रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ;एनद्ध 04/0007/2003—05 REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05 प्राध्किार से प्रकाशित PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY साप्ताहिक WEEKLY
सं. 18] नई दिल्ली, अप्रैल 26—मई 2, 2015, शनिवार/वैशाख 6—वैशाख 12, 1937
No. 18] NEW DELHI, APRIL 26—MAY 2, 2015, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 6—VAISAKHA 12, 1937
इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड ;iiद्ध
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्राालयों ;रक्षा मंत्राालय को छोड़करद्ध द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविध्कि आदेश और अध्सिूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
सारणी
मानव संसाध्न विकास मंत्रालय
अध्किारी का पदनाम लोक स्थानों के वर्ग और अध्किारिता की (उच्चतर शिक्षा विभाग)
स्थानीय सीमाएं नई दिल्ली, 13 अप्रैल, 2015
(1)
(2)
रजिस्ट्रार, भारतीय प्रौद्योगिकी संस्थान, भारतीय प्रौद्योगिकी संस्थान, मद्रास से संबंध्ति मद्रास। या उसके द्वारा पट्टे पर लिए गए या उसके
द्वारा या की ओर से अध्गिृहीत स्थान
[फा॰ सं॰ 5-17/2015-टीएस-1]
प्रिस्का मैथ्यू, अवर सचिव का॰आ॰ 878.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, सरकारी स्थान (अप्राध्किृत अध्भिोगियों की बेदखली) अध्निियम, 1971 (1971 का 40) की धरा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, नीचे सारणी के स्तंभ (1) में उल्लिखित अध्किारी को, भारत सरकार के राजपत्रित अध्किारी की पंक्ति के समकक्ष अध्किारी होते हुए, उक्त अध्निियम के प्रयोजनों के संपदा अध्किारी के रूप में नियुक्त करती है, जो उक्त सारणी के स्तंभ (2) में विनिर्दिष्ट लोक स्थानों के संबंध् में अपनी अध्किारिता की स्थानीय सीमाओं के भीतर उक्त अध्निियम के द्वारा या अध्ीन संपदा अध्किारियों को प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेगा और अध्रिोपित कर्तव्यों का पालन करेगाः—
1765 GI/2015
(1893)1894 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
3. उप अध्ीक्षण पुरातत्व रसायनज्ञ, भारतीय पुरातत्व सर्वेक्षण,
(Department of Higher Education)
New Delhi, the 13th April, 2015
वडोदरा खंड, पुरातत्व भवन, चौथी मंजिल, सेंट्रल लाइब्रेरी
के पास मांडवी, वडोदरा
यह अध्सिूचना राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से प्रवृत्त होगी।
[फा. सं. ई.-13016/1/2011-हिंदी] श्रेया गुहा, संयुक्त सचिव
MINISTRY OF CULTURE
S.O. 878.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column (1) of the Table below, being an officer equivalent to the rank of gazetted officer of the Government of India to be estate officer for the purposes of the said Act, who sahll exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed, on estate officers by or under the said Act, within the local limits of his jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in column (2) of the said Table:—
New Delhi, the 27th April, 2015
S.O. 879.— In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of
the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Govt. hereby notifies the
TABLE
Designation of officer Categories of public premises and
local limits of jurisdiction
(1)
(2)
Registrar, Premises belonging to, or taken
Indian Institute of on lease or requisitioned by or on
Technology, Madras behalf of the Indian Institute of
Technology, Madras.
[F. No. 5-17/2015-TS-I]
PRISCA MATHEW, Under Secy.
following offices of under Ministry of Culture wherein more
than 80% officers/staff have acquired working knowledge
of Hindi. Detail given as below:—
1. Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological
Survey of India, Thrissur Circle, K.S.H.B. Flates,
Pullaji, Thrissur-680012, Kerala
2. Dy. Superintending Archaeologist Chemist,
Archaeological Survey of India, Jaipur Circle, 17/
130-132 Patel Road, Mansarovar, Jaipur-302020
3. Dy. Superintending Archaeologist Chemist,
Archaeological Survey of India, Vadora Zone,
Archaeological Building, 4th Floor, Near Central
Library Mandvi, Vadodra
This notification shall come into force from the date of
संस्कृति मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 27 अप्रैल, 2015
का॰आ॰ 879.—केंद्र सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय
प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम 4 के
अनुसरण में संस्कृति मंत्रालय के अंतर्गत आने वाले कार्यालयों जिसमें
80 प्रतिशत से अध्कि अध्किारियों/कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाध्क publication in the Official Gazette.
[F. No. E 13016/1/2011-Hindi]
SREYA GUHA, Jt. Secy.
उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य एवं सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय
ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, अध्सिूचित करती है जिनका ब्यौरा निम्नानुसार
(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग)
हैः—
(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो)
1. अध्ीक्षण पुरातत्वविद का कार्यालय, भारतीय पुरातत्व सर्वेक्षण,
त्रिशूर मंडल, के॰एस॰एच॰बी॰ फ्लैट्स, पुल्लाजी,
त्रिशूर-680012, केरल
2. उप अध्ीक्षण पुरातत्व रसायनज्ञ, भारतीय पुरातत्व सर्वेक्षण,
जयपुर जोन, 17/130-132 पटेल मार्ग, मानसरोवर,
जयपुर-302020
नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2015
का॰आ॰ 880.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम, 1988, के विनियम 4 के उप विनियम (5) के अनुसरण में, भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, एतद््द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि जिनके विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गए हैं को लाईसेंस प्रदान किए गये हैंः[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1895
अनुसूची
01 जनवरी 2013 से 31 दिसंबर 2014 तक स्वीकृत किये गए लाईसेंसों की सूची
क्रम लाईसेंस संख्या वैध्ता तिथी पार्टी का नाम एवं पता (कारखाना) उत्पाद आई एस सं॰/भाग/ सं॰
खंड/वर्ष
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. 4778388 17/9/2014 मेसर्स मूत्तडं विनरस एन्ड इंडस्ट्रीस सामान्य
वि पि 2/529 ए, पाल्लीक्कवला, प्रयोजनों आई एस 303ः 1989 मारंपिल्ली, पेरुबावूर के लिए एरणाकुलम प्लैवुड् केरला-683 547
2. 4778489 17/9/2014 मेसर्स रेड वुड प्लाई एन्ड वुड्स सामान्य
प्लैवुड्
XIII/153 पाईप्रा, मुलवूर प्रयोजनों आई एस 303ः 1989 पेज्हाक्का पील्ली पी ओ के लिए मुवाटुप्पुषा, एरणाकुलम, केरला-683 674
3. 4758281 21/07/2014 मेसर्स कुट्टिच्चरा प्लै एन्ड वुड्स सामान्य
प्लैवुड्
XI/316ए, पॉनीप्रा पी ओ, प्रयोजनों आई एस 303ः 1989 कोट्टप्पाटि, कोतमंगलं के लिए एरणाकुलम, केरला-686 692
4. 4762474 05/08/2014 मेसर्स के के ए प्लाई वुड्स सामान्य
प्लैवुड्
ओ पी X/36एफ, चेल्लामट्टम, प्रयोजनों आई एस 303ः 1989 रायोणपुरम पी ओ के लिए पेरुबावूर एरणाकुलम, केरला-683 543
5. 4762575 06/08/2014 मेसर्स नोह प्लाईवूड्स एन्ड बोड्स सामान्य
प्लैवुड्
VII/770 सी, चुण्टम्मला, प्रयोजनों आई एस 303ः 1989 वेस्ट वेंगोला पी ओ के लिए पेरुबावूर एरणाकुलम, केरला-683556
6. 477 5584 11/09/2014 मेसर्स त्रि स्टार प्लाई वुड्स सामान्य
प्लैवुड्
XIII/154 प्राईप्रा, मुलावूर प्रयोजनों आई एस 303ः 1989 पेज्हाक्का पिल्ली के लिए मुवाटुप्पुषा पी ओ एरणाकुलम, केरला-686 5471896 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 6
7. 4682476 02/01/2014 मेसर्स प्रिसटीज प्लेवुड इंडसट्रिर्स प्रैवेट लिमिटेड सामान्य
IV/291-292, मुडिक्कल पी ओ प्रयोजनों आई एस 303ः 1989 वाज्हाकुलम के लिए कुन्नातुलाटू तालूक प्लैवुड् एरणाकुलम, केरला-683 547
8. 4717469 18/03/2014 मेसर्स एस्वर्रेया प्लैवुड इंडसट्रिज सामान्य
प्लैवुड्
वि पि VIII/354 बी वेंगोला प्रयोजनों आई एस 303ः 1989 नियार वेलाक्करा टेबींल के लिए आलप्रा पी ओ पेरुबावूर एरणाकुलम, केरला-683 553
9. 4718168 10/03/2014 मेसर्स विनर्स प्लै बोड्स सामान्य
प्लैवुड्
V/226ए, कोट्टप्पाटी, प्रयोजनों आई एस 303ः 1989 कोतमंगलं के लिए एरणाकुलम, केरला-686 692
10. 4722462 31/03/2014 मेसर्स साफिया स्वा मिलस ऐन्ड इंडस्ट्रीज सामान्य
प्लैवुड्
IX/1052, अल्लाप्रा पी ओ प्रयोजनों आई एस 303ः 1989 पेरुबावूर के लिए एरणाकुलम, केरला-683 553
11. 4714968 19/03/2014 मेसर्स हाई रेयिज़ प्लै ऐन्ड बोड्स सामान्य
प्लैवुड््
एस वै नंबर 436/3,436/9ए, प्रयोजनों आई एस 303ः 1989 एरा मल्लूर विल्लेज, के लिए कोतमंगलं एरणाकुलम, केरला-686 691
12. 4730057 23/04/2014 मेसर्स कंपानियन प्लाई वुड्स सामान्य
प्लैवुड्
III/32डी, ओटक्काली, मेत्तला पी ओ, प्रयोजनों आई एस 303ः 1989 कुन्नात्तुनाडू तालूक, के लिए एरणाकुलम, केरला-683 545
13. 4756277 17/07/2014 मेसर्स अबाद् वूड इन्डस्ट्रीज ऐन्ड प्लै वुड्स सामान्य
प्लैवुड्
XI/121बी, पेल्लीप्पुरम, प्रयोजनों आई एस 303ः 1989 त्रीक्कलगोड्, एरनाट् तालूक, के लिए एलनकूर पी ओ मलाप्पुरम, केरला-676 122[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1897 1 2 3 4 5 6
14 4756479 18/07/2014 मेसर्स एबिल इडस्ट्रीस सामान्य
प्लैवुड्
XXI/293डि॰ई॰एफ॰ जी॰ पुतुप्पालम प्रयोजनों आई एस 303ः 1989 येराम्मलूर पी ओ के लिए नेल्लीक्कुष्ही कोतमंगलं तालूक, एरणाकुलम, केरला-686 691
15 4638877 04/09/2013 मेसर्स हाईटेक प्लाई वुड्स सामान्य
प्लैवुड्
पुन्नाूर, वलय्नचिराङ रा पी ओ प्रयोजनों आई एस 303ः 1989 वि पि VI/710ए, वेंगोला पंजायत, के लिए पेरुबावूर, एरणाकुलम, केरला-683 556
16 4637269 02/09/2013 मेसर्स इर्बसणन इडस्ट्रीस सामान्य
प्लैवुड्
पेरीगोला पी ओ प्रयोजनों आई एस 303ः 1989 11/504ए, कुन्नातुनाटू, के लिए एरणाकुलम, केरला-683 565
17 4637673 03/09/2013 मेसर्स न्यू स्टार प्लाई वुड्स सामान्य
प्लैवुड्
सर्वे नंबर 137/7-2, प्रयोजनों आई एस 303ः 1989 ओटक्काली, असमन्नाूर पी ओ, के लिए कुन्नात्तुनाडू तालूक, एरणाकुलम, केरला-683 549
18 4667783 26/11/2013 मेसर्स टोम्सण प्लै ऐन्ड बोड्स सामान्य
प्लैवुड्
पुल्लुवहजी पी ओ, प्रयोजनों आई एस 303ः 1989 राईमंगलं, के लिए कुन्नात्तुनाडू, एरणाकुलम, केरला-683 541
19 4675176 16/12/2013 मेसर्स डस्टान वुड सामान्य
प्लैवुड्
एस पुरमं, प्रयोजनों आई एस 303ः 1989 कुरिच्चि, के लिए कोट्टयाम, केरला-686 532
20 4674578 13/12/2013 मेसर्स ब्राईट इंन्डयॅन प्लाई वुड्स सामान्य
9/181 ए मेक्कालटी प्रयोजनों आई एस 303ः 1989 कालटी के लिए आलुवा तालूक प्लैवुड् एरणाकुलम, केरला-683 5741898 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 6
21 4678081 23/12/2013 मेसर्स किंगस प्लाई वुड्स सामान्य
प्लैवुड्
सर्वे नंबर 364/2, वैक्कयरा पी ओ प्रयोजनों आई एस 303ः 1989 पेरुबावूर के लिए रायमंगलं कुन्नात्तुनाडू एरणाकुलम, केरला-683 549
22 4678788 27/12/2013 मेसर्स सेर्वेन स्टार प्लाई वुड्स ऐन्ड सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
प्लैवुड्
ब्लोक बोड्स ए पी 6/318 जे प्रयोजनों ओटक्काली, असमन्नूर, के लिए कुन्नत्तुनाडू एरणाकुलम, केरला-683 549
23 4679386 31/12/2013 मेसर्स ब्लू टेक वूट इडस्ट्रीस सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
प्लैवुड्
III/386 बी, असमन्नूर, प्रयोजनों
कुन्नत्तुनाडू के लिए
एरणाकुलम,
केरला-683 549
24 4679487 31/12/2013 मेसर्स ए ओर्ण प्लाई वुड्स ऐन्ड बोड्स सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
XII/391 डी, रायमंगलं प्रयोजनों के
कुन्नत्तुनाडू तालूक एरणाकुलम, लिए प्लैवुड्
केरला-683 548
25 4688084 13/01/2014 मेसर्स मेधा प्लाई ऐन्ड बोड्स सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
प्लैवुड्
VI/318, असमन्नूर, प्रयोजनों
ओटक्काली, के लिए
पेरुबावूर
एरणाकुलम
केरला-683 549
26 4698895 11/02/2014 मेसर्स श्री कृपा डिकराक्डीव विनरस सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
प्राईवेट लिमिटेड डोर नंबर (एम पी आई) प्रयोजनों 131, 134,135 नियर ताल्लप्पटी, कुजत्तूर के लिए कासरागोड प्लैवुड् केरला-671 323
27 4701151 13/02/2014 मेसर्स माक्स बोण्ड इडस्ट्रीस सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
किरंप्परा रोड प्रयोजनों आटंप्पति पी ओ के लिए ओहालपति प्लैवुड् पालक्काड केरला-678 556
28 4705462 24/02/2014 मेसर्स न्यू अमल प्लाई सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
प्लैवूड्
IV/18-बी, नेल्लीमुलमं, पुल्लुवषी पी ओ प्रयोजनों पेरुबावूर, रार्यमंगलम, के लिए कुन्नत्तुनाडू एरणाकुलम केरला-683 541[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1899 1 2 3 4 5 6
29 4545567 02/01/2013 मेसर्स इन्डेस प्लाई वुड्स सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
प्लैवुड्
वि पि-XII/294 एफ् आलप्रा पी ओ प्रयोजनों कुट्टिप्पांट, पेरुबावूर, के लिए कुन्नतुनाडृ तालूक, एरणाकुलम केरला-683 553
30 4545668 03/01/2013 मेसर्स उम्मेणी विनरस ऐन्ड प्लाई वुड्स सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
प्लैवुड्
ईस्ट ओक्कल प्रयोजनों ओक्कल पी ओ के लिए चेल्लमट्टम, कुन्नतुनाडू एरणाकुलम केरला-683 550
31 6400000783 11/12/2014 मेसर्स रास प्लै वुड्स ऐन्ड बोड्स सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
प्लेवुड
IX/407-डी, रायमंगलं, नागेलिप्पटी प्रयोजनों पुल्लुवष्जी, पेरुबावूर, के लिए एरणाकुलम, केरला-683 541
32 4545870 03/01/2013 मेसर्स यू स्ट्टार प्लाई वुड्स सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
प्लैवुड्
पानिप्रा पी ओ प्रयोजनों कोट्टप्पाटी के लिए कोतमंगलं एरणाकुलम केरला-686 692
33 4545971 03/01/2013 मेसर्स माता प्लाई वुड्स सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
प्लैवुड्
नियर रबर्ट पारर्क प्रयोजनों वलयनचिराङ रा पी ओ के लिए एन महज़वन्नूर ऐराप्पुरम, कुन्नतुनाडू तालूक, एरणाकुलम केरला-683 556
34 4546973 03/01/2013 मेसर्स कोच्चिन प्लाई वुड्स सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
प्लैवुड्
XVI/456, 456ए, 456बी, पाईप्रा प्रयोजनों मुवाचुपुज्हा तालूक, के लिए मुडावूर पी ओ एरणाकुलम केरला-686 669
35 4547167 03/01/2013 मेसर्स ग्लोबल कंण्डक्टेर्स प्रैईवेड लिमिटेड सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
प्लैवुड्
के पि 22वी प्रयोजनों इंडस्ट्रियल टेवलपमेट एरिया के लिए एरुमत्तला पी ओ एरणाकुलम केरला-683 5051900 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 6
36 6400000177 04/12/2014 मेसर्स विक्ट प्लै इडस्ट्रीस सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
ए पी VIII 585/बी इडस्ट्रीयल प्रयोजनों टेवालाप्मेन्ट फ्लोट, अनडूर, तलिपरबा, के लिए पष्जाशिनिकटवू पी ओ, कन्नूर, प्लैवुड् केरला-670563
37 4547268 03/01/2013 मेसर्स एम एस बोड्र्स ऐन्ड पानलस सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
प्लैवुड्
VI/606, पराक्कोड्, प्रयोजनों पुन्नूरक्कोड, वेमबिल्ली पी ओ, के लिए कुन्नत्तुनाडू तालूक, एरणाकुलम केरला-683 565
38 4555065 29/01/2013 मेसर्स वनलक्ष्मी वुड प्रोडक्टर्स सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
VIII/400 डि, हसड्रग तालूक, प्रयोजनों निलेश्वर एम, के लिए कासरगोड प्लैवुड् केरला-671 314
39 4565573 21/02/2013 मेसर्स केरला सॉ मिल्स प्लाई वुड्स सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
पि एम सी 17/1948 प्रयोजनों पेरुबावूर पी ओ, कुन्नत्रुनाडू एरणाकुलम के लिए केरला-683 542 प्लैवुड्
40 4578986 26/03/2013 मेसर्स उस्मानिया वुड डिक्कोरस सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
IX/1/153, कीज़माद पंजायत, प्रयोजनों आलुवा, एरणाकुलम, के लिए केरला-683 105 प्लैवुड्
41 4609062 02/07/2013 मेसर्स नैशनल प्लाई वुड्स इडस्ट्रीस सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
प्लैवुड्
प्लोट नं 23,24,25, रबड पार्क, ईशपुरम प्रयोजनों वेलयनचिराडरा पी ओ के लिए एरणाकुलम, केरला-683 556
42 4609163 02/07/2013 मेसर्स एस बी प्लाई वुड्स इडस्ट्रीस सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
प्लैवुड्
XI/296 ए, किज़हक्कम्बलं प्रयोजनों कुम्बानोड, पट्टिमट्टम पी ओ, के लिए एरणाकुलम, केरला-683 562
43 4618568 12/07/2013 मेसर्स अल-अमीन वुड्स इडस्ट्रीस सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
प्लैवुड्
पुम्माला, चेरुक्कुन्नाम, प्रयोजनों असमन्नूर पी ओ, कुन्नत्तुनाडू, के लिए एरणाकुलम, केरला-683 549
44 4621961 30/07/2013 मेसर्स पंकज प्लाई वुड्स सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
प्लैवुड्
1/814 बी पुज्जशोरी, वेस्ट वेंगोला पी ओ प्रयोजनों अरक्याप्पाटि पंजायत, कुन्नत्तुनाड, पेरुबावुर के लिए एरणाकुलम, केरला-683 556[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1901 1 2 3 4 5 6
45 4631459 07/08/2013 मेसर्स केमि विनिरस सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
प्लैवुड्
XVII/381, चेल्लाक्कुलम प्रयोजनों
पट्टिमट्टम के लिए
एरणाकुलम,
केरला-683 562
46 6400000682 11/12/2014 मेसर्स चेट्टियाकुन्निल वुड इडस्ट्रीस सामान्य प्रयोजनों आई एस 303ः 1989
प्लैवुड्
सी पी.एक्स/147 डी, चाप्रापाटावू, के लिए नाडुकानि, कूवेरी, तलिप्पारबा, कन्नूर केरला-670 581
47 4631863 07/08/2013 मेसर्स ए एम ए प्लाई ऐन्ड बोड्र्स सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
प्लैवुड्
6/6ए ऐन्ड बी, असमन्नूर पी ओ, प्रयोजनों पेरुबावुर, कुन्नत्तुनाडू के लिए एरणाकुलम, केरला-683 549
48 4634263 26/08/2013 मेसर्स पारामौड वुड इडस्ट्रीस सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
प्लैवुड्
ए पी VIII, 569 डी ओफ अण्टूर पंजायत, प्रयोजनों अण्टूर तलीप्पराबू तालूक, के लिए कन्नूर केरला-670563
49 4634364 26/08/2013 मेसर्स पराक्काटु प्लाई ऐन्ड बोड्र्स सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
के पी VI/76 पटिक्कलाप्परा, प्रयोजनों कूव्वाप्पाटी पी ओ के लिए पेरुबावुर, कुन्नत्तुनाडू तालूक, प्लैवुड् एरणाकुलम, केरला-683 544
50 4634465 26/08/2013 मेसर्स रेडियस प्लाई वुड सामान्य आई एस 303ः 1989
कोट्टच्चिरा, ओटक्काली, प्रयोजनों मेत्तला पी ओ, 11/548 सी के लिए असमन्नूर, पेरुबावूर प्लैवुड् एरणाकुलम, केरला-683 545
51 4650160 04/10/2013 मेसर्स ट्राको केबिल कंपनी लिमिटेड शिरोपरि प्रेषण आई एस
इरिब्बनमं कार्यों के लिए 398ः भाग 4 1996 एरणाकुलम, ऐल्युमिनियम के केरला-682 309 चालक भाग 4
ऐल्युमिनियम मिश्रघातु लड़दार चालक
52 4596281 22/05/2013 मेसर्स अलट्रा टेक् सिमेंट लिमिटेड पोटलैट आई एस 1489
युनिट कोच्चिन बँल्क टेरमिनल पोजोलाना सिमेंट भाग 1 1991 सर्वे नं 2578/4, इदरागान्धि रोड भाग 1 प्लाई विल्गठण ईसलेट, एरणाकुलम आष केरला-682 0031902 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 6
53 4801155 19/11/2014 मैसर्स काणामप्पुरम वेनिरस मरीने प्लाई वुड आई एस 710ः 2010
XII/427 बी, ईरीगोल पी ओ के लिए वट्टक्काटुप्पाडी पेरुबावूर एरणाकुलम केरला-683 548
54 4787490 15/10/2014 मैसर्स पराक्कातु प्लाई एन्ड बोड्र्स मरीने प्लाई वुड आई एस 710ः2010
के पि VI/76, पटिक्कलाप्परा के लिए कूवप्पाटि पी ओ एरणाकुलम केरला-683 544
55 4788088 17/10/2014 मैसर्स मॉपिल्लि प्लाई वुड इडस्ट्रीस मरीने प्लाई वुड आई एस 710ः 2010
1/303 ए वाष्हाकुलम, के लिए मुटिक्कल पी ओ, एरणाकुलम केरला.683 547
56 4750063 26/06/2014 मैसर्स स्टेरलग प्लाई बोड्र्स मरीने प्लाई वुड आई एस 710ः 2010
9/408 डी, एलामंबाक्कापिल्लि के लिए पी ओ कूवप्पाटी, वेंगूर वेस्ट विल्लेज़ मुडक्कुषा ग्राम पंचायत कुन्नतुनाडू तालूक, पेरुबावूर एरणाकुलम केरला-683544
57 4750164 26/06/2014 मैसर्स चन्द्रिका प्लाई वुड्स मरीने प्लाई वुड आई एस 710ः 2010
वि जी पी 4/230 बी के लिए मुडिक्कल पी ओ वाष्हाकुलम कुन्नतुनाडू तालूक, पेरुबावूर एरणाकुलम केरला-683547
58 4745070 30/05/2014 मैसर्स इनडेस प्लाई वुड्स मरीने प्लाई वुड आई एस 710ः 2010
वि पि XII/294 एफ, तण्डेक्काट् के लिए आलाप्रा पी ओ वेंगोला कुन्नतुनाडू तालूक, पूरुबावूर एरणाकुलम केरला-683553
59 4732061 21/04/2014 मैसर्स एम ए वुड प्रोड्क्टस प्राईवेट लिमिटेड मरीने प्लाई वुड आई एस 710ः 2010
बाट्टियापटवू, बिल्डग, नंबर के लिए एम पी आई/4360 कोलियूर विल्लेज, वोरक्काटि पी ओ, वया मंजेशवर कासरागोड केरला-671323
60 4714665 18/03/2014 मैसर्स बॉँम््बे प्लाई वुडस् इडस्ट्रीस मरीने प्लाई वुड आई एस 710ः 2010
V/270 ए, कोट्टप्पाटी, पानिप्रा पी ओ, के लिए कोतमगलं एरणाकुलम केरला-683692[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1903 1 2 3 4 5 6
61 4705563 24/02/2014 मैसर्स न्यू अमल प्लाई मरीने प्लाई वुड आई एस 710ः 2010
VI/18 बी, नेल्लीमोलम के लिए पिल्लुवषी पी ओ पेरुबावूर, रार्यमंगलं कुन्नतुनाडू एरणाकुलम केरला-683541
62 4701252 13/02/2014 मैसर्स श्री कृपा डिकराक्डीव विनरस मरीने प्लाई वुड आई एस 710ः 2010
प्राईवेट लिमिटेड के लिए डोर नंबर (एम पी आई) 131,134,135 नियर ताल्लप्पटी, कुजत्तर कासरागोड केरला-671 323
63 6400000379 04/12/2014 मैसर्स युरो प्लै एन्ड बोड्स मरीने प्लाई वुड आई एस 710ः 2010
VII/558-बी पी पी रोड, वेंगोला के लिए
पेरुबावूर, एरणाकुलम
केरला-683554
