the service of Sri Rajesh

Kumar son of Sri Khetpal Singh workman with effect from

16.11.2000 is just, fair and legal? What relief the workman

concerned is entitled to?

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the workman

was appointed as temporary peon in Punjab National Bank,

Firozabad, on 01.01.92. The opposite party

Sr. Manager, directed to the applicant to work as such

w.e.f 1.1.92 and to perform the duties of peon and

messenger. It is further alleged by the workman that he

has been working since 1.1.92 and his work and conduct

always remained above board as the workman did not

give any chance to his superior of any complaint. He was

never issued any warning during the entire period of his

service. The workman was paid his wages monthly

through vouchers. When the applicant came to know that

the bank is going to appoint regular and permanent peon,

he also moved his application on 13.11.2000, through

registered post to the Regional Manager, Punjab National

Bank, Agra, with copies to the Head Office and Zonal

Manager and Senior Manager, Firozabad, to appoint the

workman on regular basis. His application was received in

the Regional Office on 15.11.2000 and in the branch at

Firozabad, on 16.11.2000. After receipt of his application

the employer of the bank became annoyed with the

applicant and instead of giving permanent appointment

to him they terminated the services of the workman w.e.f.

16.11.2000, i.e. after about 9 years of his continuous

service. It is alleged that the workman had completed for

more than 240 days in each calendar year therefore, the

termination of the service of the workman attracts provision

of retrenchment as defined under section 2 (00) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since the bank has breached

the provisions of section 25F of the act as the bank had

neither offered any notice or notice pay nor retrenchment

compensation to him at the time of his retrenchment,

therefore, his termination is illegal, unjust and void.

4. It is further alleged by him that the management

has also disregarded the provisions of Section 25G and

25H of the act in as much junior to him were retained in the

service of the band and he was not given any chance of

his re-employment by the bank when the bank inducted

fresh hands in the regular and permanent service of the

bank. The workman assailed the legality and proprietary

of the action of the bank by way of filing a CMWP

No. 53991 of 2000 before the Hon'ble High Court,

Allahabad, which was finally disposed of vide order dated

19.08.2011 on the ground of alternate remedy. Thereafter

the applicant approached the appropriate authority i.e.

ALC© for conciliation and settlement of the dispute and

when no amicable settlement was arrived at the matter

was sent to appropriate Government and Central

Government ultimately finding that there exists an industrial

dispute between the contesting parties referred the matter

to this tribunal for adjudication. It is again reiterated by

the workman that the action of the management was illegal,

unjust and unfair. It is also alleged that the action of the

employer is vindictive in nature due to annoyance of the

higher ups of the bank.

5. On the basis of above grounds it has been prayed

by the workman that he be reinstated in the service of the

bank with full back wages, continuity of service with all

consequential benefits.

6. The opposite party Punjab National Bank filed

their reply against the claim wherein the claim of the

workman has been vehemently refuted on a number of

grounds, viz.; that the Sr. Manager, Branch Office,

Firozabad, is not the appointing authority for any

employee of the bank, even a class IV employee. The

appointing authority was the then Regional Manager

and presently the Circle Head of the Bank. Being so the

applicant could not be employed by any officer below

the rank of Regional Manager/Circle Head; that the

recruitment in subordinate cadre is processed in terms

of Government guidelines and recruitment policy of the

bank; that there never existed relationship of employer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1847

and employee between the bank and the workman; that

the workman had given on hire a generator set of 7.5 HP

for the use of the bank premises on fixed charges of per

hour running basis and the charges remained increasing

due to passage of time and also due to escalation of

prices of diesel etc., and the last rate of charges was

Rs. 28/- per hours; that the services supplied had become

unsatisfactory and on complaint, the applicant refused

to change the engine and provide new generator set and

for that reason availing of services of generator from the

applicant was discontinued with effect from 16.11.2000;

that the salaries to all the bank employees are paid by

crediting in their respective accounts with the bank

through salary bills which are prepared each month and

kept on record of the bank and the applicant was never

paid any salary whatsoever; that the bank has admitted

the letter of the applicant which is of date 13.11.2000,

but it is absolutely false to state therein that there was

any requirement for appointment of peon in the branch

of the bank at Firozabad; that the letter dated 13.11.2000

of the applicant is a peshbandi and is of no consequence

and does not convey any right whatsoever on the bank;

that the applicant vide letter dated 16.11.2000 was asked

to stop the services of generator set in the bank premises

and the applicant with malafide intention with held the

said letter and had fabricated a case of alleging himself

to be the employee of the bank and that his services

were terminated orally; that the contention of the

applicant are misconceived in the absence of relationship

of employer and employee, therefore, the provisions of

the Act are not applicable in the case of the applicant

and lastly it is submitted by the bank that question of

termination of the service does not arise in the absence

of relationship of employer and employee between the

bank and applicant.

7. Therefore, the claim of the applicant is liable to be

rejected being devoid of merit.

8. The workman has also filed rejoinder in the case

and it is alleged that for the purpose of exploitation of

poor workman there is difference in the stand of the

bank. It is the stand of the bank that the name of all the

employees of the bank are entered on the rolls of the

bank and payment of salaries are made by crediting his

account but for the purpose of exploitation the employer

pays to the various employees their salaries through

vouchers and their names are not entered in the rolls of

the bank.

9. On the basis of above it is once again reiterated

that his claim be allowed by this tribunal and he be awarded

the reliefs claimed by him in his claim statement.

10. In the instant case the workman apart from

adducing his oral evidence has also filed certain documents

in original vide application dated 19.02.2014. Paper no.

15/2 is the original appointment letter issued by the

Sr. Manager of the branch in the name of the workman.

The appointment letter speaks that the workman is

appointed as temporary peon with effect from 01.01.1992

and that he will have to open the branch in the morning

and to take out the ledger etc; to carry out the dak from the

branch to the post office; to perform the work of cheque

return and the work relating to telegram and lastly he will

also have to perform the work of stitching of vouchers

and supplying the water to the bank staff. Photocopy of

application dated 13.11.2000 paper no. 14/1 addressed to

the Sr. Manager of the branch by means of which he had

applied for the post of peon.

11. The workman vide his application dated 24.07.2013,

has also filed 14 documents viz., 1. Office Order dated

16.06.94, 2. Office Order dated 15.04.95, 3. Office Order

dated 26.12.96, 4. Office Order dated 27.02.99, 5. Letter of

the bank dated 10.07.98, 6. Letter of the bank dated

04.09.2000, 7. Letter of the bank dated 16.09.2000, 8. Cash

Payment voucher (8/1 to 8/153), 9. Dak Delivery Register

(9/1 to 9/64), 10. Dak Receipt and dispatch register (10/1 to

10/249), 11. Credit Cash Vouchers (11/1 to 11/186), 12. Bank

Letter dated 01.01.92, 13. Application dated 13.11.2000 and

14. High Court order respectively.

12. The workman in his examination in chief has clearly

stated that he was appointed as peon at banks Firozabad

Branch by an order in writing and was working as such.

His work remained satisfactory. He goes on to state that in

the branch he had performed the work of stitching of

vouchers, bringing out the ledgers, supplying the water

to the staff and providing official daks at the right place.

He continuously worked till 16.11.2000. He further states

that in the month of November the bank was to start

recruitment process for the post of peon therefore, by

registered post he also submitted his application before

the Zonal Office etc., and the said letter received at the

Zonal Office on 15.11.2000 and at Firozabad Branch on

16.11.2000. He was terminated by the bank on the ground

as to why the workman had placed a demand for regular

employment in the bank. He further stated that he had

rendered his continuous service without any break and

has also rendered more than 240 days in each calendar

month. He goes on to state at the time of termination of his

services he was neither offered any notice, notice pay or

retrenchment compensation by the bank. He approached

the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, against his termination

and accordingly the present reference made to this tribunal.

His termination is illegal and by way of annoyance of the

officers of the bank. He used to be paid his wages through

payment vouchers by the branch against the work

performed by him and he has filed the copies of the same

in the file. The management has failed to file the original of

1848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

those documents despite direction to them by this

tribunal.

13. The tribunal by order dated 13.09.2013, had

allowed the application paper no. 13/1-2 moved by the

workman for summoning of certain documents from the

management relating to the period 1992-93 and 1999-2000,

and the management was directed to comply with the

order by 15.11.13 and also to file papers mentioned at

1(ka) and (Kha). None appeared from the side of the

management on 15.11.13 and likewise on 09.12.2013.

Similarly when the case was taken up for hearing on

20.01.2014, neither any one appeared on behalf of the

management, nor the management made any compliance

of the order dated 13.09.13, therefore, it was ordered that

necessary inference shall be drawn against the opposite

party at appropriate stage.

14. It may be pointed out that once again none

appeared before the tribunal on behalf of the management.

The workman adduced his evidence and as none was

present for the management opportunity to cross examine

the workman was closed and the case was reserved for

arguments.

15. On 23.12. 2014 when the case was taken up for

arguments of the parties once again none was present

from the side of the opposite party, hence arguments were

over on behalf of the workman.

16. I have heard the arguments advanced by the

workman in detail and have also carefully perused the

evidence oral as well documentary in detaills in the light

of the pleadings set up by the contesting parties.

17. It is pertinent to mention here that after filing of

reply the management filed certain documents in the shape

of photocopies and did not led any oral or documentary

evidence in support of their case. Mere filing of pleadings

cannot be considered unless the same are proved by

producing reliable and convincing evidence in support

thereof. Therefore, the written statement filed by the

opposite party is of no help to the management as the

management has palpably failed to support the same by

filing cogent and reliable evidence.

18. Now the case of the workman will be examined to

see as to whether he had worked continously for 240 days

preceding 12 calendar months from the date of his

termination.

19. The workman appeared in the witness box as

W.W.1 and has categorically stated that he was appointed

as a temporary peon by order in writing issued by the

Sr. Manager, Punjab National Bank, Firozabad. He has also

filed the original copy of the appointment which is on

record and is paper no. 152/2, which shows that he was

appointed as temporary peon with further direction to

perform the nature of duties. He has specifically stated in

his evidence that he had performed the duties as referred

to in the letter of appointment successfully. He further

goes on to state that on coming to know about the fact

that some recruitment for the post of peon is under process

by the bank he moved his application dated 13.11.2000 for

his appointment at the post of the peon. He has further

stated that on receipt of the application the officers of the

bank became annoyed of him and in an illegal manner the

officers of the bank dispensed with him for the service

from 16.11.2000, without any notice, notice pay or

retrenchment compensation.

20. The authorized representative has argued on the

point of Sec. 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by

arguing that as the workman had worked continuously for

240 days preceding the date of his termination, the

management ought to have followed the provisions of

25 F of the Act and as the management has violated the

provisions of section 25 F of the Act, termination of the

service of the workman could be held to be illegal, unjust

and unfair.

21. I have considered the definition of section 25 F of

the Act and find that it was mandatory on the part of the

management to have offered notice, or notice pay or

retrenchment compensation to the workman at the time of

dispensation of his service as the workman has

successfully established his claim for his oral as well as

documentary evidence. His evidence remained

uncontroverted by the opposite party on this point,

therefore, the tribunal is inclined to believe the case of the

workman and hold that the action of the bank Agra in

terminating the service of the workman with effect from

16.11.200 is neither legal nor just and nor fair.

22. No other point has been argued by the authorized

representative for the workman.

23. Before parting with this award, it would not be

out of place to mention here that the tribunal is inclined

to draw an adverse inference against the bank

management to the effect that they have deliberately

withheld the documents with them and did not produced

the summoned documents by the workman under

direction of this tribunal given on 13.09.2013, with a

deliberate intent and purpose that if these documents

are produced before the tribunal they might support the

case of the workman. In the absence of original

documents the workman has proved his case by

producing documents mentioned in paragraph 11 of the

award and proving it by his uncontroverted evidence

which also reveals that he has worked continuously from

the date of appointment till 16.11.2000.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1849

24. Hence it is held that the management of the bank

deliberately did not produce the called for documents

before the tribunal with malafide intent and purpose to

frustrate the claim of the workman.

25. Therefore, having concluded the action of the

management as referred to in reference order is bad in

law, therefore, workman is entitled for his reinstatement

with full back wages, seniority and all consequential

benefits.

26. Reference is answered accordingly in above

terms in favor of the workman and against the opposite

party.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 859-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,e ,l fdy;j

lfoZl izkbZosV fyñ 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; psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 110@2014½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-04-2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@71@2014&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj]MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2015

S.O. 859.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.

No.110/2014) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-

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

industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Clear

Service (P) Ltd., and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 22/04/2015.

[No. L-12012/71/2014-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CHENNAI

Thursday, the 19th March, 2015

Present: K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 110/2014

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

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

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1974 (14 of 1947),

between the Management of M/s. Clear Secured Services

Pvt. Ltd., Chennai and their workman)

BETWEEN

Shri M. Suresh

1st

Party/

Petitioner

AND

1. M/s. Clear Secured Service

2nd Party/1st

India (P) Ltd. Regd. Office: 501

Respondent

Rajgir Sadan, Laxmi Baugh

Opp. to Sion Station, Sion

(West) Mumbai-2

2. M/s. Clear Secured

2nd Party/2nd

Service India (P) Ltd.

Respondent

Shri Ram Prasad, Manager,

Corporate Office, T. Nadu

No. 133, S.M. Narayan Nagar

Anna Nagar West Extn.,

Mogappair Near MMM Hospital

Chennai-600001

3. Shri N. Shahul Hameed, MA, BL :

2nd Party/3rd

36/42, New Bangaru Colony

Respondent

West KK Nagar, Chennai

4. The Chairman

2nd Party/4th

M/s. Bank of India, Star House,

Respondent

C-5 G-Block, Bandra Kurla

Complex Bandra (East)

Mumbai 400051

5. The Chairman &

2nd Party/5th

Managing Director

Respondent

Central Bank of India,

Chandermukhi Nariman Point

Mumbai-400021

6. The Chairman

2nd Party/6th

HDFC Bank House,

Respondent

Senapati Bapat Marg

Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013

7. The Chief Managing Director

2nd Party/7th

IDBI Bank Ltd., IDBI Tower,

Respondent

WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade,

Colaba, Mumbai-400005

8. The Chairman &

2nd Party/8th

Managing Director

Respondent

Union Bank of India

239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg

Mumbai-400021

9. The Chairman &

2nd Party/9th

Managing Director Vijaya Bank

Respondent

41/2, Trinity Circle, M.G. Road

Bangalore-560001

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

: Nil

For the 2nd Party/1st, 2nd & 3rd : Shri N. Shahul

Respondent

Hameed, Advocate

For the 2nd Party/4th

: M/s. Pais, Lobo,

Respondent

Advocates

1850

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

For the 2nd Party/5th and 8th

: M/s. T.S. Gopalan &

Respondent

Co., Advocates

For the 2nd Party/6th

: M/s. R. Praveen Kumar,

Respondent

Authorized

Representative

For the 2nd Party/7th

: Smt. S. Saranya,

Respondent

Advocate

For the 2nd Party/9th

: Shri S. Rajasekhar, T.

Respondent

Anantha

Sekar,

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/71/2014-IR (B-II)

dated 01.12.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the Management of

M/s. Clear Secured Services (P) Ltd., Chennai

regarding termination of the service of the

petitioner Shri M. Suresh is justifiable or not? What

relief the petitioner is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID No. 110/2014 and issued notices to

both sides. On receipt of notice, the petitioner has appeared

in person and the Respondents through their counsel.

The case was posted for filing Claim Statement and

documents. However, on the next hearing date the

petitioner was absent. There was no representation on his

behalf also. On the next hearing date also the petitioner

was absent and without any representation. When the

matter was called today also the petitioner was absent.

From the continuous absence of the petitioner, it is to be

assumed that he is not interest in proceeding with the

case. The reference is to be answred against him.

In the result the reference is answered again the

petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2nd Party/Management

None

Documents Marked

On the Petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

On the Petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 860-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkjiksjs'ku cSad

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;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼09@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@75@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2015

S.O. 860.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 09/2015) of the Central

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of Corporation Bank and their workman,

received

the

Central

Government

22/04/2015.

[No. L-12012/75/2014-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CHENNAI

Thursday, the 18th March, 2015

Present:

K.P PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 9/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

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

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947),

between the Management of Corporation Bank and their

workman)

Between

Smt. K.S. Shanthi

1st Party/Petitioner

And

The General Manager

: 2nd Party/Respondent

Corporation Bank

Head Office, Mangaladevi

Temple Road Pandeshwar

Mangalore-575001

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

: Nil

For the 2nd Party/Respondent

: M/s. V. Suthakar,

K.S. Viswanathan,

Advocates

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1851

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/75/2014-IR (B.II)

dated 06/09.01.2015 referred the following Industrial

Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

‘‘Whether the denial of appointment as a regular

Sub-Staff to Smt. K.S. Shanthi of Corporation Bank,

who was empanelled as a Temporary Sub-Staff by

the Management of Corporation Bank, Coimbatore

is legal and justifiable? What relief the petitioner is

entitled to?’’

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID No. 9/2015 and issued notices to

both sides. On receipt of notice the Respondent has

entered appearance through Counsel. Though the

petitioner has received notice she has not entered

appearance.

3. The petitioner seems to be not interested in

prosecuting the case as could be discerned from her failure

to respond to the notice. In the absence of any material to

support the case of the petitioner this Tribunal is not is a

position to adjudicate the case on merits.

Accordingly, the reference is answered against the

petitioner.

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2nd Party/Management

None

Documents Marked

On the Petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

On the Management side

Ex. No.

Date

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 861-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,e,l fdy;j

lfoZl izkbZosV fy- 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;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼08@2015½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@70@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2015

S.O. 861.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 08/2015) of the Central

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as

shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between

the management of M/s Clear Service (P) Ltd, and their

workman, received by the Central Government on

22/04/2015.

[No. L-12012/70/2014-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CHENNAI

Thursday, the 19th March, 2015

Present: K.P. Prasanna Kumari,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 8/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

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

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947),

between the Management of M/s. Clear Secured Services

Pvt. Ltd., Chennai and their workman)

Between

Sri N. Rajkumar

1st Party/

Petitioner

AND

M/s. Clear Secured Service India : 2nd Party/

(P) Ltd. Regd. Office: 501 Rajgir

1st Respondent

Sadan, Laxmi Baugh Opp. to

Sion Station, Sion (West)

Mumbai-2

M/s. Clear Secured Service India : 2nd Party/

(P) Ltd.

2nd Respondent

Shri Ram Prasad, Manager,

Corporate Office, T. Nadu

No. 133, S.M. Narayan Nagar

Anna Nagar West Extn., Mogappair

Near MMM Hospital

Chennai-600001

Sri N. Shahul Hameed, MA., BL : 2nd Party/3rd

36/42, New Bangaru Colony

Respondent

West KK Nagar, Chennai

The Chairman

: 2nd Party/4th

M/s. Bank of India, Star House,

Respondent

C-5, G-Block, Bandra Kurla

Complex Bandra (East)

Mumbai-400051

1852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

The Chairman & Managing

: 2nd Party/5th

Director, Central Bank of India, Respondent

Chandermukhi, Nariman Point,

Mumbai-400021

The Chairman

: 2nd Party/6th

HDFC Bank House, Senapati

Respondent

Bapat Marg, Lower Parel,

Mumbai-400013

The Chief Managing Director

: 2nd Party/7th

IDBI Bank Ltd., IDBI Tower,

Respondent

WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade,

Colaba Mumbai-400005

The Chairman & Managing

: 2nd Party/8th

Director, Union Bank of India

Respondent

239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg

Mumbai-400021

The Chairman & Managing

: 2nd Party/

Director, Vijaya Bank, 41/2,

9th Respondent

Trinity Circle,

M.G. Road, Bangalore-560001

Appearnce:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

: Nil.