64 4673071 10/12/2013 मैसर्स टेलट्टा प्लाई वुड्स एन्ड बोड्र्स मरीने प्लाई वुड आई एस 710ः 2010
XVIII/आई/ए, ईरिगोला पी ओ के लिए
पेरिबावूर एरणाकुलम
केरला-683548
65 4635770 29/08/2013 मैसर्स पेरियार वुड प्रोडक्डस मरीने प्लाई वुड आई एस 710ः 2010
पि पि एक्स 490, न्यू नं एक्स 395 ए, के लिए तुरुथि रोड, चुगम अरोली, पाप्पनशोरी कन्नूर केरला-670 561
66 4574271 05/03/2013 मैसर्स कोप्पर केमिकल मेनुफेक्चेरस काप्पर आई एस 1507ः1977
18/153,169 पानिप्रा, पूनाप्पाटि आक्सीक्लोराइड मुडवर पी ओ, मुवाटुप्पुज्हा पानी में एरणाकुलम छितरनेवाला केरला-686 669 सांन्द्र पाउडर
67 4568781 05/03/2013 मैसर्स वनल्क्ष्मी वुड प्रोडक्डस ब्लोक बोड्स आई एस 1659ः 2004
VIII/डि निलेश्वर (एम)
होसड्रग तालूक कासरगोड
केरला-671314
68 4627367 07/08/2013 मैसर्स ऐषा वुड प्रोडक्टस ब्लोक बोड्स आई एस 1659ः2004
पी पी XII 1087 ए पी पी XIII 483 एल न्यू तिरुत्ति वयल चुनग्गम, पाप्पिनिशोरि पी ओ कन्नूर केरला-670 561
69 4803159 24/11/2014 मैसर्स मोणार्क प्लैवुड इन्डसट्रीस्् ब्लोक बोड्स आई एस 1659ः2004
आनंताप्पुरा, कुम्बला (वया),
कासरागोड, केरला-671 321
1904 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]1 2 3 4 5 6
70 4735168 21/04/2014 मैसर्स विनस प्लाई बोड्र्स ब्लोक बोड्स आई एस 1659ः2004
V/226 ए, कोट्टाप्पाटी,
कोतमंगलं एरणाकुलम
केरला-686 692
71 4713966 10/03/2014 मैसर्स माक्स बोण्ड इंडस्ट्रीस ब्लोक बोड्स आई एस 1659ः2004
किरंप्परा रोड आटंप्पति
पी ओ ओहालपति पालक्काड
केरला-678 556
72 4656576 24/10/2013 मैसर्स सॅदॅन इन्ड प्लाईवुड इंडस्ट्रीस् ब्लोक बोड्स आई एस 1659ः2004
1/638 मुण्डक्कराप्पुरम वेस्ट
वेंगोला पी ओ पेरुबावुर एरणाकुलम
केरला-683 556
73 4703963 19/02/2014 मैसर्स श्री कृृपा डिकराक्डीव विनरस ब्लोक बोड्स आई एस 1659ः2004
प्राईवेट लिमिटेड डोर नंबर (एम पी आई) 131, 134, 135 नियर ताल्लप्पटी, कुजत्तूर कासरागोड केरला-671 323
74 4678889 27/12/2013 मैसर्स सेवेन स्टार प्लाई वुड््स एन्ड ब्लोक बोड्स आई एस 1659ः2004
ब्लोक बोड्स ए पी 6/318 जे ओटक्काली, असमन्नूर, कुन्नत्तुनाटू एरणाकुलम, केरला-683 549
75 4554164 09/01/2013 मैसर्स कुन्नातान वुड प्रोडक्टस लकड़ी के आई एस 2202 VI/318, सर्वे नं 352/7,352/6,352/2, सपाट दरवाजे भाग 1ः1999 ब्लोक नं 14, असमन्नाूर, ओटक्कालिल के शटर (ठोस एरणाकुलम, कोर टाईप) केरला-683 549 भाग 1 प्लैवुड के सतह युक्त पल्लें
76 4635871 28/08/2013 मैसर्स पारामौड वुड इंडस्ट्रीस लकड़ी के आई एस 2202 ए पी VIII,569 डी ओफ अण्टूर पंचायत, सपाट दरवाजे भाग 1ः 1999 अण्टूर, तलीप्पराबू, तालूक, के शटर (ठोस कन्नाूर कोर टाईप) केरला-670563 भाग 1 प्लैवुड के सतह युक्त पल्लें
77 4704056 18/02/2014 मैसर्स श्री कृपा डिकराक्डीव विनरस लकड़ी के आई एस 2202
प्राईवेट लिमिटेड सपाट दरवाजे भाग 1ः1999 डेार नंबर (एम पी आई) 131,134,135 के शटर (ठोस नियर ताल्लप्पटी, कुजत्तूर कोर टाईप) कासरागोड भाग 1 प्लैवुड केरला-671 323 के सतह युक्त पल्लें[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1905 1 2 3 4 5 6
78 4687789 06/01/2014 मैसर्स विनस प्लाई बोड्र्स लकड़ी के आई एस 2202
V/226 ए, कोट्टाप्पाटी, कोतमंगलं सपाट दरवाजे भाग 1ः1999 एरणाकुलम के शटर (ठोस केरला-686 692 कोर टाईप) भाग
1 प्लैवुड के सतह युक्त पल्लें
79 64000000278 04/12/2014 मैसर्स विक्ट प्लै इंडस्ट्रीस लकड़ी के आई एस 2202
ए पी VIII 585/बी इडस्ट्रीयल सपाट दरवाजे भाग 1ः1999 डैवालाप्मेन्ट प्लोट, के शटर (ठोस अनडूर, तलिपरबा, कोर टाईप) पष्जाशिनिकटवू पी ओ, भाग 1 प्लैवुड कन्नाूर, के सतह युक्त केरला-670 563 पल्लें
80 4758786 22/07/2014 मैसर्स एल यु ए इंडस्ट्रीस्
स्थिर भंडारण आई एस 2082ः1993
VI/263, कुन्नातुक्करा, पारुर तालूक प्रकार सौथ आदुवाशोरी पी ओ इलैक्ट्रिक वॉटर एरणाकुलम, हीटर केरला-683 578
81 4752168 02/07/2014 मैसर्स प्लेन्ट लिपिटस् प्राईवेट लिमिटेड खाद्य उत्पादों आई एसः2557ः1994
VIII/547, अईक्करानाडू के लिए अनाटों काडाईरुप्पु, कुन्नात्तुनाटू तालूक, के रंग कोच्चि, एरणाकुलम, केरला-682 311
82 4747680 09/06/2014 मैसर्स हई केयर पॉलिमेज़ प्राईवेट लिमिटेड सर्जिकल रबड़ आई एस 4148ः1989
11/436 ए बी सी पालाकुष्हा दस्ताने मुवाटुप्पुष्हा तालूक, कुताट्टुक्कुलम एरणाकुलम, केरला-686 686
83 4673273 03/12/2013 मैसर्स आलप्पी लेटक्स प्राईवेट लिमिटेड सर्जिकल रबड़ आई एस 4148ः1989
यूणीट III, ग्लॅवय डिविरजॅन दस्ताने मूनिलव पी ओ पाला कोट्टयम केरला-686 586
84 4661569 11/11/2013 मैसर्स सेइट मेरीज़ रबड प्राईवेट लिमिटेड सर्जिकल रबड़ आई एस 4148ः1989
ग्लौस डिविरजॅन दस्ताने
कूवपल्ली, काज्ञिरापल्ली कोट्टायम
केरला-686 518
85 4636065 29/08/2013 मैसर्स स्वादेशी पॉलीमेज़ पानी के आपूर्ति आई एस 4984ः1995
10588 किंन्फ्र ा नेल्लेड, के लिए उच्च कुन्नातुनाट तालूक, ध्नत्व वाले मुवाटुप्पुज्हा पाँलिएथिलीन एरणाकुलम, पाइप केरला-686 6691906 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 6
86 4658580 25/10/2013 मैसर्स विनटेक पाँलिएकस्ट्रषनस पानी के आपूर्ति आई एस 4984ः1995
प्लोट नंबर 10, इंडस्ट्रीयल एस्टेट, के लिए उच्च वटकरा ब्लॉक, ध्नत्व वाले अहजीयूर पंजायत पाइप कोषीक्कोट्् केरला-673312
87 4658479 25/10/2013 मैसर्स ओषियन पैप्स पेयजल की आई एस 4985ः2000
पी.वी.सी. पाईप
XIV/149 ए अवान्नाूर, आपूर्ति के लिए त्रिशूर तालूक, असुध्टियता त्रिशूर, केरला-680541
88 4787389 15/10/2014 मैसर्स हारिसण्स इन्डस्ट्रीस पेयजल की आई एस 4985ः2000
डोर नंबर 462(1), आपूर्ति के लिए हारिसण्स प्लासा, असुध्टियता आलंकोड््, पी.वी.सी. पाईप आट्टिङल, तिरुवनन्तपुरमं, केरला-695 102
89 4732768 25/04/2014 मैसर्स टोम्स पैप्स प्राईवेट लिमिटेड युणीट्ट-III पेयजल की आई एस 4985ः2000
XI/649 एच, वेरुर इडस्ट्रीयल एस्टेट आपूर्ति के लिए इडस्ट्रीयल नगर पी ओ असुध्टियता चङनाशोरी पी॰वी॰सी॰ पाईप कोट्टायाम केरला-686106
90 4750568 27/06/2014 मैसर्स फै्रन्ड़स पाँलिमेज़ पेयजल की आई एस 4985ः2000
पी॰वी॰सी॰ पाईप
XIII/393 (पी आर वै) आपूर्ति के लिए पॉरतिशोरि, इरिज्ञालिकुटा असुध्टियता त्रिशूर केरला-680125
91 4746072 04/2014 मैसर्स स्लोर्व प्लास्टिक्स प्रोडक्स प्राईवेट पेयजल की आई एस 4985ः2000
पी॰वी॰सी॰ पाईप
लिमिटेड आपूर्ति के लिए तोलीकोट पी ओ असुध्टियता पुनलूर कोल्लम केरला-691333
92 4579685 26/03/2013 मैसर्स सौथ इंडिया प्लास्टिक पेयजल की आई एस 4985ः2000
डेार नंबर X/350ए, वाव्वाकावु पी ओ, आपूर्ति के लिए करुनागापल्ली असुध्टियता केरला-690 528 पी॰वी॰सी॰ पाईप
93 4757481 21/07/2014 मैसर्स चन्द्रिका प्लाई, वूड्स कंक्रीट के राटरिंग आई एस 4990ः2011
प्लाईवुड
वि जी पी-4/230बि, कार्य के लिए मुडिकल पी.ओ. पेरुम्बावूर एरणाकुलम केरला-683 547[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1907 1 2 3 4 5 6
94 4722361 31/03/2014 मैसर्स कुन्नातान वुड प्रोडेक्टस कंक्रीट के आई एस 4990ः2011
VI/318, सर्वे नं 352/2,352/6,352/7, राटरिंग कार्य असमन्नाूर पी ओ, ओटक्कालिल के लिए प्लाईवुड एरणाकुलम केरला-683 549
95 4717267 19/03/2014 मैसर्स प्रयिम वनीरस लिमिटेड कंक्रीट के राटरिंग आई एस 4990ः2011
प्लाईवुड
मिल रोड बलियपट्टम कार्य के लिए वलपट्टणम कन्नाूर केरल-670 010
96 4788189 20/10/2014 मैसर्स मॉपिल्ली प्लै वूड इन्टस्ट्रीस कंक्रीट के राटरिंग आई एस 4990ः2011
प्लाईवुड
1/303-ए, वाश्हकुलम, कार्य के लिए मुटिक्यल पी ओ एरणाकुलम केरला-683547
97 4671067 05/12/2013 मैसर्स टेल्ट्टा प्लाई वुड्स एन्ड बोर्डस कंक्रीट के राटरिंग आई एस 4990ः2011
प्लाईवुड
XVIII/ए, कार्य के लिए ईरिंगोला पी ओ, पेरुबावूर, एरणाकुलम, केरला-683 548
98 4667682 27/11/2013 मैसर्स चाक्कोस फ्लैवूड् मिल्स कंक्रीट के राटरिंग आई एस 4990ः2011
प्राइवेट लिमिटेड XVIII/490 कार्य के लिए बी सी डि महजावन्नाूर, कुन्नातुनाटू तालूक प्लाईवुड एरणाकुलम केरला-683 556
99 4710657 06/03/2014 मैसर्स मलाबार लेटक्स सान्द्रित परिरक्षित आई एसः 5430ः1981
बिल्डग नंबर एम पी/VII/324 अमोणिया ऐन्ड 327 ओफ मेल्लातूर पंजायत प्राकृतिक रबड़ काज्ञिराप्पारा लेटेक्स चिम्मणियोट् पी ओ मेल्लात्तूर मलप्पुरमं केरला-679325
100 4582674 26/03/2013 मैसर्स बोईस रबड़ एस्टेट प्राईवेट लिमिटेड सान्द्रित परिक्षित आई एसः 5430ः1981
35वां मील, मुण्डक्कयम अमोणिया इडुक्की प्राकृतिक रबड़ केरला-686 513 लेटेक्स
101 4784484 01/10/2014 मैसर्स एमिरेट्र्स रिमेंट इंन्डीया प्राईवेट लिमिटेड सफेद पोटलैट आई एसः 8042ः1989
सर्वे नंबर 150/6,151/1, पी टी, पुदुशोरी, सिमेंट पालाक्काट तालूक पालाक्काट केरला-678 624
102 4596382 22/05/2013 मैसर्स अलट्रा टेक् सिमेंट लिमिटेड 43 ग्रेड साधरण आई एसः 8112ः2013
युनिट कोच्चिन बँल्क टेरमिनल पोटलैट सिमेंट सर्वे नं 2578/4, इदिंरागांधी रोड विल्गठण ईसलेट, एरणाकुलम केरला-682 0031908 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 6
103 4624058 06/08/2013 मैसर्स ईसटेन मेट्टरिस्र्स प्रैवेट लिमिटेड गद्दीदार आई एसः 8391ः1987
रबड़ युक्त नारियल जटा
पुतुपेरियारम बनाने के लिए तोटुप्पुज़्हा पी॰ओ॰ इटुक्की केरला-685 584 की शीट
104 4780274 19/09/2014 मैसर्स नेशणल पैप्स विध्ुत संस्थापनों आई एस 9537
सी पी 309, चिल्लोरा पंजायत के लिए, भाग 3 1983 काप्पाट् कन्नाूर नालिकाऐंः केरला-670006 भाग 3-विध्ुत रोध्न सामग्री की दुढ सादी नालिकाऐं।
105 4780375 19/09/2014 मैसर्स ब्रह्मा प्लास्ट इन्डस्ट्रीस विध्ुत संस्थापनों आई एस 9537
भाग 3-विध्ुत
IV/96, आई डि पी, अत्ताणी के लिए, भाग 3 1983 अवन्नाूर, पेरिगाडूर पोस्ट नालिकाऐंः त्रिशूर केरला-680501 रोध्न सामग्री की
दुढ सादी नालिकाऐं।
106 4775786 11/09/2014 मैसर्स टि जे पाँलिमेज़
विध्ुत संस्थापनों आई एस 9537
बिल्डींग नंबर VIII/953ए के लिए, भाग 3 1983 कुवप्पाटी पी ओ नालिकाऐंः एरणाकुलम भाग 3-विध्ुत केरला-683 544 रोध्न सामग्री की
दुढ सादी नालिकाऐं।
107 4732364 25/04/2014 मैसर्स जोस्को प्लास्टिक्स विध्ुत संस्थापनों आई एस 9537
भाग 3-विध्ुत
XXII/251, इंडस्ट्रीयल डेवलपमेण्ट के लिए, भाग 3 1983 एरिया अक्गामाली नालिकाऐंः सौथ पी ओ एरणाकुलम रोध्न सामग्री की केरला-683 573 दुढ सादी नालिकाऐं।
108 4554168 09/10/2013 मैसर्स फिनिक्स प्लास्टिक इंडस्ट्रीज विधुत संस्थापनों आई एस 9537
भाग 3 -विधुत रोधन सामग्री की
डांः नंबर VIII/314 के लिए नालिकाएं : भाग 3 1983 नेटुकुक्षु पत्तनापुरं कोल्लमं दुढ सादी केरला-689 695 नालिकाएेंं।
109 4622155 31/07/2013 मैसर्स सिंटेक्स पॉलीमेर्स
विधुत संस्थापनों आई एस 9537
रोधन सामग्री की दुढ सादी
X/587 मिनी इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट के लिए नालिकाऐंः भाग 3 1983 कीजमाद भाग 3-विधुत एरुमतला अलुवा एरणाकुलम नालिकाऐं। केरल-693112[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1909 1 2 3 4 5 6
110 4636570 14/08/2013 मैसर्स सि टेक टेक्नोलजी प्रोमोशन सेन्टर शरीर के आई एस 10775ः 1984
सेन्टर फोर टेवलपमेट ओफ अडवान्सड संतुलन कंपूटिड (सि टेक) सहायता प्राप्त टि सी 14/992, वेल्लयंबलम करने की तिरुवन्तपुरम विशिष्टि केरल-695 033
111 4635366 16/08/2013 मैसर्स सॅनपवर सीमेंट कंपनी 53 गे्रड आई एस 12269ः 1987
VIII1072 पेट्रोनेट्ट रोड साधारण वैइज़ पार्क पोर्टलैंड काज़िकोड पी ओ सीमेंट पालक्काड केरला-678 621
112 4596483 22/05/2013 मैसर्स अलट्रा टेक सिमेंट लिमिटेड 53 ग्रेड आई एस 12269ः 1987
युनिट कोच्चिन बॅल्क टेरमिनल साधारण सर्वेनं 2578/4, इंदिरागान्धि रोड पोर्टलैंड विल्गठण ईसलेट, एरणाकुलम सीमेंट केरला-682 003
113 4764377 14/08/2014 मैसर्स आलम पल्ली प्रेशफर टेस्टीगं कम कार्बन इस्पात आई एस 13258ः2014
लिए 5 लिटर पानी के
कंपनी प्राइवेट लिमिटेड वेल्डेड सिलेंडरों कम 9/19 ई इंडस्ट्रीयल डिवेलपमेन्ट एरिया दबाव द्रवणय के आलुवा एरुमत्तला पी ओ क्षमता से अधिक के एरणाकुलम लिए विनिदेनशन गैस केरला-683112 एलपीजी सिलेंडरों
आवश्यकताओं का निरिक्षण जीणोंद्धार के लिए इस्तेमाल किया
114 4766482 20/08/2014 मैसर्स बीटा हेल्त केयर प्रोडक्ट्स प्राईवेट प्रायोज्य सर्जिकल आई एस 13422ः1992
लिमिटेड रबड़ दस्ताने प्लोट नं 21 बी कोच्चि न स्पेशियल इक्नोमिक जोण काक्नाट एरणाकुलम केरला-682 037
115 4761876 04/08/2014 मैसर्स जित ऐन्ड जित ग्लॉवस प्रायोज्य सर्जिकल आई एस 13422ः1992
29-876ए, लैन 22, जनता रोड, रबड़ दस्ताने वैट्टिला पी ओ कोच्चि एरणाकुलम केरला-682 019
116 4746274 05/06/2014 मैसर्स हई केयर पॉलिमेज़ प्राईवेट लिमिटेड प्रयोज्य सर्जिकल आई एस 13422ः1992
11/436ए, बी, सी, पालाक्कुश्हा रबड़ दस्ताने मुवाट्टपुश्हा तालूक कूत्ताट्टक्कुलम एरणाकुलम केरला-686 6861910 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 6
117 4756782 18/07/2014 मैसर्स आलप्पी लेटक्स प्राईवेट लिमिटेड प्रायोज्य सर्जिकल आई एस 13422ः1992
युणीट III ग्लॅवय डिविरजॅन रबड़ दस्ताने मूनिलव पी ओ पाला कोट्टयम केरला-686 586
118 4661670 11/11/2013 मैसर्स सेइट मेरीज़ रबड़ प्राईवेट लिमिटेड प्रायोज्य सर्जिकल आई एस 13422ः1992
ग्लौवस डिविरजॅ़न, कूवपल्ली पी ओ रबड़ दस्ताने काज्ञीरापल्ली कोट्टायम केरला-686518
119 4605761 21/06/2013 मैसर्स सेर्फ केयर रबड़ प्रोडक्टस प्रायोज्य सर्जिकल आई एस 13422ः1992
प्राईवेट लिमिटेड रबड़ दस्ताने फ्र ोट नंबर 19 कोच्चि नं स्पेंशिर्यल एक्णोमिक ज़ोण काक्कनाड़ कोच्चिन एरणाकुलम केरल- 682 037
120 4605862 20/06/2013 मैसर्स टीजान बीवरेज़स लिमिटेड पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
मिनरल जल के
बिल्डिंग नंबर VI/58-62 (न्यू नंबर) जल (पैकेजबंद (ओल्ड नंबर V/75-79) प्राकृतिक कुन्नाामपल्ली पी. ओ मेल्लुर, मुकुन्तपुरम तालूक अलावा) त्तिशूर केरल- 680 311
121 4605559 20/06/2013 मैसर्स के वि एन मिनरलस पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
9/830 बि 1 राजगिरी वेल्ली पी. ओ जल (पैकेजबंद काक्कनाट प्राकृतिक कोच्चि न मिनरल जल के एरणाकुलम अलावा) केरल -682 039
122 4605054 20/06/2013 मैसर्स जीवा इलिक्सर सर्विस सोसइटी पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
V/93 आवोलिचाल, जल (पैकेजबंद नेरियमंगलम पी. ओ प्राकृतिक कोतमंगलम मिनरल जल के एरणाकुलम केरला-686 693 अलावा)
123 4609870 02/07/2013 मैसर्स मुल्लाशेरी मिनरलस ऐन्ड बीवरेज़स पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
मिनरल जल के
नेडुवन्नुर XI/294 सी जल (पैकेजबंद चोवरा पी ओ प्राकृतिक एस नंबर. 155/14, चेडमंड पंचायत, आलुवा अलावा) एरणाकुलम केरला-683 571
124 4613962 15/07/2013 मैसर्स गे्रेर्स पेकेज़ड ड्रिन्ंिकग वाट्टर युनिट पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
XI/40 ए अरणकोड जल (पैकेजबंद इलवंतिट्टा पोस्ट मज़्हवेल्ली प्राकृतिक विल्लेज कोज़हेचेरी विल्लेज मिनरल जल के पतनामतिट्टा अलावा) केरला-689625[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1911 1 2 3 4 5 6
125 4608565 02/07/2013 मैसर्स जे के बीवरेज़स पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
बिल्डिंग नंबर XI/1553 जल (पैकेजबंद सर्वे नंबर 4545 प्राकृतिक नेन्नाीयोड पालोट मिनरल जल के नेटुमंडाट अलावा) तिरूवंनन्तपुरम केरला-695 562
126 4589587 06/05/2013 मैसर्स पि टि सी इन्डस्ट्रीज पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
टी सी 32/493-(1) एंड (2), जल (पैकेजबंद फ्लेट् नंबरः 43 प्राकृतिक ऐ टी ए वाली, कटकंपल्ली विल्लेज़ मिनरल जल के टैइटानियम पी ओ अलावा) तिरुवनन्तंपुरम केरला- 695 021
127 4600044 03/06/2013 मैसर्स चन्द्रिका फूड्स एंड बिवरेज़स कंपनी पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
मिनरल जल के
II/233 सी, चेरुमारी, कुन्नााथेडत्तु जल (पैकेजबंद उलीयन्नाुर पी. ओ, कोडुडल्लुर विल्लेज़ प्राकृतिक आलुवा एरणाकुलम अलावा) केरला- 683108
128 4577378 20/03/2013 मैसर्स प्युर लाइफ फुड ऐन्ड बिवरेजस पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
कंपानी विल्लोणी पी ओ जल (पैकेजबंद कोट्टायाम प्राकृतिक केरला-686 008 मिनरल जल के अलावा)
129 4555671 29/01/2013 मैसर्स एस ऐन्ड एस फुड इन्डस्ट्रीज पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
मिनरल जल के
सर्वे नं 1225, मातत्तूरक्कुन्नु पी ओ, जल (पैकेजबंद वासुपुरमं, कोटक्करा प्राकृतिक त्रिशूर केरला-680684 अलावा)
130 4545062 02/01/2013 मैसर्स कुट्टनाडू बिवरेजस कंपनी पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
मिनरल जल के
नेडुप्राम पंजायत जल (पैकेजबंद पोटयाडी पी ओ प्राकृतिक तिरुवल्ला पतनामतिट्टा अलावा) केरला- 689 110
131 4655060 18/10/2013 मैसर्स कैरली मिनरलस एन्ड बिवरेज़स पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
बिल्डग नंबर IV/636 डी जल (पैकेजबंद राईमंगलं पी. ओ प्राकृतिक कुन्नातुनाट तालूक मिनरल जल के एरणाकुलम अलावा) केरला-683 5451912 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 6
132 4644367 19/09/2013 मेसर्स ओश्यॅना स्प्रिन्ग पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
एस वै नंबर 47/7, 47/8 ऐरुर विल्लेज़ जल (पैकेजबंद ऐरुर सौथ पी ओ प्राकृतिक रान्नी तालूक मिनरल जल के पतनामतिट्टा अलावा) केरला -689 611
133 4709167 26/02/2014 मेसर्स स्टेरलिंग वेल्ली पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
XIV/35 सी ( सर्वे नंबर. 54/13) जल (पैकेजबंद सौथ मषवन्नूर पी ओ प्राकृतिक एषप्पुरमं कुन्नतुनाट तालूक मिनरल जल के एरणाकुलम अलावा) केरला- 686 669
134 4693077 28/01/2014 मेसर्स पुलिमू़टि्टल फुडस् ऐन्ड बिवरेज़स पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
मिनरल जल के
प्रैवेट लिमिटेड VI/268ए, नियर तालामट्टं जल (पैकेजबंद श्री महादेवा टेंबींल, प्राकृतिक माडाक्कतानमं पी ओ मंज्जाल्लुर, अलावा) मुवाटृपुज्हा, एरणाकुलम केरला- 686 670
135 4696386 06/02/2014 मेसर्स पेरियार वाल्ली पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
एस वै नंबर 105/3, वेंगोला विल्लेज़ जल (पैकेजबंद पाँज्ञाशोरी पी ओ प्राकृतिक तण्टेकाटू, कुन्नातुनाटु तालूक मिरनल जल के पेरुबावूर अलावा) एरणाकुलम केरला-683 547
136 4754475 11/07/2014 मेसर्स क्लासिक वाट्टर प्रोड़क्ट पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
मिनरल जल के
डोर नं. 39/1744 बी -1, बीच रोड जल (पैकेजबंद पल्लीक्कान्ट्टी प्राकृतिक पुतियगाड़ी पी. ओ कोषिक्कोड़ अलावा) केरला-673 021
137 4750669 27/06/2014 मेसर्स बर का फुड्स पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के
बिल्डिंग नंबर. 20/46, कोग्गल, जल (पैकेजबंद परावूर कोल्लमं केरला-691301 अलावा)
138 4751368 30/06/2014 मेसर्स रिवर वाली पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
मिनरल जल के
एन पि 9/342 बी, मीनमुट्टि जल (पैकेजबंद नेन्निायोट पी ओ प्राकृतिक पालाँट नेटुमनगाट् तिरुवनन्तपुरमं अलावा) केरला-695 562[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1913 1 2 3 4 5 6
139 4744977 30/05/2014 मेसर्स हरीता नैचरैल अक्वा पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
VI/570, एलिक्कोट, जल (पैकेजबंद पालापिल्ली पी ओ प्राकृतिक वारान्तरापिल्ली विल्लेज त्रिशूर, मिनरल जल के केरला-680304 अलावा)
140 4736776 08/05/2014 मेसर्स ओणात्तु पराबिल फुडस ऐन्ड पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
मिनरल जल के
बिवरेज़स प्रैवेट लिमिटेड जल (पैकेजबंद III/224ए, कीरंपारा प्राकृतिक कोतामंगलं एरणाकुलम अलावा) केरला-686 681
141 4736877 08/05/2014 मेसर्स जलालिया इन्टॅनैशॅनल पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
डोर नंबर. III/223, पुक्कोटुमना जल (पैकेजबंद चुग्गत्तरा पी ओ मिनरल जल के मलाप्पुरमं अलावा) केरला- 679 334
142 4712156 11/03/2014 मेसर्स नेट्टोस्, बिवरेज़स पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
मिनरल जल के
V/259/3 नीण्टक्करा जल (पैकेजबंद कोल्लमं कॉप्परेशन प्राकृतिक कोल्लमं केरला-691 582 अलावा)
143 4683074 03/01/2014 मेसर्स ओज़ोर्ण अक्वा मिनरलस पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
ृृ
मिनरल जल के
VII/283 बि, माराडि, जल (पैकेजबंद कॉयनाट, प्राकृतिक मुवाटुपुज्हा, ओरामना पी ओ अलावा) एरणाकुलम केरला- 686 663
144 4721056 26/03/2014 मेसर्स सालोमिन अक्वा पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
एस वै. नंबर. 168/3, चेडरा जल (पैकेजबंद एरुवेट्टि पी ओ प्राकृतिक कावन्नार पंजायत मिनरल जल के एरनाट तालूक अलावा) मलाप्पुरम केरला- 673 639
145 4732162 25/04/2014 मेसर्स मोतिरापिटिका फुड पारक् पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
मिनरल जल के
6/615, हाई स्कूल रोड जल (पैकेजबंद चेरुप्पुलाशोरि प्राकृतिक पालक्काट् केरला-679503 अलावा)
146 4732263 25/04/2014 मेसर्स गॅपीका डेरीफार्म पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
II/264ए, आलन्गाट् पंजायत जल (पैकेजबंद कोन्गोरपल्ली कूनम्म्मावू प्राकृतिक एरणाकुलम मिनरल जल के केरला-683525 अलावा)1914 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 6
147 4730158 23/04/2014 मेसर्स अक्वा ग्रीन पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
13/763 तक्यावू रोड जल (पैकेजबंद करुवेली पटि प्राकृतिक कोच्चि मिनरल जल के एरणाकुलम अलावा) केरला-682005
148 4725165 08/04/2014 मेसर्स ग्लोबल अक्वा मिनरलस पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
मिनरल जल के
एस वै. नंबर. 2/1, के सी पी/VIII/106बी जल (पैकेजबंद पायम विल्लेज्, इडय्कनं प्राकृतिक कीज्हूर, कावशोरी, इरिट्टी कन्नाूर, अलावा) केरला- 670 703