For the 2nd Party/1st, 2nd

: Sri N. Shahul

and 3rd Respondent

Hameed, Advocate

For the 2nd Party/4th

: M/s. Pais, Lobo,

Respondent

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/5th and 8th

: M/s T.S. Gopalan &

Respondent

Co., Advocates

For the 2nd Party/6th

: M/s. R. Parveen

Respondent

Kumar, Authorized

Representative

For the 2nd Party/7th

: Smt. S. Saranya,

Respondent

Advocate

For the 2nd Party/9th

: Sri Muthu

Respondent

Shanmuga

Raja, Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/70/2014-IR

(B-II) dated 05/10.01.2015 referred the following Industrial

Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Clear Secured Services (P) Ltd., Chennai

regarding termination of the service of the

petitioner Sri N. Rajkumar is justifiable or not?

What relief the petitioner is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID No. 8/2015 and issued notices to

both sides. On receipt of notice the petitioner has appeared

in person and the Respondents through their counsel.

3. Though the petitioner was present on the first

hearing date he has absented himself continuously on the

subsequent hearing dates. There was no representation

on his behalf also. The petitioner has not filed Claim

Statement or produced document in support of his case.

The petitioner seems to be not interested in proceeding

with the case. So the ID is only to be answered against the

petitioner.

In the result the reference is answered against the

petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2nd Party/Managements

None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

N/A

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

N/A

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 862-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ bafM;k 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@Je

U;k;ky;] èuckn-2 ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 01@1999½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-04-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@30@98&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2015

S.O. 862.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 01/1999)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No

2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Bank of India and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

22/04/2015.

[No. L-12012/30/98-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1853

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. 01 OF 1999.

Parties

: Sh. Arjun Rajak,

S/o Kashi Rajak, East

Lohanipur, Sakchuligali, Post

Kadamduan, Patna-800003.

Vs.

The Zonal Manager

Bank of India, Zonal Office,

'R' Block, Chanakya Palace,

Patna-800001,

Order No.L-12012/30/98/IR

(B-II)dt.29/30.12.1998.

Appearances

On behalf of the

: Mr. K. Chakraborty,

workman/Union

Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the

: Mr. R.A. Chamaria

Management

Ld. Advocate

State

Bihar

Industry

Banking

Dated, Dhanbad, the 20th May, 2014.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(I)(d)

of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-12012/

30/98/IR(B-II) dt. 29/30.12.1998.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Bank of

India in terminating the services of Sh. Arjun Rajak w.e.f.

01.01.1992 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

said workman is entitled?’’

2. Neither K. Chakraborty, Ld. Advocate for nor

workman Arjun Rajak appeared nor R.A. Chamaria,

Ld. Advocate for the O.P./Management present.

On perusal of the case record, it stands clear that on

several occasions despite Regd. Notices including Show

Cause one neither the workman nor evidence on his behalf

produced; hence the evidence of the workman was already

closed on 23.5.2008. The case is prima facie of no evidence.

The present Reference relates to an issue relating to

termination of the workman service w.e.f. 01.01.1992.

Under these circumstances, the case is closed as no

Industrial dispute existent. Accordingly an Award of No

Dispute is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 863-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;qfu;u cSad vkWQ

bafM;k ds izcaèr= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp

vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼38@2012½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-04-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@43@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2015

S.O. 863.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 38/2012) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Union Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 22/04/2015.

[No. L-12012/43/2011-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 11th February, 2015

Present :

K.P. Prasanna Kumari, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 38/2012

(in the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

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

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of

1947), between the Management of Union Bank of India

and their workman)

BETWEEN

Sri Saravana Babu

: 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Branch Manager

: 2nd Party/Respondent

Union Bank of India

953, K.N.K. Raod

Erode-638003

Appearance:

1854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s. K.M. Ramesh,

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/

: M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

Respondent

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/43/2011-IR(B. II)

dated 21.06.2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The Schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management of Union

Bank of India in terminating the services of Sri

Saravana Babu w.e.f. 01.08.2008 is legal and justified?

What relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 38/2012 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their

counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement

respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are as below:

The petitioner joined the service of the Respondent

Bank on 15.07.2003 as Casual Sub-Staff-cum-Part

Time Sweeper on daily wages. The petitioner had

been working continuously without any break since

the date of joining. He had been discharging his

duties diligently and sincerely. The Respondent had

illegally and unjustifiably terminated the petitioner

from service. In spite of repeated representations

the petitioner was not reinstated or regularized in

service. The action of the Respondent in not

regularizing the petitioner in service is arbitrary,

illegal and unjustified. The petitioner has worked

continuously for more than 240 days in each calendar

year especially in the year prior to his illegal

termination. While terminating the petitioner from

service the Respondent did not give notice or pay

any compensation for his past service. This is in

violation of Section-25F of the Industrial Disputes

Act. Persons who joined the service of the

Respondent sbseqent to the petitioner have been

regularized in service and they are still in service.

Thus the Respondent has contravened

Section-25(G) of the ID Act. The petitioner is entitled

to be reinstated in service with back wages,

continuity of service and other attendant benefits.

An order may be passed accordingly.

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

Recruitment to the post of Subordinate Staff/Part-

Time Staff is made by requisition to the Employment

Exchange to sponsor candidate or by advertisement

in the newspaper. It is not permissible for a Branch

Manager or any Officer to make appointment for the

post of Attender or Part-time Sweeper. At best the

Branch Manager can engage a casual sbordinate

staff or casual part-time sweeper whose tenure of

employment would automatically come to an end

once a permanent staff is appointed to the post.

Small-Scale Industries Branch of the Respondent

was opened at Erode in 1995. A subordinate staff

was posted at the Branch only in 2007. Even after

one was posted permanently the engagement of the

petitioner as a Casual Part-Time Sweeper continued.

When this irregularity was noticed his engagement

was put an end to from 01.08.2008. When there was

advertisement in the newspaper inviting applications

for the post of Part-Time Sweeper in July 2008 the

petitioner also had applied for the post. But he had

not satisfied the age criteria. The petitioner had

availed an education loan of Rs. 33,350/- in 2005 on

behalf of his sister and another loan of Rs. 25,000/-

for opening a tailoring shop. When the Bank

searched for the petitioner for the recovery of the

outstanding loan it was gathered that he had gone

to Tiruppur where he had taken up employment in a

hosiery unit. In the case of Casual Sweeper there is

no question of application of Section-25F or

Section-25F or Section-25G of the ID Act. The

petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

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

Ext. W4 and Ext. M1 to Ext. M24.

6. The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Management in

terminating the service of the petitioner w.e.f.

01.08.2008 is legal and justified?

(ii) What is the relief, if any, to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The Points

7. The petitioner had been working as Casual Part-

Time Sweeper on daily wages in the Small-Scale Industries

Branch of the Respondent Bank at Erode opened in 1995,

from the year 2003. He had continued to work in the Branch

till 01.08.2008. In 2007 itself a permanent hand had joined

the Branch as Part-Time Sweeper. The petitioner seems

to have continued in the Branch for some more time after

the permanent had had joined. He was terminated w.e.f.

01.08.2008. According to the petitioner, his termination

from service is in violation of Section-25F and G of

Industrial Disputes Act. He had claimed in the Claim

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1855

Statement that he is entitled to be reinstated in Service

with back wages and continuity of service.

8. The petitioner has been examined as WW1. He had

stated that he had been working continuously without

any break after he joined the service of the Bank in 2003

and had been discharging his work diligently. He had

further stated that he had worked for more than 240 days

in each calendar year and in spite of this he had been

terminated from service in violation of Section-25F of the

Industrial Disputes Act. According to him, those persons

who had joined the services of the Respondent

subsequently have been regularized in service and for

this reason the Respondent has violated Section-25G of

the Act as well.

9. It is not disputed by the Respondent that the

petitioner had been working under it till 01.08.2008 on

casual basis. MW1 was the manager of SSI Branch of the

Respondent at Erode when the petitioner was terminated

from service. This witness has deposed that at the time

when he joined the Branch, the petitioner was working as

casual labour besides Bhoopathy who was posted as

Permanent Part-Time Sweeper. He has received oral

instruction from the Zonal Office that when a Permanent

Part-Time Sweeper was working there was no necessity to

retain a casual labour and the engagement of the petitioner

was to be stopped. It is accordingly MW1 had stopped

engaging him after 31.07.2008. According to MW1 the

petitioner had been working in hosiery unit at Tiruppur

and had worked in a finance company also after he left the

service of the Respondent.

10. The claim of the petitioner in the Claim Statement

is for reinstatement in service. No doubt, he had worked in

a branch of the Respondent Bank from 2003 to 2008 as a

casual labour. Even before he was terminated from service,

a permanent hand had joined the branch. He was

terminated from service when it was noticed that he is

continuing even after the person who was posted

permanently had joined.

11. The petitioner who was terminated from service

on 01.08.2008 had challenged the same by raising a dispute

only after a period of 2 years. Even as seen from his own

admission, during this period he had tried his luck in a

hosiery unit, though he would say that it was only for one

week. He had also availed a loan Rs. 25,000/- for starting a

tailoring unit. Apart from this, he had applied for the post

of Permanent Part-Time Sweeper in response to the

advertisement by the Bank in July 2008, but he was not

considered for the post since he did not satisfy the age

criteria.

12. The demand of the petitioner in the Claim Statement

is only to reinstate him in service on the allegation that his

termination was in violation of Section-25F of ID Act. His

engagement by the Bank being only as a casual labourer, on

his reinstatement also it could be as a casual labourer

only. In such circumstances rather than reinstatement the

proper relief would be compensation, it has been pointed

out by the counsel for the Respondent. He has referred to

the decision of the Apex Court in Harinandan Prasad and

another Vs. Food Corporation of India reported in 20147

SCC 190 in this respect. The Apex Court has held in this

case that it would be difficult to give the relief of

reinstatement to the persons who were engaged as daily

wagers and whose services were terminated in a distant

past and where the termination is held to be illegal only on

technical ground or not adhering to the provisions of

Section-25F of the Act. In the above the Apex Court has

referred to a previous case reported in 2014 7SCC 177

where it was held that when it comes to the case of

termination of a daily wage worker and where the

termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect

viz. violation of Sectrion-25F of the ID Act the Court was

consistent in taking the view that reinstatement with back

wages is not automatic and instead the workman should

be given monetary compensation which would meet the

ends of justice.

13. In the present case the grievance of the petitioner

is that he was terminated from service without resorting to

notice and compensation as required under Section-25F

of the Industrial Disputes Act. It has been pointed out by

the Apex Court that if the workman is reinstated in service

on account of such procedural violation the employer is

entitled to terminate him from service again after resorting

to the procedure. So rather than reinstatement.

compensation would be the proper remedy for the

petitioner in the circumstances of the case. Considering

the duration for which the petitioner had worked I fix the

compensation payable to him as Rs. 1,50,000/-.

In view of my discussion above, the Respondent is

directed to pay the petitioner Rs. 1,50,000/- as

compensation. The amount will carry interest at the rate of

9% per annum from the date of the award if not paid within

a month.

The reference is answered accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined —

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri Saravana

Babu

For the 2nd Party/Management :

MW1,

Sri

Palaniswamy

Documents Marked

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

—

Certificate

issued

the

Respondent to petitioner

1856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Ex.W2

18.10.2005 Certificate issued by Respondent

to petitioner

Ex.W3

21.03.2005 Letter to Post Master, Erode with

endorsementauthorizing petitoner

Ex.W4

29.03.2005 Letter of Poster Master, Erode

authorising petitioner

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

20.02.2007 Application by the petitioner as

proprietor of Saravanan Cotton

Ex.M2

26.09.2008 Paper publication/"Dina Thanthi"

calling for application for post of

Sub-staff prescribing education

and age/criteria etc.

Ex.M3

22.08.1996 Transfer Certificate of petitioner

Ex.M4

20.05.2005 Education loan application

submitted by the petitioner for his

sister addressed to the Respondent

with sanction order and on demand

note

Ex.M5

06.09.2006 Sanction of loan for Small-Scale

business

Ex.M6

28.05.2007 D/B note dated 28.05.2007 for Rs.

25,000/-

Ex.M7

28.05.2007 Term Loan Agreement executed by

the petitioner

Ex.M8

18.08.2009 Letter from UBI Regional Office,

Salem to Respondent Branch

forwarding the representation of

Saravana Babu dated 03.10.2008

received on 07.07.2009 —

addressed to CMD, Mumbai

Ex.M9

18.10.2005 Certificate issued to petitioner by

the Branch Manager, Erode

Ex.M10

18.10.2005 Certificate issued to the petitioner by

the Respondent

Ex.M11

03.10.2008 Letter from petitioner addressed to

Respondent/Managing Director,

Mumbai

Ex.M12

03.10.2008 Letter from petitioner - in Tamil

enclosing copy of 15 documents

addressed to M.D., Mumbai

Ex.M13

—

2(A) petition filed by thepetitioner

before ALC (C) Madurai

Ex.M14

21.10.2010 Reply from Respondent to ALC (C)

Madurai

Ex.M15

—

Rejoinder by the petitioner to the

counter of Respondent to ALC (C)

Ex.M16

21.01.2011 Letter from Respondent to ALC (C)

Madurai

Ex.M17

31.01.2011 Conciliation failure report ALC (C)

Madurai

Ex.M18

10.08.2010 Letter from R. Saravana Babu and

R. Madhu - Education Loan - no

repayment a/c turned N.P.A. - since

March, 2010

Ex.M19

10.08.2010 Letter from Respondent to

petitioner's term loan replayment —

irregular and a/c turned NPA —

Since 2008

Ex.M20

—

Order of appointment of Bhoopathi

as part time Sweeper

Ex.M21

29.03.2006 Letter from Respondent to Senior

Post Master, Erode with pay order

copy

Ex.M22

01.02.2006 Letter from Respondent to Central

Bank of India. Erode

Ex.M23

02.02.2006 Letter from Respondent to Central

Bank of India, Erode

Ex.M24

27.03.2006 Encashment matured NSC of G.

Visvam by forfeiture

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 864-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad ds

izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdks 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; psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 7@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-04-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@27@2012 & vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2015

S.O. 864.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 7/

2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

dispute between the managment of Indian Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government

on 22.4.2015.

[No. L-12011/27/2012 - IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1857

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 17th December, 2014

Present:

K.P. Prasanna Kumari, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 7/2013

[ In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

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

Section 10 of the Industrial Desputes Act, 1947 (14 of

1947), between the Management of Indian Bank and their

workman]

Between

The General Secretary

: 1st Party/Petitioner

Indian Bank Employees

Union

Association (T. Nadu)

17, Ameerjan Street, Choolaimedu

Chennai - 600094

And

The Dy. General Manager

: 2nd Party/

Disciplinary Authority

Respondent

Indian Bank, Circle Office

Katpadi Road,

Vellore

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union : Sri G. Gopal,

Authorized

Representative

For the 2nd Party/Respondent

: M/s T.S. Gopalan &

Co., Advocates

A W A R D

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide is Order No. L-12011/27/2012-IR (B.II)

dated 22.01.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The Schedule mentioned in that order is:

‘‘Whether the action of the management of Indian

Bank in imposing the punishment of reduction of

increment by one stage upon Smt. M. Jaya, SR

No. 54784, Indian Bank, Arni Branch is legal and

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?''

On receipt of the notice this Tribunal has

numbered it as ID 7/2013 and issued notices to both sides.

The petitioner has appeared through Authorized

Representative and the Respondent through the counsel

and field claim and Counter Statement respectively. The

petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter

Statement.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by

the petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner is a Union registered under Trade

Unions Act. It has substantial following among the

workmen of the Second Respondent Bank. By letter

dated 26.06.2007 Indian Bank Zonal Office. Vellore

issued a letter to Smt. Jaya, a member of the

petitioner union seeking explanation for certain

irregularities allegedly committed by her while she

was working in Arni Branch of the Indian Bank. Jaya

has sent reply denying the allegations against her.

Not satisfied with this, the Zonal Office has issued

Show-Cause Notice calling for explanation for the

charges given in that. It was alleged against Jaya

that she has failed to verify whether two instruments

were in order on all respects and failed to obtain the

signature of the presenter on the reverse of the

instrument at the issue of token, that the instruments

were found to be fraudulent and Smt. Jaya has failed

to protect the interest of the Bank, that she failed to

ensure in respect of a transaction dated 30.07.2005

whether the person who received payment is the

one entitled to receive and also failed to get

aknowledgment of the payee on the reverse of the

instrument against which payment was made, that

the transaction was found to be fraudulent and this

also she failed to protect the interest of the Bank. It

was also alleged that she facilitated withdrawal of

money from the accounts of three deceased

pensioners resulting in misuse of Government funds,

that the transactions were found fraudulent on

verification. Though a reply was given to the memo

it was not accepted and a charge sheet was issed

and a domestic enquiry was held against Jaya. On

the basis of enquiry report Jaya was given the

punishment of reduction to lower scale of pay by

one stage for the second charge and censure for the

charges 1 and 3. Though an appeal was filed the

same was dissmised. The dispute is raised

acordingly. An Order may be passed holding that

the punishment is not justified and directing the

Respondent to resotre monetary loss suffered by

the workman because of the unjust punishment.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as below:

In the year 2005 Arni Branch of the Respondent

Bank was in the process of switching over to Core

Banking Solutions. In the course of such conversion

operations the Govt. of India. Pension Account of

the Branch came up for scrutiny and members of the

project team who were carrying out electronic data

1858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

processing to core banking solutions suspected

some irregularities in the mattter of payment of

pension to some of the deceased pensioners. An

investigation team was formed and in the course

of investigation it came to light that pension was

paid to some of the pensioners after their death by

means of withdrawal slips. In all such transactions,

pension account of the deceased pensioners was

credited with large amounts by debiting Govt. of

India pension account and thereafter withdrawal of

amount was engineered through presenting

withdrawal slip by unauthorized persons. Such fraud

was perpetrated by one of the managerial staff of

the Bank. Jaya who was a ledger clerk at that time

had accepted withdrawal slips not accompanied by

Pass Book of the account holders. She had not examined

errors or mistakes in the instruments and had

allowed token to be issued at the instance of Asstt.

Branch Manager who was behind the fraud. While

she was acting as payment cashier she had made

payments through withdrawal slips not

accompanied by Pass Books and without taking the

signaturte of the person who was receiving the cash.

In respect of three transactions she made entiries

in the ledger and permitted unauthorized issuance

of token in respect of the relevant deceased

pensioner's account. She also made payment

through withdrawals slips though they were not

accompanied by Pass Book and without taking the

signature of the persons who received the amount.

Asstt. Branch Manager, Elango and seven staff

members including the concerned workman were

proceeded by way of disciplinary action. While the

Branch Manager was dismissed from service the

seven Clerical Staff were awarded appropriate

punishments. The punishment imposed on Jaya is

fully justified. The petitioner is not entitled to the

relief claimed.

In the rejoinder filed, the petitioner has denied

the contentions in the Counter Statement and also

reiterated the averments in the Claim Statement.

The evidence in the case consists of oral

evidence of WW1 and documents marked as Ext. W1 to

Ext.W13 and Ext. M 1 to Ext. M 10.

The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the action of the Respondent in

imposing the punishment of reduction of

increment by one stage on Jaya, the concernd

workman is legal and justified?

(ii) What if any is the relief to which the concerned

workman is entitled?

The Points

Jaya, who was working as Clerk in Arni Branch of

the Respondent Bank, a member of the Petitioner Union

was imposed with the punishment of reduction in scale of

pay by one stage and cenusre by the order of the

Disciplinary Authority dated 02.07.2009. Jaya is said to

have committed the misconduct of not properly verifying

certain instruments and making payments. On verification

it turned out that the transactions were all in respect of

deceased pensioners and payment was made to

pensioners who were not alive. The Respondent Bank

happened to detect the fraudulent transactions

consequent to the investigation conducted by a team on

suspicion raised by the project team who were scrutinizing

the pension account. It was revealed on investigation that

the Asstt. Branch Manager of the Bank had perpetrated

fraud by managing payments in the names of the

pensioners through withdrawal slips. Some of the staff

including Jaya. the workman concerned herein are alleged

to have dealt with the instruments in question without

necessary veification or scrutiny as per the procedure. It

is alleged against the petioner that regarding three

transactions she made entries in the ledger on the basis of

withrawal slips which were not accompanied by Pass

Books. She had also made payments through withdrawal

slips without getting signature of the persons who received

the amount.

Ex.W2 is the reply given by the concerned

workman to the Show Cause Notice issued to her. On going

through the explanation it could be seen that the

concerned worker had not denied any of the charges

against her. On the other hand, she had been giving reasons

for her failure to comply with the procedure. The incidents

referred to in the memo had occurred during the period

from July to October, 2005. The concerned worker had

worked as Clerk-cum-Shroff in Arni Branch from the year

2003 to 2007. In answer to the Show Cause Memo what

she has stated is that since substitutes were not provided

to two persons who were relieved the work burden in Arni

Branch had become heavier and there was increased

pressure from the customers in all the counters. She had

further stated that to reduce the customers crowed staff

members including Subordinate staff were pressed to

give tokens to the customers. According to her it has

become practically impossible to get identification

address to the tender of the instrument. She has further

stated that she used to verify the details of the instruments

like account number, amount, drawer's signature. etc. and

used to send them for passing to the Desk Officer. Her further

justification is that there was to no message or mail of the

death of the account holders and the accounts were not

locked up but were in operative condition and so she had

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1859

debited the accounts. According to her had the accounts

been locked up on receipt of the death intimation of the

account holder, operation of the accounts would not have

been possible.

10. Before the Enquiry Officer the relevant documents

were produced and were marked. As seen from the charge

sheet the concerned workman had processed two

instruments of the amount of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 30,000/

- respectively, both in the name of deceased pensioners.

The documents pertaining to this have been produced

before the Enquiry Officer. It is not disputed by the

concerned workman that she has not processed these

documents also. As per the second charge she has made

payment against one instrument in the name of deceased

pensioner. That the payment was made by her is not denied

by her. The third charge is that she has facilitated

withdrawal of money form the deceased pensioner's

account This charge is related to the first two charges

since the three transactions. mentioned in this are those

referred to to in the first two charges itself.

11. The concerned workman herself was not

examined before this Tribunal. On the other hand, the

petitioner, the General Secretary of the Association has

been examined. He has nothing to do with the incident

directly except that he is an office bearer of the association.

He had not worked in the Arni Branch of the Bank at all.

He did not represent the concerned workman in the enquiry

proceedings also.

12. The excuses made by the concerned workman

for not complying with the instructions while dealing

with the instruments is not justified at all. It is very

much clear from her own explantion that she had not

been complying with the instructions while dealing

with the instruments. She was allowing issue of token

based on withdrawal slip which is not accompanied with

Pass Book. She was not verifying the signature of the

account holder. She has made payment to the wrong

person/persons in the absence of proper verification.

The Bank itself was probably aware that all these were

done by her not deliberately but it was the result of

total indifference and negligence on her part. But this

is not expected from an employee of the Bank which

is dealing with public funds. She should have been

more careful while she was dealing with the

instruments that came to her. Her case that the accounts

were not locked even if the pensioners are not alive is

no justification at all. She was expected to thoroughly

verify the documents and follow the procedure in the

course of her work. If she was careful, the Asstt. Branch

Manager who had perpetrated the fraud would not have

been able to commit fraud and withdraw lakhs of rupees

lying in the Government of Indian Pension Fund. The

Enquiry Officer has rightly held that the workman in

question had committed the misconduct.

13. The Disciplinary Authority had awarded the

punishment of reduction to one pay scale and censure

only on the concerned worker. Thus he has shown leniency

in the matter of punishment. Once it found that the finding

of the Enquiry Officer is justified this Tribunal is not

competent to interfere with the punishment in so far as it

is not coming under Section-11A of the Industrial Disputes

Act. So the petitioner is not entitled to any interference in

the matter of punishment also. I find that the dispute is

without any merits.

14. In view of my finding above, the reference is

answered against the petitioner.

An award is passed accordingly.

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union

: WW1, Shri K.

Krishnan

For the 2nd Party/Management

: None

Document Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

EX. W1

15.05.2008 Show Cause Note CO/VLR/VIG/

F311/199/2008

issued

Ms. M. Jaya (CSE)

EX. W2

03.06.2008 Reply to the above charge sheet

with copy of the Voucher

EX. W3

10.12.2006 Confession letter by the them Assts.

Branch Manager of Arni Branch

Sri D. Elangovan for the fraud

committed by him

EX. W4

10.12.2006 Letter from Shri D. Elangovan

giving his property as security for

his fraud

EX. W5

10.12.2006 Letter from Shri D. Elangovan with

a Promissory Note for Rs. 22,00,000

favour Indian Bank as security for

his fraud

EX. W5

17.09.2008 Proceedings of the Preliminary

Enquiry

EX. W6

14.10.2008 Proceedings of the enquiry

EX. W7

17.11.2008 Presenting Officer's summing up

report

EX. W8

15.12.2008 Defense summing up

EX. W9

—

Letter from Ms. M. Jaya to the

Disciplinary Authority as reply to

Enquiry Officer's findings

1860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

EX. W10 11.03.2010 Orders of the Appellate Authority

EX. W11 27.09.2010 Letter/IBEA/GEN/17/2010-13 by

the Union to the Asstt. Labour

Commissioner raising an Industrial

Dispute against the punishment of

Ms. M. Jaya

EX. W12 24.10.2011 Rejoined filed by the Union in the

ALC

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

EX. M1

29.07.2008 Charg Sheet—CO/VLR/VIG/F311/

364/2008 issued to Mrs. M. Jaya

EX. M2

11.02.2009 Findings of the Enquiry Officer—

Mr. V. Ramamurthy

EX. M3

12.03.2009 Comments of Mrs. Jaya on the

findngs of the Enquiry Officer

EX. M4

09.06.2009 Second Show Cause Notice issued

to Mrs. Jaya proposing punishment

and offering personal hearing on

16.06.2009

EX. M5

15.06.2009 Letter from M. Jaya requesting 15

days time to submit her reply to the

Second Show Cause Notice dated

09.06.2009

EX. M6

16.06.2009 Proceedings of personal hearing

EX. M7

23.06.2009 Reply from Mrs. M. Jaya for the

Second Show Cause Notice dated

09.06.2009 proposing punishment

EX. M8

02.07.2009 Order of the Disciplinary Authority

in respect of each of the Charge No.

1, 2 and 3— "Censure" for 1 and 3

and "Reduction to Lower Stage in

the Scale of Pay by one Stage for

Charge 2"

EX. M9

12.08.2009 Appeal by M. Jaya against the

punishment awarded to her by the

Disciplinary Authority

EX. M10 28.02.2011 Counter Statement of the Indian

Bank filed before ALC (C), Chennai

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 865-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vksojfll

cSad 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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 82@2013½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-04-2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@49@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2015

S.O. 865.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 82/2013)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Indian Overseas Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 22/04/2015.

[No. L-12011/49/2013-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFOER THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Friday, the 27th February, 2015

Present: K.P. Prasanna Kumari,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 82/2013

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

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

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947),

between the Management of Indian Overseas Bank and

their workman)

Between

The General Secretary

: 1st Party/Petitioner

All India Indian Overseas Bank

OBC Staff Welfare Association

No. 6, West Avenue Road,

Kodambakkam

Chennai-600024

AND

The Chairman and Managing

: 2nd Party/

Director

Respondent

Indian Overseas Bank

Corporate Office, Anna Salai

Chennai-600002

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1861

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

; M/sAyodhya Legal

LLP

For the 2nd Party/Respondent

; M/s T.S. Gopalan &

Co., Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/49/2013-IR(B.II)

dated 08.08.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management of Indian

Overseas Bank in inclusion of clause 3(g) in the

Settlement and outsourcing the sweepers work

against the permanent/perennial nature of work is

justified or not? What relief the workmen are entitled

to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 82/2013 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearanace through their

counsel and have filed their claim and counter statement

respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner is the General Secretary of All Indian

Overseas Bank OBC Staff Welfare Association. The

Respondent, the Indian Overseas Bank arrived at a

settlement under Section-12(3) of the Industrial

Disputes Act on 17.02.2011 with its workmen

represented by the petitioner in the matter of

absorption of Casual/Temporary Messengers and

Sweepers engaged by the Respondent. As per

Clause-3(g) of the Settlement the parties have agreed

that vacancy for Sweepers either part-time or full

time arising on or after 15.11.2010 will be outsourced.

This clause in the settlement is against the interest

of the OBC, SC and ST employees of the Bank. The

interest of those belonging to OBC, SC and ST sections

will be affected by the clause. More than 90% of the

persons recruited for the post of Sweepers before

the settlement belong to the communities coming

under OBC, SC and ST. Prior to the settlement, the

Sweepers were eligible for scale promotions. Since

the vacancies are outsourced Sweepers who joined

the Bank after 15.11.2010 on contract basis will have

to remain as Sweepers for ever without any

promotion. Thus outsourcing the post of Sweepers

eliminates the opportunity to grwo within the Bank.

The Sweepers who work on outsourcing basis will

not be entitled to any benefits like leave concession,

gratuity, provident fund, loan facility or medical

benefits. So outsourcing the Sweeper post will

hinder the economic upliftment of employees who

joined as Sweepers. An order may be passed

directing the Respondent to delete Clause-3(g) from

the settlement dated 17.02.2011.

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

The settlement mentioned in the order of reference

was reached under Section-12(3) of the ID Act

between the Respondent Bank and its recognized

union. Since the settlement is binding on all the

workmen, it is not permissible for any of the

workmen or the registered trade union to raise the

dispute questioning the terms of the settlement.

So the reference itself is bad in law. The petitioner

is not a Trade Union registered under the Trade

Union Act so it is not competent to raise an

Industrial Dispute. The All India Indian Overseas

Bank Employees Union which is a recognized union

insisted that the temporary messengers and

Sweepers of the Bank should be regularized. The

issue was taken to the Board of Directors and the

Board sanctioned absorption of 438 messengers

and 530 Sweepers by a meeting held on 15.11.2010.

The vacancies arising after 15.11.2010 were not

filled up. In this context on 17.02.2011 a settlement

was concluded under Section-12(3) of ID Act. By

Clause-3(g) of the settlement, the parties agreed

that any vacancy either part-time or full-time arising

on or after 15.11.2010 for Sweepers in the Bank

shall be outsourced. The demand of the petitioner

is that the persons belonging to OBC, SC and ST

group would be deprived of the opportunity of

getting employment. This is without any

justification. An Industrial Dispute can be raised

only on behalf of the workmen employed in the

Industry. Since all the workmen are bound by the

settlement they are precluded from making a

demand inconsistent with the settlement. A Industrial

Dispute cannot be raised on behalf of un-identified

group of persons or of any group in the country. The

dispute is not maintainable. The petitioner is not

entitled to any relief.

5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of WW1 and documents marked as Ext. W1 and Ext.W12

and Ext.M1 to Ext.M4.

1862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

6. The point for consideration is:

"Whether the demand of the petitioner to delete the

Clause-3(g) from the settlement dated 17.02.2011 is

justified?"

The Point

7. The Petitioner is an Association for the welfare of

staff of OBC category in the Respondent Bank. The

Respondent Bank and the recognized union of the Bank

had entered into a settlement on 17.02.2011. As per

Clause-3(g) of the settlement the parties to the settlement

have agreed that vacancies of Sweepers either part-time or

full-time arising on or after 15.11.2010 shall be outsourced.

The petitioner has raised the dispute demanding that this

particular clause in the settlement should be deleted.

According to the petitioner this clause is against the interest

of the job seekers belonging to SC, ST and OBC communities.

The petitioner has stated that almost 90% of the persons

who are working as Sweepers in the Respondent Bank are

members of SC, ST or OBC communities. The reasoning of

the petitioner is that while those Sweepers who are having

permanent status in the Bank are enjoying all the facilities

like chance of promotion, leave concession and other such

benefits, the persons who will be taken as Sweepers on

contract basis will not be having any such opportunity or

facilities and will remain as Sweepers all along. It is on such

reasoning the petitioner is seeking to delete the particular

clause in the settlement.

8. In the Counter Statement the Respondent has inter-

alia contended that the petitioner is not entilted to raise an

Industrial Dispute, it being only an Association and not a

registered Trade Union. The counsel for the Respondent

has referred to a decision of Bombay High Court in

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF BANK WORKERS

FEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS VS. UNION OF

INDIA AND OTHERS reported in 1993 2LLJ 537 in

support of this contention. In the above case it was held

that a body which is not a registered body under the Trade

Unions Act is not entitled to raise an Industrial Disput

and for the same reason is not competent to file a Writ

Petition in respect of the right of the workmen. Referring

to the judgement of the Apex Court in the ASSOCIATED

CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. VS. THEIR WORMEN

reported in AIR 1960 SC 777 the counsel for the

petitioner has pointed out that an Industrial Dispute can

be raised by a group of workers or a Union or majority of

workers concerned or even a minority group of workmen.

Admittedly, the petitioner is only an Association and not

a registered Trade Union. However, when the decision of

the Apex Court in the abvoe case is taken into account, it

is apparent that for the purpose of raising dispute a body

need not be a registered union. Even a group workers,

even a minority group can make a demand and raise a

claim. The petitioner is representing the OBC staff of the

Respondent Bank. So necessarily it will be representing a

considerable group of workmen in the Respondent Bank.

So the argument that the dispute itself is not maintainable,

the petitioner, not being a registered union could not be

accepted.

9. However, on considering the merits of the case of

the petitioner is only to be rejected. There is already a

settlement entered into between the Respondent and the

recognized union of the Respondent. The settlement is

binding on all the workmen of the Respondent. The

petitioner is not entitled to challenge any clause in the

settlement while the settlement is in force.

10. Even otherwise the demand of the petitioner could

not be acceped. The claim of the petitioner is not on behalf

of all the workmen of the Respondent or on behalf of any

particular section of workmen of the Respondent . On the

other hand, the claim is on behalf of an imaginary group of

persons who will be job seekers as Sweepers in the

Respondent Bank for the vacancies that had arisen after

15.11.2010. There is no case for the petitioner that the

workmen of the Respondent are in any manner affected

by the settlement. It was as agreed by the recongnized

union on behalf of all the workmen of the Bank that a

clause was incorporated in the settlement that the

vacancies of Sweepers arising in the Bank after 15.11.2010

will be outsourced. The grievance of the petitioner is that

those persons who will start working in the Bank on

contract basis as Sweepers will not have the opportunity

to grow within the Bank and they will be denied of the

facilities that are available to the permanet workers of the

Bank. Such a demand of the petitioner cannot be favourably

looked upon. The petitioner has no reason to raise dispute

on behalf of an unknown, imaginary body of persons. The

petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

11. In view of my discussion above the reference is

answered against the petitioner.

An award is passed accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1863

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri A.

Rajasekaran

For the 2nd Party/Management :

None

Documents Marked: On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex. W1

10.04.1989

Bipartite Settelement regarding

part-time workmen between IBA

and All Unions

Ex. W2

20.01.1995

Settlement between IOB and

AIOBEU

Ex. W3

19.09.1988

Government of Tamil Nadu vide

notification (GO Ms. No. 2082,

Labour and Employment)

Ex. W4

17.02.2011

Memorandum of Settlement dated

17.02.2011 (F.No. 7.03.2011-B3)

Ex. W5

15.10.2012

Letter from Al IOB OBC Staff

Welfare Association to Deputy,

Chief Labour Commissioner

Ex. W6

26.11.2012

Letter from Deputy Chief Labour

Commissioner-Communication

No. M. 7/20/2012-13

Ex. W7

11.12.2012

Reply by IOB to Deputy Chief

Labour Commissioner

Ex. W8

26.12.2012

Rejoinder

Ex. W9

08.08.2013

Order passed by Central

Government

Ex. W10 12.08.2013

AIOBEU Circular No. 10/2013

Dated 12.08.2013

Ex. W11 21.08.2013

AIOBEU Circular No. 11/2013

Dated 21.08.2013

Ex. W12 05.02.2014

IOB Circular on Staff Housing

Loan Scheme (Transient Series

(File F) Circular No. 138 of 2013-

2014)

On the Management's side

EX No. Date

description

Ex. W1

23.03.2011

Circular Ref. No. EST/71/2010-11

to all Branches, Regional Offices

and other Offices on Temporary

Messengers/Sweepers

Ex. W2

20.05.2013

Conciliation Failure Report by

ALC (Central) Chennai

Ex. W3

06.12.2005

RBI Draft Guidelines on

outsourcing of financial Services

by Banks

Ex. W4

22.02.2006

Circular No. CIR DO/HR/189/

2005-06 from SBI, LHO, New Delhi

to other Branches/Circles - reg.

outsourcing of maintenance

services including sweeping/

cleaning etc.

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 866-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj lSaVªy cSad vkWQ

bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZpdkjks ds chp

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV ¼109@2014½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 22-04-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@78@2014&vkbZvkj ¼ch& II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2015

S.O. 866.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 109/2014)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Central Bank of India and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

22.04.2015.

[No. L-12011/78/2014-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

1864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM_LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Friday, the 27th February, 2015

PRESENT : K.P. Prasanna Kumari

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 109/2014

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between

the Management of Central Bank of India and their

workman)

BETWEEN

The General Secretary

Central Bank of India Staff Union

89, Aziz Mulk 3rd Street, Thousand Lights

Chennai-600006

1st Party/Petitioner Union

AND

The Assistant General Manager

Central Bank of India, Regional Office

48, Montieth Road, 1st Floor

Chennai-600008

2 nd Party/Respondent

APPEARANCE:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union : Authorized

Representative

For the 2nd Party/Respondent

: M/s T.S. Gopalan

& Co.,

Advocates

AWARDS

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/178/2014-IR (B-II)

dated 01.12.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management of Central

Bank of India, Chennai regarding suspension of

Sri C. Sekar, Cashier II is justified or not? What relief

the workman is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 109/2014 and issued notice to both

sides. The petitioner has entered appearance through

Authorized Representative and the Respondent through

Counsel.

3. The dispute is raised against the suspension of the

employee of the Respondent Bank. The Authorized

Representative has filed a memo stating that subsequent

to the failure report the Respondent has served an order of

dismissal on the concerned workman and thereafter a

dispute has been raised challenging this dismissal and in

view of this the petitioner does not want to proceed with

this case which is one challenging suspension. In view of

the memo the dispute is only to be closed.

Accordingly, the ID is closed as not pressed. An award

is passed accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

WITNESSE S EXAMINED:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union

None

For the 2nd Party/Management

None

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 867-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSykMhyk vk;ju

vksj izkstsDV ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼35@2002½dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-04-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&29011@76@2001&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2015

S.O. 867.—In purusance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. I.D. No. 35/

2002) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

Bailadila Iron Ore Project and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 13/04/2015.