149. 4761371 31/07/2014 मेसर्स एयच्ल बिवरेज़स प्रैवेट लिमिटेड पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
मिनरल जल के
एस वै नंबर : 50314 बिल्ंिडग नंबर जल (पैकेजबंद IV/587-1, अराणाद्रुक्करा, ब्रिज रोड प्राकृतिक एलतुरुत पी ओ त्रिशूर, अलावा) केरला-680611
150. 4799703 11/11/2014 मेसर्स एम के प्रोडक्षन पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
मिनरल जल के
सर्वे नं 1/18, म्क्कुकडा जल (पैकेजबंद मरुतिक्कुन्नु, नावाईक्कुलम पी ओ प्राकृतिक चिरायिनकिज्हु तिरूवनन्तपुरम अलावा) केरला-695 603
151. 6400000480 08/12/2014 मेसर्स केरला इरिगेषन इन्फ्र ाडेक्चरल पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
डिवेलॅप्मॅन्ट कोरपरेषन लिमिटेड जल (पैकेजबंद बिल्डींग नंबर II/107 ए ऐन्ड 1078, प्राकृतिक करींक्कुन्नम विल्लेज् माला गट्टम पीओ, मिनरल जल के तोडुप्पुज्षा, इडुक्की, अलावा) केरला-685 587
152. 6400000884 15/12/2014 मैसर्स बेन् अक्वा प्रोडक्स पैकेजबंद पेय आई एस 14543ः2004
मिनरल जल के
प्लोड नंबर 10, जल (पैकेजबंद इन्डृस्र्टिींयल टेवलपमेड एरिया, प्राकृतिक वेली, तिरुवनन्तपुरमं, केरला- 695 021 अलावा)
153. 4727977 16/04/2014 मेसर्स श्री मुत्तप्पन इन्टरस्ट्रीस सुबाहक अग्नि आई एस 15683ः2006
निर्माण
बिल्डींग नंबर-ओल्ट् 10/51, न्यू 6/64 शामक- करिमन्नू पोस्ट ऑफ कोष़़़़़िंप्पारा, कार्यकारिता और पालाक्काट केरला- 678555
[सं. केन्द्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/13ः13] के. कदिरवेल, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख बी आई एस, कोच्चि शाखा[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1915
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi, the 10th April, 2015
S.O. 880.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulaiton 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
LICENCE GRANTED DURING
01 JANUARY 2013 TO 31 DECEMBER 2014
Sl. Licence Grant Date Name & Address Title of the IS No No. No. of the Party Standard Part sec. Year
1 2 3 4
5
6
1. 4778388 17/09/2014 Moothedam Plywood for general purpsoes IS 303 : 1989
Veneers & Industries
V.P. 2/529A, Pallikavala
Marampilly Perumbavoor Eranakulam Kerala-683547
2. 4778489 170/9/2014 Red Wood Ply & Boards Plywood for general purposes IS 303: 1989
XIII/153, Paipra, Mulavoor, Pezhakkpilly P.O.,
Muvattupuzha Eranakulam
Kerala-686674
3. 478281 21/07/2014 Kuttichira Ply & Plywood for general purposes IS 303 : 1989
Boards XI/316A Panipra
P.O. Kottappady
Kothamangalam Eranakulam Kerala-686692
4. 4762474 05/08/2014 K.K.A. Ply Woods Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
OP.X/36&F, Chelamattam,
Rayonpuram P.O. Perumbavoor Eranakulam
Kerala-683543
5. 4762575 06/08/2014 Noh Plywoods & Boards Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
VII/770C, Chundamala,
West Vengola P.O.
Perumbavoor, Eranakulam
Kerala-683556
6. 4775584 11/09/2014 Three Star Playwoods Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
XIII/154 Paipra, Mulavoor,
Pezhakkpilly Muvattupuzha P.O. Eranakulam
Kerala-686674
7. 6400000177 04/12/2014 VICT Play Industries Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
A.P. VIII 585/B, Industrial Development Plot Andhoor,
Taliparamba Parassinikkadavu
P.O. Kannur Kerala-6705631916 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4
5
6
8. 4682476 02/01/2014 Prestige Plywood Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Industries (P) LTD IV/291-292, Mudickal (P.O) Vazhakulam Kunnathunadu Taluk Eranakulam Kerala-683547
9. 4717469 18/03/2014 Aiswarya Plywood Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Industries N.P. VIII/354 B, Vengola, Near Velakara Temple, Allapra P.O. Perubavoor Eranakulam Kerala-683553
10. 4718168 10/03/2014 Veenus Ply Boards Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
V/226 A, Kottappady Kothamangalam Eranakulam Kerala-686692
11. 4722462 31/03/2014 Safiya Saw Mills & Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Industries IX-1052, Allapra
P.O., Perumbavoor Eranakulam
Kerala-683553
12. 4714968 19/03/2014 High Range Ply And Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Boards Sy No. 436/3, 436/9A
Eramalloor Village Kothamangalam
Eranakulam Kerala-686691
13. 4730057 23/04/2014 Companion Plywoods Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
III/32-D Odakkaly, Methala P.O. Kunnathunad Taluk Eranakulam Kerala-683545
14. 6400000682 11/12/2014 Chettiyakunnel Wood Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Industries CP. X/ 147D, Chapparpadav U,Nadukani, Koovery Kannur Taliparamba Kerala-670581
15. 4756277 17/07/2014 Abad Wood Industries Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
And plywoods XI/121B, Peleppuram , Trikkalangode, Ernad Taluk Elankur P.O. Malappuram Kerala-676122
16. 4756479 18/07/2014 Able Industries Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
XXI/293-D,E,F,G Puthuppalam, Eramalloorp, Nellikuzhi Kothamangalam Taluk Eranakulam Kerala-686691
17. 4638877 04/09/2013 Hi-Tech Plywoods Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Poonoor Valay Anchirangara (P.O) VP. VI/710A Vengola Panchayath Perumbavoor Eranakulam Kerala-683556
18. 4637269 02/09/2013 Ibsons Industries Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Peringala(P.O), 11/504-A Kunnathunadu Eranakulam Kerala-683565
19. 4637673 03/09/2013 New Star Plywoods Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Survey No. 137/7-2 Odakkaly Asamanoor(P.O) Kunnathunadu Taluk Eranakulam Kerala-683549[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1917 1 2 3 4
5
6
20. 4667783 26/11/2013 Tomson Ply And Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Boards Pulluvazhi (P.O) Rayamangalam Kunnathunad Eranakulam Kerala-683541
21. 4675176 16/12/2013 Dustan Wood Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
S. Puram, Kurichy, Kottayam
Kerala-686532
22. 4674578 13/12/2013 Bright Indian Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Plywoods 9/181-A Mekalady,
Kalady, Aluva Taluk Eranakulam
Kerala-683574
23. 4678081 23/12/2013 Kings Plywoods Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Vaikara (P.O.) Perumbavoor
Rayamancalam Kunnathunadu
Eranakulam Kerala-683549
24. 4678788 27/12/2013 Seven Star Plywoods Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
& Block Boards A.P. 6/318J, Odakali, Asamannoor Kunnathunadu Eranakulam Kerala-683549
25. 4679386 31/12/2013 Blue Tech Wood Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Industries III/386 B Asamannoor
Kunnathunad Eranakulam
Kerala-683549
26. 4679487 31/12/2013 A-One Plywoods And Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Boards XII/391-D
Rayamangalam, Kunnathunad Taluk,
Eranakulam Kerala-683548
27. 64000000783 11/12/2014 Ras Plywoods & Boards Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
IX/407D, Rayamangalam, Nangelipady, Pulluvazhy, Perubavoor, Eranakulam Kerala-683541
28. 4688084 13/01/2014 Mekha Ply And Boards Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
VI/318, Asamannoor, Odakkalli Perumbavoor Eranakulam Kerala-683549
29. 4698895 11/02/2014 Shri Krupa Decorative Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Veneer Pvt Ltd Door No. (MPI) 131, 134, 135 Near Talpady Village, Kunjatur Kasaragod Kerala-671323
30. 4701151 13/02/2014 Maxbond Industries Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Kirampara Road, Attempathy
P.O. Ozhalapathy Palakkad
Kerala-678556
31. 4705462 24/02/2014 New Amal Ply Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
IX/18-B, Nellimolam
Pulluvazhy P.O, Rayamangalam
Perumbavoor Eranakulam
Kerala-683541
1918 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]1 2 3 4
5
6
32. 4545567 02/01/2013 Indus Plywoods Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
VP-XII/294-F, Allapra (P.O.),
Kuttippadam, Perumbavoor,
Kunnathunadu Taluk, Eranakulam
Kerala-683553
33. 4545668 03/01/2013 Ummani Veneers & Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Plywoods East Okkal, Okkal (P.O.) Chelamattom, Kunnathunadu Eranakulam Kerala-683550
34. 4545870 03/01/2013 U-Star Plywoods Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Panipra (P.O.) Kottappady Kothamangalam Eranakulam Kerala-686692
35. 4545971 03/01/2013 Matha Plywoods Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Near Rubber Park Valayanchirangara (P.O.) N. Mazhuvannoor Airapuram Kunnathunadu Taluk Eranakulam Kerala-683556
36. 4546973 03/01/2013 Cochin Ply Woods Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
XVI/456, 456-A, 456-B Paipra, Muvattupuzha Taluk, Madavoor P.O. Eranakulam Kerala-686669
37. 4547167 03/01/2013 Global Conductors (P) Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Ltd K.P. 9/22-V Industrial Development Area, Erumathala P.O. Alappuzha Kerala-683505
38. 4547268 03/01/2013 M.S. Boards And Panels Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
VI/606, Paracode Punnorcode
Vembilly (P.O.) Kunnathunadu
Taluk Eranakulam
Kerala-683565
39. 4555065 29/01/2013 Vanalakshmi Wood Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Products VIII/400D,
Hosdurg Taluk Nileshwar (M)
Kasaragod Kerala-671 314
40. 4565573 21/02/2013 Kerala Sawmills & Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Plywoods PMC- 17/1948, Perumbavoor (P.O.), Kunnathunadu, Eranakulam Kerala-683542
41. 4578986 26/03/2013 Usmaniya Wood Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Decors IX/1/153, Keezhmad
Panchayath Aluva Eranakulam
Kerala-683105
42. 4609062 02/07/2013 National Plywood Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Industries Plot No. 23, 24&25, Rubber Park, Irapuram, Valayanchirangara (P.O.) Eranakulam Kerala-683556[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1919 1 2 3 4
5
6
43. 4609163 02/07/2013 Ess Bee Plywood Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Industries XI/296 A,
Kizhakkambalam Kumbanode,
Pattimattom (P.O.) Eranakulam
Kerala-683562
44. 4618568 12/07/2013 AL-Ameen Wood Industries Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Poomala, Cherukunnam, Asamannoor (P.O.), Kunn Athunadu Eranakulam Kerala-683549
45. 4621961 30/07/2013 Pankaj Plywood Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
1/814B, Ponjassery, West Vengola (PO.), Arakapady Panchayth, Kunnathunadu, Perumbavoor Eranakulam Kerala-683556
46. 4631459 07/08/2013 Kemi Veneers Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
XI/381, Chelakulam, Pattimattom Eranakulam Kerala-683 562
47. 4631863 07/08/2013 Ama Ply And Boards Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
6/67, A&B Asamannoor (P.O.) Perumbavoor Kunnathunadu Eranakulam Kerala-683549
48. 4634263 26/08/2013 Paramount Wood Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Industries AP VIII, 569D of Andoor Panchayat, Andoor Taliparamba Taluk Kannur Kerala-670563
49. 4634364 26/08/2013 Parakkattu Ply And Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Boards K.P. VI/76, Padickalapara Koovappady (P.O.) Perumbavoor Kunnathunadu Taluk Eranakulam Kerala-683544
50. 4634465 26/08/2013 Radius Plywoods Plywood for general Purposes IS 303: 1989
Kottachira Odakkali Methala (P.O.) 11/548-C, Asamannoor Perumbavoor Eranakulam Kerala-683545
51. 4650160 04/10/2013 Traco Cable Aluminium Conductors for overhead IS398:Part 1:1996
Company Limited transmission purposes: part I Irimpanam aluminium stranded conductors Eranakulam Kerala-682 309
52. 4596281 22/05/2013 Ultratech Cement Portland Pozzolana cement part 1 IS 1489:
Limited Unit:Cochin Bulk flyash Part 1: 1991 Terminal, Survey Number: 2578/4. Indira Gandhi Road, Willingdon Island, Eranakulam Kerala-682003
53. 6400000379 04/12/2014 Europly and Boards Marine plywood IS 710 : 2010
VII/558-B.PP Road, Vengola, Perubavoor Eranakulam Kerala-6835541920 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4
5
6
54. 4801155 19/11/2014 Kanampuram Veneers Marine plywood IS 710 : 2010
XII/427. Iringole P.O., Vattakattupady Perumbavoor Eranakulam Kerala-683548
55. 4787490 15/10/2014 Parakkattu Ply and Marine plywood IS 710 : 2010
Boards Kp. VI/76.
Padickalapara Koovappady
P.O. Eranakulam Kerala-683544
56. 4788088 17/10/2014 Mampilly Ply Wood Marine plywood IS 710 : 2010
Industries 1/303-A.
Vazhakkulam Mudickal
P.O. Eranakulam Kerala-683547
57. 4750063 26/06/2014 Sterling Ply Board Marine plywood IS 710 : 2010
9/408D. Elambakappilly P.O. Koovappady, Vengoor West Perumbavoor Eranakulam Kerala-683544
58. 4750164 26/06/2014 Chandrika Plywoods Marine plywood IS 710 : 2010
VGP-4/220B Mudical
P.O. Vazhakkulam Kunnathunadu
Taluk Perumbavoor
Eranakulam Kerala-683547
59. 4745070 30/05/2014 Indus Plywoods Marine plywood IS 710 : 2010
VP/XII/294F. Thandekad Allapra P.O. Vengola Kunnathunadu Taluk Eranakulam Perumbavoor Kerala-683553
60. 4732061 21/04/2014 M/s MA Wood Product (P) Ltd. Marine Plywood IS 710 : 2010
Battipadavu, Buldg. No. MP/4360, Koliyoor Village, Vorkady P.O. (VIA) Manjeshwar Kasaragod Kerala-671323
61. 4714665 18/03/2014 Bombay Plywood Marine plywood IS 710 : 2010
Industries V/270 A, Kottappady,
Panipra P.O. Kothamangalam
Eranakulam Kerala-686692
62. 4705563 24/02/2014 New Amal Ply Marine plywood IS 710 : 2010
IV/18-B, Nellimolam
Pulluvazhi, P.O. Perumbavoor
Ray amangalam Eranakulam
Kerala-683541
63. 4701252 13/02/2014 Shri Krupa Decorative Marine plywood IS 710 : 2010
Veneer Pvt. Ltd. Door No. (MP) 131, 134, 135 near Talapady Kunjatur Kasaragod Kerala-671323
64. 4673071 10/12/2013 Delta Ply Woods and Marine plywood IS 710 : 2010
Boards XVIII/IA Iringole Perumbavoor Eranakulam Kerala-683548[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1921 1 2 3 4
5
6
65. 4635770 29/08/2013 Periyar Wood Marine plywood IS 710 : 2010
Products PPX 490, New Nox/395A, Thuruthi Road, Chungam, Aroli, Pappinisseri, Kannur Kerala-670561
66. 4574271 05/03/2013 Copper Chemical Copper Oxychloride water IS 1507 : 1977
Manufactures dispersible powder Concentrates 18/153, 169 Paipra Punnepady Mudavoor P.O. Muvattupuzha Eranakulam Kerala-686669
67. 4568781 05/03/2013 Vanalakshmi Wood Block boards
IS 1659 : 2004
Products Near Block Office, Puthariy Adukkam (P.O.) Nileshwar, Kasaragod Kerala-671314
68. 4627367 07/08/2013 Aysha Wood & Block boards
IS 1659 : 2004
Plywoods Pvt. Ltd. Thuruthi Vayal Chungam, Pappinissery P.O. Kannur Kerala-670561
69. 4803159 24/11/2014 Monarch Plywood Block boards
IS 1659 : 2004
Industries Ananthapura Kumbla (VIA) Kasaragod Kerala-671321
70. 4735168 21/04/2014 Veenus Ply Boards Block boards
IS 1659 : 2004
V/226 A, Kottappady Kothamangalam Eranakulam Kerala-686692
71. 4713966 10/03/2014 Maxbond Industries Block boards
IS 1659 : 2004
Kirampara Road, Attempathy
P.O. Ozhalapathy Palakkad
Kerala-678556
72. 4656576 24/10/2013 Southern Ind. Plywood Block boards
IS 1659 : 2004
Industries 1/638, Munkakarappuram, West Vengola (P.O.) Perumbavoor Eranakulam Kerala-683556
73. 4703963 19/02/2014 Shri Krupa Decorative Veneer Block boards
IS 1659 : 2004
Pvt. Ltd. Door No. (MPI) 131, 134, 135 Near Talapady Kunjatur Kasaragod Kerala-671323
74. 4678889 27/12/2013 Seven Star Plywoods Block boards
IS 1659 : 2004
& Block Boards A.P. 6/318J,
Odakali, Asamannoor Eranakulam
Kunnathunadu Kerala-683549
75. 4554164 09/01/2013 Kunnathan Wood Wooden flush door shutters IS 2202 :
(solid core type): Part I plywood Part 1 : 1999 face panels
Products VI/318, Survay No. 352/7 352/6, 352/2, Block No. 14, Asmanoor, Odakalil Eranakulam Kerala-6835491922 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4
5
6
76. 4704056 28/08/2013 Paramount Wood Industries Wooden flush door shutters IS 2202 :
AP VIII, 569D of Andoor (solid core type): Part I plywood Part 1 : 1999 Panchayath, Andoor face panels Taliparamba Taluk Kannur Kerala-670563
77. 4635871 18/02/2014 Sri Krupa Decorative Wooden flush door shutters IS 2202 :
Veneer Pvt. Ltd. (solid core type): Part I plywood Part 1 : 1999 Door No. (MPI) 131, 134, 135 face panels Near Talapady Kunjatur Kerala-671323
78. 4687789 06/01/2014 Veenus Ply Boards Wooden flush door shutters IS 2202 :
(solid core type): Part I plywood Part 1 : 1999
V/226 A,
Kottappady face panels
Kothamangalam Eranakulam
Kerala-686692
79. 6400000278 04/12/2014 Vict Ply Industries Wooden flush door shutters IS 2202 :
A.P. VIII (solid core type): Part I plywood Part 1 : 1999
585/B, Industrial face panels
Development Plot Andhoor,
Taliparamba Parassinik
Kadavu P.O. Kannur
Kerala-670563
80. 4758786 22/07/2014 Lua Industries Stationary storage type electric IS 2082 : 1993
VI/263, Kunnukara, Parur water heaters
Taluk Souh Aduvassery
P.O. Eranakulam Kerala-683578
81. 4752168 02/07/2014 Plant Lipids (P) Ltd. Annatto colour for food products IS 2557 : 1994
VIII/547 Aikaranddu,
Kadayiruppu,
P.O. Kunnathunadu Taluk
Kochi Eranakulam Kerala-682311
82. 477680 09/06/2014 HI-Care Polymers Pvt. Surgical rubber gloves - IS 4148 : 1989
Ltd. 11/436 - A,B,C Palakuzha Muvattupuxha Taluk Koothattukulam Eranakulam Kerala-686686
83. 4673273 03/12/2013 Alleppey Latex Pvt. Surgical rubber gloves - IS 4148 : 1989
Ltd. Gloves Division Moonilavu P.O. Pala Kottayam Kerala-686586
84. 4661569 11/11/2013 St. Marys Rubbers Pvt. Ltd. Surgical rubber gloves - IS 4148 : 1989
Gloves Division Koovappally
Kanjirapally Kottayam
Kerala-686518
85. 4636065 29/08/2013 Swadheshy Polymers High density polyethylene Pipes for IS 4984 : 1995
10588, Kinfra Nellad Portable water supplies Kunnathunad (Taluk) Eranakulam Muvattupuzha Kerala-686669
86. 4658580 25/10/2013 Wintech polyextrusions High density polyethylene pipes for IS 4964 : 1995
Plot No. 10 Industrial Estate portable water supplies Vadakara Block Azhiyoor Panchayath Kozhikode Kerala-673312[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1923 1 2 3 4
5
6
87. 4658479 25/10/2013 Ocean Pipes Unplasticized pvc pipes for portable IS 4985 : 2000
XIV/149A, Avanoor, water supplies -
Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur
Kerala-680541
88. 4787389 15/10/2014 Harisuns Industries Unplasticized pvc pipes for portable IS 4985 : 2000
Harisuns Plaza, Alamcode water supplies -
Attingal Thiruvananthpuram
Kerala-695102
89. 4732768 25/04/2014 Toms Pipes Private Unplasticized pvc pipes for portable IS 4985 : 2000
Limited - Unit-III water supplies - XI/649 H, Veroor Industrial Estate, Industrial Nagar P.O. Changanacherry, Kottayam Kerala-686106
90. 4750568 27/06/2014 Friends Polymers Unplasticized pvc pipes for portable IS 4985 : 2000
XIII/393 (PRY) water supplies -
Porathissery Irinjalakuda
Thrissur Kerala-680125
91. 4746072 04/06/2014 Solve Plastic Products Unplasticized pvc pipes for portable IS 4985 : 2000
ucts (P) Ltd. water supplies -
Tholicodu P.O. Punalur
Kollam Kerala-691333
92. 4579685 26/03/2013 South Indian Plastic Unplasticized pvc pipes for portable IS 4985 : 2000
Door, No. X/350A water supplies -
Vavvakkav (P.O.)