[No. L-29011/76/2001-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1865

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/35/02

Shri A.S. Thakur,

Secretary, BKMS (BMS),

Qr. No. 11/120,

Akashnagar, Bacheli,

Dantewara (MP)

...Workman

VERSUS

General Manager,

Bailadila Iron Ore Project,

5, Bacheli,

Distt. Dantewara (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 25th day of November, 2014

1. As per letter dated 8-2-2001 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-29011/

76/2001-IR (M). The dispute under reference relates to:

^^D;k egkizca/kd] cSykMhyk vk;ju vksj izkstsDV fu{ksi

Øekad 5 cpsyh] ftyk nUrsokM+k }kjk Jh dsñ ,lñ Bkdqj

lgk;d ¼LVkslZ½ dh fcuk lap;h izHkko ls ,d osru c<+ksÙkjh 3

lky ds fy, fnukad 01-01-99 ls ;wfu;u dh xfrfof/k;ksa esa

Hkkx ysus ds QyLo:i o mi;qDr flfoy U;k;ky; }kjk

nks"keqDr gksus ds ckotwn Hkh jksd nsuk U;k;ksfpr gS\ ;fn ugha

rks Jh dsñ ,lñ Bkdqj fdl vuqrks"k ds gdnkj gSa\**

2. After receiving reference notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 2/1 to 2/11. Case of workman is that in 1997, he was

working as Assistant (Stores). He was elected as President

of BKMS Union. Being President of Union, he was raising

demands to the management. That Deposit No. V of

Bailadila Iron Ore Project is situated at Akash Nagar. There

was one Central School at Akash Nagar run by Kendriya

Vidyalaya Sangathan. Shri Nitesh Thakur S/o workman was

studying in 10th standard. Children of the employees were

also studying in same school. IInd party decided to close

said school and negotiated with DAV School Management

for opening school. It was protested by the employees and

students. Silent processing was organized in protest of

action of management. Manager got annoyed. Workman

was suspended on 29-3-97. He was served with chargesheet

under Clause 30(2) of standing orders alleging that on

25-3-97 by leading a procession of about 20-22 persons

was marching towards residential quarter of Shri K.G. Gopi,

Mazter Shovel Operator Grade I and used unparliamentary

language against Mr. Gopi. Workman has also pleaded that

enquiry was not properly conducted. He asked documents

in Hindi. Three witnesses of management had not suported

the charge against workman. 3 witness examined in defence

supported that workman had not committed act of throwing

stones or alleges. Workman submits that there was no

evidence to prove the charge. The findings of Enquiry

Officer are perverse. Without considering the findings of

Enquiry Officer, the punishment of with-holding one

increment of workman was imposed, said punishment is

illegal. It is further submitted that Ist party was prosecuted

in criminal case. He was acquitted on 1-1-99. On such

ground, workman prays for setting aside punishment of

with-holding increment.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 4/1 to 4/12

opposing claim of the workman. Case of IInd party is

workman was issued chargesheet on 5-3-91. Allegations

were obstructing officers at administrative office building

shouting slogans against management. Workman was also

is issued warning on 14-7-98. It is also alleged that workman

had participated in processsion on 25-3-97 protesting

closure of K.V. Derogative slogans were given. He had

also participated in stone throwing in house of Shri Gopi.

Incident was reported to police. Workman was suspended

as per order dated 29-3-97. Chargesheet was issued to

workman under clause 28(2)(vii), 28(2)(x), 28(2)(xii) and

28(2)(xxv) of standing orders. Shri Laxminarayan Sr. Manager

was appointed as Enquiry Officer, Shri Siddiqui

Dy. Manager as presenting Officer. Enquiry was conducted

against workman as per rules given proper opportunity.

The enquiry was conducted on 9-6-97, 13-6-97, 17-6-97,

7-9-97 & 9-9-97. It is reiterated that enquiry was conducted

following principles of natural justice. Enquiry Officer

submitted report that charges alleged against workman

are of serious warranting dismissal from service. However,

leniency was shown to him and lesser punishment was

imposed. IInd party denies that findings of Enquiry Officer

are perverse and punishment of withholding one increment

for period of 3 years is imposed against workman is illegal.

On such contentions, IInd party prays to answer reference

in its favour.

4. Workman filed rejionder at page 5/1 to 5/3 reiterating

his contentions in statement of claim. That the enquiry

conducted against him is illegal. Punishment imposed

against him it arbitrary.

5. As per order dated 15.12.2012, the enquiry conducted

against workman is found proper and legal.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the charges alleged

In Affirmative

against workman are proved

from evidence in Enquiry

Proceedings?

1866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

(ii) Whether punishment of

In Affirmative

witholding one increment

with cumulative effect for

3 years is proper and legal?

(iii) If so, to what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to any

relief.

REASONS

7. As stated above, enquiry conducted against

workman is found legal and proper. Workman has produced

documents Exhibit W-1 to W-34. As per Exhibit W-3, Central

School at Akash Nagar was to be closed. Exhibit W-5 is

memorandum issued to workman mentioning articles of

charges that the workman lead procession of 20-25 persons

marched towards residential quarters of Shri Gopi, Shovel

Operator Grade I and used unparliamentary language

against him. He participated, helped, abetted and instigated

others to use derogatory words against Shri K.G. Gopi and

also indulged in stone pelting on the quarter of Shri K.G.

Gopi as a result the window glasses and roof sheets of the

house were broken. Exihit W-6, 7 are memorandum of articles

of charges. In view of enquiry conducted against workman

is found proper and legal, question arise whether charges

alleged against workman are proved or not from evidence

or charges against workman are perverse.

8. IInd party produced documents Exhibit M-1 to M-3.

Management's witness Mohd. Bazir in his statement before

Enqiry Officer says he was present on day of incident

25-3-97. He further says that Shri K.S. Thakur participated

in slogan shouting. Slogans were shouted by crowds and

he could not specifically say that who were the persons

raising the slogans and responding to the slogans. Shri K.

S. Thakur was snatching stones from the hands of the

processsionists who were pelting stones. Management's

witness Shri P.P. Yadav in his evidence says that he saw

Shri K.S. Thakur in front of procession. He saw him

shouting slogans. When specific question was asked to

him whether Shri K.S. Thakur thrown stone, said witness

said he was inside house of Shri Gopi and could not see

him throwing stones. Witness No. 3 Basant Dharge in his

evidence says that he was present in procession. That

K.S. Thakur and Nazmi were leading procession, shouting

slogan, assaulting Shri K.G. Gopi and used derogative

language against Shri Gopi. He saw Thakur inside

compound of Shri Gopi. In his further statement, he says

he saw him holding stones in his hand and walking out of

the compound of Shri Gopi. So far as evidence of defence

witness Shri R.K. Argaria, K. Ramdas, Bansal Singh

supporting workman that he had not given slogans or

instigated other processionist. It cannot be a ground to

disbelieve evidence of management's witness No. 3

discussed above. The evidence discussed above is

sufficient to prove charges against workman therefore I

record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

9. Point No. 2—Punishment of with holding one

increment with 3 years cumulative effect in imposed.

Considering the nature of incident giving slogans in the

processsion and pelting stones by processionist lead by

workmen in certainly serious misconduct. Punishment

cannot be said shockingly disproportionate. No inference

is called for. Therefore I recrod my finding in Point No. 2 in

Affirmative.

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

(1) The action of the management in with holding

one increment for 3 years without cumulative effect

w.e.f 2.1.99 is legal and proper.

(2) It party workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 868-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj ykbQ bU'kksjsUl

dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la-

05@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 13@4@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&17011@6@2011&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2015

S.O. 868.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. I.D.No 05/

2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 13-4-2015.

[No. L-17011/6/2011-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO,Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

REFERENCE NO. 05 of 2012

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of

LIC of India

AND

their Workmen

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1867

PRESENT :

Justice Dipak Saha Ray,

Presiding Officer

APPEARANCE:

On behalf of the

Management

On behalf of the

None.

Workment

State

West Bengal.

Industry

Insurance.

Dated: 7th April, 2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-17011/6/2011-IR(M) dated 20.03.2012

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of

its powers under section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Life

Insurance Corporation of India, K.M.D.O-I, Jeevan

Prakash, Kolkata, in not granting C.L.,P.L., holidays

and national holidays from 16.1.2001 and also not

paying the full back wages for the period from

6.11.1997 to 15.1.2001 to Shri Dilip Yadav, is legal and

justified? what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. When the case is taken up for hearing today, none

appears on behalf of either of the parties. Records of this

case show that the Union at whose instance the present

reference has been initiated, is absent since 16.10.2014

inspite of service of notice.

3. Considering the above facts and circumstances it

may be presumed that the union is not all interested to

proceed with this case. So, no fruitful purpose will be served

by keeping the matter pending further.

4. In such view of the matter, present reference is

disposed of by passing a "No Dispute Award."

Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Kolkata,

The 7th April, 2015.

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 869-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj eqacbZ iksVZ VªLV ds

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

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky; 2] eqacbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 1@2015½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 13@4@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&15025@2@2014&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2015

S.O. 869.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. I.D.No 1/2015) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court 2,

Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the employees in relation to the

management of Mumbai Port Trust and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government

on 13/4/2015.

[No. L-15025/2/2014-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT :

K. B. KATAKA,

Presiding Officer

APPLN. (REFERENCE) NO. CGIT-2/1 OF 2015

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION OF THE MANAGEMENT

OF MUMBAI PORT TRUST

The Chairman

Mumbai Port Trust

Port Bhavan

Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg

Mumbai -200 037.

AND

Their Workmen

Shri Dasharath Mahadeo Rahate

24/466, Tejas Nagar

Renolds Road

Wadala (E)

Mumbai -400 037.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer

: Mr. Umesh Nabar, Advocate.

For the Workman

: In person

Mumbai, dated the 23rd March, 2015

AWARD

1. This reference was filed directly by the workman on

13/02/2013 under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 in view of the amendment in the Act from

15/09/2010. Workman also filed a copy of the letter dt.

22/01/2013 received from the Ministry intimating the parties

that the dispute cannot be considered for adjudication as

it has been raised after about 10 years. Notice was sent to

workman for his say on the point of maintainability. Matter

was adjourned on number of occasions. Since workman

did not file his say, on 13/01/2015 orders were passed on

1868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

the application. As per the said orders, notice was issued

to the parties. Matter was fixed for hearing in respect of

tenability of the reference. Today workman remained present

but did not file any say on tenability of the Reference. As

workman failed to file his 'Say' as to why it filed after 10

years and he did not even assign the reasons for the delay

and laches.

2. The Reference is filed at a belated stage without

explaining the reasons for delay. For the same reason of

delay, Government had refused to make reference. The said

order was of Government was not challenged by the

workman and filed this reference directly at a belated stage

after 10 years. Thus the same is not maintainable.

ORDER

Reference stands rejected as not tenable with no order

as to cost.

Date: 23.03.2015

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 870-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esV ykbQ bafM;k

bU'kqjsUl daiuh fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

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

la[;k 36@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

13@4@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&17012@46@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2015

S.O. 870.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D. No. 36/2014) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Met Life India Insurance Company Limited

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 13/4/2015.

[No. L-17012/46/2013-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 31st March, 2015

PRESENT :

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 36/2014

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between

the Management of Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd. and

their workman)

BETWEEN

Sri R. S. Belin

1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The Manager

: 2nd Party/

M/s Met Life India

1st Respondent

Insurance Co. Ltd.

Zion J.R.S. Centre,

2nd Floor,

Trivandrum Main Road,

Opp. MRF Tyres,

Marthandam,

Kanyakumari-629165

2. The Manager-IR

: 2nd Party/

M/s Met Life India

2nd Respondent

Insurance Co. Ltd.

Brigade Sesha Mahal,

No. 5, Vani Vilas Road,

Basavangudi,

Bangalore-560004

3. The Associate Director

: 2nd Party/

M/s Met Life India

3rd Respondent

Insurance Co. Ltd.

Orchid Centre, 5th Floor,

DLF Golf Course Road,

Sector-53, Gurgaon-122002.

APPEARANCE:

For the 1st Party/Petitoner

Ms/ S.

Arunachalam,

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/1st Management :

Set Ex-parte

For the 2nd Party/2nd Manatement :

Set Ex-parte

For the 2nd party/3rd Management :

Set Ex-parte

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-17012/46/2013-IR(M) dated

31.03.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication.

The sechedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Met

Life India Insurance Co. Ltd. in terminating the

services of Sri R.S. Belin w.e.f. 04.07.2012 is justified?

If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to?"

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1869

2. After the receipt of the Industrial Dispute this

Tribunal has numbered it as ID 36/2014 and issued notice

to both sides. On receipt of notice the petitioner has

appeared through his counsel and filed Claim Statement.

The Respondents remained ex-parte.

3. The averments in the claim statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner has joined the service of the Respondent

organization as Sales Manager on 03.11.2010. He was on

probation and was confirmed in this post after completion

of the period of probation, on 12.10.2011. Though the

nomenclature of the petitioner is Sales Manager, he is a

workman coming within the definition of Section-2(s) of

the Industrial Disputes Act. The job of the petitioner was

only of Salesman as target was fixed for him to canvass

insurance policies. The petitioner has no subordinates

under his control. He has no power or authority to execute

any order or to take any decision. The petitioner was

performing his duties to the best of his abilities. No proper

encouragement was coming from the Management to

complete the monthly targets. Since the Management came

to know that the petitioner is an active member of the

Employees Union he was charged with unnecessary

allegations. The petitioner was issued with a warning letter

on 27.04.2012 stating that his performance was below the

acceptable standards. Though the petitioner sent

explanation it was not accepted. The petitioner was

terminated from service on 29.06.2013 by giving one month's

notice pay. The order of termination is illegal. The petitioner

is entitled to be reinstated in the service of the Respondent

with full back wages, continuity of service and other

attendant benefits.

4. The petitioner has filed affidavit in lieu of his Chief

Examination and Ext. W1 to Ext. W10 were marked on his

side.

5. The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the action of the Management in

terminating the service of the petitioner is

justified?

(ii) What is the relief to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The Points

6. The petitioner who was working as Sales Manager

in Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd., the Respondent

institution was terminated from service on 29.06.2013. The

petitioner has claimed that the termination is illegal and

therefore he is entitled to be reinstated in service.

7. Anticipating a contention from the Respondents

that he will not come under the category of workman as

defined under Section-2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

the petitioner has stated in his Claim Statement itself that

though his job was having the attractive nomenclature of

Sales Manager he was actually only a workman coming

under the definition of Section-2(s) of the ID Act. The

petitioner has stated in his Proof Affidavit that his job was

only to canvass the insurance policies, that he was not

exercising control over any subordinate officials and he

had no power to take any decisions or execute any orders

also and in spite of his attractive nomenclature he was

only a workman. Even in the appointment order marked as

Ext. W2 there is no reference to the post of Sales Manager

being managerial or supervisory in nature. The

respondents have not come forward to contradict this

case of the petitioner also. So the claim of the petitioner

that he was only a workman in the insurance company is to

be accepted.

8. The petitioner was terminated from the service of

the Respondent Company by Ex. W7 order dated 29.06.2012

(the date of order of termination is wrongly given as

29.06.2013 in the Claim Statement). It is stated in Ext. W7

that the performance of the petitioner is way below the

required standards. Earlier two warning letters were given

to the petitioner and these are marked as Ext. W5 and

Ext. W6 respectively.

9. The petitioner has stated in his affidavit that there is

no valid basis for this termination from service and it was

only by way of victimization he was turned out, he being a

union activist. The Respondents have not come forwarded

to deny this case put forth by the petitioner. So the case of

petitioner in this respect is to be accepted. He is entitled to

be reinstated in service. Back wages payable to him is limited

to 50%, considering the circumstances.

Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to reinstate

the petitioner in service within one month of the award

with 50% back wages, continuity of service and other

attendant benefits. In default of payment of back wages

within the period, the Respondents are liable to pay interest

at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the Claim

Statement.

The reference is answered accordingly.

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

: None

For the 2nd Party/1st, 2nd &

3rd Management

: None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Descritption

Ex.W1

01.11.2010

Offer letter appointing

petitioner

Ex.W2

04.11.2010

Appointment order

1870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Ex.W3

07.03.2012

Complaint of petitioner

through e-mail to the Head-

Human Resources

Ex.W4

07.03.2012

Letter of Head HR through

e-mail

Ex.W5

27.04.2012

Performance review letter

Ex.W6

25.06.2012

Second warning letter on

perfomance

Ex.W7

29.06.2012

Termination letter

Ex.W8

17.07.2012

Representation of the

petitioner

Ex.W9

8/2012

Petition before the

Assistant Labour

Commissioner

(Conciliation), Madurai

Ex.W10

—

Pay slip of the petitioner for

December, 2011.

On the Management's side :

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 871-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,;jiksVZ vFkkWfjVh

vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 33@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

13@4@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&11011@3@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2015

S.O. 871.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D. No. 33/2008) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court 2,

Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Airport Authority of India and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 13/4/2015.

[No. L-11011/3/2008-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

Present: Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 33/2008

The Vice President,

AAI, Mazdoor, Sangh, Flat No. 166.

DDA-SFS Flats, Sector-1,

Dwarka,

New Delhi-110075

VERSUS

Airport Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan,

Safdarjung Airport,

New Delhi-110003.

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No. L-11011/3/2008 IR(M) dated 13.06.2008

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this tribunal for

the adjudication:

"Whether the demand of the Airport Authority of

India Mazdoor Sangh regarding retaining of its Vice

President Sh. Anoop Kumar Gupta at Delhi, after his

promotion to the Grade of Manager of Manager

(Tech) and transfer to CGO (COM) vide Airport

Authority of India letter dated 29.6.2007, is just and

legal? If so, what relief Sh. Anoop Kumar Gupta is

entitled to and from which date?"

On 23.06.2008 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D. No. 33/2008 and claimant was

called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from

date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

After service of notice workman/claimant filed claim

statement on 8.9.2008. On the basis of grounds mentioned

in claim Statement Claimant/Workman prayed as

follows:—

1. Sir, the transfer is thus illegal and malafide hence

liable to be quashed.

2. Sir, the transfer is thus illegal and malafied hence

liable to be quashed.

3. Sir, the period of my posting at CHQ (Com), Rajiv

Gandhi Bhavan, may please be ordered to be treated as the

period of posting at a tenure statation for same duration

and treating it as completion of my next term of transfer to

tenure station.

4. Sir, it is requested that suitable orders may please be

passed, so as to treat 31st July of the year in which my

normal term at tenure station get completed as the date of

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1871

relieving from tenure station for the purpose of deciding

my seniority for transfer to tenure station after that.

5. Sir, penalty may please be imposed of the

management in accordance with the provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for violation of the provision

of Section 33 of the ID. Act.

6. Sir, in view of the above, it is also prayed that the

Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal may pass such additional order

or orders and costs thereon as it may deem fit and proper.

The Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal may pass such

additional order or orders and costs thereon as it may deem

fit and proper.

Against aforesaid claim statement management filed

Written Statement on 20.04.2009.

On the bais of grounds mentioned in Written Statement

management prayed that claim may kindly be dismissed

with heavy costs.

Workman in reply to Written Statement filed Rejoinder

on 17.07.2009 and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court may graciously be pleased

to:—

(a) Pass an appropriate order or direction with costs

quashing the authorized of a Legal Practitioner

Sh. Digvijay Rai, Advocate, Delhi High Court, by

the respondent in violation of Sub-Section (4) of

Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, as

petitioner has never granted consent for

authorization of legal practitioner to appear on

behalf of respondent as per provisions of Section

36(4) of I.D. Act 1947.

(b) Pass an appropriate order or direction, for the

respondent to authorize an officer in accordance

with the statutory provisions of sub-section (2)

of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

as its Authorized Representative in the above

mentioned matter.

Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case and in the interest of

justice.

On 16.04.2013 My Ld. Predecessor passed order on

order sheet to proceed on the basis of schedule of reference

wherein questions of determination are mentioned as

follows:—

"Whether the demand of the Airport Authority of

India Mazdoor Sangh regarding retaining of its Vice

President Sh. Anoop Kumar Gupta at Delhi, after his

promotion to the Grade of Manager of Manager

(Tech) and transfer to CGO (COM) vide Airport

Authority of India letter dated 29.6.2007, is just and

legal? If so, what relief Sh. Anoop Kumar Gupta is

entitled to and from which date?"

Case was fixed for workman evidence on 23.08.2013.

Inspite of several opportunities workman adduced no

evidence as workman was adopting dormancy.

Management was called upon to adduce it evidence.

Management in support of its case filed affidavit of

management witness on 1.7.2014.

On 19.9.2014 management tendered affidavit of MW1.

Thereafter, management closed its evidence and 27.11.2014

fixed for Ex-parte arguments of management. On 27.11.2014

Ld. A/R for the management expressed his desire to file

synopsis in the shape of written arguments. He is permitted

to file synopsis before 8.1.2015 and 8.1.2015 was fixed for

Award.

Meanwhile Ld. A/R for the management filed synopsis

in the shape of Written Arguments on 2.1.2015. Wherein it

mentioned is as follows:—

1. The present Claim Petition has been filed by the

Airports Authority of India Mazdoor Sangh

through Shri Anoop Kumar Gupta, being the Vice

President of the said Sangh, which is a registered

Trade Union, under the Trade Unions Act, 1926.

2. The claim of the Claimant in the instant ID is that

Shri Anoop Kumar Gupta had raised an Industrial

Dispute before the Conciliation Officer (RLC-

Centre), New Delhi on his complaint under Section

33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 regarding

change in condition of service by transferring him

malafidely and illegally during the pendency of

Industrial Dispute without obtaining prior

permission in writing by the Conciliation Officer.

3. It is further averred in the Claim Petition that the

Management filed its reply before the Conciliation

Officer but thereafter did not appear on five

consecutive dates and hence the proceedings

resulted in failure of conciliation ex-parte on

13.11.2007.

4. That thereafter the dispute has been referred for

adjudication vide letter dated 13.06.2008 by the

Ministry of Labour to this Hon'ble Tribunal for

adjudication and the reference is as follows:

"Whether the demand of the Airports

Authority of India Mazdoor Sangh regarding

retaining of the Vice President Shri Anoop

Kumar Gupta at Delhi, after the promotion to

the Grade of Manager (Tech) and transfer to

CHQ (COM) vide Airports Authority of India's

letter dated 29.06.2007, is just and legal? If so,

what relief Shri Anoop Kumar Gupta is entitled

to and from what date?

5. That the Claim of Sh. Anoop Kumar Gupta further

is that vide transfer dated 26.09.2007, he has been

transferred from Palam Airport to Corporate Head

1872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Quarters (COM) at Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, New

Delhi and hence his place of work has been

changed from one station to other during the

pendency of the conciliation proceedings. His

claim was further that all other employees in his

Grade and presently posted at Delhi have been

retained at Delhi on promotion.

6. That in these circumstances, it has been prayed

that his Hon'ble Tribunal may quash the transfer

of Shri Anoop Kumar Gupta as the same is illegal

and malafide. It has been further prayed that the

period of his posting at CHQ (COM), Rajiv Gandhi

Bhawan, may please be treated as the period of

posting at a tenure station for same duration and

treating it as completion of his next term of

transfer to tenure station and further that suitable

orders may be passed so as to treat 31st July of

the year in which his normal term at tenure station

gets completed as the date of relieving from tenure

station for the purpose of deciding his seniority

for transfer to tenure station after that and further

to impose penalty upon the Management.

7. The Management i.e.Airports Authority of India

prayed for dismissal of the instant claim petition.

The stand of the Management was that Shri

Anoop Kumar Gupta is not a protected workman

and further that it has not violated any provisions

of Section 33 of the ID Act, 1947. It was the stand

of the Management that Shri Anoop Kumar Gupta

is not working under the capacity of workman as

he is holding the post of an Executive i.e. Manager

(Tech.) which is categorized as Group A post in

the nature of managerial capacity and has All India

Transfer Liabilities. It has further been denied by

the Management that Shri Anoop Kumar Gupta

was transferred from Palam Airport to CHQ (COM),

which is a tenure station. It is further the case of

the Management that Shri Anoop Kumar Gupta

has not been transferred but only directed to

perform work from one place to another place

within Delhi and that the transfer in AAI to a tenure

and non-tenure station are done on the basis of

transfer policy and that Delhi/CHQ does not come

into the category of tenure station as per transfer

policy dated 25.11.2009. It has been further

submitted by the Airports Authority of India that

the service conditions of employees are governed

as per AAI (General Service Conditions &

Remuneration) Act, 2003. It has categorically been

stated by the AAI that it appeared before the RLC

on all dates as per the directions of the RLC and

there is no question of violation of Section 33 of

the ID Act, 1947 as neither Shri Anoop Kumar

Gupta was transferred nor was he a workman.

8. That Shri Anoop Kumar Gupta filed his rejoinder

raising objections that the Counsel appearing on

behalf of the AAI cannot be allowed to appear

which objection was declined by this Hon'ble

Tribunal. Further the contents of the reply filed

by the Management was denied by Shri Anoop

Kumar Gupta.

9. That thereafter, Shri Anoop Kumar Gupta or any

respresentative on behalf of Shri Anooip Kumar

Gupta did not appear in the instant ID. It is further

submitted that Shri Anoop Kumar Gupta is

presently working as Assistant General Manager

(CNS) with the Management and it appears he

has lost interest as the instant claim petition has

become infructuous.

In these facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully

prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss

the instant Claim Petition on merits i.e. on the basis of

averments and documents of the AAI and also for non-

prosecution of the instant ID.

I perused the pleadings and evidence of the parties on

record. Which makes it crystal clear that workman in

support of his case adduce no evidence. So his pleading in

want of his evidence is not sufficient to grant him relief as

claimed by him in his claim statement.

Moreover, management in support of its case adduced

evidence. Which is unrebutted and this tribunal has no

option except to place reliance on the management evidence

based upon its pleadings.

In these circumstances I am of considered view that

workman is not entitled to no relief inwant of his evidence.

Hence, his claim statement is liable to be dismissed

and reference is liable to be decided against workman and

in favour of management.

Which is accordingly decided and claim statement is

accordingly dismissed. Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-08.01.2015

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 872-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,;jiksVZ vFkkWfjVh

vkWQ bafM;k ds izcaèra= 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; 2] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

34@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@4@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&11011@2@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1873

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2015

S.O. 872.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D. No. 34/2008) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court 2,

Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Airport Authority of India and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 13/04.2015.

[No. L-11011/2/2008-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT-II,

KARKARDOOMA

COURT COMPLEX DELHI

PRESENT: Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 34/2008

The Vice President,

AAI, Mazdoor Sangh, Flat No. 166

DDA-SFS Flats, Sector-1,

Dwarka, New Delhi-110075

VERSUS

Airport Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan,

Safdarjung Airport,

New Delhi-110003.

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No. L-11011/2/2008-IR(M) dated 13.06.2008

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this tribunal for

the adjudication:—

"Whether the executives upto the grade of Senior

Manager/Asstt. General Manager come within the

purview of the definition as workman as defined

under Setion 2(S) of I.D. Act, 1947?" 2. "Whether

the working hours and weekly off for the executives

and non-executives performing round the clock shift

duties in communication (Technical/Electronics/

Operations) an Aerodrome (ATM) discipline should

be the same as are being performed by the executives

and non-executives performing General Duties in all

other disciplines of Airports Authority of India

(National Airports Division). If so, what relief the

workmen performing round the clock shift duties are

entitled and from which date?"

On 23.06.2008 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D. No. 34/08 and claimants were

called upon to file claim statement within fifteen days from

date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

After service of notice workmen/claimants filed claim

statement on 8.9.2008. Through claim statement workmen

claimed as follows:—

Sir, the Sangh sought the status of "Workmen" for the

exectives up to the grade of Senior Manager/Assistant

General Manager and equivalent either performing roud

the clock shift duties or performing General duty, i.e. not

performing round the clock shift duties in Airports

Authority of India (National Airports Division) under serial

No. 12 of our letter dated 08/11th February, 2007. Therefore

in view of the above reply of the management, it may be

concluded that the management of Airports Authority of

India has agreed to our claim to the extent that the

executives below the grade of Senior Manager/Assistant

General Manager and equivalent of Airports Authority of

India (National Airports Division) are "Workmen" within

the meaning and scope of Section 2 (S) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

It is, therefore requested that necessary action may

pleas be initiated to declare the executives below the grade

of Senior Manager/Assistant General Manager and

equivalent of Airports Authority of India (National Airport

Division) as "Workmen" with in the meaning and scope of

Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disptes Act, 1947.

Against aforesaid claim statement management filed

Written Statement on 20.04.2009.

On the basis of grounds mentioned in Written

Statement mangement prayed that claim may kindly be

dismissed with heavy costs.

Workmen in reply to Written Statement filed Rejoinder

on 17.07.2009 and respectfully prayed that the claim as per

the statement of claim may kindly be granted at the earlier

to put an end to the existing and established practice of

discrimination between employees who are performing

round the clock shift duties and who not performing round

the clock shift duties.

On 16.04.2013 My Ld. Predecessor passed order on

order sheet to proceed on the basis of schedule of reference

wherein questions of determination are mentioned as

follows:—

"Whether the executives upto the grade of Senior

Manager/Asstt. General Manager come within the

purview of the definition as workman as defined

under Section 2(S) of I.D. Act, 1947?" 2. "Whether

the working hours and weekly off for the executives

and non-executives performing round the clock shift

duties in communication (Technical/Electronics/

Operations) and Aerodrome (ATM) discipline should

be the same as are being performed by the executives

and non-executives performing General Duties in all

1874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

other disciplines of Airports Authority of India

(National Airports Division). If so, what relief the

workmen performing round the clock shift duties are

entitled and from which date?"

Case was fixed for workmen evidence on and

23.08.2013. Inspite of several opportrunities workmen

adduced no evidence as workmen was adopting dormancy.

Management was called upon to adduce it evidence.

Management in support of its case filed affidavit of

management witness on 1.7.2014.

On 19.09.2014 management tendered affidavit of MW1.

Thereafter, management closed its evidence and 27.11.2014

fixed for Ex-parte arguments of management. On 27.11.2014

Ld. A/R for the management expressed his desire to file

synopsis in the shape of written arguments. He is permitted

to file synopsis before 8.1.2015 and 8.1.2015 was fixed for

Award.

Meanwhile Ld. A/R for the management filed synopsis

in the shape of Written Arguments on 2.1.2015. Wherein it

mentioned is as follows:—

Most Respectfully Sheweth:

1. The present Claim Petition has been filed by the

Airports Authority of India Mazdoor Sangh

through Shri Anoop Kumar Gupta, being the Vice

President of the said Sangh, which is a registered

Trade Union, under the Trade Unions Act, 1926.

2. The claim of the Claimant in the instant I.D is that

the Claimant Union had raised an Industrial

Dispute beflore the Conciliation Officer (RLC-

Centre), New Delhi for resolving their disputes

through conciliation. However, the said

conciliation failed and failure of conciliation report

was issued by the Conciliation Officer vide letter

dated 03.03.2008. It is submitted that on the failure

of the conciliation proceedings, the Ministry of

Labour vide its letter dated 13.06.2008 referred

the disputes to this Tribunal with the following

reference:—

"Whether the executives up to the grade of

Senior Manager/Asstt. General Manager come

within the purview of the definition as workman

as defined under Section 2(S) of I.D. Act, 1947”

3. That the case of the Claimant Union was that

Executives upto the grade of Senior Manager/

Asstt. General Manager and equivalent of

Communication

(Technical/Electronics/

Operations) and Aerodrome (ATM) Disciplines

are neither having any administrative powers nor

have to perform and managerial duties, and hence

are within the purview of wormen as defined in

Section 2(S) of the ID Act, 1947 and in view of the

letter dated 12.06.2007 issued by the AAI

(Management), it could be inferred that AAI had

agreed to the claim to the extent that the

Executives below the grade of Senior Manager/

Asstt. General Manager and equivalent of AAI

(National Airport Division) are workmen within

the meaning of Section 2(S) of the ID Act, 1947.

4. In view of this, the Claimant has prayed before

this Hon'ble Tribunal that action may please be

initiated to declare the Executivies below the grade

of Senior Manager/Asstt. General Manager and

equivalent of AAI (NAD) as workmen with the

meaning and scope of Section 2(S) of the ID Act,

1947 and in this view the Executives upto the grade

of Senior Manager/Asstt. General Manager and

equivalent either performing round the clock shift

duties or performing general duties may please

be declared as workmen within the meaning of

Section 2(S) of the ID Act, 1947.

5. That the second dispute referred by Ministry of

Labour vide its letter dated 13.06.2008 was:—

"Whether working hours and weekly off for

the executives and non-executives performing

round the clock shift duties in Communication

(Technical/Electronics/Operations) and

Aerodrome (ATM) discipline should be the

same as are being performed by the executives

and non-executives performing General Duties

in all other disciplines of Airports Authority of

India (National Airports Division). If so, what

relief the workmen performing round the clock

shift duties are entitled and from which date"?

6. That the Claimant Union submitted that the

executives and non-executives performing round

the clock shift duties in Communication

(Technical/ Electronics/Operations) and

Aerodrome (ATM) discipline and had to perform

duties on all seven days of the week without any

weekly off whereas executives and non-executives

performing general duties in all disciplines of AAI

have to perform duty on five days only of the

week with two days weekly offs on every Saturday

and Sunday i.e. the Executive and Non-Executives

of Communication and Aerodrome had to perform

42 to 48 hours duty in a wek whereas similarly

placed executive and non-executives in other

Departments had to perform 37¹/2 hours of duty

per week with two days weekly off.

7. That in view of the above, the Claimant Union

sought parity of Executive and Non-Executives

of the Communication (Technical/Electronics/

Operations) and Aerodrome (ATM) disciplines

of AAI (NAD) with those performing general

duties in all disciplines of AAI (NAD) and

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1875

compensation at the rate of two days per week in

lieu of not granting weekly offs w.e.f. the date of

the permanent absorption or the date of joining

on appointment as the case may be to all

Executives and Non-Exectives performing round

the clock shift duties in Communication

(Technical/Electronics/ Operations) and

Aerodrome (ATM) disciplines and compensaiton

at the rate of 4¹/2 hours per week in lieu of extra

duties taken w.e.f. permanet absorption or date of

joining on appointment for those who have put in

42 hours of duty per week and further

compensation at the rate of 10 1/2 hours per week

in lieu of extra duties taken who have put in 48

hours of duty per week.

8. That the AAI filed its reply stating that Sh. Anoop

Kumar Gupta who was not a member of the

Claimant Union as he was a Manager performing

administrative duties and a part of the

Management. Moreover, as per the Referendum

conducted on 23.02.2002, the Airports Authority

Employees Union was the recognized Union with

which the Management had entered into a

Memorandum of Understanding and hence no

policy issue can be discussed with the Claimant

Union.

9. That the AAI further denied that the Executives

upto the grade of Senior Manager/Asstt. General

Manager and equivalent Executive and Non-

Executives of the Communication Technical/

Electronics/Operations) and Aerodrome (ATM)

disciplines neither have any administrative power

nor have to perform any managerial duties. The

fact is that all the above mentioned Executives

are part of management and number of employees

(workmen) function under their control. These

Executives supervise the workmen as well as

equipment installed at the Airport, which are

essential for smooth operation of the Aircraft.

Besides, these Executives also draw the salary

and perks applicable to Executives as per AAI

(General Service Condition & Remuneration) Act,

2003. It was further submitted that in AAI

employees are categorized as Executive and Non-

Executive and the issue regarding duty hours for

Executives for performing round the clock shift is

dealt with the Officers Association and for Non

Executives the same is discussed with recognized

Unions, whereas the Claimant Union is not a

recognized Union.

10. AAI further submitted that all Executives are

entitled for compensation for performing extra

duties in accordance with the guidelines on the

subject i.e. Guidelines dated 07.10.2005, 25/

28.01.2006 and 17.10.2008. AAI further submitted

that since Executives and Non-Executives of

ATM/COM Disciplines have different nature of

jobs in comparison to employees performing

general duties, AAI required round the clock shift

duties and for performing extra duties the

management compensates them accordingly and

that there is no discrimination between Employees

who are performing shfit and general duties.

11. That Shri Anoop Kumar Gupta filed his rejoinder

raising objections that the Consel appearing on

behalf of the AAI cannot be allowed to appear

which objection was declined by this Hon'ble

Tribunal. Further the contents of the reply filed

by the Management was denied by Shri Anoop

Kumar Gupta.

12. That thereafter, Shri Anoop Kumar Gupta or any

representative on behalf of Shri Anoop Kumar

Gupta did not appear in the instant ID. It is further

submitted that Shri Anoop Kumar Gupta is

presently working as Assistant General Manager

(CNS) with the Management and it appears he

has lost interest as the instant claim petition has

become infructuous.

In these facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully

prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss

the instant complaint on merits i.e. on the basis of averments

and documents of the AAI and also for non-prosecution

of the instant ID.

I perused the pleadings and evidence of the parties on

record. Which makes it crystal clear that workmen in

support of their case adduce no evidence. So their pleadings

in want of their evidence is not sufficient to grant them

relief as claimed by them in claim statement.

Moreover, management in support of its case adduced

evidence. Which is unrebutted and this tribunal has no

option except to place reliance on the management evidence

based upon its pleadings.

In these circumstances I am of considered view that

workmen are not entitled to no relief in want of their

evidence.

Hence, their claim statement is liable to be dismissed

and reference is liable to be decided against workmen and

in favour of management.

Which is accordingly decided and claim statement is

accordingly dismissed.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated 08.01.2015

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

1876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 873-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV c®d 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]

y[kuÅ ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼159@2002½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@356@2001&vkbZvkj¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 24th April, 2015

S.O. 873.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 159/

2002) of the Cent.Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of State Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

24/04/2015.

[No. L-12012/356/2001-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -

CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

Rakesh Kumar,

Presiding Officer

Ref. No. L-12012/356/2001-IR (B-1) dated 17.01.2002

I.D. No. 159/2002

BETWEEN

The Dy. General Secretary

State Bank of India Staff Asson.

148, Civil Lines

Bareilly (U.P.) 243001

(Espousing cause of Sri Bhagwan Dass)

AND

The Dy. General Manager

State Bank of India, Zonal Office

I.D. No. 159/2002.

148 Civil Lines

Bareilly (U.P.) 243001

AWARD

1. By order No. L-12012/356/2001-IR(B-I) dated

17.01.2002 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this

industrial dispute between the Dy. General Secretary, State

Bank of India Staff Asson., 148, Civil Lines, Bareilly (U.P.)

and the Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal

Office, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly (U.P.) for adjudication to

this CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the action of the State Bank of India,

Bareilly in Denying the Compassionate Appointment

to Sri Bhagwan Dass S/o Sri Dori Lal vide letter

No. 42/109 dated 09.06.1999 is justified? If not, what

relief he is entitled?"