Karunagappaly Kerala-690528
93. 4757481 21/07/2014 Chandrika Plywoods Plywood for concrete shuttering IS 4990 : 2011
VGP-4/230B Mudical work
P.O. Eranakulam Perumbavoor
Kerala-683547
94. 4722361 31/03/2014 Lunnathan Wood Plywood for Concrete Shuttering IS 4990 : 2011
Products VI/318, survey work
no. 352/2, 352/6, 352/7
Asmannor P.O. Odakkali
Eranakulam Kerala-683549
95. 4717267 19/03/2014 Prime Veneers Ltd. Plywood for Concrete Shuttering IS 4990 : 2011
Mill Road, Valapattanam, work
Kannur, Kerala-670010
96. 4788189 20/10/2014 Mampilly Plywood Plywood for concrete shuttering IS 4990 : 2011
Industries 1/303-A, work
Vazhakkulam Mudickal
P.O. Eranakulam
Kerala-688547
97. 4671067 05/12/2013 Delta Plywoods & Plywood for Concrete Shuttering IS 4990 : 2011
Boards Iringole work
P.O. Eranakulam Perumbavoor
Kerala-683548
98. 4667682 27/11/2013 Chackos Plywood Plywood for Concrete Shuttering IS 4990 : 2011
Mills (P) Ltd. XVIII/490B. work C.D. Mazhuvannoor Kunnathunadu Taluk Eranakulam Kerala-6835561924 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4
5
6
99. 4710457 06/03/2014 Malabar Latex Ammonia Preserved Concentrated IS 5430: 1901
Building No. MP/VII/324 natural Rubber Latex & 327 of Melattur Panchayath, Kanjirampara, Chemmaniyodu P.O., Melattur Malappuram Kerala-679325
100. 4582674 26/03/2013 Boycle Rubber Estate Ammonia Preserved Concentrated IS 5430: 1981
Pvt. Ltd. Narural Rubber Latex 35th Mile, Mudakayam, Idukki Kerala-673032
101. 4784484 01/10/2014 Emirates Cements (India) White portland Cement - IS 8042 : 1989
Private Limited Survey No. 150/6, 151/1 P.T. Puddussery Palakkad Taluk Palakkad Kerala-678624
102. 4596382 22/05/2013 Ultratech Cement Limited 43 grade ordinary portland cement IS 8112 : 2013
Unit : Cochin Bulk Terminal, Survey Number: 2578/4, Indira Gandhi Road, Willingdon Island Eranakulam Kerala-682003
103. 4624058 06/08/2013 M/s Eastern Mattersses Rubberized coil sheets for cushioning IS 8391 : 1987
Pvt. Ltd. Puthuperiyaram Thodupuzha P.O. Idukki Kerala-685584
104. 4780274 19/09/2014 National Pipes Conduits for electrical installations: IS 9537 :
CP IV, 309, part 3rigid plain conduits of Part 3 : 1983 Chelora Panchayat insulating materials Kappad, Kannur (superseding IS : 2509) Kerala-670006
105. 4780375 19/09/2014 Brahma Plast Industries Conduits for electrical installations: IS 9537 :
IV/96, IDP, Athani, part 3 rigid plain conduits of Part 3 : 1983 Avanur Peringandoor insulating materials Post Thrissur Kerala-680501 (superseding IS : 2509)
106. 4775786 11/09/2014 T.J. Polymers Conduits for electrical installations: IS 9537 :
Building No. VIII/953A part 3 rigid plain conduits of Part 3 : 1983 Koovappady P.O. insulating materials Eranakulam (superseding IS : 2509) Kerala-683544
107. 4732364 25/04/2014 Josco Plastics Conduits for electrical installations: IS 9537 :
XXII/251 Industrial part 3 rigid plain conduits of Part 3 : 1983 Development Area insulating materials Angamaly, South P.O. (superseding IS : 2509) Eranakulam Kerala Kerala-683573
108. 4654168 09/10/2013 Fenix Plastic Indus- Conduits for electrical installations: IS 9537 :
tries part 3 rigid plain conduits of Part 3 : 1983 Door No. VIII/314 insulating materials Nedukkunu (superseding IS : 2509) Pathanapuram Kollam Kerala-689695
109. 4622155 31/07/2013 Cintex Polymers Conduits for electrical installations: IS 9537 :
X/587, Mini Industrial part 3 rigid plain conduits of Part 3 : 1983 Estate, Keezhmad insulating materials Aluva Eranakulam (superseding IS : 2509) Kerala-693112[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1925 1 2 3 4
5
6
110. 4636570 14/08/2013 CDAC Technology Promo- Body level hearing aids IS 10775 : 1984
tion Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC) TC 14/992, Vellayambalam, Thiruvanathpuram Kerala-695033
111. 4635366 16/08/2013 Sunpower Cement 53 grade ordinary portland cement IS 12269 : 1987
Company VIII 1072, Petronet Road, Wise Park, Kanjikode P.O. Palakkad Kerala-678621
112. 4596483 22/05/2013 Ultratech Cement Limited 53 grade ordinary portland cement IS 12269 : 1987
Unit: Cochin Bulk Terminal, Sruvey Number : 2578/4, Indira Gandhi Road, Willingdon Island, Eranakulam Kerala-682003
113. 4764377 14/08/2014 M/s Alampally Pressure Welded low carbon steel cylinders IS 13258 : 2014
Testing Company Pvt. Ltd. exceeding 5 litre water capacity for 9/19E, Industrial Devel- low pressure liquefiable gas-code of opment Area, Aluva practice for inspection and recon- Erumathala P.O. Eranakulam, ditioning of used LPG cylinders Kerala-683112
114. 4766482 20/08/2014 Beta Healthcare Products Disposable surgical rubber gloves- IS 13422 : 1992
Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 21 B, Cochin Special Economic Zone Eranakulam Kakkanad, Kerala-682037
115. 4761876 04/08/2014 Jit & Jit Gloves 29-876A, Disposable surgical rubber gloves IS 13422 : 1992
Lane 22, Janatha Road,
Vytilla P.O. Eranakulam Kochi
Kerala-682019
116. 4746274 05/06/2014 HI Care Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Disposable surgical rubber gloves IS 13422 : 1992
11/436 - A, B, C Palakuzha Muvattupuzha Taluk Eranakulam Kerala-686686
117. 4756782 18/07/2014 Alleppey Latex (P) Ltd. Disposable surgical rubber gloves IS 13422 : 1992
Unit-III, Gloves Division, Moonnilavu P.O. Kottayam Pala Kerala-686586
118. 4661670 11/11/2013 St. Marys Rubbers Pvt. Ltd. Disposable surgical rubber gloves IS 13422 : 1992
Gloves Division Koovapally
P.O. Kanjirappally Kottayam
Kerala-686518
119. 4605761 21/06/2013 Safe Care Rubber Products Disposable surgical rubber gloves IS 13422 : 1992
Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 19 Cochin Special Economic Zone Kakkannad Eranakulam Cochin Kerala-682037
120. 4605862 20/06/2013 Teejan Beverages Limited Pacaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
Building No. VI/58-62 packaged natural mineral water) - (New No. (Old No. V/75-79) Kunnampilly P.O. Melur Mukundapuram Taluk Thrissur Kerala-6803111926 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4
5
6
121. 4605559 20/06/2013 KVN Minerals Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
9/830B1 Rajagiri Valley packaged natural mineral water) - P.O. Kakkanad Cochin Eranakulam Kerala-682039
122. 4605054 20/06/2013 Jeeva Elixir Service Socity Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543: 2004
V/93, Avolichal, packaged natural mineral water) - Neriamangalam P.O. Kothamangalam Eranakulam Kerala-686693
123. 4609870 02/07/2013 Mullassery Minerals Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
And Beverages packaged natural mineral water Neduvanoor, XI/294C, Chowara P.O. S. No. 155/14, Chengamand Panchayath Aluva Erankaulam Kerala-683571
124. 4613962 15/07/2013 Grace Packaged Drinking Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
Water Unit packaged natural mineral water)— XI/40A, Arnakode Elavumtitta Post Mezhuveli Village Kozhenchery Taluk Pathanamthitta Kerala-689 625
125. 4608565 02/07/2013 J.K. Beverages Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
Building No. XI/1553 packaged natural mineral water)— Survey No. 4545 Manniyod, Palode Nedumangad Thiruvananthpuram Kerala-695562.
126. 4589587 06/05/2013 PTC Industries Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
TC 32/493-(1), & 2 Plot No: 43 packaged natural mineral water)— IDA Veli, Kadakampally Village, Titanium P.O. Thiruvananthpuram Kerala-695021
127. 4600044 03/06/2013 Chandrika Food and Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
Beverages packaged natural mineral water)— II/223C, Cherumapri, Kunathodathu, Ulliyannor P.O. Kadungallur Village, Aluva Eranakulam Kerala-683108
128. 4577378 20/03/2013 Pure Life Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
Food & Beveges Com- packaged natural mineral water)— pany Villoonni P.O. Kottayam Kottayam Kerala-686008[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1927 1 2 3 4
5
6
129. 4555671 29/01/2013 S&S Food Industries Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
Survey No. 1225 packaged natural mineral Water)— Mattathurkunnu P.O. Vasupuram, Kodakara Thrissur Kerala-680684
130. 4545062 02/01/2013 Kuttanadu Beverages Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
Company packaged natural mineral water)— Nedumpram Panchayath, Podiyadi P.O. Thiruvalla Pathanamthitta Kerala-689110
131. 4655069 18/10/2013 Kairali Minerals and Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
Beverages packaged natural mineral water)— Building No. IV/636D Rayamangalam P.O. Kunnathunadu Taluk Eranakulam Kerala-683545
132. 6400000480 08/12/2014 Kerala Irrigation Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
Infrastructure Development packaged natural mineral water)— Corporation Limited Vasanth Vihar Gardens, Kumarapuram Thiruvananthpuram Medical College P.O. Kerala-695011
133. 64000000884 15/12/2014 Ben Aqua Products Private Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
Limited packaged natural mineral water)— Plot No. 10, Industrial Development Area Vell, Thiruvananthpuram Kerala-695021
134. 4644367 19/09/2013 Oceana Spring Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
Sy No. 47/7,47/8 packaged natural mineral water)— Ayiroor Village Ayiroor South P.O. Ranni Taluk Pathanamthitta Kerala-689611
135. 4709167 26/02/2014 Sterling Valley Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
XIV/35C(Survey No. 54/13) packaged natural mineral water)— South Mazhuvannoor P.O. Ezhupuram Kunnathunad Taluk Eranakulam Kerala-686669
136. 4693077 28/01/2014 Pulimoottil Foods & Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
Beverages Pvt. Ltd. VI-268A, packaged natural mineral water)— Near Thalamattom Sree Mahadeva Temple, Madakkathanam P.O. Manjaloor Eranakulam Kerala-6866701928 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4
5
6
137. 4696386 06/02/2014 Periyar Valley- Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
Sy. No. 105/3, packaged natural mineral water)— Vengola Village Ponjassery P.O. Thandekkadu Kunnathunadu Taluk Perubavoor Eranakulam Kerala-683 547
138. 4754475 11/07/2014 Classic Water Products Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
D. No. 39/1744BI, Beach packaged natural mineral water)— Road, Pallikkandy Puthiyangadi P.O. Kozhikode Kerala-673021
139. 4750669 27/06/2014 M/s Barka Foods Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
Bldg No. 20/46 packaged natural mineral water)— Kongal, Paravur, Kollam Kerala-691301
140. 4751368 30/06/2014 M/s River Valley Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
NP 9/342B, Meenmutty, packaged natural mineral water)— Nanniyode P.O. Palode, Nedumangad Kerala-685562
141. 4744977 30/05/2014 Haritha Natural Aqua- Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
VI/570, Elicode, packaged natural mineral water)— Palapilly P.O. Varandrapilly vilaage- Thirssur Kerala-680304
142. 4736776 08/05/2014 Onatuparambil Foods Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
And Beverages Pvt. Ltd. packaged natural mineral water)— III/224 A, Keeraampara Kothamangalam Eranakulam Kerala-686681
143. 4736877 08/05/2014 Jalaliya International Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
Door No. 111/223, packaged natural mineral water)— Pookotumana, Chungathara P.O. Malappuram Kerala-679334
144. 4712156 11/03/2014 Netto's Beverages Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
V/259/3 Neendakara packaged natural mineral water)— Kollam Corporation Kollam Kerala-691582
145. 4683074 03/01/2014 Ozone Aqua Minerals Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
VII/283 B, Marady, packaged natural mineral water)— Kayanad Muvattupuzha Ooramana P.O. Eranakulam Kerala-686663[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1929 1 2 3 4
5
6
146. 4721056 26/03/2014 Salomin Aqua Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
Sy. No. 168/3, Chengara, packaged natural mineral water)— Eruvetty P.O. Kavanur Panchayath, Ernad Taluk Malappuram Kerala 676639
147. 4732162 25/04/2014 Mothirapedika Food Park Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
6/615, High School Road, packaged natural mineral water)— Cherpulassary Palakkad Kerala 679503
148. 4732263 25/04/2014 Gopika Dairy Farms II/264A, Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
Alangad Panchayth packaged natural mineral water)— Kongorpally Koonammavu Eranakulam Kerala 683525
149. 4730158 23/04/2014 Aquagreen Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
13/763, Thakyavu packaged natural mineral water)— Road, Karuvelipady, Kochi Ernakulam Kerala 682005
150. 4725165 08/04/2014 Global Aqua Mineral Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
Sy. No. 2/I, K P C VIII/106 B, packaged natural mineral water)— Payam Village, Edakknam, Keezhur, Chavassery, Iritty Kannur Kerala 670 703
151. 4761371 31/07/2014 Angel Beverages Private Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
Limited Sy. No.: 503/4 packaged natural mineral water)— Building No. IV/587-I Aranattukara Bridge Road Elthuruth P.O. Thrissur Kerala 680611
152. 4799703 11/11/2014 M.K. Production Packaged drinking water (other than IS 14543 : 2004
Survey No. 1/8, packaged natural mineral wate)— Mukkukada, Maruthikunnu, Navaikulam. P.O. Chiray Yinkeezhu Thiruvananthpuram Kerala 695603
153. 4727977 16/04/2014 Shree Muthappan Industries Protable fire extinguishers IS 15683 : 2006
Bldg No. Old 10/51, performance and construct New 6/64, Karimannu Post Off Kozhinjampara, Palakkad Kerala 678555
[No. CMD/13 : 13]
K. KADIRVEL, Scientist 'F' & Head BIS, Kochi Branch1930 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2015
का॰आ॰ 881.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम, 1988, के विनियम, 5 उप विनियम (6) के अनुसरण में, भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिनके विवरण वाले लाईसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द/स्थगित कर दिया गया हैं।
अनुसूची
01 जनवरी 2013 से 31 दिसंबर 2014 तक रद्द किये गए लाइसेंसों की सूची
क्रम. सं. लाईसेंस संख्या लाईसेंस का नाम एवं पता लाईसेंसों के अंतर्गत वस्तु/प्रकम सम्बद्ध रद्द करने की भारत मानक का शीर्षक तिथि वर्ष माह
1. 3438460 वेन्नाली फुड आण्ड बीवरेज़स पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद 04/07/2014 पतनमतिट्टा प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)
2. 3453254 क्लासिक वाट्टर प्रोडक्ट पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद 12/11/2013 कोशिक्कोड़ प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)
3. 3556971 नेशनल बूड प्रोडक्ट कंक्रीट के राटरिंग कार्य 25/03/2013 कासरगोड के लिए प्लाईवुड विशिष्ट
4. 4529771 प्रयिम वनीरस लिमिटेड कंक्रीक के राटरिंग कार्य 14/08/2013 कन्नुर के लिए प्लाईवुड विशिष्ट
5. 6082664 प्रफिट्कोर पैप्स लिमिटेड पेय जल की आपूर्ति के लिए 10/02/2014 एरणाकुलम असुधटियता पी॰वी॰सी॰ पाईप-विशिष्ट
6. 6133150 रिहेबिलिटेयशनस लिमिटेड कोल्लम कच्ची प्राकृतिक रबड की विशिष्ट 08/08/2013
[सं. केन्द्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/13ः13] के. कदिरवेल, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख बीआईएस, कोच्चि शाखा
New Delhi, the 10th April, 2015
S.O. 881.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
LIST OF LICENCES CANCELLED FROM
01 January 2013 to 31 December 2014
Sl. Licence No. Name & Address Article/process with relevant Indian Date of No. CM/L of the Licensee covered by the licence cancelled/suspension cencellation
1. 3438460 Vannali Food & Beverages Package drinking water (other than 04/07/2014 Pathanamthitta packaged natural mineral water)— 2. 3453254 Classic Water Product Packaged drinking water (other than 12/11/2013 Kozhikode packaged natural mineral water)—
3. 3556971 National Wood Products Plywood for concrete shuttering work 25/03/2013
Kasaragod
4. 4529771 Prime Veneers Limited Plywood for concrete shuttering work 14/08/2013
Kannur
5. 6082664 Profitcore Pipes Ltd. Unplasticized pvc pipes for potable 10/02/2014
Ernakulam water supplies—
6. 6133150 The Rehabilitation Rubber, raw, natural 08/08/2013 Plantations Ltd. Kollam
[No.CMD/13:13] K. KADIRVEL, Scientist 'F' & Head BIS, Kochi Branch[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1931
श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 23 अप्रैल, 2015
का. आ. 882.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अध्निियम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की धरा 91क के साथ पठित धरा 88 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतद्द्वारा भारतीय इस्पात प्राध्किरण लिमिटेड रिफ्र ेक्टरी की इकाईयों भिलाई, छत्तीसगढ़ आईएफआईसीओ, मारर, झारखण्ड और रांची रोड, मारर, झारखण्ड के कारखानों/स्थापनाओं के नियमित कर्मचारियों को इस अध्निियम के प्रवर्तन से छूट प्रदान करती है। यह छूट, 02 मई, 2015 से एक वर्ष की अवध् िके लिए लागू रहेगी।
2. उक्त छूट निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अध्ीन है; अर्थात्ः—
(1) पूर्वोक्त स्थापना जिसमें कर्मचारी नियोजित ह, एक रजिस्टर रखेगी, जिसमें छूट प्राप्त कर्मचारियों के नाम और पदनाम दिखाये जायेंगे;
(2) इस छूट के होते हुए भी, कर्मचारी उक्त अध्निियम के अध्ीन ऐसी प्रसुविधएं प्राप्त करते रहेंगे जिनको पाने के लिए वे इस अध्सिूचना द्वारा दी गई छूट के प्रवृत्त होने की तारीख से पूर्व संदत्त अंशदानों के आधर पर हकदार हो जाते ह;
(3) छूट प्राप्त अवध् िके लिए, यदि कोई अभिदाय पहले ही किए
जा चुके हों, तो वे वापस नहीं किए जाएंगे;
(4) उक्त कारखाने/स्थापना का नियोजक उस अवध् िकी बाबत जिसके दौरान उस कारखाने/स्थापना पर उक्त अध्निियम (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अवध् ि कहा गया है) प्रवर्तमान था ऐसी विवरणियां, ऐसे प्रारूप में और ऐसी विशिष्टियों सहित देगा जो कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा (साधरण) विनियम, 1950 के अध्ीन उसे उक्त अवध् िकी बाबत देनी अपेक्षित होती थीं;
(5) निगम द्वारा उक्त कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अध्निियम की धरा 45 की उप-धरा (1) के अध्ीन नियुक्त किया गया कोई सामाजिक सुरक्षा अध्किारी या निगम का इस निमित प्राध्किृत कोई अन्य पदधरी;
(i) धरा 44 की उप-धरा (1) के अध्ीन, उक्त अवध्ि की बाबत दी गई किसी विवरण की विशिष्टयों को सत्यापित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ; अथवा
(iv) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि उस अवध्ि के दौरान, जब उक्त कारखाने के संबंध् में अध्निियम के उपबंध् प्रवृत्त थे, ऐसे किन्हीं उपबंधें का अनुपालन किया गया था या नहीं, निम्नलिखित कार्य करने के लिए सशक्त होगाः—
(क) प्रधन या आसन्न नियोजक से अपेक्षा करना कि वह उसे ऐसी जानकारी दे जिसे उपरोक्त निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधरी आवश्यक समझता है; अथवा
(ख) ऐसे प्रधन या आसन्न नियोजक के अध्भिोगाध्ीन, किसी कारखाने, स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में किसी भी उचित समय पर प्रवेश करना और उसके प्रभारी से यह अपेक्षा करना कि वह व्यक्तियों के नियोजन और मजदूरी के संदाय से संबंध्ति ऐसे लेखा, बहियां और अन्य दस्तावेज, ऐसे निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधरी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत करें और उनकी परीक्षा करने दें या ऐसी जानकारी दें जिसे वे आवश्यक समझते ह; या
(ग) प्रधन या आसन्न नियोजक की, उसके अभिकर्ता या सेवक की, या ऐसे किसी व्यक्ति को, जो ऐसे कारखाने, स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में पाया जाए, यह विश्वास करने का युक्तियुक्त कारण है कि वह कर्मचारी है, परीक्षा करना; या
(घ) ऐसे कारखाने, स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में रखे गए किसी रजिस्टर, लेखा, बही या अन्य दस्तावेज की नकल तैयार करना या उद्धरण लेना;
(ङ) यथानिर्धरित अन्य शक्तियों का प्रयोग करना।
6. विनिवेश/निगमीकरण के मामले में, प्रदत्त छूट स्वतः रद्द हो जाएगी और तब नए प्रतिष्ठान को छूट हेतु समुचित सरकार की अनुमति लेनी होगी।
[सं. एस-38014/11/2013-एसएस-I] अजय मलिक, अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
(ii) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा (साधरण) विनियम, 1950 द्वारा यथाअपेक्षित रजिस्टर और अभिलेख उक्त अवध् िके लिए रखे गये थे या नहीं; या
(iii) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी, नियोजक द्वारा दिये गए उन फायदों को, जिसके फलस्वरूप इस अध्सिूचना के अध्ीन छूट दी जा रही है, नकद में और वस्तु रूप में पाने का हकदार बना हुआ है या नहीं; या
New Delhi, the 23rd April, 2015
S.O. 882.—In exercise of the power conferred by Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/establishments of SAIL Refractory Units at Bhilai, Chattisgarh, IFICO, Marar, Jharkhand and Ranchi Road, Marar, Jharkhand from the operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be effective w.e.f. 02.05.2015 for a period of one year.
1932 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]2. The above exemption is subject to the following
conditions namely:—
(1) The aforesaid establishments wherein the employees are employed shall maintain a register showing the name and designations of the exempted employees';
(2) Not withstanding this exemption, the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act to which they might have become entitled to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to the date from which exemption granted by this notification operates;
(3) The contributions for the exempted period, if
already paid, shall not be refundable;
(4) The employer of the said factory/establishment shall submit in respect of the period during which that factory was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period), such returns in such forms and containing such particulars as were due from it in respect of the said period under the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950;
(5) Any Social Security Officer appointed by the Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the said ESI Act or other official of the Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose of:—
(i) Verifying the particulars contained in any returned submitted under sub-section (1) of Section 44 for the said period; or
(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or
(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to benefits provided by the employer in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being granted under this notification; or
(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Act had been complied with during the period when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory to be empowered to:
(a) require the principal or immediate employer to him such information as he may consider necessary for the purpose of this Act; or
(b) At any reasonable time enter any factory, establishment, office or other premises occupied by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require any person found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other official and allow him to examine accounts, books and other documents relating to the employment of personal and payment of wages or to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary; or
(c) examine the principal or immediate employer, his agent or servant, or any person found in such factory, establishment, office or other premises or any person whom the said inspector or other official has reasonable cause to believe to have been an employee; or
(d) make copies of or take extracts from any register, account book or other document maintained in such factory, establishment, office or other premises,
(e) exercise such other power as may be
prescribed.
(6) In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the exemption granted shall become automatically cancelled and then the new entity will have to approach the appropriate Government for exemption.
[No. S-38014/11/2013-SS-I] AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2015
का.आ. 883.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सलाल पावर स्टेशन ज्योतिपुरम और आथर्स के प्रबंध्तत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय 1 चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या No. 198/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16/04/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल.-42011/156/2013-आई आर (डी यू)] पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 24th April, 2015
S.O. 883.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 198/2013) of the[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1933 Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Salal Power Station, Jyotipuram & others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 16/04/2015.
[No. L-42011/156/2013-IR(DU)] P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer the union. Several opportunities have been given to the union for their evidence. None appeared for the union nor any affidavit has been placed on record in evidence. The case is pending in this court since February 2014. It appears that the union is not interested to pursue the reference. In view of the above the present reference is disposed off for want of prosecution.
ANNEXURE
3. Reference is disposed off accordingly, Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
8.4.2015
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR
COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
Case No. ID No. 198 of 2013, Reference No. L-42011/
156/2013/IR(DU), dated 24.02.2014
General Secretary, Salal Project Employees Union (R&R), Room No. 14, New Field Hostel, Jyotipuram, Reasi (J&K).
2. Salal Project Labour Union (Regd), Talwara
(Reasi-J&K)
.............Union नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2015
Versus
1. The General Manager, Salal Power Station,
Jyotipuram-182312.
2. The Chief Manager (HR), NHPC Limited, Sector-33,
Faridabad.
......Respondents
Appearances
For the Workman: None
For the Management: Shri V.K. Gupta
का॰आ॰ 884.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेशन कमांडर एयर फोर्स स्टेशन बठिंडा के प्रबंध्तत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय 1 चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 15/2006, 16/2006, 17/2006, 18/2006, 19/2006 and 20/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16/04/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-14012/17/2005-आई आर (डी यू), सं॰ एल-14012/15/2005-आई आर (डी यू), सं॰ एल-14012/19/2005-आई आर (डी यू), सं॰ एल-14012/20/2005-आई आर (डी यू), सं॰ एल-14012/18/2005-आई आर (डी यू), सं॰ एल-14012/16/2005-आई आर (डी यू)] पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अध्किारी
AWARD
Passed on:-08.04.2015
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L-42011/156/2013/IR(DU) dated 24.02.2014 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the Management of M/s. NHPC Limited, Sector 33, Faridabad (Haryana) represented through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director in unilaterally withdrawing the facility of encashment of Half Pay Leave of workman of the Company vide office order No. 63/2012 dated 26-12-2012 in violation of Clause 4, 5, 4 of the mutual settlement signed between the unions including the union raising the dispute and the NHPC management on 31-10-2001 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to and from which date?
2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the union. The management already filed reply to the letter dated 7-4-2014 of the union. The case was fixed for evidence of New Delhi, the 24th April, 2015
S.O. 884.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 15/2006, 16/2006, 17/ 2006, 18/2006, 19/2006 & 20/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Station Commander, Air Force Station, Bathinda and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 16-04-2015.
[No. L-14012/17/2005-IR(DU), No. L-14012/15/2005-IR(DU)], No. L-14012/19/2005-IR(DU), No. L-14012/20/2005-IR(DU), No. L-14012/18/2005-IR(DU), No. L-14012/16/2005-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer1934 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
(2) ID No. 16 of 2006. Reference No. L-14012/15/2005-
IR(DU) dated 16.05.2006
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Baldev Singh S/o Sh. Natha Singh, C/o Sh. N.K. Jeet, President, Punjab Telecom & General Labour Union- 27349, Mohalla Hari Nagar Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhathinda, Punjab.
Details of Industrial Disputes to be answered:
Applicant
(1) ID No. 15 of 2006. Reference No. L-14012/17/2005-
VERSUS
IR(DU) dated 16.05.2006
1. The Station Commander, Air Force Station, Bhisiana
(Bhathinda), Punjab.
Respondent
Term of Reference:
Sh. Mastan Singh S/o Sh. Maghar Singh, C/o Sh. N.K. Jeet, President, Punjab Telecom & General Labour Union- 27349, Mohalla Hari Nagar Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhathinda, Punjab. Since deceased, his LR's have been brought on record which is as under:—
Mastan Singh died. Lrs substituted as under:—
1. Jangir Kaur Wd/o Late Sh. Mastan Singh R/o Near
Atta Chakki, Killi Nihal Singhwali, Bhathinda.
2. Janta Singh S/o Late Sh. Mastan Singh R/o 9, Village Bhisiana, Teh. & Distt. Bhathinda.
"Whether the action of the management of Station Commander, Air Force Station, Bhisiana in terminating the services of Sh. Baldev Singh, Ex-Asamia Labour w.e.f. 10.12.2004 without complying with the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?"
(3) ID No. 17 of 2006. Reference No. L-14012/19/2005-
3. Mejor Singh S/o Late Sh. Mastan Singh R/o 10, Village Bhisiana, Teh. & Distt. Bhathinda.
IR(DU) dated 16.05.2006
4. Hansa Singh S/o Late Sh. Mastan Singh R/o 10, Sh. Shamsher Singh S/o Sh. Angrej Singh, C/o Sh. N.K.
Village Bhisiana, Teh. & Distt. Bhathinda. Jeet, President, Punjab Telecom & General Labour Union-
27349, Mohalla Hari Nagar Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhathinda,
5. Gurdeed Kaur D/o Late Sh. Mastan Singh R/o 10, Punjab.
Village Bhisiana, Teh. & Distt. Bhathinda.
Applicant
VERSUS
6. Jaswinder Kaur D/o Late Sh. Mastan Singh R/o 10 Village Bhisiana, Teh. & Distt. Bhatinda.
7. Jaspal Kaur D/o Late Sh. Mastan Singh R/o 10, Village Bhisiana, Teh. & Distt. Bhathinda.
1. The Station Commander, Air Force Station, Bhisiana
(Bhatinda), Punjab.
Respondent
Term of Reference:
Applicant
VERSUS
1. The Station Commander, Air Force Station, Bhisiana
(Bhathinda), Punjab.
"Whether the action of the management of Station Commander, Air Force Station, Bhisiana in terminating the services of Sh. Shamsher Singh, Ex-Asamia Labour w.e.f. 10.12.2004 without complying with the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?"
(4) ID No. 18 of 2006. Reference No. L-14012/20/2005-
Respondent
IR(DU) dated 16.05.2006
Term of Reference:
Sh. Iqbal Singh S/o Sh. Dev Singh, C/o Sh. N.K. Jeet, President, Punjab Telecom & General Labour Union-27349, Mohalla Hari Nagar Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhathinda, Punjab.
Applicant
VERSUS
"Whether the action of the management of Station Commander, Air Force Station, Bhisiana in terminating the services of Sh. Mastan Singh, Ex-Asamia Labour w.e.f. 10.12.2004 without complying with the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?" 1. The Station Commander, Air Force Station, Bhisiana
(Bhathinda), Punjab.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1935Term of Reference:
AWARD PASSED ON: 26.03.2015
"Whether the action of the management of Station Commander, Air Force Station, Bhisiana in terminating the services of Sh. Iqbal Singh, Ex-Asamia Labour w.e.f. 10.12.2004 without complying with the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?" 1. All the above 6 workmen filed the present Industrial Disputre. Being similar facts and law, all the above IDs have been consolidated and leading case would be ID No. 15/2006, Mastan Singh Vs. Air Force Station. The brief facts of Mastan Singh I.D. No. 15 of 2006 are as under:—
(5) ID No. 19 of 2006. Reference No. L-14012/18/2005-
IR(DU) dated 16.05.2006
Sh. Dev Singh S/o Sh. Maghar Singh, C/o Sh. N.K. Jeet, President, Punjab Telecom & General Labour Union-27349, Mohalla Hari Nagar Lal Singh Basti Road, Bathinda, Punjab.
Applicant
VERSUS
1. The Station Commander, Air Force Station, Bhissiana
(Bhathinda), Punjab.
Respondent
Term of Reference:
"Whether the action of the management of Station Commander, Air Force Station, Bhissiana in terminating the services of Sh. Dev Singh, Ex-Asamia Labour w.e.f. 10.12.2004 without complying with the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?" It is pleaded by the workmen that they were employed as Asamia Labour since January, 1995 in the office of Sq. Ldr, SFSIO 34 Wg. Air Force Station, Bhissiana, Bathinda and mere drawing Rs. 2210/- as monthly pay. The work on which they were employed of regular nature and each workman put in more than 240 days of service in each calendar year since January 1995. It is pleaded that their services were terminated without notice, charge-sheet/ compensation or inquiry through verbal orders on 10.12.2004. It is further pleaded by the workmen that termination of the workmen is illegal, null and void, against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The management had not compiled with the provisions of the ID Act, 1947. It is further pleaded that juniors to the workmen have been retained in service and even new hands were also recruited without calling the applicants in violation of ID Act, 1947. It is prayed by the workmen that their termination may be set aside and management may be ordered to take the applicants/workmen on duty with full back wages and other consequential benefits.
(6) ID No. 20 of 2006. Reference No. L-14012/16/2005-
IR(DU) dated 17.05.2006
Sh. Hardev Singh S/o Sh. Kapur Singh, C/o Sh. N.K. Jeet, President, Punjab Telecom & General Labour Union- 27349, Mohalla Hari Nagar Lal Singh Basti Road, Bathinda, Punjab.
Applicant
VERSUS
1. The Station Commander, Air Force Station, Bhissiana
(Bhathinda), Punjab.
Respondent
Term of Reference:
"Whether the action of the management of Station Commander, Air Force Station, Bhissiana in terminating the services of Sh. Hardev Singh, Ex-Asamia Labour w.e.f. 10.12.2004 without complying with the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?" 2. The management filed written statement. Preliminary objection has been taken that management is carrying out the sovereign function being part of defence forces of India, thus, it is not an 'industry', therefore, the provisions of the ID Act, 1947 are not applicable on the management. It is denied by the management that workmen worked for a continuous period of 240 days in a year rather they were engaged occasionally on daily wages basis to meet the exigencies of work. On merits it is pleaded that the workmen were used to be engaged occasionally as unskilled casual labour to meet the exigencies of the work. Therefore, the question of monthly salary to them does not arise. The applicants have neither worked nor were engaged for a continuous period of 240 days and the work for which they were engaged is not of regular nature. It is further pleaded that as the workmen were never appointed so the question of termination does not arise. As the workmen were not the employees of the management so the question of any notice or inquiry does not arise and there is no question of payment of any compensation etc. As the workmen were never recruited, therefore, the question of retaining juniors does not arise. It is prayed that the present references may be rejected being baseless and irrelevant.
APPEARANCES
For the workmen: Sh. P.K. Longia advocate.
For the management: Shri R.N. Sharma advocate. 3. In evidence, workmen filed their respective affidavits pleading almost the same facts which they have pleaded in their claim statement. The management in evidence produced MW1 K. Sharma, Officer Incharge, Legal Sell, Air Force Station, Distt. Bathinda who filed his affidavit Ex.
1936 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]M1. Workmen in evidence were cross-examined by the learned representative of the management. They stated in their cross-examination that they joined the Air Force in 1994 and have not been issued any appointment letter. It is further stated in the cross-examination that they used to work for full month including holidays and used to be paid Rs. 2200/- per month. At the time of termination, they were drawing Rs.2400/-. It is further stated that their thumb impression used to be taken on paid register. It is stated that they used to work from 8 to 5 P.M. with one hour lunch period and half hour tea break. They used to clean runway and cutting grass and they have not involved in any manufacturing process. Further, it is stated in cross- examination that they got fixed salary in a month and denied the suggestion that they were given the job according to the need. They also denied that they never worked in 240 days in any calendar year during their engagement. They also denied that their services were not terminated and they left the job on their own.
4. MW1 the witness of management stated in cross- examination that he is deposing on the basis of knowledge and record. He stated that muster-roll and service record are not maintained in the offices but the attendance register are maintained and the office record is with him. The worker used to engage for cutting of grass which is casual nature of work, he never supervise the workmen because he was posted at the station in the year 2010. He admitted that the appointment are made under rules and regulations issued by the Government of India and no appointment letter was issued to the workmen being they were casual labourer. Workmen used to engage in casual work as per the rules and as per the requirements of the Air Force Station. Ministry of Defence allots the amount and the workmen are engaged on casual work. He further stated that they never engaged the workmen for more than a month and workmen used to be paid after 7 days of work. It is further stated by the witness that there was no seniority criteria for calling the workmen. The management did not issue any written orders to disengage them. The witness admitted that the management did not serve notice or not any retrenchment compensation to the workmen.
5. During the proceedings, the workmen filed an application for summoning the record which includes muster-roll, service record, attendance register pertaining to the period of January 1994 payments, salary record for the period from January 1995 to December 2004 and copies of Identity Card issued to the workmen along with concerned record register for the purpose maintained by the management. In reply, the management submitted that muster-roll, service records are not made for casual labourers and the same is not available. Attendance register has been maintained and as per attendance register the workmen had worked from April 2001 to December 2004 and attendance register was produced in the Court. As regard payment/salary record of the period from January 1994 to December 2004 is concerned, management submitted that the payment given to the casual labour as per the existing daily wages as per their work. The payment voucher/salary record are not available as the cash account voucher are burnt/destroyed after conducting the Board of officers and recommendation by them. The management also attached the certificate along with this application. As regard Identity Cards are concerned, it is pleaded by the management that no identity card was issued to the workmen, therefore, these are not available. Only tokens were issued at the time of entry to defence area and deposited the same back after their cession of work.
6. The management also placed on record the details of working day of the workmen from January 2001 to December 2003. In 2003 the workman Mastan Singh worked only for 31 days. Similarly Baldev Singh worked for 31 days in the year 2003, Shamsher Singh worked for 31 days, Iqbal Singh also worked for 31 days, Dev Singh also worked for 31 days and Hardev Singh alias Dev Singh worked only for 31 days during the year 2003.
7. I have heard the parties and gone through the evidence and record of the case. The learned counsel for the workmen submitted that the management has not brought the complete record which were demanded nor any payment voucher were produced and attendance register also not complete. Each and every workman worked with the management continuously for the period of 1995 to December 2004 and completed more than 240 days in every calendar year. The management also after their termination retained the juniors and also employed new hands. As the management has not produced record and when the record was called, it was incumbent upon the management to produce the full record. Non-production of record caused great prejudice to the workmen as they completed more than 240 days in every calendar year. Inference must be drawn after. The management violated the mandatory provisions of Section 25F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, they are entitled to the reinstated in service with full backwages and other benefits.
8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the management submitted in arguments that Air Force perform the sovereign functions and provisions of ID Act, 1947 are not applicable on the management. On merits it is pleaded by the management that record which was available was produced and shown and detail of their working with the management was also produced as per the detail given by the management, the workman worked intermittently for[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1937 31 days during the entire year of 2003 what to say of 240 days. They have only worked for 31 days, therefore, there is no violation of ID Act, 1947. Therefore, they are not entitled for any benefit under the provisions of the ID Act, 1947.
9. Preliminary objection has been taken by the management that respondent management is engaged in carrying out the sovereign functions being a part of defence forces of India and thus not an industry, therefore, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable to the management. In this regard Section 2(j) Industrial Disputes Act 1947 provided as under:—
"Industry means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture of calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen."
10. Subsequently vide Industrial Disputes (Amendment)
Act 1982, Section 2(j) provided as under:—
under the definition of industry as provided under Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act 1982. Therefore, the workmen cannot invoke any provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the Station Commander, Air Force Station Bhissiana, Distt. Bathinda is carrying out the sovereign functions being part of defence forces of India and not an industry.
12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the cases, this Tribunal is not called for any adjudication of these six reference as there exists no industrial dispute between the parties. The applicants are not entitled for relief. The references are disposed of accordingly. Original of the award be kept in the file ID 15/2006 and copies be placed in ID No. 16/2006, 17/2006, 18/2006, 19/2006 and 20/2006. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as well hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
26.03.2015
S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2015
"Industry means any systematic activity carried on by co-operation between an employer and his workmen (whether such workmen are employed by such employer directly or by or through any agency, including a contractor) for the production, supply or distribution of goods or services with a view to satisfy human wants or wishes (not being wants or wishes which are merely spiritual or religious in nature), whether or not,—
(i) ...................
(ii) ..................
(a) .................
(b) ........................
का॰ आ॰ 885.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार जनरल मैनेजर, एनटीपीसी, एसएसटीपीपी सोनभद्र के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकाें और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय कानपूर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 126/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23/04/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
But does not include—
(1) ...................
(2) ...................
(3) ...................
(4) ...................
(5) ...................
[सं॰ एल-42012/64/2013-आई आर (डीयू)]
पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 24th April, 2015
S.O. 885.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 126/2013) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,
Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the (6) any activity of the Government relatable to the sovereign functions of the Government including all the activities carried on by the departments of the Central Government dealing with defence research, atomic energy and spare; or (7) ...................
(8) ...................
(9) ...................
11. Thus it is clear from the pleadings and evidence of the parties that the respondent management is not covered management of the General Manager, NTPC, SSTPP,
Sonebhadra and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 23/04/2015.
[No. L-42012/64/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer1938 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL
proceedings of the present case but vide order dated 21.07.14, the reference made to this tribunal was quashed.
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
5. This would mean that at present there is no LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
Present: Sri Shubhendra Kumar, HJS.
reference before the tribunal to be answered.
Industrial Dispute No. 126 of 2013.
6. Accordingly it is held that the present file be consigned to recrod room and accordingly it is ordered.
Between:
Sri Raj Kumar Bholanath Meshram,
s/o Sh. Bholanath Madhukar Meshram,
B-332, Sector 7, Nigahi, P>O> Nigahi,
District Singrauli, M.P.
And
The General Manager,
NTPC,
SSTPP, Shakti Nagar,
SONEBHADRA (U.P.)
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2015
का॰आ॰. 886.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार जनरल मैनेजर, ऑर्डनेन्स फैक्ट्री, कानपूर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कानपूर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 23/2011) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23/04/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
AWARD
1. Central Govt. Mol, New Delhi vide notification
no. L-42012/64/2013-IR(DU), Dated 12.09.2013,
has referred the following dispute to this tribunal
for adjudication—
2. Whether the action of the management of NTPC,
Shakti Nagar, Sonebhadra, UP, in terminating the
services of Sri Raj Kumar Bholanath Meshram,
Male Nurse from its Sngiving Hospital, Shakti
Nagar, w.e.f. 14.06.2011 is legal and Justified? To
what relief the workman is entitled to and what
extent?
3. At the outset it may be pointed out here that after
receipt of registered notices and after availing of
sufficient opportunities neither the claimant
appeared before the tribunal nor filed any claim [सं॰ एल-14012/16/2010-आई आर (डीयू)] पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 24th April, 2015
S.O. 886.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 23/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the General Manager, Ordnanace Factory, Kanpur and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23/04/2015.
[No. L-14012/16/2010-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
statement on his behalf, whereas management
representative appeared on few occasions without
filing of his authority to represent the case on BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
behalf of the management.
4. Be that as it may, a copy of an order dated Present: Sri Shubhendra Kumar, HJS.
Industrial Dispute No. 23 of 2011.
14.12.2013 and 21.07.2014, passed by the Hon'ble
High Court, Allahabad was filed by the Between:
Management vide application dated 09.01.2014
and 23.10.2014 respectively. The above orders have been passed in Writ-C No. 66178 of 2013, filed by M/s. NTPC Ltd. Whereas vide previous order, the Hon'ble High Court has stayed the Sri Ganesh Shanker Srivastava, Son of late Surya Prasad Srivastava, 116/91, Ganesh Nagar, Rawatpur, Kanpur.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1939And
The General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Kalpi Road, Kanpur.
6. Reference is answered accordingly against the
workman.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
AWARD
1. Central Government, Mol, vide notification no. L- 14012/16/2010 IR(DU) dated 11.04.2011, has referred the following dispute for adjudication—
2. Whether the action of the management of Ordnance Factory, Kanpur and Government Ordnance Factory Inter College, Kanpur, in terminating the services of their workman Shri Ganesh Shanker Srivastava, Secutriy Guard w.e.f. 05.07.2009, is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled.
नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2015
का.आ. 887.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार आल इंडिया रेडियो के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय कानपूर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 58/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23/04/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-42012/50/2000-आई आर (डीयू)] पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 24th April, 2015
S.O. 887.—Iin pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 58/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the All India Radio and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23/04/ 2015.
[No. L-42012/50/2000-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
3. By means of present claim petition, the workman has assailed the legality and proprietary of dismissal order dated 05.07.09, whereby the services of the workman were dismissed by the opposite party management on numerous grounds, viz; that the workman was appointed at the post of Security Guard on 01.01.2005 and continued to work as such till 04.07.2009, where after his services were illegally removed by the opposite party w.e.f. 05.07.2009 without passing any written orders and without making any payment; that the action of the opposite party is in violation of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, etc., that on the aforesaid grounds he has prayed his reinstatement in the service of the opposite party with full back wages, continuity of service. On 14.10.11 opportunity to file written statement by the management was closed. The management moved application paper no. 5/1 for recalling order dated 14.10.11, but said application was dismissed by the tribunal on 19.09.12 as none was there from the side of the management to press the application and the case was fixed for evidence of workman.
BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 58 of 2000
4. It is pertinent to mention here that despite providing several opportunities to the workman to adduce evidence in support of his claim, neither he appeared in the tribunal nor adduced any evidence in the case.
5. Thus virtually it is a case of no evidence and under these circumstances it is held that the workman appears to be not interested to prosecute his case, therefore, there left no option but hold that the claim of the workman is liable to be rejected for want of evidence and its further held that the workman is not entitled for any relief pursuant to the present reference.
Smt. Renu Bhatnagar, Through Sri V.N. Nigam, 88/530, Prem Nagar, Kanpur-208001.
And
1. The Station Director,
All India Radio, (Prasar Bharti) Benajhabar Road, Kanpur-208002.
1940 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]2. Director General,
All India Radio, Akashwani Bhawan, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.
AWARD
1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide
notification No. L-42012/50/2000/IR (DU) dated
30.06.2000, has referred the following dispute for
adjudication to this tribunal.
2. Whether the action of the management of All India
Radio, Kanpur/New Delhi, in terminating the
services of Smt. Renu Bhatnagar, w.e.f. 15.05.93 is
legal & justified? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled?