3. The State Bank of India Staff Association has filed

the claim statement stating therein that the workman Sri

Dori Lal, Zamadar expired on 02.03.1999. Deceased's legal

heir Smt. Ram Kumari (wife) applied well in time for

compassionate ground appointment as per Bank's Staff

Welfare Scheme under Chapter 7 of Hand Book on Staff

Matters Volume II. She has also given application for his

elder son who looks after whole family namely. Association

submitted several representations for the appointment of

Smt. Ram Kumari's son Sri Bhagwan Dass but nothing was

done by the opposite party. Aggrieved from the opposite

party Bank's attitude she raised Industrial Dispute before Asstt.

Labour Commissioner (C), Dehradun.

4. The applicant has stated that Late Sri Dori Lal was

appointed in State Bank of India, and posted as Zamadar in

the Bareilly branch of the Bank. Late Sri Dori Lal expired on

02.03.1999. It is stated by the union that Smt. Ram Kumari,

wife of Sri Dori Lal, was entitled to get all the terminal

benefits as per rules. Smt. Ram Kumari filed application

with in time for the appointment to her son Sri Bhagwan

Dass forgoing her right. The staff association stated that

Smt. Ram Kumari applied for appointment of Sri Bhagwan

Dass in lieu of her appointment on compassionate ground.

The bank paid all terminal benefits to Smt. Ram Kumari but

appointment on compassionate ground to her son was

denied on the ground of her financial status. The applicant

has further stated that the financial position of the

aggrieved family of Late Sri Dori Lal was very weak, the

widow and other family members had no source of income,

the funds provided by the bank to the widow was spent in

clearing the sum borrowed from the creditors, which were

earlier left unpaid by the deceased. It has also been stated

that due to financial crisis and hardship, it has been very

difficult for Smt. Ram Kumari to provide sufficient meal to

her children and to look after them properly. Need for

appointment of deceased's son on compensate ground has

been emphasized. A request has been made for giving

appointment to Sri Bhagwan Dass S/o Late Sri Dori Lal

from retrospective effect i.e. from the date of his death with

full wages and other consequential benefits.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1877

5. The opposite party/management has filed written

statement denying the allegations levelled by the staff

association. The management has asserted that the Sri

Bhagwan Dass has never been employed by the State Bank

of India. He is not an employee of the Bank. The Bank

stated that any dispute or difference between employers

and employees or employer and workmen or between

workmen and workmen which is connected with the

employment or non-employment or the term employment

or with the condition of labour or any person can be looked

into. The bank further stated that Sh. Bhagwan Dass is not

a workman as per definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947, as such he is not entitled for any benefit

under the provisions of the I.D. Act. The Bank further stated

that an illegal dispute was raised by the State Bank of India

Staff Association before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner

(C), Dehradun.

6. The Bank management further stated that Smt. Ram

Kumari was getting pension Rs. 4,049 per month and Sri

Bhagwan Das, son of Late Sri Dori Lal is not entitled for

compassionate appointment in the bank.

7. The opposite party has emphasized that the

provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are neither

attracted nor applicable in the present case. Consequently

the entire proceedings are misconceived and void and the

reference made is also illegal and premature. There does

not exist any industrial dispute nor is apprehended as such

also reference is bad in eyes of law. The claimant Sri Bhagwan

Das has neither signed the claim petition nor verified the

same, consequently the pleadings made by him vide

statement of claim are no pleadings in the eye of law, as

such they are liable to be ignored. As per law no statement

of claim in furtherance of the reference had been made by

the claimant Sri Bhagwan Das. Consequently on this

ground itself the proceedings are liable to be dropped.

8. The management in its reply has submitted that Sri

Dori Lal was an employee of the opposite party State Bank

of India. He had died on 02.03.1999 and at that time he was

working with Bareilly Branch of the opposite party bank.

After his death, his wife Smt. Ram Kumari had submitted

an application for employment for her eldest son Sri

Bhagwan Das on compassionate ground on 27.03.1999.

The management has further stated that no indigent

circumstances existed in the family of deceased which would

warrant compassionate appointment of dependent of

deceased Sri Dori Lal, the decision of the competent

authority was conveyed to Smt. Ram Kumari, widow of Sri

Dori Lal vide bank's letter dated 23.08.2002, and an

unwarranted and illegal dispute has been raised by the

State Bank of India Staff Association before Asstt. Labour

Commissioner (C), Dehradun under I.D. Act, 1947.

9. It has been pleaded by the management that State

Bank of India has a scheme for appointment on

compassionate ground for dependants of the deceased

employees/employees retired on medical ground updated

up to 01.01.1998 and as per scheme a spouse or any

dependant who would undertake in writing in the matter

decided by the bank to look after the family of the deceased

employee can tender an application for appointment.

10. As far as the terminal benefits of Sri Dori Lal were

concerned, the opposite party bank had paid the following

terminal benefits to Smt. Ram Kumari detailed as below;

(a) Provident Fund

Rs. 1.68 lakhs

(b) Gratuity

Rs. 1.41 lakhs

Rs. 0.12 lakh

(d) Lumpsum relief

Rs. 0.10 lakh (under

staff mutual welfare

scheme)

11. Thus, the bank had effected the payment of Rs.

3,31,000/- to her on different dates.

12. Apart the said amount a monthly pension of

Rs. 3,849/- is presently admissible and payable to Smt. Ram

Kumari along with a sum of Rs. 200/- per month under the

Staff Welfare Scheme — totaling Rs. 4,049/- per month.

Apart the said amount Sri Dori Lal had left behind following

estates:—

(a) Movable assets valuing

Rs. 25,000/-

(b) House valuing about

Rs. 4,00,000/-

Rs.

35,000/-

different

deposit

schemes.

13. As such from the amount left behind by Sri Dori

Lal, his family can have monthly interest of Rs. 3,600/- at a

rate of 10% per annum on the terminal benefit amount of

Rs. 3,31,000/- plus Rs. 35,000/-. Apart it they have monthly

pension of Rs. 4049/- and an owned residential house for

their residence. Thus total monthly income of the family

i.e. Rs. 4,049+Rs. 3600/- cannot be said to be insufficient

so as to depict any financial crises in the family.

14. The management has denied that Sri Dori Lal had

to pay a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- to his creditors, it has also

been stated that bank had deducted a sum of Rs. 2,44,348/

- from the terminal benefits of Sri Dori Lal. The management

has placed reliance on the principle laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that as a rule appointment

in the public services should be made strictly on the basis

of open invitation of the applications and on merit, the

object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family

to tide over the sudden crises and the public authority has

to examine the financial conditions of the deceased family.

15. The Staff Association filed rejoinder in which it

has reiterated the facts as in claim statement.

16. The Staff Association has examined Bhagwan Das

S/o Late Dori Lal; whereas the management has examined

1878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Shri K.N. Chandola, Asstt. General Manager (Operation) in

support of their respective claim. The parties availed

opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of each other

apart from forwarding oral arguments.

17. Heard learned authorized representatives of the

parties and perused evidence available on record in light

thereto.

18. The authorized representative of the workman's

union has contended that the widow of late Dori Lal who

was an employee of the bank had submitted an application

for compassionate appointment to her elder son, Bhagwan

Das but the management declined the same on the basis of

their financial status vide their letter dated 09.06.1999. It is

further submitted that the bank was again approached

though a fresh representation with submission that the

terminal benefits paid by the bank had been paid to the

creditors and the family is facing financial crises as the

only source of income in form of family pension being paid

to the widow of deceased employee is insufficient to meet

out the needs. It is also stressed upon by the authorised

representative that the union passed a resolution to

represent the case of the widow of the deceased Dori Lal

who was an active member of the union, therefore, the

present case is an industrial dispute under section 2 k of

the Act.

19. In rebuttal, the authorized representative has

contended that the claimant was never employed by the

Bank. The claimant, Bhawan Das is not a member of State

Bank of India staff Association, as such, the staff

association has got no locus standi to raise any industrial

dispute. Also, there exist no industrial dispute between the

bank and the claimant. The management has contended

that the claimant, Bhagwan Dass was denied compassionate

appointment after critical examination of facts and law

involved in the case. The competent authority found that

no indigent circumstances existed in the family which would

warrant compassionate appointment to a dependent of the

deceased Dori Lal, accordingly the decision of the

Competent Authority was conveyed to Smt. Ram Kumari,

widow of Dori Lal vide bank's letter dated 23.08.2002. It is

also contended that deceased Dori Lal owned a house and

the total family income came to be Rs. 4040/- + Rs. 3600,

which included family pension and interest on terminal

benefits paid respectively, which show that there was no

financial crisis before the family, therefore the

representation of the widow of Dori Lal was rightly rejected

by the bank management.

20. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival submissions of the learned representatives of the

parties who have been heard at length and scanned

evidence relied on by the parties in light of their rival

submissions.

21. The Bank has come up with the preliminary

objection that since the claimant, Bhawan Das is neither an

employee of the Bank nor a member of the Staff Association

therefore, there exists no industrial dispute between the

Bank and the claimant and also the Association has no

locus standi to agitate the present matter.

Admittedly the father of the claimant viz. Late Shri

Dori Lal was the employee of the Bank and was member of

the Staff Association; and on his sudden demise, the Staff

Association has moved a resolution to contest the case of

the claimant regarding compassionate appointment. The

bank while disputing the locus standi of the Association

has not disputed the resolution passed to extend legal

assistance to the family of its ex-member, therefore, the

action initiated by a recognized trade union consequent to

a resolution passed by its members cannot be held to be

invalid in absence of any material proof. However, the

contention of the management that present case does not

come within the purview of Industrial disputes u/s 2 'k' of

the I.D. Act., 1947 has to be taken up in light of the fact that

present industrial dispute by the union to espousing the

cause of widow of deceased who was an active member of

the union, pursuant to the resolution passed by the union.

The section 2 (k) of the Act defines the term índustrial

dispute'as under:

"(k) "industrial dispute"means any dispute of

difference between employers and employers, or

between employers and workmen, or between

workmen and workmen, which connected with the

employment or non-employment or the terms of

employment or with the conditions of labour, of any

person;"

A bare perusal of the above definition makes it clear

that any dispute or difference between the employers and

workmen regarding non-employement is covered with the

term industrial dispute. In the present case the dispute

exists between the staff association regarding non-

employement of the claimant i.e. not giving compassionate

appointment to the claimant whose cause is being espoused

by the staff association. Therefore, in my opinion the same

comes within the purview of índustrial dispute'as per the

meaning of industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947.

22. Now coming to the merits of the case, the

management has taken plea that the representation of the

widow of late Dori Lal was rejected by the competent

authority keeping in view sound financial position of the

family as the widow of Dori Lal had been paid a handsome

amount on account of terminal benefits and was also getting

family pension apart from this she had a house to live in.

The management has provided the list of pecuniary

benefits received by the widow of Dori Lal, on his death,

which is summed to Rs.3,31,000/-.

The management witness has stated that apart from

above amount a monthly pension of Rs.3849/- along with a

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1879

sum of Rs.200/- per month under the Staff Welfare Scheme,

totaling Rs.4049/- per month is being paid to widow of Dori

Lal. He also added that Dori Lal had movable assets valuing

Rs.25,000/-, house valuing above Rs.4,00,000/- and

investments of Rs.35,000/-. The management witness has

stated that the family of Dori Lal can have interest of

Rs.3600/- @ 10% per annum on the amount of terminal

benefits plus Rs.35,000/-. As per version of the management

witness the family has an own house to dwell in and total

monthly income of Rs.4049/- plus Rs.3600/- cannot be said

to be insufficient so as to depict any financial crisis to the

family. In cross-examination the management witness stated

that the family pension after death of the employee,

becomes half to the original pension and the widow of Dori

Lal is getting Rs.2085/- as family pension presently. The

management witness could not state as to whether Dori

Lal availed any debt for house or not. He also could not

specify and document relating to registry of the house. He

stated that as per records, he has knowledge that the family

of Dori Lal has good economic position.

23. In rebuttal, the workman's union has come up with

the case that the management of the State Bank of India

has declined the claim of the claimant on the basis that the

family has good financial position and accordingly, there

is no need to give compassionate appointment to the son

of the deceased, Dori Lal; but in actuality the financial

condition of the family is not sound enough to meet the

family requirements.

24. Admittedly, Shri Dori Lal who was a member of the

workman's union died during service. On his demise, the

management of the Bank paid his widow wife the all the

terminal benefits amounting to Rs.3,31,000/-. The widow of

late Dori Lal applied for compassionate appointment of his

elder son which was declined by the Bank on taking the

plea that the family of the deceased has sound financial

position, therefore, there is no need to give compassionate

appointment to any member of the family. From perusal of

the pleadings it comes out that the management has denied

the request for compassionate appointment taking this fact

into account that the widow of late Dori Lal owns a house

to live in and was getting pension Rs.4049/- (including

sum of Rs.200/- against Staff Welfare Scheme), which has

reduced to Rs. 2085/-. Apart from this the management

presumed that the family might earn a monthly interest of

Rs.3600/- on the retrial benefits. The management also taken

into account that the movable and immovable assets of the

widow of late Dori Lal. There is no material on record to

show as to how the management assessed the value of the

house or other assets. The union in its claim has pleaded

that the money received on account of terminal benefits

were paid to the creditors. Although the union has also not

presented any evidence in support of its pleadings; but

the existence of debts at the time of death of Dori Lal cannot

be ruled out. Likewise there is no document to show as to

how the management calculated the value of the movable

assets, hence cannot be accepted.

25. No doubt, compassionate appointment cannot be

claimed as a matter of right. Ho'n'ble Apex Court in number

of its judgement has reiterated this factum; but the Hon'ble

Court has never been of the view that the family of the

deceased family should live like beggar and live life

miserably. As per settled law, the only ground which can

justify the compassionate appointment is the penurious

conditions of the deceased's family and offering

employment irrespective of the financial condition of the

family is legally impermissible. In the present case the

management has denied the compassionate appointment

to the claimant on the basis of its assessment regarding

financial condition of the deceased family; but has not

filed any cogent documentary evidence regarding such

assessment or any reliable report which led the management

of the State Bank of India to arrive at the conclusion that

the financial condition of the family of the deceased sound

enough to decline the compassionate appointment

requested by the widow for her son. Moreover, the

management has filed its letter dated 19.06.2000; whereby

it has communicated the decision of competent authority

regarding denial of compassionate appointment to the

claimant. The letter dated 19.06.2000 is not speaking one as

it is silent over the point as to what led the management to

come to the conclusion regarding denial of the

compassionate appointment, this makes theory of the

management about denial of compassionate appointment

due to sound financial position of the family an after

thought. Thus, there is no document available on record,

for scrutiny of this Tribunal to facilitate to draw a

conclusion that the move of the management was just and

fair and the conclusion drawn by the management in the

absence of documentary evidence seems more hypothetical

rather real. On the contrary, the pension received by the

widow amounting to Rs.2085/- does not seem sufficient to

help her respectful life. Having a house to live does not

mean it is always a boon, as one has to bear expenses over

its maintenance also from time-to-time.

26. Therefore, in view of facts and circumstances of

the case and discussions made hereinabove, I am of

considered opinion that the action of the management of

State Bank of India in not giving compassionate

appointment to Shri Bhagwan Das S/o Shri Dori Lal was

unjustified. Accordingly, I come to the conclusion that he

is entitled for compassionate appointment; therefore, the

management of the State Bank of India is directed to appoint

him in the bank's services as per Rules, within eight weeks

from the publication of this award.

27. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

28. Award as above.

LUCKNOW : 16th April, 2015

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

1880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 874-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj QMfjy cSd fyñ

izcaè ra= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa

fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vfèdj.k

v:ukdqye ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 6@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@25@2010&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 24th April, 2015

S.O. 874.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 6/2011)

of the ERNAKULAM as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of Federal Bank

Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 24/04/2015.

[No. L-12011/25/2010-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

PRESENT : Shri D.Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B,

Presiding Officer

(Friday the 27th day of March, 2015/6th Chaitra, 1937)

ID 6/2011

Union

: The General Secretary

Fedral Bank Employees Union

Central Office

P B No. 10

Aluva-683101

By Adv. Shri C. Anil Kumar

Management

: The Chairman

Federal Bank Ltd.

Federal Towers, P B No.103

Aluva-683101

By M/s. B. S. Krishnan Associates

This case coming up for final hearing on 04.03.2015

and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 27.03.2015 passed

the following:

AWARD

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 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government/Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-12011/

25/2010-1R(B-I) dated 07.03.2011 referred the industrial

dispute scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this

tribunal.

2. The dispute is:

"Whether the action of the management of Federal

Bank in imposing penalty of compulsory retirement

from service vide order dated 17.01.2009 on Shri K.K.

Sasikumar, Ex-Clerk is legal and justified? To what

relief the workman is entitled?"

3. The workman, while working as Typist-cum-Clerk in

the Regional Office of the management bank at Kozhikode,

was placed under suspension with immediate effect by

issuing order dated 28.04.2007. Afterwards a memo of

charges was issued to him for the alleged acts of gross

misconducts of (a) drunkenness or riotous or disorderly or

indecent behaviour on the premises of the bank; (b) wilful

insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and

reasonable order of the management or of a superior and

gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to

involve the bank in serious loss as per the Bipartite

Settlement dated 10.04.2002 on Disciplinary Action and

Procedure. He was called upon to submit his explanation

within 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the

charge sheet but no explanation was given by him. An

enquiry was ordered to be conducted by appointing Shri

Satheesh P.K. Senior Manager, PIR Department as the

enquiry officer. After conducting enquiry he had submitted

enquiry report dated 26.03.2008 to the disciplinary authority.

Disciplinary authority after furnishing the copy of the

enquiry report to the workman and after hearing him

accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and issued

notice proposing the penalty of compulosry retirement with

superannuation benefits for the misconduct of disorderly

or indecent behaviour on the premises of the bank and

reduction of basic pay by one stage for the misconduct of

doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank. After

having personal hearing disciplinary authority imposed

the proposed penalty as per order dated 17.09.2008. Against

that order workman preferred an appeal before the appellate

authority and the same was dismissed on 09.01.2009. Hence

he had raised the industrial dispute challenging the penalty

imposed on him and the same has resulted in this reference.

4. Union filed claim statement challenging the validity

of the enquiry on the grounds of non-compliance of the

principles of natural justice in conducting the enquiry, non-

examination of material witnesses and perversity of the

findings of the enquiry officer. Challege is also made as to

the legality of the penalty imposed on him on the ground

that it is disproportionate to the charges proved in the

enquiry. The appeal filed by him against the order of

imposition of penalty was dismissed without considering

his submission. Hence he prays for setting aside the order

of punishment and for directing the management to reinstate

him with full back wages, continutiy of service and other

consequential benefits.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1881

5. In the written statement management, after denying

the allegations in the claim statement challenging the

validity of the enquiry, contended that disciplinary action

was initiated against the workman due to his abnormal and

riotous behaviour, manhandling of his co-workers and

attempt to manhandle Deputy General Manager on

16.04.2007. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with

rules and upholding the principles of natural justice. The

enquiry officer entered into the findings against him based

on the evidence adduced in the enquiry. After receipt of

the copy of the enquiry report workman had submitted his

reply dated 17.04.2008. Disciplinary authority proposed the

punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation

benefits vide order dated 29.07.2008 and imposed the

punishment after having a personal hearing on 19.08.2008

vide order dated 17.09.2008. The appellate authority re-

appreciated the evidence and dismissed the appeal vide

order dated 09.01.2009. In the enquiry the workman was

defended by an advocate of his choice. All the four

withnesses examined from the side of the management were

cross examined by the defence representative. Opportunity

was given to the workman to adduce evidence but he did

not adduce any evidence. The allegation that material

witnesses were not examined to prove the allegations is

denied. The evidence of the four witnesses examined in

the enquiry was sufficient enough to prove the allegations

levelled against him. Consumption of intoxicating

substance by the workman, even if taken as not proved,

cannot absolve the workman of the charges of riotous,

disorderly or indecent behaviour, wilful insubordination

and acting prejudical to the interest of the bank. The

punishment imposed on the workman is neither

disproportionate nor harsh or excessive. There was no

extenuating circumstance to take any leniency in the matter

of imposition of penalty. The riotous and disorderly

behaviour of the workman during office hours and

consequently taking him to hospital affected the image

and reputation of the bank. Since the charges proved

against the workman are grave and serious the punishment

imposed on his is just, legal, proper and proportionate to

the charges proved in the enquiry. Hence he is not entitled

to any relief as claimed in the claim statement.

6. Union did not file any rejoinder in spite of the

opportunity given for that purpose.

7. As there was challenge as to the validity of the

enquiry the same was dealt with treating it as a preliminary

issue. For the purpose of deciding the validity of the enquiry

the enquiry officer was examined as MW1 and the enquiry

file was marked as Ex.M1. The enquiry was found to be

valid by this Tribunal as per the Preliminary Order dated

16.12.2014. Since the enquiry was found to be valid the ID

was posted for final hearing an the arguments for both

sides were heard.

8. The points for determination are:—

i. Whether the domestic enquiry conducted against

the workman was fair and in accordance with the

principles of natural justice?

ii. Whether the findings entered into against the

workman in the enquiry call for any interference

by this Tribunal?

iii. Whether the punishment imposed on the workman

is proportionate to the misconducts?

iv. Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?

9. Point No. (1):— As per the Preliminary Order dated

16.12.2014 it was found the enquiry was conducted in a fair

and proper manner affording reasonable opportunity to

the workman and without violating the principles of natural

justice. As the enquiry was found to be valid as per the

preliminary order no further probe is required with regard

to that issue and the same will form part of the award.

10. Point No. (ii):— The charges for the three gross

misconducts were levelled against the workman based on

the allegations in the chargesheet dated 23.05.2007. It reads

thus:

"III(a). It is reported that Shri Sasikumar K.K. had been

creating problems and behaving abnormally

in the office premises from the morning of

26.04.07 presumably under the influence of

some tobacco/other item consumed by him for

intoxication. At about 1.15 PM when Shri

Sethumadhavan, Chief Manager went to the

statement section, Shri Sudheerkumar C.M,.

Ty. cum Clerk complained that Shri Sasikumar,

who was sitting next to him, has been behaving

very badly from morning onwards and

attempting to manhandle him. When Shri

Sethumadhavan enquired the matter with Shri

Sasikumar, the latter told him that he was not

keeping well and wanted to drink some water

and take rest and moved to the dining room.

The behaviour of Shri Sasikumar at that time

was not found normal.

(b) That while moving to the dining room, Shri

Sasikumar went straight to Shri Sudheerkumar

and tried to slap his face without any

provocation. On noticing this, Shri

Sethumadhavan suddenly interfered, which

prevented Shri Sasikumar from slapping Shri

Sudheerkumar. However Shri Sasikumar

pushed Shri Sudheerkumar and went to the

dining room.

found Shri Salim, driver of DGM taking food.

At once without any provocation, Shri

Sasikumar slapped and manhandled Shri Salim.

In between Shri Sasikumar manhandled some

1882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

of his colleagues and slapped Shri Abdulla P,

Senior Manager also.

(d) On seeing this violent situation, Shri

Sethumadhavan, Chief Manager tried to pacify

Shri Sasikumar and persuaded him to move

from the banking hall to the front lobby. While

they were moving to the front lobby, Shri

Sasikumar tried to hit Shri Sethumadhavan on

his back, which was prevented by Shri Abdulla

T, Record Clerk.

(e) Thereafter Shri Sethumadhavan went to the

cabin of Dy. General Manager to take his

permission to send Shri Sasikumar home.

However Shri Sasikuamr also followed Shri

Sethumadhavan and entered the cabin of Dy.

General Manager. In the cabin of Dy. General

Manager, while Shri Abraham M. Jacob, Dy.

General Manager was discussing the matter

with Shri Sethumadhavan, Shri Sasikmar moved

to the table of Dy. General Manager and raised

his hands to hit him. As Shri Sasikumar was in

a violent mood creating riotous and disorderly

behaviour, he was forcibly taken out of the

cabin by tying his hands from back with cloth.

(f) All throughout, Shri Sasikumar was yelling and

trying to kick with his foot at any one coming

near. He also continued to behave violently in

manner hitting/punching his colleagues and

disrupting the normal functioning of the

office."

11. The enquiry against the workman was conducted

with three sittings on 21.11.2007, 05.01.2008 and 09.02.2008

at Regional Office, Kozhikode. In the enquiry on behalf of

the management MW1 - Shri Salim, Driver of the then

Deputy General Manager MW2 - Shri Tomy John, Senior

Manager, Kozhikode Branch, MW3 - Shri Abdulla P, Senior

Manager and MW4 - Shri M. Sethumadhavan, the then

Chief Manager, Regional Office were examined and Exts.

ME-1 to ME-5 were marked. Workman did not adduce any

oral evidence. The document relied upon by him was marked

as DE-1. After considering the evidence the enquiry officer

entered into the findings that the gross misconducts or

riotous or disorderly or indecent behaviour on the premises

of the bank and doing any act prejudicial to the interest of

the bank are proved. Those findings were accepted by the

disciplinary authority and the penalty of compulsory

retirement with superannuation benefits was imposed for

the gross misconduct of riotous or disorderly or indecent

behaviour on the premises of the bank and reduction of

basic pay by one stage for the misconduct of doing any

act predudicial to the interest of the bank. The findings as

well as the imposition of penalty were upheld by dismissing

the appeal filed by the workman before the appellate

authority.

12. As the enquiry is found to be valid it is not

necessary to have a reappraisal of the entire evidence as in

appeal since the findings were arrived at by the enquiry

officer based on the evidence adduced in the enquiry. The

evidence is to be looked into only for the limited purpose

of considering the question as to the imposition of penalty.

13. Before considering the evidence it is to be pointed

out that in disciplinary proceedings the standard of proof

required is that of preponderance of probabilities and not

proof beyond reasonable doubt like in a criminal case. If

there are some relevant materials accepted by the

disciplinary authority which reasonably support the

conclusion that the workman is guilty it is not the function

of the tribunal to review the materials. If the enquiry has

been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability

of evidence cannot be canvassed before this tribunal.

14. In the decision reported in BC Chathurvedi Vs.

Union of India. (1995) 6 SCC 749 it was held:—

"Neither the technical ruels of Evidence Act nor of

proof of fact or evidence as defined therein apply to

disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts

the evidence and conclusion receives support there

form, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that

the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The court/

tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as

appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and

to arrive at its own independent findings on the

evidence. The court/tribunal may interfere, where the

authority hold the proceedings against the delinquent

officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules or natural

justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing

the mode of enquiry or whether the conclusion or

finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based

on no evidence, if the conclusion or findings be such

as no reasonable person would have reached, the

court/tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or

finding and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate

to the facts of the case".

15. The jurisdiction of the tribunal to interfere with

disciplinary matters for punishment cannot be equated with

an appellate jurisdiction and the tribunal cannot interfere

with the findings of the enquiry officer or competent

authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse.

If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and

in accordance with the prinicples of natural justice what

punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter

exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent

authority and if the penalty can be lawfully imposed and is

imposed on the proved misconduct the tribunal has no

power to substitute its own discretion for that of the

authority.

16. In the decision reported in The General Secretary,

South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union Vs. The

Managing Director, Kerala State Cashew Development

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1883

Corporation Ltd. & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 2208 it was held that

if the enquiry was conducted fairly and properly in the

absence of any allegations of victimization or malafides or

unfair labour practice Labour Court has no power to

interfere with the punishment imposed by the management.

17. It is also to be pointed out that in Chathurvedi's

case (Supra) it was held:

"A review of the above legal position would establish

that the disciplinary authority and in appeal the

Appellate Authority being fact findng authorities

have exclusive power to consider the evidence with

a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with

the discretion to impose appropriate punishment

keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the

misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal while

exercising power of judicial review cannot normally

substitute its own conclusion or penalty and impose

some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by

the disciplinary authority or appellate authority

shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it

would appropriately mould the relief, either directly,

the disciplinary/Appellate Authority to reconsider

the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it

may be itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose

appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in

support thereof."

18. Keeping in mind the above principles enunciated

in those dicisions it is to be considered whether there is

any reason to interfere with the penalty imposed on the

workman. As it is already found that the enquiry was

conducted in a fair and proper manner without violating

the principles of natural justice there is no scope for any

interference with the findings of the disciplinary authority

unless it is perverse or based on no evidence.

19. Here in this case there is ample evidence to prove

the abnormal, disorderly, riotous behaviour of the workman

and his admission in the hospital on 26.04.2007. MWs 1, 2

and 4 have given evidence to prove the allegations as to

the disordely and riotous behaviour. There is no reason to

disbelieve their version as to the alleged incident on

26.04.2007. There is also the documentary evidence to

support their version. The enquiry officer has given valid

reasons for accepting their version. There is no reason to

disbelieve them. It is clearly proved that the workman was

behaving in a riotous or disorderly manner for reasons

best known to him. Even though it is alleged that it may be

due to intoxication there is no reliable evidence to prove

the same. From ME-5 it can be seen that the workman was

brought to casualty with aggressive and violent behaviour

at 2.20 PM on 26.04.2007. After examination he was found

to have paranoid features. He was admitted in the hospital

and was discharged on 27.04.2007. The doctor who issued

ME-5 is not seen examined from the side of the workman to

ascertain whether he was suffering from any mental illness.

There is no case for the workman that the abnormal,

disorderly was due to any psychiatric problem. It is not a

matter which requires consideration since the disorderly

and riotous behaviour itself is a gross misconduct without

any proof of intoxication or any other reason. The provision

in the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002 contemplates

only proof of drunkeness or riotous or disorderly or indecent

behavior on the premises of the bank as a misconduct.

Here in this case there is sufficient evidence to prove that

the workman behaved in a riotous and disorderly manner

on the premises of the bank.

20. The enquiry after analyzing the evidence in the

enquiry entered into the findings after assigning valid

reasons. There is no reason to hold that the findings are

perverse. Conclusion reached by the enquiry officer cannot

be said to be of such a nature as no reasonable person

would have ever reached. On a careful scrutiny of the

evidence adduced in the enquiry I do not find any reason

to interface with the findings of the enquiry officer which

was accepted by the disciplinary authority and upheld by

the appellate authority.

21. Point No.(iii):— The penalty imposed by the

disciplinary authority for the two misconducts cannot be

said to be shockingly disproportionate to the proved

misconduct. In the decision reported in State of Rajasthan

Vs. Mohammed Ayub Naz 2006 (1) KLT 581 (SC) it was

held:

"In determing the quantum role of administrative

authority is primary and that of Court is secondary,

confined to see if discretion exercised by the

administrative auhtority caused excessive

infringement of rights. The court/tribunal cannot

interfere with the findings of fact based on evidence

and substitute its own independent findings and that

where findings of disciplinary authority or appellate

authority are based on some evidence Court/Tribunal

cannot re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its

own findings."

22. There is no reason to interfare with the findings as

to the charges levelled against him and the imposition of

penalty by the disciplinary authority which was confirmed

by the appellate auhtority. Considering the proved

misconducts as well as the other facts and circumstances

it can be held that the penalty imposed on the workman is

not disproportionate to the misconducts and it does not

call for any interfernce by this tribunal.

23. Point No.(iv):—In the result an award is passed

holding that the action of the management of Federal Bank

in imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement from

service vide order dated 17.01.2009 on Shri K. K. Sasikumar,

ex-clerk is legal and justified and hence he is not entitled

any relief.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

1884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

APPENDIX

Witness for the union

NIL

Witness for the management

MW1

27.03.2014

Shri Satheesh P. K.

Exhibit for the union

NIL

Exhibit for the managemnet

Enquiry file

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

PRESENT : Shri D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B,

Presiding Officer

(Tuesday the 16th day of December, 2015/25th

Agrahayana, 1936)

ID NO. 6/2011

Union

: The General Secretary,

Federal Bank Employees Union

Central Office

P. B. No. 10

Aluva - 683101

By Adv. Shri C. Anilkumar

Management

: The Chairman

Federal Bank Ltd.

Federal Towers

P. B. No. 103

Aluva - 683101

By M/s. B. S. Krishnan; Associates

This case coming up for preliminary hearing on

01.12.2014 and this Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court on

16.12.2014 passed the following :—

PRELIMINARY ORDER

This is a reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947).

2. Disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the

workman, while he was working as typist-cum-clerk in the

Regional office of the management bank, Kozhikode after

placing him under suspension vide order dated 28.04.2007.

3. He was issued with a chargesheet dated 23.05.2007

for the acts of misconducts of (a) drunkeness of riotous or

disorderly or indecent behaviour on the premises of the

Bank; (b) willful insubordination or disobedience of any

lawful and reasonable order of the management or of a

superior; and (c) doing act prejudicial to the interest of the

Bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely

to involve the Bank in serious loss.

4. The allegations levelled against him are that on

26.04.2007 he had behaved in a riotous and violent manner,

physically manhandled some of his collegues including

Senior Manager, attempted to beat/manhandle the Chief

Manager and the Deputy General Manager of the Regional

Office, behaved in an erratic manner by hitting/punching

his colleagues and created commotion affecting the

functioning of the office.

5. He was called upon to submit his explanation within

ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the

chargesheet, but no explanation was given by him. Shri

Satheesh P.K., Senior Manager, PIR department was

appointed as the enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry.

After conducting enquiry he had submitted enquiry report

dated 26.03.2008 to the disciplinary authority. Disciplinary

authority after furnishing a copy of the enquiry report to

him and after having a personal hearing imposed the penalty

of 'Compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits'.

Challenging the penalty imposed on him he had preferred

an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate

Authority after hearing him dismissed the appeal vide order

dated 09.01.2009. Hence he had raised the industrial dispute

challenging the penalty imposed on him which has resulted

in this reference.

6. In the claim statement the validity of the enquiry is

challenged alleging that the enquiry conducted against

him was a false enquiry and the same is vitiated for non-

compliance of the principles of natural justice. The findings

of the enquiry officer are stated to be totally perverse and

not based on any legally sustainable evidence. Challenge

is also made with regard to the penalty imposed on him

alleging that it is too harsh and is disproportionate to the

charges levelled against him.

7. In the written statement management would deny

the allegations made in the claim statement challenging the

validity of the enquiry, the findings of the enquiry officer

and about the proportionality of the penalty imposed on

him.

8. As there is challenge as to the validity of the enquiry

the same has been considered treating it as a preliminary

issue. For that purpose MW1 was examined and Ext.M1

was marked from the side of the management.

9. The only point that arises for consideration for

deciding the preliminary issue is whether the enquiry is

vitiated for non-compliance of the principles of natural

justice.

10. In the claim statement it is alleged that no

explanation was called for from the workman before the

issuance of the chargesheet and hence denied of the

opportunity to explain his stand before ordering the enquiry.

There is no rule which requires that explanation is to be

called for before issuing chargesheet. It is not at all

necessary to call for any such explanation before the

issuance of the chargesheet. The workman was called upon

to submit his explanation to the chargesheet within ten

days after the receipt of the chargesheet. He has given the

opportunity to submit the explanation with regard to the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1885

charges levelled against him. So no prejudice has been

caused to the workman for the reason that no explanation

was called for before the issuance of the chargesheet.

11. The enquiry officer posted the enquiry to 08.08.2007

and as per the request made by the workman it was

adjourned to 05.09.2007 and then to 25.10.2007. In the

meanwhile an advocate was appointed as defence

representative as per the request made by him. Afterwards

when the enquiry stood posted on 21.11.2007 three

witnesses were examined and five documents were marked

from the side of the management. The enquiry was then

posted to 22.07.2007 and due to administrative reasons it

was posted to 05.01.2008. On that day one witness was

examined for the management. After closing the evidence

of the management the enquiry was posted to 02.02.2008

as per the request made by the defence representative for

granting adjournment to adduce defene evidence. Due to

administrative reasons the enquiry was posted to

09.02.2008. No oral evidence was adduced from the defence

side. One document was marked for the defence side. On

that day argument note styled as statement was filed from

the defence side. After the conclusion of the enquiry the

enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report to the

disciplinary authority. Disciplinary authority forwarded a

copy of the enquiry report to the workman vide letter dated

02.04.2008 for which the workman submitted a reply dated

17.04.2008. After that the disciplinary authority issued

notice proposing penalty vide letter dated 29.07.2008. After

having a personal hearing on 19.08.2008 the disciplinary

authority vide order dated 17.09.2008 imposed the penalty

on him.

12. There is nothing to show that there is any violation

of the principles of natural justice and denial of opportunity

to the workman. The workman was represented by an

advocate in the enquiry. Sufficient opportunity is seen to

have been given to the workman to adduce evidence. The

penalty was imposed by the disciplinary authority after

serving copy of the enquiry report and after having a

personal hearing. Nothing has been argued by the learned

counsel to satisfy that there is any violation of the

principles of natural justice. There is no irregularity or

impropriety in the enquiry. It cannot be said that the enquiry

is vitiated for any reason. Hence the enquiry is found to be

legal and valid.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the Union

NIL

Witness for the Management

MW1

27.03.2014

Shri Satheesh P. K.

Exhibit for the Union

NIL

Exhibit for the Management

M1 - Enquiry File

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 875-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV c®d vkWQ

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

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

vfèdj.k] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1232@2005½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@88@2005&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 24th April, 2015

S.O. 875.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1232/2005) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

No. II Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of State Bank

of Patiala and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 24/04/2015.

[No. L-12012/88/2005-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

PRESENT : Sri A.K. Rastogi, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. 1232/2005

Registered on 19.12.2005

Shri Raju Kumar S/o Sh. Leela Ram, R/o No. 208-F, Railway

Colony, Jagadhri Workshop, Distt. Yamunanagar

(Haryana).

..... Petitioner

VERSUS

The Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, SGNK, Branch

646, Jagadhari Workshop, Distt. Yamunanagar (Haryana).

.... Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Shri Neelam Singh Advocate

For the Management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi Advocate

AWARD

Passed on 12.04.2013

Central Government vide order No. L-12012/88/2005-

IR(B-I) dated 18/11/2005 by exercising its powers under

Section 10 Sub-Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub- Section

(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

1886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial

dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank

of Patiala, SGNKS, Jagadhari in terminating the

services of Sh. Raju Kumar w.e.f. 28.2.2004 without

any notice and payment of retrenchment

compensation is illegal and unjustified? If so to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from

which date?"

The case of the workman is that he had been appointed

by the respondent bank as Sweeper on daily wages w.e.f.

1.1.2001. He worked as such up to 28.2.2004. His service

were however terminated on 28.2.2004 because he had

approached the management for his regularization. It has

been contended that the workman had completed 240 days

in current financial year in continuous service without any

break and his services were terminated without any notice

and compensation in violation of Section 25F of the Act.

After the termination of his services one Ghallnee Rinku

was appointed as Sweeper by the management against the

provisions of the Act. He has prayed for his reinstatement

with continuity of service and back wages.