3. The case in short as set up by the claimant is that
she was appointed on the post of Announcer
(Junior Grade) with effect from 14.01.85 vide order
No. 21(159) 84-SA dated 06.02.85 and 20.12.85
issued by opposite party no. 1, in the pay scale
Rs. 425-750. Subsequently her contract was
extended for 5 (five) more years vide memo No. 21
(159) 84-85 dated 12.4.90. A disciplinary action
was initiated against her on the advice of the
Director for her absence from duty. Enquiry officer
and presenting officer were nominated and after
concluding the inquiry the enquiry officer
submitted his report wherein the enquiry officer
recommended the termination of the contract of
the petitioner. Accordingly the contract of service
of the petitioner was terminated retrospectively
w.e.f 29.06.90 under clause 2 & 4 (iii) of the
agreement vide order dated 15.05.93, after holding
exparte disciplinary proceedings on the ground
absence without leave. This order was issued in
partial modification of the Station's order dated
19.12.91 under which the petitioner's contract of
service was terminated by AD, CBS, AIR, Kanpur,
w.e.f. 19.12.91. It is alleged that the above exercise
undertaken in the name of disciplinary action by
opposite party no. 1 was highly illegal,
unconstitutional, arbitrary and against the rules
of natural justice. Sri Rajeev Ratna Shah,
Additional Secretary to the Government of India
& Disciplinary authority vide order no. 10.03.99-
vig. Dated 31.03.04 in the case of the petitioner
after considering the al aspect of the matter factual
as well as legal in detail came at the conclusion
that the petitioner had become Government
Servant by virtue of Ministry of Information &
Broadcasting circular dated 29.11.91 i.e. before
the termination of her contract of service by the
Station Director. He further concluded that the
petitioner was illegally rendered jobless by the
disciplinary authority by terminating her contract of service in May 1993 by giving it retrospective effect without following due course of law. He further opined that injustice done to the petitioner can be rectified only by restoring the petitioner in service and accordingly the ends of justice will be met if the order terminating the contract of service passed by opposite part no. 1 is set aside. Accordingly the order terminating the contract of service passed in relation to the petitioner was set aside with immediate effect.
4. It is further alleged that the petitioner invoked the
jurisdiction of this tribunal by raising an industrial
dispute under the provisions of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. It is said that neither copy of
the reference order made by the Government of
India, New Delhi, was received by the petitioner
nor any notice was ever received by the petitioner
from this tribunal. The petitioner approached the
opposite party under RTI Act, 2005, and the
opposite party vide letter dated 20.03.2008,
informed that an award dated 05.02.2001 had been
made against the petitioner by this tribunal and
after receipt of information, the petitioner without
causing undue delay approached this Hon'ble
Tribunal for setting aside Exparte Award dated
05.02.01 by filing application supported with
affidavit. This Hon'ble tribunal was kind enough
to set aside the exparte award, vide order dated
09.10.09. The opposite party had regularized the
entire period of absence of the petitioner vide
order dated 08.10.04. In view of above the
petitioner has become entitled for his interim salary
and allowances as the petitioner has joined the
service of the opposite party on 19.04.2000. The
petitioner could not be deprived of her legitimate
right accrued in her favour by setting aside the
termination of contract of service and resumption
of her duties like benefit of revision of pay scale
applicable from time to time, bonus, proper fixation
of her pay considering revised pay scales from
time to time, seniority, and lastly arrears of pay
according to rules applicable on the petitioner.
5. On the basis of above it has been prayed by the
petitioner that the reference by answered in her
favour and against the opposite party.
6. Opposite party No. 1 has filed reply to the claim
of the petitioner wherein it is admitted by the
opposite party that the contract of service of the
petitioner was terminated on the recommendation
of the enquiry officer. The action of the enquiry
officer is wholly legal and justified. The petitioner
concealed the material facts while approaching
the Additional Secretary that she has filed an
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1941
application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur, against the termination of her service and as such she has committed fraud because the correct facts of the case were not brought in the notice of the concerned authority. The petitioner obtained order from the competent authority by misrepresentation of her case before the Additional Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi. Notices were issued to the petitioner from this Tribunal at the given address of the petitioner. Opposite party has also admitted that the services of the petitioner were terminated on account of her absence from duty. The matter is pending before vigilance for inquiry. Petitioner is not entitled for any bonus as she did not work during the period for which the petitioner has claimed bonus. Various claims raised by the petitioner in her petition cannot be adjudicated as it is not the issue of the reference.
7. Lastly it is prayed by the opposite party that the
claim of the petitioner is liable to be rejected.
8. Rejoinder has been filed wherein nothing new has been pleaded by the petitioner except reiterating the facts of the claim petition.
9. The petitioner vide her application dated 03.05.2010 has filed photocopies of order dated 19.12.91 passed by Asstt. Station Director, order dated 15.05.93, passed by Station Director, order dated 31.03.2000, of Additional Secretary & Disciplinary Authority, Government of India, New Delhi and Circular dated 29.11.91 of Government of India.
10. Petitioner has filed her affidavit in evidence and she was cross examined by the opposite party at length.
11. Opposite party has also filed affidavit of Sri D.S. Chauhan as evidence but he was not cross examined as none was present from the side of the workman to cross examine him therefore, opportunity was closed vide order dated 28.01.2013.
12. Opposite party has also filed affidavit in evidence of one Sri Karuna Shanker Dubey, who was cross examined by the representative for the workman at length.
13. Opposite party in support of their claim has not
filed any documentary evidence.
14. I have heard arguments of both the sides as length and have perused the record of the case carefully.
15. Learned representative for the workman has argued that her contract of service was illegally terminated w.e.f. 19.12.91 by Opposite party No. 1, and the Additional Secretary to the Goverment of India and Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 31.03.2004, has set aside the order of opposite party No. 1, whereby the contract of service of the workman was terminated, by opining that on scrutiny of the records, it is also observed that Smt. Renu Bhatnagar had become a Government Servant by virtue of the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting's circular No. 45011/29/91-91B (A) dated 29.11.91 i.e. before that termination of her contract by the Station. Since she had become a Govt. Servant, the competent authority should have proceeded againt her for alleged unauthorized absence as per the provisions of Rule 14 of CCs (CCA) Rules, 1965. Instead of doing so, the disciplinary authority appointed an I.O. in the case without serving a formal charge sheet against the delinquent official. The disciplinary authority in respect of Smt. Renu Bhatnagar is HOO of the rank of Station Director but her service was terminated initially by the ASD, CBS, AIR, Kanpur without any statutory authority. Thereafter, the Station Diretor, CBS, AIR, Kanpur terminated the contract of Smt. Renu Bhatnagar retrospectively from 29.06.90, vide its modified order dated 15.05.93, without following the procedure as laid down in CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 as advised by the Directorate vide memo dt. 19.02.92 thereby committing a serious breach of the principles of natural justice and resulting a miscarriage of justice. He also observed that the action on the part of HOO, CBS, AIR, Kanpur violates the Constitutional provisions as enshrined in Article 311.
16. He has further argued that the enquiry officer in his report has recommended the termination of service contract of Smt. Renu Bhatnagar and the disciplinary authority acting upon the advice of enquiry officer terminated the services of Smt. Renu Bhatnagar. In continuance of his arguments the authorized representative has laid much stress on the point that under service rules, the disciplinary authority is required to apply his own mind with open eyes to the records of the case and to come at a definite opinion but according to the settled legal position the disciplinary authority is not supposed to act upon the recommendation of the enquiry officer nor the enquiry officer is obliged to express his opinion in his report as to what action is to be required in a given case like the present one, therefore, termination of the service of the workman is also illegal and cannot be sustained at all.
1942 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]17. On the contrary it was argued by the authorized representative for the management that since the workman has obtained the order from the concerned authority by concealing the material fact that she had raised an industrial dispute and in that case an award against the workman was passed by the tribunal on 05.02.2001, therefore, she cannot be permitted to get any benefit of the order of the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, New Delhi, & The Disciplinary authority. I do not agree with the contention of the learned authorized representative obviously for the following reasons.
18. After giving my deep consideration to the respective arguments advanced by the learned representatives and also after going through the pleadings of the parties, I find that after the order dated 31.03.2000 of the disciplinary authority, the workman Joined the service of the opposite party on 19.04.2000, and made representations for release of her arrears of service and when nothing was done in the matter she approached the authorities concern under Right to Information Act, 2005, vide her application dated 05.02.2008, which is paper No. 13/13 to 13/17. In response to her above letter the concerned authority vide their reply dated 20.03.08, which is paper no. 13/18-19, informed the workman that following the decision dt. 05.08.2001, given by this tribunal in I.D. No. 58 of 2000, which has been passed after the order dated 31.03.2000, therefore, she is not entitled for any relief. After receipt of this information, the workman without cuasing any inordinate delay moved before Central Government Industial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, for setting aside the exparte award dated 05.08.2000, and ultimately exparte award dated 05.08.2000 was set aside by this tribunal vide its order dated 09.10.09.
19. Therefore, I am of the firm view that under these circumstances impediment, if any, coming in the way of the workman for claiming relief accrued to her by order dated 31.03.2000 of the Disciplinary authority where-under she was allowed to resume her duties, automatically stands eliminated and she cannot be deprived of her benefits like arrears of back wages, seniority and all other consequential benefits regulated by rules governing the service condition.
20. Learned representative for the opposite part has not given any specific reply to the point raised by the Auth. Representative for the workman that after she became a government employee, her services could not have been dispensed by an authority lower in rank and subsequently by further order passed by disciplinary authority giving retrospective effect. Therefore, I find force in the contention of the workman that previous orders suffers from serious illegality and on this count also order of Station Director, CBS, AIR, Kanpur, has outlived its legal effect.
21. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is concluded that at any rate action of the management of All India Radio, Kanpur/New Delhi in terminating the service Smt. Renu Bhatnagar with effect from 15.05.1993, is neither legal nor justified and is also liable to be set aside at the hands of the tribunal and is hereby set aside.
22. As now the order by which workman was removed from service stands nowhere, the workman is held entitled for arrears of entire wages with effect from 15.05.93 till the date of her joining the service, she is also held entitled for seniority and all consequential benefits on the premises as if she was never terminated from the service of the opposite party.
23. Accordingly reference is answered in favour of the workman and against the management of All India Radio, Kanpur/New Delhi.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2015
का॰आ॰ 888.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण के केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्ि ाकरण एव श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 42/2008) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23/04/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-40012/09/2008-आईआर (डीयू)]
पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 24th April, 2015
S.O. 888.—in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 42/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1943 the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23/04/2015.
[No. L-40012/09/2008-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, KANPUR.
Industrial Dispute No. 42 of 2008
Between:
Sri Ashok Kumar son of Garib Ram, resident of village Sambalpur, Jaunpur District, U.P.
And
The Divisional Engineer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Office of Doorsanchar Zila Prabandhak, Jaunpur District U.P.
AWARD:
1. Central Government, MoL, New Delhi, vide notification no. L-40012/09/2008-IR(DU), dated 05.06.08, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.
2. Whether the action of the management of Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Doorsanchar Zila Prabandhak, Jaunpur, Sub Divisional Divisional Engineer, Jaunpur in terminating the services of their workman Sri Ashok Kumar w.e.f. 30.12.06, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?
3. At the very outset it may be pointed out here that the claimant appears to have misdirected himself in drafting the claim petition in as much as the reference is with regard to the termination of workman's service whereas the workman is claiming the relief of regular pay and regularization of his service in the department of the opposite party. So far question of regular pay and regularization of service of the workman is concerned this cannot be examined in the light of specific provision of sub-section (4) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the tribunal has to confine itself only within the parameter of reference order while recording its findings.
4. Be that as it may, the case of the workman in short is that he was engaged by the opposite party on 01.05.2000, as a helper of Suraksha Karamchari and continued to work as such till the end of December 2006. He was being paid wages at the rate of Rs. 2550/- which duly entitled the claimant to be regularized in the service of the opposite party. The opposite party when stopped making payment of his wages from January 2003, he submitted several representation before the authorities of the opposite party and when nothing fruitful came out in the matter he approached the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, by filling writ petition no. 33384 of 04 which was disposed of with the direction that the opposite party should decide the representation of the claimant. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble High Court, the representation of the claimant was decided by the authorities of the opposite party alleging that no person by the name of the applicant was ever engaged by them in the service of the opposite party and thereby the representation of the applicant was rejected by the opposite party. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of the opposite party the claimant once again approached the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad for regularization of his service and payment of his salary, but the same was rejected by the Hon'ble High Court, on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. It is claimed by the applicant that he is seeking the relief of enforcement of his right accrued in his favour under section 25-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
5. It is very interesting to note here that in the entire claim petition the applicant has not; whispered even a single word with regard to termination of his service nor sought any relief of reinstatement on the ground that the termination of his service with effect from 31.12.2006 is neither legal nor justified.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the claimant has sought straightway the relief of regularization of his service under the opposite party with payment of wages.
7. From the pleadings of the claimant it appears that they are contrary to schedule of reference order.
8. In the instant case the opportunity of the management for filling the written statement was closed by order dated 29.10.09, as the management after availing several opportunities did not file their written reply. Even by order dated 11.01.11, opportunity to adduce evidence was also closed. Order dated 11.01.11, was recalled by the tribunal, vide order dated 07.08.2012, on the application of the workman and the workman adduced his evidence. Application of the management for recalling order dated 04.04.2013, was also rejected vide order dated 29.07.2013. The1944 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] management was also debarred from cross examining the workman vide order dated 20.07.2013. In this way in the present case neither there is written statement of the opposite party, nor opposite party has cross examined the workman nor has adduced any evidence.
9. The workman along with his claim statement has filed photocopies of certain documents alleging to be the attendance register to show that he had worked for 240 days continuously with the management within the meaning of section 25B of the Act.
10. I have heard the arguments of the parties at length and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.
11. As already pointed out above that the pleading of the workman is contrary to the schedule of reference order which in itself is sufficient ground to reject the claim of the workman. Even otherwise according to the settled legal position courts or tribunal cannot discharge the obligation of the administration either to create a post in any establishment or to regularize the services of its employee because the tribunal is oblivious of the fact that industrial forum cannot be used as a source for generating employment dehoring the recruitment rules applicable in the industrial establishments.
12. The representative for the workman has addressed the tribunal on the point that he is enforcing the right accrued to the workman under section 25-B, which entities him to be regularized in the service of the establishment as he had worked more than 240 days in each calendar year from the date of his initial engagement till the date of termination i.e. 31.12.2006. He further argued that along with his claim statement he has filed attendance register of the workman running into from page 14 to 84 and certain photocopies of his representation given by him to the authorities of the opposite party after termination of his service.
13. On the contrary it has been argued by the authorized representative for the opposite party that they had never engaged the workman in any capacity and that the workman had never received any wages from the exchequer of the department and that there never existed any relationship of employer and employee between the opposite party and the workman. It is also argued that the workman is taking divergent stand in his pleadings in as much as it has been pleaded by him that he discharged his continuous service as a Helper or Suraksha Karamchari and on the other hand he had pleaded that he was being paid his consolidated pay scale of Rs. 2550/- per month.
14. With a view to examine the fact as to whether the workman at any point of time had worked for 240 days before 12 calendar months within the meaning of section 25-B of the Act, as claimed by him.
15. In this regard my attention was drawn to the alleged attendance register. I have examined the said register filed along with claim statement and I find that it cannot be termed to be the attendance register for the reason that in that register only the name of the workman appears and at some place along with the signature of the workman, signature of the contractor also appeared, therefore, I fail to be in agreement with the contention of the workman that he was engaged by the opposite party and that he had completed continuous service under the management within the meaning of section 25-B of the Act, because it can hardly be believed that if it was an attendance register of the department, it should have been in proper form and should have also included the names of other employees of the opposite party. The register is in the shape of photocopy and if the said register is of the opposite party the workman should have summoned the original of the said register from the management.
16. Therefore, arguments on this point addressed by the workman does not inspire confidence to hold that it is an attendance register and that the workman had completed continuous service within the meaning of section 25-B of the Act. To my opinion for the reasons discussed above, the attendance register appears to be a private register prepared by the workman himself for the purpose of the case. As such no reliance can be placed on the said register.
17. Accordingly it is held that the workman had never been in continuous service of the opposite party within the meaning of section 25-B of the Act.
18. The workman though examined himself as w.w.1 in support of his claim and stated that he was getting Rs. 2550/- as wages from the management. This fact has also been pleaded by the workman in his pleadings, but he has not filed any documentary evidence to support the claim that he was paid wages by the management at any point of time. Oral evidence of the workman in the absence of the documentary evidence is of
no value and the same cannot be reliede upon.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 194519. Therefore, it is held that the workman was never paid any wages from the opposite party at any point of time. From the records as well as from the own pleadings of the workman it is quite evident that he might have discharged his service as helper or Suraksha Karamchari under some contractor engaged by the opposite party for the security of the establishment of the opposite party, but at any rate it cannot be said that he was engaged by the opposite party at any point of time during the period 2000 to 2006.
20. Workman has filed a few photocopies of certain documents which are paper no. 2/11-28, but these papers are not proved by the workman at the time of his evidence as W.W.1.
21. Ld. Representative for the management contended that most of these papers are countersigned by the contractor and it is urged that for the security of department services are given by the contractor on contract basis and the workman alleging to be a suraksha karamchari may be a person engaged by the contractor and not of the department. The contention of the representative for the management is found to be acceptable as most of the documents filed by the workman are countersigned by the contractor.
नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2015
का॰ आ॰ 889.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्ि ाकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय चेन्नई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 40/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23/04/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-40011/05/2014-आईआर(डीयू)] पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 24th April, 2015
S.O. 889.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 40/2014) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 23/04/2015.
[No. L-40011/05/2014-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
22. It has further been argued by the representative for the workman that the opposite party stopped making payment of his wages with effect from Jan. 2006, still he continued to work till the last of December 2006. It is very surprising that a person can work about four years without salary. Therefore, this argument of the workman appears to be based on conjuctures and surmises, therefore, lacks merit, hence cannot be accepted.
Friday, the 17th April, 2015
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 40/2014
(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 ot 1947), between
the Management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and their workman)
BETWEEN
23. For the reasons discussed above, it is held that the workman never remained in the employment of the opposite party, it is also held that he never received any wages from the opposite party and further it is held that he had never completed continuous service within the meaning of section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
24. Accordingly reference is answered against the workman holding that the workman is not entitled for any relief as claimed by him in his claim petition.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer The District Secretary : 1st Party/Petitioner
Tamil Manila Telecom Contract Union
Labour Union B-7, Telecom Employees
Quarters, Andhiyur Chennai - 6385011946 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] AND 1. The General Manager, : 2nd Party/1st
BSNL, Gandhi Road Respondent Erode - 638001
2. The Chief General : 2nd Party/2nd
Manager, Respondent Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Tamil Nadu Circle 80, Anna Salai Chennai.
to Varadaraj with continuity of service and other monetary benefits.
4. The Respondents have filed Counter Statement
contending as below :
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/ : Sri G. Thangavel, Petitioner Union Advocate For the 2nd Party/1st and Sri P. Srinivasan, 2nd Management : Advocate
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-40011/05/2014-IR (DU) dated 03.04.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
"Whether the action of the management of BSNL, Erode regarding non-regularizing the services of Sri P. Varadaraj, Casual Labour is justified or not? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?" The averments in the Claim Statement are denied. Varadaraj was not recruited by the Department of Telecommunications as an employee. The petitioner has not submitted any recruitment order. Even as per the documents produced by the petitioner Varadaraj was engaged as Casual Mazdoor on daily wages and had worked intermittently in the years 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1982. The BSNL has not employed anybody directly as labourer and therefore there was no question of keeping records. It is incorrect to state that Varadaraj was working as Break Mazdoor. Varadaraj was not eligible for regularization as per the scheme of 1989 as he was not available on the rolls of the department during that period. The request of Varadaraj for regularization has not been considered as he is not eligible for the same. BSNL has issued circular stating that for redressal of grievances of contract labourers their immediate employer is the appropriate authority and not BSNL. 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 to Ext. W10.
6. The points for consideration are :
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 40/2014 and issued notices to both sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel and have filed their claim and counter statement respectively.
3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the (i) Whether Varadaraj, the workman concerned is
entitled to regularization as claimed?
(ii) What if any is the relief to which Varadaraj is
entitled?
The Points
petitioner in brief are these :
Varadaraj whom the the petitioner union is representing is working as Common Labourer in the Respondent establishment from the year 1977. He has been continuing the service as Break Mazdoor without any interruption. He has been assigned the work of Break Mazdoor in the insulation wing under the control of Sub-Divisional Engineer. He had served in all the places where the Sub-Divisional Engineer works. At the begining Varadaraj was paid @ Rs. 6/- per day and lastly @ Rs. 150/- per day. Varadaraj having been in continuous employment for more than 480 days within 24 months of two calendar years he is to be deemed as a permanent employee under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman) Act, 1981. But the Respondents have not regularized Varadaraj as a permanent worker. Vardaraj has given representation to regularize his service, but no action has been taken on the same. The dispute is raised accordingly. An order may be passed granting permanent status by way of regularization 7. The Petitioner Union has raised the dispute on behalf of Varadaraj who is said to have been working as labourer in the BSNL. It is the claim of the petitioner that Varadaraj had been working for BSNL from 1977 onwards, that he has been working as Break Mazdoor in the insulation wing of BSNL and he is entitled to regularization. The petitioner has referred to Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman) Act and has claimed that Varadaraj is entitled to regularization based on the provisions of this Act.
8. Varadaraj the concerned workman had given evidence as WW1 to substantiate his case. He has submitted Proof Affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination in which he has reiterated his case in the Claim Statement. He has stated during his cross-examination that he has not produced any document showing payment of wages to him. He again stated that he had worked on daily basis. He also admitted that there was a scheme for regularization introduced by BSNL in respect of temporary mazdoors, but he was not given employment under the Scheme. He has claimed during[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1947
Documents Marked :
his re-examination that he was working with the
On the petitioner's side
Respondents continuously from 1991 to 2014.
9. Out of the documents produced by the petitioner in Ex. No. Date Description
support of the case only Ext.W1 is of some relevance. Other
documents are copies of the proceedings before the
Assistant Labour Commissioner and some of the
documents. Ext.W1 is described as document showing the
details of the work of the concerned workman for the period
from 1977 to 2009. Though Ext.W1 is produced as a single
document it contains a set of documents which are different
from each other WW1 has not explained the relevancy of
these documents and how these are of help to him. The
first three pages of the document contain the name of the
witness and shows some period, number of days worked,
etc. However, there is nothing to show that these were
issued by the Respondents. The witness has admitted
during his cross-examination that these pages does not
contain the signature of any officials of BSNL. The
remaining part of Ext.W1 contains several papers, the
relevancy of which are not explained. Page-46 of the
document which is described as details of Break Mazdoor
gives the name Varadaraj at S. No. 20. The period referred
to is 15.12.1977 to 31.12.2001. It contains the signature of a
Divisional Engineer also. But this will not show for how
many days the workman had worked in each calendar year. Pages-47 to 55 seem to be permissions given to Varadaraj
on various days for carrying certain articles on different
dats in the years 2005 to 2007. Even this will not show if the
concerned worker has been working continuously. There
is one Conduct Certificate (Page 57) showing that the
concerned workman was engaged as contract labour. The
available documents and evidence are not sufficient to
substantiate the case of the petitioner. There is nothing to
show that the concerned workman is entitled to the relief Ex.W1 15.12.1977 to Work period for the 1st Party 19.09.2009 details with break Mazdoor vide
S.No. 10 dated 28.04.1983 as per enclosure.
Ex.W2 - Counter Statement filed by the
Respondents
Ex.W3 - Petition filed by the 1st Party before
Assistant Commissioner of Labour
alongwith rejoinder
Ex.W4 - Counter filed by the Respondent
Ex.W5 24.11.2000 Proceeding of Sub-Divisional
Officer final order for reinstatement in serfice of casual labourers as per
enclosure
Ex.W6 21.05.2003 Proceeding of General Manager
Ex.W7 02.09.2009 Proceeding of the Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Chennai
Ex.W8 01.08.2011 Proceeding of the Assistant General
Manager of BSNL, Erode
Ex.W9 13.08.2012 Proceeding of the Assistant Labour
Commissioner
Ex.W10 21.03.2014 Proceedings of the Assistant
Labour Commissioner submitting the report no. 8/118/2011-B-3 dated
21.03.2014
On the Management's side :
claimed.
Ex. No. Date Description
In view of the discussion above, the reference is
answered against the petitioner. An award is passed
accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., trascribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 17th April, 2015)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer Nil
नई दिल्ली, 28 अप्रैल, 2015
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union : WW1, Sri P.
Varadaraj
For the 2nd Party/1st and 2nd : None
Management
का॰आ॰ 890.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार लॉइफ इन्शुरेन्स कॉरपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, गोदावरिखानि के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 9/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20/04/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं.एल-17025/1/2015-आई आर (एम)]
जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव1948 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
New Delhi, the 28th April, 2015
S.O. 890.—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. 9/2013) of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Godavarikhani 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 workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20/04/2015.
[No. L-17025/1/2015-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
Petitioner (WW-1) absent. Petition dismissed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 21st day of July, 2014.
G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 28 अप्रैल, 2015
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
GODAVARIKHANI
Present : SRI G.V. KRISHNAIAH,
Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer का.आ. 891.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार आदित्य सिमेन्ट वक्र्स एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 72/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20/4/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-29012/20/2005-आईआर (एम)]
जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 9 OF 2013 Monday, the 21st day of July, 2014
New Delhi, the 28th April, 2015
Between :
Md. Israth Ali, S/o Md. Jani Miya, Aged 23 years, Occ.: Sub-staff in LIC, R/o. H.No. 3-1-190, Weekly Bazar, Metpalli, V/o. Metpalli (M), Karimnagar District
... Petitioner
And
1. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Metpalli.
2. The Dividional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, near Tower Circle, Karimnagar.
S.O.891.—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. 72/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the empoyers in relation to the management of Aditya Cement Works and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20/4/2015.
[No. L-29012/20/2005-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
3. The Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, South Central Zone, Zonal Office, Secretariat Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
I.D. 72/2005
4. The Chairman, Central Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Yogaskhema Jeevan Bharathi, Post Box No. 19953, Bombay.
... Respondents
This Industrial Dispute petition coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. Bhagavantha Rao & Smt. S.V. Ramadev, Advocates, for the petitioner and Sri J. Sriramulu, Advocate, for the respondents, and the matter having stood over before me for consideration till this date, the Court passed the following :—
Reference No. L-29012/20/2015-IR (M) dated:15.7.2005
Sh. Yaqub Khan C/o Secy., B.M.S. Chittorgarh Th. Shri Baldev Maud S/o Sh. Amba Shankar Maud R/o Saigva, PO Similiya Chittorgarh-312025.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1949V/s
The Executive President M/s. Aditya Cement Works Adityapuram Sawa-Shambhupura Distt. Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, Chittorgarh
law in Lok-Adalat on 31.3.2015 with direction that all parties are to appear in Lok-Adalat on 31.3.2015.
AWARD
31.3.2015
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-Section 1 & 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:—
"Whether the contention of the Union that the workman had worked with the management of Aditya Cement Works for a period more than 240 days prior to his termination from service is correct? If so, whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
4. On 23.3.2015 case was fixed for cross-examination of Sh. Bhuralal Sharma, Assistant Manageer, witness for the opposite party by applicant side when application for withdrawing the case was filed by Sh. Yaqub Khan. On 31.3.2015 an application in form of compromise was filed in Lok-Adalat to withdraw the case signed by Sh. Yaqub Khan & Secretary to B.M.S., Chittorgarh, Sh. Baldev Maud on behalf of applicant & by Shri Kamlesh Menaria, Law Officer, on behalf of opposite party. The opposite party has been identified by their learned advocate, Shri R.S. Chauhan. Application for withdrawal in form of compromise filed by both the parties reads as under:—
सेवा में,
श्रीमान न्यायाधीश महोदय,
Annexure-I
केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर (राज.)
प्रकरण संख्या 72/2005
श्री याकुब खान बनाम कार्यकारी अध्यक्ष, आदित्य सीमेन्ट
वक्र्स, आदित्यपुरम
प्रार्थना पत्र वास्ते विड्रा करने का प्रकरण
2. The statement of claim has been signed by applicant Sh. Yaqub Khan & presented through Shri Baldev Maud, Secretary to B.M.S., Chittorgarh. Reply to the statement of claim has been filed by opposite party on 17.2.2006. Facts alleged in pleadings of both the parties is not necessary to be mentioned here in view of the fact that an application has been moved by Sh. Yaqub Khan on 23.3.2015 seeking permission from tribunal to withdraw his case. According to the brief facts alleged in the application for withdrawal of the case applicant has contended that he had submitted his statement of claim through Secretary, B.M.S., Chittorgarh but facts alleged in the statement of claim are wrong & opposite party has been pleaded wrongly in the statement of claim because he was never appointed in Aditya Cement Works directly. He has also alleged that he was in employment of the Thekedar, M/s Krishna Trading Company, as a workman of Thekedar. It has also been alleged that due to internal dispute between M/s Krishna Trading Company & the workman he had left the employment of the Thekedar on his own accord but raised an industrial dispute wrongly against the Aditya Cement after framing an industrial dispute against the opposite party. He has also alleged that now a settlement has been arrived between Thekedar & himself hence, he does not want to further participate in the proceedings of this case as threre has remained no dispute, hence, it has been prayed that permission may be granted to withdraw the case against the opposite party.
3. As the above mentioned application dated 23.3.2015 submitted by applicant workman Sh. Yaqub Khan was unilateral, hence, case was fixed for disposal according to महोदय जी,
उपरोक्त प्रकरण में दोनों पक्षकारान की ओर से माननीय न्यायालय
आपसे निवेदन निम्न अनुसार हैः—
1. यह है कि प्रार्थी ने उपरोक्त अनवान का प्रकरण जरिये सचिव, भारतीय मजदूर संघ, शाखा चित्तौडगढ़ माननीय न्यायालय आप में प्रस्तुत किया है जिसमें विपक्षी के रूप में कार्यकारी अध्यक्ष, आदित्य सीमेन्ट वक्र्स, आदित्यपुरम को पक्षकार बनाया गया है। इस प्रकरण में प्रार्थी द्वारा अपने आपको विपक्षी संस्थान मैसर्स आदित्य सीमेन्ट वक्र्स का कर्मकार होना अंकित किया है जो सत्य नहीं है क्योंकि प्रार्थी द्वारा मैसर्स आदित्य सीमेन्ट वक्र्स के नियोजन में कार्य नहीं कर ठेकेदार मैसर्स कृष्णा ट्रेडिंग कम्पनी के जरिये बतौर ठेका श्रमिक कार्य किया गया था।
2. यह है कि प्रार्थी एवं प्रार्थी के नियोजक मैसर्स श्री कृष्णा ट्रेडिंग कम्पनी के बीच स्वेच्छा से आपसी राजीनामा हो चुका है तथा अब प्रार्थी के एवं प्रार्थी के नियोजक मैसर्स श्री कृष्णा ट्रेडिंग कम्पनी के मध्य किसी भी तरह का कोई विवाद शेष नहीं रहा है। इसी आधार पर प्रार्थी एवं विपक्षी संस्थान मैसर्स आदित्य सीमेन्ट वक्र्स के मध्य भी अब किसी भी तरह का कोई विवाद प्रार्थी के नियोजन के संदर्भ में नहीं रहा है। प्रार्थी ने मैैसर्स श्री कृष्णा ट्रेडिंग कम्पनी से अपनी सम्पूर्ण बकाया राशि प्राप्त कर ली है।
1950 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]3. यह है कि प्रार्थी द्वारा मैैसर्स श्री कृष्णा ट्रेडिंग कम्पनी से पूर्ण एवं अंतिम भुगतान प्राप्ति की रसीद की प्रतियां इस प्रार्थना पत्र के साथ संलग्न है।
4. यह है कि दोनों पक्षकारान की ओर से यह राजीनामा लोक अदालत की भावना से प्रेरित होकर बिना किसी दबाव के आप न्यायालय के समक्ष प्रस्तुत है। दोनों पक्षकारान की ओर से इस आपसी राजीनामा बाबत कोई विवाद नहीं होने— को अप माननीय न्यायालय द्वारा स्वीकार किये जाने का नम्र निवेदन है।
हस्ताक्षर अपठनीय हस्ताक्षर अपठनीय रसीद से यह प्रकरण एवं अन्य कोई विवाद जो मेरे द्वारा संस्थापित किये गये है, स्वतः ही समाप्त समझे जाएंगे। यह रसीद मैंने स्वेच्छा से पूर्ण होशो-हवास में लिख दी है जो वक्त जरूरत में काम आवें।
दिनांकः 31.3.2015
हस्ताक्षर हस्ताक्षर अपठनीय (याकुब खान)
5. Following order was passed on the withdrawal
application:
31.3.2015
LOK-ADALAT
अतः निवेदन है कि दोनों पक्षकारान की ओर से प्रस्तुत यह संयुक्त प्रार्थना पत्र स्वीकार फरमाया जाकर पक्षकारान के मध्य कोई विवाद शेष नहीं रह जाने के आधार पर हस्तगत प्रकरण को विड्रा किए जाने की अनुमति प्रदान करावे एवं इसी आधार पर प्रकरण को इसी स्टेज पर निस्तारित कर समाप्त किये जाने बाबत् उचित आदेश प्रदान करावे।
स्थानः जयपुर दिनांकः 31.3.2015
हस्ताक्षर अपठनीय
हस्ताक्षर
प्रार्थी/अधिवक्ता/प्रतिनिधि
हस्ताक्षर अपठनीय हस्ताक्षर विपक्षी/अधिवक्त/प्रतिनिधि मै॰ अल्ट्राटेक सीमेन्ट लिमिटेड इकाई-मैसर्स आदित्य सीमेन्ट वक्र्स, आदित्यपुरम
दिनांकः 31.3.2015 Case presented in Lok-Adalat today. Workman
Shri Yaqub Khan, Assistant Operator, present alongwith
Secretary, B.M.S., Chittorgarh, Shri Baldev Maud. On
record workman has been represented by Shri Baldev
Maud. Shri Rajendra Singh Chauhan, Advocate, learned
counsel for opposite party present with Shri Kamlesh
Menaria, Law Officer, for the opposite party M/s Aditya
Cement Works, Adityapuram, Sawa-Shambhupura, Distt.
Chittorgarh.
A compromise has been filed today by & on behalf of
both the parties wherein it has been alleged that inspired
by the spirit by the Lok-Adalat parties have filed the
compromise before the Tribunal & consequent upon filing
of the compromise there remains no dispute between the
parties for adjudication before the Tribunal. It has been
prayed that joint application filed by the parties in form of
compromise be accepted & permission granted to withdraw
the case on basis of No Dispute between the parties.
रसीद
मैं याकुब खान पिता श्री अकबर खान निवासी गांव-पोस्ट-सावा, तह. व जिला- चित्तौड़गढ़, (राज.) ने स्वेच्छा से त्यागपत्र देकर आज दिनांक 31.3.2015 को पूर्ण एवं अंतिम चुकता भुगतान (Full & Final Settlement) के रूप में भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, शाखा आदित्यपुरम (राजस्थान) का चैक संख्या 172972 दिनांक 31.3.2015 रुपया 2,51,000/- (अक्षरे दो लाख इक्यावन हजार रुपये मात्र) प्राप्त कर यह रसीद लिख दी है। इस भुगतान के पश्चात् मेरा मैसर्स श्री कृष्णा टञ्रेडिंग कम्पनी एवं बतौर मुख्य नियोक्ता— मैसर्स अल्ट्राटेक सीमेन्ट लिमिटेड इकाई- आदित्य सीमेन्ट वक्र्स से रोजगार अन्य किसी भी प्रकार की बकाया राशि या भुगतान लेना शेष नहीं रह गया है। उक्त धनराशि में मेरे द्वारा अर्जित एवं सभी विधिक देय राशि जिसमें ग्रेच्युटी, लीव एनकेशमेंट एवं अन्य लाभ परिलाभ सम्मिलित है। उक्त धनराशि के प्राप्ति के साथ ही मेरा मैसर्स श्री कृष्णा ट्रेडिंग कम्पनी एवं मुख्य नियोक्ता के साथ कोई भी वाद, विवाद एवं क्लेम शेष नहीं रहता है। इस रसीद के साथ-साथ मेरे द्वारा आज माननीय न्यायालय, औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय (केन्द्रीय), जयपुर में लम्बित प्रकरण विड्रा कर लिया गया है तथा इस I have gone through the compromise & perused the
record. The terms of compromise has been read over &
explained to the parties in simple Hindi language of the
parties which they are capable of understanding well. The
compromise appears to be voluntary & without any undue
influence. A cheque amounting to Rs. Two Lakhs Fifty One
Thousand Only (Rs. 2,51,000/-) has been handed over by
opposite party to the applicant before the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the case is disposed in terms of
compromise. Application in form of compromise filed by
the parties is allowed & petition of the applicant Shri Yaqub
Khan is dismissed as withdrawn. Compromise papaer
Annex-1 in three pages alongwith photocopy of the cheque
shall form part of Award.
6. Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1951
AWARD
नई दिल्ली, 28 अप्रैल, 2015
का॰आ॰ 892.—औघोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार आदित्य सिमेन्ट वक्र्स एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औघोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औघोगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 71/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है, तो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20/4/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-29012/21/2005-आई आर (एम)] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 28th April, 2015
S.O. 892.—In pursaunce of Section 17 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Govern- ment hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D. No. 71/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Aditya Cement Works and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 20/4/2015.
[No. L-29012/21/2005-IR(M)] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
31.3.2015
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudi- cation:
"Whether the contention of the Union that the workman had worked with the management of Aditya Cement Works for a period more than 240 days prior to his termination from service is correct? If so, whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman justified? if not, to what relief the workman is entitled?
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
I.D. 71/2005
Reference No. L-29012/21/2005-IR(M) dated: 15-7-2005
Sh. Devi Singh C/o Secy., B.M.S. Chittorgrah Th. Shri Baldev Maud S/o Sh. Amba Shankar Maud R/o Saigva, PO Similiya Chittorgarh-312025.
2. The statement of claim has been signed by applicant Sh. Devi Singh & presented through Sh. Baldev Maud, Secretary to B.M.S. Chittorgarh. Reply to the statement of claim has been filed by opposite party on 17.02.2006. Facts alleged in pleadings of both the parties is not necessary to be mentioned here in view of the fact that an application has been moved by Sh. Devi Singh on 23.03.2015 seeking permission from tribunal to withdraw his case. According to the brief facts alleged in the application for withdrawal of the case applicant has contended that he had submitted his statement of claim through Secretary, B.M.S., Chittorgarh but facts alleged in the statement of claim are wrong & opposite party has been pleaded wrongly in the statement of claim because he was never appointed in Aditya Cement Works directly. He has also alleged that he was in employment of the Thekedar, M/s. Krishna Trading Company, as a workman of Thekedar. It has also been alleged that due to internal dispute between M/s. Krishna Trading Company & the workman he had left the employment of the Thekedar on his own accord but raised an industrial dispute wrongly against the Aditya Cement after framing an industrial dispute against the opposite party. He has also alleged that now a settlement has been arrived between Thekedar & himself hence, he does not want to further participate in the proceedings of this case as there has remained no dispute hence, it has prayed that permission may be granted to withdraw the case against the opposite party.
V/s
The Executive President M/s Aditya Cement Works Adityapuram Sawa-Shambhupura Distt. Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, Chittorgarh.
3. As the above mentioned application dated 23.03.2015 submitted by applicant workman Sh. Devi Singh was unilateral, hence, case was fixed for disposal according to law in Lok Adalat on 31.03.2015 with direction that all parties are to appear in Lok-Adalat on 31.3.2015.
4. On 23.3.2015 case was fixed for cross-examination of Sh. Bhuralal Sharma, Assistant Manager, witness for the opposite party by applicant side when application for withdrawing the case was filed by Sh. Devi Singh. On 31.3.2015 an application in form of compromise was filed in Lok-Adalat to withdraw the case signed by Sh. Devi Singh1952 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] & Secretary to B.M.S., Chittorgarh, Sh. Baldev Maud on behalf of applicant & by Sh. Kamlesh Menaria, Law Officer, on behalf of opposite party. The opposite party has been identified by their learned advocate, Sh. R.S. Chauhan. Application for withdrawal in form of compromise filed by both the parties reads as under:
सेवा में, श्रीमान न्यायाधीश महोदय,
Annexure-I केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर (राज॰) प्रकरण संख्या 71/2005
देवी सिंह बनाम कार्यकारी अध्यक्ष, आदित्य सीमेन्ट
वक्र्स आदित्यपुरम
आप माननीय न्यायालय द्वारा स्वीकार किये जाने का नम्र निवेदन है।
हस्ताक्षर पठनीय हस्ताक्षर अपठनीय
अतः निवेदन है कि दोनों पक्षकारान की ओर से प्रस्तुत यह संयुक्त प्रार्थना पत्र स्वीकार फरमाया जाकर पक्षकारान के मध्य कोई विवाद शेष नहीं रह जाने के आधार पर हस्तगत् प्रकरण को विड्रा किये जाने की अनुमति प्रदान करावे एवं इसी आधार पर प्रकरण को इसी स्टेज पर निस्तारित कर समाप्त किये जाने बाबत् उचित आदेश प्रदान करावे।
स्थान : जयपुर दिनांक 31.03.2015
हस्ताक्षर पठनीय हस्ताक्षर प्रार्थी/अधिवक्ता/प्रतिनिधि
प्रार्थना पत्र वास्ते विड्रा करने का प्रकरण
महोदयजी,
उपरोक्त प्रकरण में दोनों पक्षकारान की ओर से माननीय न्यायालय
आपसे निवेदन निम्न अनुसार हैः
हस्ताक्षर अपठनीय हस्ताक्षर विपक्षी/अधिवक्ता/प्रतिनिधि मै॰ अल्ट्राटेक सीमेन्ट लिमिटेड इकाई आदित्य सीमेन्ट वक्र्स, आदित्यपुरम
दिनांकः 31.03.2015
रसीद
1. यह है कि प्रार्थी ने उपरोक्त अनवान का प्रकरण जरिये सचिव, भारतीय मजदूर, संघ, शाखा चित्तौड़गढ़ माननीय न्यायालय आप में प्रस्तुत किया है जिसमें विपक्षी के रूप में कार्यकारी अध्यक्ष, आदित्य सीमेन्ट वक्र्स, आदित्यपुरम को पक्षकार बनाया गया है। इस प्रकरण में प्रार्थी द्वारा अपने आपको विपक्षी संस्थान मैसर्स आदित्य सीमेन्ट वक्र्स का कर्मकार होना अंकित किया है जो सत्य नहीं है क्योंकि प्रार्थी द्वारा मैसर्स आदित्य सीमेन्ट वक्र्स के नियोजन में कार्य नहीं कर ठेकेदार मैसर्स श्री कृष्णा ट्रेड़िग कंपनी के जरिये बतौर ठेका श्रमिक कार्य किया गया था।
2. यह है कि प्रार्थी एवं प्रार्थी के नियोजक मैसर्स श्री कृष्णा ट्रेड़िग कंपनी के बीच स्वेच्छा से आपसी राजीनामा हो चुका है तथा अब प्रार्थी के एवं प्रार्थी के नियोजक मैसर्स श्री कृष्णा ट्रेड़िग कंपनी के मध्य किसी भी तरह का कोई विवाद शेष नहीं रहा है। इसी आधार पर प्रार्थी एवं विपक्षी संस्थान मैसर्स आदित्य सीमेन्ट वक्र्स के मध्य भी अब किसी भी तरह का कोई विवाद प्रार्थी के नियोजन के संन्दर्भ में नहीं रहा है। प्रार्थी ने मैसर्स श्री कृष्णा ट्रेड़िग कंपनी से अपनी संपूर्ण बकाया राशि प्राप्त कर ली है।
3. यह है कि प्रार्थी द्वारा मैसर्स श्री कृष्णा ट्रेड़िग कंपनी से पूर्ण एवं अंतिम भुगतान प्राप्ति की रसीद की प्रतियां इस प्रार्थना पत्र के साथ संलग्न है।
4. यह है कि दोनों पक्षकारान की ओर से यह राजीनामा लोक अदालत की भावना से प्रेरित होकर बिना किसी दबाव के आप न्यायालय के समक्ष प्रस्तुत है। दोनों पक्षकारान की ओर से इस आपसी राजीनामा बाबत् कोई विवाद नहीं होने - को मैं देवी सिंह पिता श्री सोहन सिंह निवासी गॉव-रेल का अमराना, तह, व जिला-चित्तौड़गढ़, (राज॰) ने स्वेच्छा से त्यागपत्र देकर आज दिनांक 31.03.2015 को पूर्ण एवं अंतिम चुकता भुगतान (Full & Final Settle- ment) के रूप में भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, शाखा आदित्यपुरम (राजस्थान) का चैक संख्या 172971 दिनांक 31.03.2015 रुपया 2,51,000/- (अक्षरे दो लाख इक्यावन हजार रुपये मात्र) प्राप्त कर यह रसीद लिख दी है। इस भुगतान के पश्चात् मेरा मैसर्स श्री कृष्णा ट्रेड़िग कंपनी एवं बतौर मुख्य नियोक्ता - मैसर्स अल्ट्राटेक सीमेंन्ट लिमिटेड इकाई-आदित्य सीमेन्ट वक्र्स से रोजगार अन्य किसी भी प्रकार की बकाया राशि या भुगतान लेना शेष नहीं रह गया है। उक्त धनराशि में मेरे द्वारा अर्जित एवं सभी विधिक देय राशि जिसमें ग्रेज्युटी, लीव एनकेशमेंट एवं अन्य लाभ परिलाभ सम्मिलित है। उक्त धनराशि के प्राप्ति के साथ ही मेरा मैसर्स श्री कृष्णा ट्रेड़िग कंपनी एवं मुख्य नियोक्ता के साथ कोई भी वाद, विवाद एवं क्लेम शेष नहीं रहता है। इस रसीद के साथ-साथ मेरे द्वारा आज माननीय न्यायालय, औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय (केन्द्रीय), जयपुर में लम्बित प्रकरण विड्रा कर लिया गया है तथा इस रसीद से यह प्रकरण एवं अन्य कोई विवाद जो मेरे द्वारा संस्थापित किये गये है, स्वतः ही समाप्त समझे जाएंगे। यह रसीद मैंने स्वेच्छा से पूर्ण होशो-हवास में लिख दी है जो वक्त जरूरत में काम आवें।
दिनांक 31.03.2015
हस्ताक्षर
हस्ताक्षर पठनीय
(देवी सिंह)[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1953 5. Following order was passed on the withdrawal
application:
31.03.2015
को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20/4/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-29012/22/2005-आई आर (एम)]
LOK-ADALAT
Case presented in Lok-Adalat today, Workman Sh. Devi Singh, Assistant Operator, present alongwith Secretary, B.M.S., Chittorgarh, Sh. Baldev Maud. On record workman has been represented by Sh. Baldev Maud. Sh. Rajendra Singh Chauhan, Advocate, learned counsel for opposite party present with Sh. kamlesh Menaria, Law Officer, for the opposite party M/s Aditya Cement Works, Adityapuram, Sawa- Shambhupura, Distt. Chittorgarh.
जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 28th April, 2015
S.O. 893.—in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby published the award (Ref. I.D.No. 70/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Aditya Cement Works and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20/4/2015.
[No. L-29012/22/2005-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
A compromise has been filed today by & on behalf of both the parties wherein it has been alleged that inspired by the spirit of the Lok-Adalat parties have filed the compromise before the Tribunal & consequent upon filing of the compromise there remains no dispute between the parties for adjudication before the Tribunal. It has been prayed that joint application filed by the parties in form of compromise be accepted & permission granted to withdraw the case on basis of No Dispute between the parties.
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
I have gone through the compromise & perused the record. The terms of compromise has been read over & explained to the parties in simple Hindi language of the parties which they are capable of understanding well. The compromise appears to be voluntary & without any undue influence. A cheque amounting to Rs.Two Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Only (Rs. 2,51,000/-) has been handed over by oppsite party to the applicant before the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the case is disposed in terms of compromise. Application in form of compromise filed by the parties is allowed & petition of the applicant Sh. Devi Singh is dismissed as withdrawn. Compromise paper Annex- 1 in three pages alongwith photocopy of the cheque shall form part of Award."
6. Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
I.D. 70/2005
Reference No. L-29012/22/2005-IR (M) dated: 15.7.2005
Sh. Bhuralal Dhakad
C/o Secy., B.M.S. Chittorgarh
Th. Shri Baldev Maud
S/o Sh. Amba Shankar Maud
R/o Saigva, PO Similiya
Chittorgarh - 312025.
V/s
The Executive President
M/s Aditya Cement Works
Adityapuram
Sawa-Shambhupura
Distt. Chittorgarh, Rajasthan,
Chittorgarh.
AWARD
नई दिल्ली, 28 अप्रैल, 2015
का॰आ॰. 893.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार आदित्य सिमेन्ट वक्र्स एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केे बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 70/2005)
31.3.2015
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial Dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:—
1954 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]सेवा में,
श्रीमान न्यायाधीश महोदय,
अनुबंध - I
केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय,
जयपुर (राज॰)
"Whether the contention of the Union that the workman had worked with the management of Aditya Cement Works for a period more than 240 days prior to his termination from service is correct? If so, whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
प्रकरण संख्या 70/2005
श्री भूरा लाल धाकड़
बनाम
कार्यकारी अध्यक्ष, आदित्य सीमेन्ट वक्र्स, आदित्यपुरम
प्रार्थना पत्र वास्ते विड्रा करने प्रकरण
2. The statement of claim has been signed by applicant Sh. Bhuralal Dhakad & presented through Sh. Baldev Maud, Secretary to B.M.S., Chittorgarh. Reply to the statement of cliam has been filed by opposite party on 17.2.2006. Facts alleged in pleadings of both the parties is not necessary to be mentioned here in view of the fact that an application has been moved by Sh. Bhuralal Dhakad on 23.3.2015 seeking permission from tribunal to withdraw his case. According to the brief facts alleged in the application for withdrawal of the case applicant has contended that he had submitted his statement of claim through Secretary, B.M.S., Chittorgarh but facts alleged in the statement of claim are wrong & opposite party has been pleaded wrongly in the statement of claim because he was never appointed in Aditya Cement Works directly. He has also alleged that he was in employment of the Thekedar, M/s Krishna Trading Company, as a workman of Thekedar. It has also been alleged that due to internal dispute between M/s Krishna Trading Company & the workman he had left the employment of the Thekedar on his own accord but raised an industrial dispute wrongly against the Aditya Cement after framing an industrial dispute against the opposite party. He has also alleged that now a settlement has been arrived between Thekedar & himself hence, he does not want to further participate in the proceedings of this case as there has remained no dispute, hence, it has been prayed that permission may be granted to withdraw the case against the opposite party.