The claim was contested by the management. It was

denied that the workman was in the employment of the

management. According to the management the workman

was doing the job of sweeping in the bank premises on

contract basis at mutually agreed rate. He was paid

sweeping charges against cash vouchers. There was no

question of terminating his services. It was also denied

that the workman worked up to 28.2.2004. According to the

management he had worked only up to 28.10.2002 and had

left the job if his own thereafter. It was also denied that any

person was employed in his place in violation of Section

25H of the Act. According to the management the claim of

the workman has no merits.

In evidence the workman examined himself while on

behalf of management S.C. Verma Deputy Manager of the

bank was examined.

On behalf of the workman written arguments were

submitted which were perused by me. I heard the learned

counsel for the management and went through the evidence

on record.

It has been argued in the written arguments of the

workman that the copies of payment vouchers are available

on record and marked as Exhibit WW1/1 to WW1/22 in the

cross-examination of the workman. It clearly shows that

the workman worked with the bank and he was paid wages

through these vouchers and the appointment of the

workman was against the regular and permanent post.

Further the management admits that the service of the

workman was for cleaning the branch premises hence the

stand of the bank that the workman was not in his

employment is contradictory and it is wrong to allege that

employment of the workman was on contract basis.

The learned counsel for the management argued that

the workman was not in the employment of the bank. From

its statement in cross-examination it is clear that he had not

been given any appointment letter, he had not been engaged

through employment exchange or by advertising post and

wages were being paid as per the agreed rate on vouchers.

The learned counsel argued that there is nothing in

the evidence of the workman to show that he was in the

employment of the bank. Against it from the statement of

management-witness it is clear that the engagement of

workman was on contract basis and his work was only for

an hour-a-day. From the statement of the management-

witness it is also clear that there was no regular post of

sweeper and its was in 2004 only that a post of part time

sweeper was created in the bank.

From the evidence on record it is clear that the workman

had been doing the sweeping job in the bank. From the

vouchers available on record it is also clear that he was

being paid for the days he worked. He was a daily rated

wager doing the sweeping job in the bank premises at the

agreed rate. Vouchers WW1/1 to WW1/22 are not in the

name of any individual. The amount shown in the vouchers

is debted as charges A/c (misc) as 'bank premises cleaning

charges'. The vouchers further confirm the bank's case

that the workman worked up to 28.10.2002. Simply on the

ground that he was getting wages from the bank it cannot

be accepted that he was in the employment of the bank.

The nature of the job and mode of payment suggest that

his engagement was on contract basis and since the

workman was not in the employment of the bank his

termination by the bank cannot be accepted. It is thus clear

that the workman was not in the employment of the

respondent bank and his services were not terminated by

the bank. Reference is accordingly decided against the

workman. Let two copies of the award be sent to the Central

Government for further necessary action.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 876-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dk'kh xkserh le;r

xzkeh.k cSad izcaè ra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 68@2012½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-&12012@37@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼ch-I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1887

New Delhi, the 24th April, 2015

S.O. 876.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 68/2012) of the

Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Kashi Gomti Samyut Gramin Bank and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

24/04/2015.

[No.-L-12012/37/2012-IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-

LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 68 of 2012

BETWEEN

Sri Pramod Kumar Singh,

Village Dhundhapur,

Post Bhanupur,

District-Jaunpur.

AND

The Chairman,

Kishi Gomti Samyut Gramin Bank,

Fatman Road, Sigra, Varanasi.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide

notification No. L-12012/37/2012-IR (B-1) dated

20.07.2012, has referred the following dispute for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

2. Whether the action of the management of Kashi

Gomti Samyut Gramin Bank in terminating the

services of Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, w.e.f.

09.08.2011 is legal and justified? To what relief the

workman is entitled?

3. At the very outset it may be pointed out here that

it would be absolutely a futile exercise on the part

of the tribunal to detail the claim filed by the

workman in the present case as vide application

paper no. 5/1 received through post in the office

of the tribunal, the workman has made certain

allegations against his representative and on that

count he has requested that under the facts and

circumstances mentioned in the application, his

case be decided finally as he is not inclined to

contest the case before this tribunal.

4. After the filing of the above application the

management filed its reply in the case but the

reply of the management is meaningless in the

present circumstances as the same could not be

taken in the cognizance.

5. In view of what has been explained hereinabove,

the tribunal has no option but to decide the

reference as not pressed and accordingly the claim

of the workman is decided as not pressed against

him.

6. For the above reasons, the workman is held

entitled for no relief as per terms of reference order.

7. Reference is decided accordingly against the

workman and in favour of the opposite party.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 877-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj mÙkj e/; jsyos izca/

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

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k dkuiqj

ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 05@2009½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUæh;

ljdkj dks 24@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@67@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 24th April, 2015

S.O. 877.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 05/09) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of North Central Railway and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

24/04/2015.

[No. L-41011/67/2008-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 05/09

BETWEEN

Sri Iliyas son of L. Madan Lal,

Village & Post Saiya, Near B Cabin,

Railway Station Jajau,

District Agra.

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager,

North Central Railway, Jhansi.

1888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

AWARD

1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide

notification No. L-41011/67/2008-IR (B-1) dated

12.01.2009, has referred the following dispute for

adjudication.

2. Whether the action of the management of

Divisional Railway Manager, North Central

Railway, Jhansi, by not giving compassionate

appointment to Sri Illiyas on the death of his father

Sri Madan Lal, Gangman, under PWI, Faridabad,

is fair, just and legal? If not to what relief Sri Illiyas

is entitled?

3. The case as set up by the union on behalf of the

claimant is that his father being a railway employee

died in harness on 31.08.80, and the widow of

deceased employee without causing any undue

delay applied before the opposite party to provide

her appointment on compassionate ground and

this fact has also been admitted by the opposite

party. At the time of death of her husband his son

was only 3 years of age and after attaining

majority i.e. completing the age of 18 years an

application on behalf of the claimant was moved

before the opposite party for compassionate

appointment in place of his deceased father.

According to High School Certificate the date of

birth of the claimant is 07.08.77. It is alleged that

irrespective of the fact that the claimant moved

before the opposite party in terms of Railway

Boards Circular dated 6-10-96 and 30.11.99, which,

inter alia, provide as under—

Attention is invited to Board's letter No. E

(NG)II/84/RC-1/26 dated 06-10-95 in terms of

which the GMS are empowered to consider

time barred cases which are 20 years old from

the date of death of the Railway Employee,

provided appointment is sought for the first

son/.first daughter and that application for

appointment is submitted within 2 years of

attaining the age of majority by the candidate,

those powers have since been redelegated to

DRMs/CWMs/HODs vide Board's letter dated

30.11.99.

4. The opposite party had not considered the claim

of the claimant. It is further stated that in other

cases also this tribunal has allowed the claim of

the claimants for appointment on compassionate

grounds. The claimnant belongs to minority class

and is not having any movable or immovable

assets and the mother of the claimant is drawing

very much pension which is not sufficient to meet

out the family expenses, therefore considering the

plight of the claimant and her widow mother he

may be allowed compassionate appointment.

5. On the basis of above it has been prayed that the

claimant may be allowed service under the

opposite party on compassionate ground from

the date he attained the age of 18 years as per

provision of railway circulars.

6. Opposite party has filed written statement wherein

it has been admitted by them Sri Madan Lal expired

on 31.08.80. His wife Smt. Jaitun had applied for

appointment on compassionate ground and the

same was offered to her and vide letter dated

30.06.93, it is clear that she was asked to attend

the office on 08.12.89 and 10.01.90 but she failed

to attend the office and it revealed that she is not

willing to accept appointment dated letter

dt. 30.06.93. She was further informed to attend

the office on 20.07.93 failing which her case for

compassionate ground will be closed and her right

to compassionate ground appointment will be

forfeited. The opposite party has denied the

applicability of the boards letter mentioned in para 2

of claim petition as the same is not having any

retrospective effect. As the mother did not avail

the opportunity of appointment on compassionate

ground by presenting herself in the office of the

opposite party therefore, she is not entitled for

compassionate appointment. The present claim

has been preferred after elapse of more than

15 years. The claim of the claimant after 14 years

of attaining the age of majority is not maintainable.

According to the circular only his/her husband/

wife is having first right for consideration of

appointment on compassionate ground on

account of death of a railway employee. After the

death of Sri Madan Lal, his wife was offered

compassionate appointment for which she never

turn up in due course and reasonable time given

by the opposite party therefore, at this belated

stage her son cannot claim compassionate

appointment.

7. The opposite party has filed certain documents

in the shape of photocopies with their reply out

of which annexure No. 1 is dated 30.06.93

purported to be addressed to Smt. Jaitun wife of

Madan Lal intimating that she was called to attend

the office of the opposite party in connection with

granting compassionate ground on 08.12.89 and

10.01.90, but you did not turn up therefore, it is

desired that you must present yourself on 20.07.93

positively failing which right of compassionate

appointment shall be forfeited. This document

paper No. 8/8 has not been admitted by the

claimant.

8. Annexure 2 paper No. 8/9 is letter of the wife of

the deceased employee which was received by

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1889

the opposite party on 19.07.96, wherein she has

informed the authorities of the opposite party

that her son had attained the age of 18 years

therefore, he may be provided appointment on

compassionate ground.

9. Annexure 3 paper No. 8/10 is again-is-again a

representation of the widow Smt. Jaitun intimating

the authorities that after long interval she received

a communication dated 14.07.93, from the

management wherein it was stated that she may

attend the office of the opposite party by 20.07.93

and in response to that she appeared in the office

of the opposite party on 16.07.93. The concerned

officials called me in appointment department

where she was advised to deposit the above letter.

It was also mentioned in the said representation

that on the ground of ill health she has requested

that her son may be provided with appointment

on compassionate ground. On this representation

there appears an endorsement of some officer of

the opposite party which depicts that the case of

Smt. Jaitun wife of L. Madan Lal has already been

closed vide DRM's order No. P/161/Dayaadhar/

Bharti dated 30.06.93. No action can be taken for

appointment of her son Sri Illiyas. Case may be

closed.

10. Annexure 4 is letter dated 01.07.97, on the subject

of appointment on compassionate ground and

was addressed to Smt. Jaitun. In this

communication it has specifically been mentioned

that repeated letters such as 08.12.89 , 10.01.90

and one such last letter dated 30.06.93 were sent

to her for reporting before the authorities of the

opposite party in which it was clearly mentioned

that in case of default in attending the office of

the opposite party, claim for compassionate

appointment will be forfeited by the management

and thereby the opposite party regretted the claim

for compassionate appointment of Smt. Jaitun.

11. Management has further filed paper No. 8/12

representation of Smt. Jaitun dated 16.07.93, on

which there appears an endorsement to connect

the same with the file of Smt. Jaitun as desired by

Asstt. Personnel Officer. There also appears some

endrosement that the matter was discussed with

ADRM(1) on 19.07.93. Ill advised that the widow

has given in writing that at the time of giving

application on 16.07.93 her son Shri Illiyas was

minor.....

12. Paper No. 8/13 is letter of the opposite party which

is dated 29.07.97 by means of which it was

informed to Smt. Jaitun that as Railway

Administration has called for providing you

appointment on compassionate ground and you

did not received appointment and also that her

son did not attained majority within 5 years of the

date of death of your husband, therefore,

compassionate appointment in the name of your

son is not permissible under rules.

13. The workman along with his claim statement has

filed paper no. 5/7 which is the death certificate of

his father wherein the deceased employee has

been shown to be the son of Sri Ramjani and also

that the deceased employee died on 31.08.1980,

paper No. 5/8 the High School Certificate wherein

the workman has been shown to be the son of

Madan Lal Khan and his date of birth is recorded

as 07.08.77, Paper No. 5/9 which is the letter of

Ministry of Railways dated 28.07.2000, on the

subject of Compassionate Ground. The said

circular has been issued to the General Managers

and All Zonal Railways. In the said circular it has

been provided that the subject matter i.e.

appointment on compassionate ground has been

considered by the Board and it has been decided

that the General Managers may also be authorized

to consider the requests of compassionate

appointments in respect of cases up to 20 years

old in the following types of cases subject to the

condition that those powers will be exercised by

him personally and not to be delegated further,

paper No. 5/8 is the Master Circular No. 16

Compendium on appointment on Compassionate

grounds of which sub para (x) of paragraph clearly

provides that where the widow cannot take up

employment, Railway can keep the case for

appointment on compassionate grounds open to

enable consideration of appointment of a minor

son when he attains majority, even though at the

time of occurrence of the event making

compassionate appointment permissible.....

14. Apart from the above documents the claimant has

also filed certain copies of award given by this

tribunal on compassionate appointment.

15. Whereas the workman has examined himself as

w.w.1, the opposite party examined one Shri

Ravindra Kumar, Assistant Personnel Officer of

the opposite party.

16. M.W.1 in his examination in chief has admitted

that the concerned employee died on 31.08.80 in

Railway Hospital, Jhansi. He has also admitted

the fact that the wife of the deceased employee

Smt. Jaitun has applied for appointment on

compassionate ground and that the opposite

party offered her for appointment on

compassionate ground. He goes on to state that

first letter is dated 08.12.89, second letter is dated

10.01.90 and last and third letter is dated 30.06.93

1890

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 25, 2015/VAISAKHA 5, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

which were sent to her by post mentioning that

by 20.07.93 she must visit in the office of the DRM

Office, Jhansi, otherwise her claim will be forifeted.

Since she did not present herself in the office of

the opposite party it was presumed by the

opposite party that the widow of the deceased

employee is not interested in getting appointment

on compassionate ground case is liable to be

closed. He has further stated that vide letter

dt. 25.09.97, it was made clear that there was no

request for appointment of her son within 5 years

of the death of the deceased therefore, request

for appointment on compassionate ground in

favour of her son is regretted.

17. In his cross -examination the witness has deposed

that as he had not seen the service record of the

deceased employee therefore, he cannot state the

accurate age of the son of deceased employee.

The witness has denied the suggestion that he

ever received letter dated 16.07.93 for

compassionate appointment of the son of the

deceased employee and that the letter is signed

by the Assistant Personnel Officer, and on receipt

of the letter comments from the office

superintendent were invited. To a question put

by the court the witness admitted that the original

of Annexure 6 is available on the file of the

opposite party and on the direction of the court

the original of annexure 6 was filed on the record

of the instant case. He showed the reason for not

giving appointment to Sri Illyas is that he had not

attained the age of majority within 5 years from

the date of death of the deceased employee. He

has shown his ignorance about the factum of

service of letters addressed to the widow of the

deceased employee and it is wrong to say that

the opposite party had not sent letter to the widow

of the deceased and he admitted that the opposite

party did not file the three letters and only one

letter has been filed by the opposite party. It is

correct that there is no receipt of sending the

letters to the widow of the deceased employee

nor there is any proof of service of the letter.

Witness has further admitted that there is a

provision for providing compassionate

appointment up to 20 years from the date of the

death of the deceased employee. Witness has also

admitted the fact that opposite party received a

request letter on 19.07.96 for giving compassionate

appointment to her son on account of the fact

that her son had attained the age of majority.

18. W.W.1 in his examination in chief has admitted

that when he was aged about 3 years his father

died and when her mother was refused

employment the on attaining the age of majority

then my mother moved application for getting my

employment in the railway. Before attaining the

age of majority my mother in the year 1993 moved

an application for appointment on my behalf

because at that time my mother was informed that

children of the age of 15 years can be employed a

apprentice therefore, my mother gave application.

He stated that he is the only son of his father and

that his father has not left behind him any movable

or immovable property. In his cross-examination

he has stated that at present he is not working at

any place and is out of job.

19. I have heard the arguments of the parties at length

and have carefully perused the records of the case.

20. The main arguments advanced on behalf of the

opposite party that the claim of the claimant is

liable to be rejected as the opposite party had

given all reasonable opportunity to the mother of

the claimant for appointment on compassionate

ground but when she failed to avail the

opportunity the claim on compassionate ground

was closed. He further argued that the

management sent several letters inviting the

mother of the claimant for compassionate

appointment.

21. Contrary to that it was argued by the

representative for the claimant that firstly the

mother of the claimant applied for compassionate

appointment for her son but she was refused on

the ground that her son is minor and yet again

she too was considered to be not interested in

the appointment and as soon as his son attained

the age of majority she again moved before the

authorities of the railways for compassionate

appointment of her son within the prescribed limit.

22. I have given my anxious considerations to the

rival arguments of the parties and I find force in

the arguments advanced by the representative

for the claimant in the light of the provisions of

Railway Board Circulars mentioned (supra). I also

find from the records that the opposite party has

simply filed photocopies of the letters of

intimations and this fact too has been admitted

by the management witness. Management witness

in his cross-examination has clearly showed his

ignorance about the mode of service of the letters

nor the management has filed any documentary

evidence to the effect that actually the alleged

letters were ever served on the mother of the

claimant at any point of time. In the absence of

specific proof in this regard I am not inclined to

believe the contention of the railway

administration that the widow of the deceased

employee did not turn up in their office and that

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 25] 2015@oS'kk[k 5] 1937

1891

she was not interested in compassionate

appointment for her son. Had actually the opposite

party have sent the letters they must have filed

reliable evidence in that respect. In the absence

of the same the arguments of the representative

for the opposite party stand rejected.

23. Now it will be seen as to whether the claim on the

ground of compassionate appointment of the

claimant is worth considerable or not.

24. On the above point the authorized representative

of the workman has invited my attention to various

circulars of the railways that has already been

mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs of this

award. At the cost of reiteration I may make it

clear that Paper No. 5/9 which is the letter of

Ministry of Railways dated 28.07.2000, on the

subject of Compassionate Ground.The said

circular has been issued to the General Managers

and All Zonal Railways. In the said circular it has

been provided that the subject matter i.e.

appointment on compassionate ground has been

considered by the Board and it has been decided

that the General Managers may also be authorized

to consider the requests to compassionate

appointments in respect of cases up to 20 years

old in the following types of cases subject to the

condition that those powers will be exercised by

him personally and not to be delegated further,

paper no. 5/8 is the Master Circular No. 16

Compendium on appointment on Compassionate

ground of which sub-para (x) of paragraph clearly

provides that where the widow cannot take up

employment, Railways can keep the case for

appointment on compassionate grounds open to

enable consideration of appointment of a minor

son when he attains majority, even though at the

time of occurrence of the event making

compassionate appointment permissible.....

25. It is not in dispute that the date of birth of the

claimant is 7th August, 1977 as per High School

Certificate copy of which is on record paper No.

5/8 has attained the age of majority in the year

1995, and her mother moved an application for

appointment on compassionate ground paper

No.8/10. This document has been filed by the

opposite party with their reply. By a bare perusal

of this letter it is abundantly clear that there

appears endorsement of railways officers of date

16.07.97. Though no date is mentioned on paper

No. 8/10 but from the endorsement it is clear that

the said application has been moved short before

the date of 16.07.97, i.e. Within two years from the

date of attaining the age of majority by the claimant.

26. Under the facts and circumstance of the case and

considering the relevant provision it is held that

the claim for compassionate appointment was well

preferred within the prescribed period i.e. within

two years of attaining the age of majority by the

claimed. As such claim of the claimant for

compassionate appointment could not have been

frustrated in the light of the relevant provisions

of the own circulars by the railway administration.

27. In any view of the matter it cannot be said by

railways administration that claim was not

preferred by the claimed within stipulated period

as provided from the date of death of the deceased

employee in the light of the above provisions of

the circular.

28. There appears merit in the claim of the claimant

and the tribunal is of the opinion that the action

of the railways administration in refusing the

appointment to the claimant on compassionate

ground is neither legal nor just.

29. Accordingly it is held that the claimant is entitled

for appointment under the railway administration

on compassionate ground.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.