3. As the above mentioned application dated 23.3.2015 submitted by applicant workman Sh. Bhuralal Dhakad was unilateral, hence, case was fixed for disposal according to law in Lok-Adalat on 31.3.2015 with direction that all parties are to appear in Lok-Adalat on 31.3.2015.
4. On 23.3.2015 case was fixed for cross-examination of Sh. Bhuralal Sharma, Assistant Manager, witness for the opposite party by applicant side when application for withdrawing the case was filed by Sh. Bhuralal Dhakad. On 31.3.2015 an application in form of compromise was filed in Lok-Adalat to withdraw the case signed by Sh. Bhuralal Dhakad & Secretary to B.M.S., Chittorgarh, Sh. Baldev Maud on behalf of applicant & by Sh. Kamlesh Menaria, Law Officer, on behalf of opposite party. The opposite party has been identified by their learned advocate, Sh. R.S. Chauhan. Application for withdrawal in form of compromise filed by both the parties reads as under:—
महोदयजी,
उपरोक्त प्रकरण में दोनों पक्षकारान की ओर से माननीय न्यायालय
आपसे निवेदन निम्न अनुसार हैः—
1. यह है कि प्रार्थी ने उपरोक्त अनवान का प्रकरण जरिये सचिव, भारतीय मजदूर संघ, शाखा चित्तौड़गढ़ माननीय न्यायालय आप में प्रस्तुत किया है जिसमें विपक्षी के रूप में कार्यकारी अध्यक्ष, आदित्य सीमेन्ट वक्र्स,आदित्यपुरम को पक्षकार बनाया गया है। इस प्रकरण में प्रार्थी द्वारा अपने आपको विपक्षी संस्थान मैसर्स आदित्य सीमेन्ट वक्र्स का कर्मकार होना अंकित किया है जो सत्य नहीं है क्योंकि प्रार्थी द्वारा मैसर्स आदित्य सीमेन्ट वक्र्स के नियोजन में कार्य नहीं कर ठेकेदार मैसर्स श्री कृष्णा ट्रेड़िग कम्पनी के जरिये बतौर ठेका श्रमिक कार्य किया गया था।
2. यह है कि प्रार्थी एवं प्रार्थी के नियोजक मैसर्स श्री कृष्ण ट्रेड़िग कम्पनी के बीच स्वेच्छा से आपसी राजीनामा हो चुका है तथा अब प्रार्थी के एवं प्रार्थी के नियोजक मैसर्स श्री कृष्णा ट्रेड़िग कम्पनी के मध्य किसी भी तरह का कोई विवाद शेष नहीं रहा है। इसी आधार पर प्रार्थी एवं विपक्षी संस्थान मैसर्स आदित्य सीमेन्ट वक्र्स के मध्य भी अब किसी भी तरह का कोई विवाद प्रार्थी के नियोजन के संन्दर्भ में नहीं रहा है। प्रार्थी ने मैसर्स श्री कृष्णा ट्रेड़िग कम्पनी से अपनी सम्पूर्ण बकाया राशि प्राप्त कर ली है।
3. यह है कि प्रार्थी द्वारा मैसर्स श्री कृष्णा ट्रेड़िग कम्पनी से पूर्ण एवं अंतिम भुगतान प्राप्ति की रसीद की प्रतियां इस प्रार्थना पत्र के साथ संलग्न है।
4. यह है कि दोनों पक्षकारान की ओर से यह राजीनामा लोक अदालत की भावना से प्रेरित होकर बिना किसी दबाव के आप न्यायालय के समक्ष प्रस्तुत है। दोनों पक्षकारान की ओर से इस आपसी राजीनामा बाबत् कोई विवाद नहीं होने - को आप माननीय न्यायालय द्वारा स्वीकार किये जाने का नम्र निवेदन है।
हस्ताक्षर पठनीय हस्ताक्षर अपठनीय[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1955 31.03.2015
Lok-Adalat
अतः निवेदन है कि दोनों पक्षकारान की ओर से प्रस्तुत यह संयुक्त प्रार्थना पत्र स्वीकार फरमाया जाकर पक्षकारान के मध्य कोई विवाद शेष नहीं रह जाने के आधार पर हस्तगत प्रकरण को विदड्रा किये जाने की अनुमति प्रदान करावे एवं इसी आधार पर प्रकरण को इसी स्टेज पर निस्तारित कर समाप्त किये जाने बाबत् उचित आदेश प्रदान करावे।
स्थानः जयपुर
दिनांकः 31.03.2015
हस्ताक्षर पठनीय
हस्ताक्षर
प्रार्थी/अधिवक्ता/प्रतिनिधि
हस्ताक्षर अपठनीय हस्ताक्षर विपक्षी/अधिवक्ता/प्रतिनिधि मै॰ अल्ट्राटेक सीमेन्ट लिमिटेड इकाई - आदित्य सीमेन्ट वक्र्स, आदित्यपुरम
दिनांकः 31.03.2015 Case presented in Lok-Adalat today. Workman Sh. Bhuralal Dhakad, Assistant Operator, present alongwith Secretary, B.M.S., Chittorgarh, Sh. Baldev Maud. On record workman has been represented by Sh. Baldev Maud. Shri Rajendra Singh Chauhan, Advocate, learned counsel for opposite party present with Sh. Kamlesh Menaria, Law Officer, for the opposite party M/s Aditya Cement Works, Adityapuram, Sawa-Shambhupura, Distt. Chittorgarh.
A compromise has been filed today by & on behalf of both the parties wherein it has been alleged that inspired by the spirit of the Lok-Adalat parties have filed the compromise before the Tribunal & consequent upon filing of the compromise there remains no dispute between the parties for adjudication before the Tribunal. It has been prayed that joint application filed by the parties in form of compromise be accepted & permission granted to withdraw the case on basis of No Dispute between the parties.
रसीद
मैं भूरा लाल धाकड़ पिता श्री गंगाराम धाकड़ निवासी गांव-कल्याणपुरा, तह. व जिला-चित्तौड़गढ़, (राज.) ने स्वेच्छा से त्यागपत्र देकर आज दिनांक 31.03.2015 को पूर्ण एवं अंतिम चुकता भुगतान (Full & Final Settlement) के रूप में भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, शाखा आदित्यपुरम (राजस्थान) का चैक संख्या 172970 दिनांक 31.03.2015 रुपया 2,51,000/- (अक्षरे दो लाख इक्यावन हजार रुपये मात्र) प्राप्त कर यह रसीद लिख दी है। इस भुगतान के पश्चात् मेरा मैसर्स श्री कृष्णा ट्रेडग कम्पनी एवं बतौर मुख्य नियोक्ता - मैसर्स अल्ट्राटेक सीमेन्ट लिमिटेड इकाई - आदित्य सीमेन्ट वक्र्स से रोजगार अन्य किसी भी प्रकार की बकाया राशि या भुगतान लेना शेष नहीं रह गया है। उक्त धनराशि में मेरे द्वारा अर्जित एवं सभी विधिक देय राशि जिसमें ग्रेच्युटी, लीव एनकैशमेंट एवं अन्य लाभ परिलाभ सम्मिलित हैं। उक्त धनराशि के प्राप्ति के साथ ही मेरा मैसर्स श्री कृष्णा ट्रेडग कम्पनी एवं मुख्य नियोक्ता के साथ कोई भी वाद, विवाद एवं क्लेम शेष नहीं रहता है। इस रसीद के साथ-साथ मेरे द्वारा आज माननीय न्यायालय, औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय (केन्द्रीय), जयपुर में लम्बित प्रकरण विदड्रा कर लिया गया है तथा इस रसीद से यह प्रकरण एवं अन्य कोई विवाद जो मेरे द्वारा संस्थापित किये गये हैं, स्वतः ही समाप्त समझे जाएंगे। यह रसीद मैने स्वेच्छा से पूर्ण होशो-हवास में लिख दी है जो वक्त जरूरत में काम आवें।
दिनांकः 31.03.2015
हस्ताक्षर
हस्ताक्षर पठनीय
(भूरा लाल धाकड़)
5. Following order was passed on the withdrawal
application:
I have gone through the compromise & perused the record. The terms of compromise has been read over & explained to the parties in simple Hindi language of the parties which they are capable of understanding well. The compromise appears to be voluntary & without any undue influence. A cheque amounting to Rs. Two Laks Fifty One Thousand Only (Rs. 2,51,000/-) has been handed over by opposite party to the applicant before the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the case is disposed in terms of compromise. Application in form of compromise filed by the parties is allowed & petition of the applicant Sh. Bhuralal Dhakad is dismissed as withdrawn. Compromise paper Annex-1 in three pages alongwith photocopy of the cheque shall form part of Award.
6. Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 28 अप्रैल, 2015
का.आ. 894.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ.एन.जी.सी. लिमिटेड एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्ि ाकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय 2, मुम्बई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 2/2003) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20/04/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-30015/8/2002-आई आर (एम)]
जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव1956 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 28th April, 2015
S.O. 894.—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. 2/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O.N.G.C. Limited & others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20/04/2015.
[No. L-30015/8/2002-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
(6) M/s. Acumen Engineers Shop No. 72, Plot No. 51 Sector - 15, CBD Navi Mumbai 400 614.
(7) M/s. S.S. Constructions
12, Nishant Shopping Centre Seven Bungalows Andheri (W) Mumbai 400 053.
(8) M/s. Classics Engineers
Building No. 17, Block No. 577 Chembur Colony Mumbai 400 074.
(9) M/s. Loyds Projects Pvt. Ltd.
ANNEXURE
904 to 906, Windsor Plaza R.C. Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005.
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT
K.B. KATAKE
(10) M/s. Supreme Construction JN-1, 18-A 2, Sector - 9 Vashi Navi Mumbai 400 703.
Presiding Officer
AND
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/2 OF 2003
THEIR WORKMEN
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT
OF OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD &
9 ORS.
(1) The Group General Manager HR/ER
The General Secretary ONGC General Kamgar Sanghatana B/7, Municipal Colony Agarwada, Sion Mumbai 400 022.
APPEARANCES :
Head ( P & A) Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Mumbai Region 201, Vasudhara Bhawan Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051.
(2) M/s. Neelam Agencies
20/Ellora Abhinav Milind Society Shivshrushti, Kurla (E), Mumbai 400 022.
(3) M/s. D.N. Engineering Works
For the Employer No. (1) : Shri G. D. Talreja
Representative
Employer No. (2 to 10) : No appearance.
For the Workmen : Shri Abhay Kulkarni,
Advocate
Mumbai, dated the 27th February, 2015
AWARD
A-1/7, Yogantak Housing Society Opp. Jarimari Mandir, Sukapur Panvel 410 206.
(4) M/s. Industrial Security Guards Services Pvt. Ltd.
Gautam Terrace, Basement No. 1 & 2 M.G. Road, Naupada Thane 400 602.
(5) M/s. Polydrill Engineers Pvt. Ltd. 124, Damji Shamji Udyog Bhavan Veera Desai Road Andheri (W) Mumbai 400 053.
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No. L-30015/8/2002-IR (M), dated 21.06.2002 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
(1) "Whether the contract between Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC) and the existing contractor/s is a sham and bogus one and is a camouflage to deprive the concerned employees represented by the petitioner herein of benefits available to permanent workmen of ONGC?"[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1957 (2) "Whether the workmen represented by the petitioner — Union herein, employed through the contractor/s by ONGC should be declared as permanent workmen of ONGC?"
(3) "What are the wages and consequential benefits to be paid to the concerned employees?"
2. By award dated 01/07/2011 this Tribunal had allowed the Reference and passed the consequential order. The said award was challenged by the first party in Writ Petition No. 1910/2012. The Hon'ble High Court set aside the award and remanded the Reference back to consider the evidence on record in detail and pass award according to law. The Hon'ble Court has also given direction to decide the reference before 27/02/2015. After remand of the matter both the parties have filed their notes of arguments as well as they have also argued the matter orally at length. In the light of the pleadings, evidence on record and the arguments of both the advocates I am deciding this reference.
3. The Statement of claim of the second party is at Ex.-6. According to them, the first party is dealing in exploring of oil and natural gas in various parts of the country. They are carrying out drilling operations for oil and natural gas for commercial use. It is the only public undertaking company working in the field having monopoly without any competition. The company requires large number of permanent workers at the places of their work, including administration offices and establishments at Andheri, Darukhana Stores, Priyadarshini, Vasudhara Bhavan, Bandra, Juhu, Bengal Chemicals in Mumbai as well as at Nhava Sheva Uran, Panvel and Bombay High. The works carried out at all these establishments/buildings are of permanent and perennial nature. The workers annexed in list Ex-A are employed at all these establishments through sham and bogus contractors. All these workers are working with first party. They are paid directly by first party through sham and bogus contractors. Even the contribution towards PPF is paid by ONGC. The retirement benefits of contract labourers are paid by ONGC through sham contractors. The union has signed service conditions of the workmen with ONGC, for the period 01/01/1998 to 31/12/2007 granting several benefits to the concerned workers. Infact the said benefits ought to have been paid to all the workers including the workers listed at Ex-A. These contract workers are doing the jobs which are essential and necessary of perennial in nature. Some of the works performed by most of the workmen herein are highly specialized and sensitive in nature. These workers have acquired expertise since they are working there continuously for number of years.
4. The names of contractors are changed in the record, however, the workers are the same. None of the workman was recruited by any of the contractors. First party has not obtained valid registration under Contract Labour Act for employing the workers mentioned in list Ex-A. The contractors also do not possess the requisite license under the Contract Labour Act. All these facts clearly show that, the contractors are sham and bogus. They are inducted merely to deprive the workmen from getting the benefits of regular employees. Therefore the union had also filed writ petition before Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court directed the Labour Commissioner to complete the conciliation proceeding within the stipulated time. As conciliation failed, the Labour Commissioner sent a report to Labour Ministry. The Hon'ble High Court also protected services of workmen concerned for the period of three months. The Hon'ble court has also directed the Tribunal to decide the reference as expeditiously as possible and before 3/6/2003. However, the Ministry did not sent the reference to this Tribunal immediately within the stipulated time and matter is also protected. The second party union prays for declaration that the employees in list Ex-A be declared as regular employees of first party from the date of their initial appointment and the first party be directed to absorb them in the service from the date of their respective initial appointments. The union also prays that the ONGC be directed to pay the consequential benefits including arrears of wages to the respective workers.
5. The first party No. 1 ONGC Ltd. has resisted the statement of claim vide its written statement at Ex-26. According to them, the persons in the list Ex-A are not workmen as defined under Section 2 (s) of I.D. Act. There is no master-servant relation between ONGC with these workmen. The second party has not come with clean hands. Their claim is false. ONGC carries out its business situated beyond 12 nautical miles from the baseline and out of territory of India. Therefore this Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The contracts entered into between the ONGC and the contractors are genuine. The Tribunal has no power and jurisdiction to abolish genuine contracts. The reference is bad for non-joinder of concerned contractors as a party to this reference. There were no pleadings in the writ petitions filed before Hon'ble High Court, that the contracts between ONGC and contractors are sham and bogus and are mere camouflage to deprive the workers from getting benefits of permanency. On the other hand the second party pleaded therein that the workmen are engaged for the work of permanent and perennial in nature. The work is ordinarily done by regular workmen of ONGC. Therefore they had prayed for declaration that they should be treated direct employees of ONGC. ONGC is required to engage number of independent contractors for rendering specified services in certain areas which are not prohibited under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The contracts are entered into by inviting sealed tenders. The high power committee scrutinizes the tenders and work order are issued to those who quote competitive rate and in accordance with the rule in this respect. The agreements1958 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
S.No. Issues Findings
are signed with the contractors laying down terms with the ONGC. All the contractors submit their monthly bills to ONGC for the services rendered by them. Bills are paid to them. Contractors have obtained licenses. The representatives of the contractors assign the work to the workmen engaged by them and supervise their work. The contractors pay wages, advances, bonus and allowances to the workmen. They also used to deduct their PF, Professional Tax, E.S.I. etc. The contractors issue wage slips & identity cards to them. The contractors are independent from ONGC. The contracts are true and genuine.
Yes.
1. Whether the labour contract between the ONGC and the contractors are sham and bogus and camouflage to deprive the concerned employees from getting the benefits available to permanent workers of ONGC?
2. Whether workmen under reference
Yes.
employed through contractor by ONGC are entitled to the declaration that they are permanent workmen of ONGC?
3. What wages and consequential benefits As per
the concerned employees are entitled to? final order.
4. What relief the employees are entitled to? As per
final order.
REASONS
6. In the writ petition Hon'ble High Court had given direction to the Central Govt. to make reference. Direction is also given to decide the reference expeditiously and before 30.06.2003. They have denied all the allegations made against them in the statement of claim and contended that the claim of the workmen is false. Therefore they pray that the reference be rejected with cost.
Issue Nos. 1:—
6. First party No.4 Industrial Guard Services Pvt. Ltd. one of the contractors resisted the statement of claim vide its written statement at Ex-39. According to them, it is a private limited company dealing in providing Receptionists, Security Guards for regulating ingress and egress of material, for opening and closing of offices, rooms including all other jobs related to these functions. The reference is not maintainable against the contractor. ONGC has entered into a contract with them for providing receptionist for regulating ingress and egress of men and material at the office of ONGC at various places in Mumbai. Therefore industrial dispute cannot be raised against the contractors. The reference is vague and general in nature. The service conditions and wages of the workers engaged by contractors are quite fair and reasonable. The second party union has suppressed material facts from the court. Contracts with ONGC are genuine. The persons shown in the list are employed by the contractor, Shri J. P. Srivastava. They are not workman as defined u/s 2 of I.D. Act. They are serving in supervisory category and drawing salary Rs. 4275/- + 40.6% DA and 20% HRA and other fixed allowances. They denied all the contents in the statement of claim. According to them, all the benefits under MoU have been paid to the employees and averments to that effect in the statement of claim are false. The contractors possess valid license under Contract Labour Regulation Act. These workmen are employees of the contractor. Therefore the Reference deserves to be dismissed. Thus they pray that the Reference be dismissed with cost. First parties nos. 2, 3, 5 to 10 have adopted the written statement of First party no. 1 ONGC.
7. Following are the issues framed by my Ld. Predecessor for my determination. I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:
8. The Id advocate for the second party workers in this respect submitted that, the workers in list 'A' are working with the first party since last number of years. The jobs of respective workers are of permanent and perennial in nature. The workers claim that they are employees of first party no. 1. According to them, the first party no.1 has entered into number of sham and bogus labour contracts. The workmen are attending various types of works. They are employed by the management. The management verified and satisfied their qualification, eligibility, potentiality for performing the work, before they were employed. The company has engaged the contractors as name lenders to show on paper that these employees are contract workers. The labour contracts are sham, bogus and camouflage merely to deprive the workmen from getting benefits of the permanency. Therefore, the second party union has prayed for declaration that the contracts between the management and the contractors be declared as sham, bogus and mere camouflage to deprive them from getting the benefits of permanency.
9. In this respect at first I would like to deal with the technical and legal objections to the reference. Th Ld. adv. for the first party at the outset submitted that these workmen are working 12 nautical kms away from the coastal area of India. Therefore this Tribunal has no jurisdiction. He has not made it clear about the law of which country governs ONGC and its employees working at the site at Bombay High Sea or whether they are beyond reach of law of any country and can do anything as per their sweet will. This submission indicates that Ld. adv. want to point out that as ONGC is functioning far away from the coastal line of India therefore the law of the land is not applicable to them and they are out of jurisdiction of this Tribunal. This pleading and submission is ridiculous and devoid of any merit and thus same is deserved to be rejected.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 195910. The Id. adv. for the first party further submitted that the second party union has taken contradictory plea which is not allowed. According to him before raising this industrial dispute under I.D. Act, the union had approached to Hon'ble High Court in writ petition and had challenged the Contract Labour System in the light of provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. According to him, it presupposes the existence of valid contract. Therefore the second party union now cannot raise inconsistent plea that the contracts are sham & bogus and issue to that effect cannot be framed or entertained. In support of his argument the Id. adv. referred the Apex Court ruling in Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizer Ltd. and Anr. V/s. General Employees Association & Ors. 2007 II CLR 701 in para 10 of the judgement the Hon'ble Court observed that:
the genuineness of the contracts nor sought any amendment to take inconsistent plea. Therefore the above ruling referred on behalf the first party is not applicable to the case at hand.
14. The Id. adv. for the first party on the point also referred another Apex Court ruling in Steel Authority of India V/s. Union of India & Ors. 2006 III CLR 659 wherein in para 15 of the judgment the Hon'ble Court observed that:
"A definite stand was taken by the employees that they
had been working under the contractors. It would,
thus in our opinion, not lie in the mouth to take a
contradictory and inconsistent plea that they were also
the workmen of the principal employer. To raise such
mutually destructive plea is impermissible in law. Such
mutually destructive plea in our opinion should not
be allowed to be raised even in an industrial
adjudication."
"As rightly contended by Id. counsel for the Appellant
once the respondent no. 1 Association approached
the High Court on the foundation that the Contract
Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970 applied. It
presupposes existence of a valid contract. What the
writ petitioner (respondent no. 1 herein) wanted was
quashment of notification for reconsideration."
11. In the same para 10, Hon'ble Apex Court in this respect
further observed that:
"In the instant case the writ petitioner itself accepted
that certain issues could not be decided in the writ
petition. That being so, High Court giving directions
in the nature done do not appear to be appropriate.
We are of the view that the High Court ought not have
given the directions in the manner done and should
have left the respondent no. 1 Association to avail
remedy available in I.D. Act."
12. In respect of this ruling, the Id. adv. for the second party submitted that, in that Writ Petition the union therein has challenged the Circular issued by the Central Govt. refusing to abolish and prohibit contract labour in civil works and carpentry work in the establishment of the petitioner company. He has rightly pointed out that the civil and carpentry work in the establishment of RCF cannot be said regular function of the company as the Company is dealing with manufacturing of fertilizers and they were allowed to hire contract labours for civil and carpentry works. In such circumstances in that case the Hon'ble Court held that, once the respondent no. 1 Association approached the High Court on the foundation that the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970 applied. It presupposes existence of a valid contract.
15. In respect of this ruling the Id. adv. for the second party rightly pointed out that, the workmen in the above referred ruling have affirmed specifically that they were contract labourers whereas, in the case at hand, the union has never contended or affirmed in the earlier writ petition that they are the employees of the contractors. In the earlier Writ Petition the union herein had challenged the contract labour system and had sought for abolition thereof. Whereas in the second writ petition and in this reference they have contended that, the contracts are sham and bogus. These two prayers are not inconsistent. Therefore the ratio in the above ruling is also not attracted to the case at hand. At the most it can be said that it is alternative prayer and there is no bar for such an alternative prayer. In support of this argument the Id. adv. for the second party union has referred to the Apex Court ruling in Sarva Shramik Sangh V/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. AIR 2009 SC 2355. The workers therein have filed the first petition seeking relief of abolition of contract labour system in operation. When said petition was rejected, they had filed second petition for seeking direction to make Reference U/S 10 to decide whether contracts between principal employer and canteen contractor was sham, nominal and mere camouflage to deprive the workers from getting the benefit of permanency, as in the case at hand. The facts in that case are identical to the set of facts of the case at hand. In that case on identical facts Hon'ble Court, observed that:
"Similarly where the workers contended that the
contract between principal employer and the
contractor was sham and merely camouflage to deny
them the benefit of labour laws and if their prayer for
relief under CLRA Act is rejected, they can then seek
relief under the I.D. Act. The contention of IOC that on
account of the dismissal of the first petition, the second
petition for a different relief was barred either by
principle of res-judicata or by principle of estoppel
would be liable to be rejected."
13. In the case at hand facts are altogether different. The contentions in the Writ were not contradictory. In the Writ Petition these workmen have sought for abolition of contract labour system in the company. However neither there was any circumstance nor averment stating that, they are contract labourers nor the contracts are genuine. Furthermore, the second party union has neither admitted1960 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 16. Hon'ble Court in that case held that such a plea is not contradictory but an alternative plea and there is no bar to take such alternative plea. Neither the plea is contradictory nor the second party has sought any amendment in the pleading for inconsistent plea. So also the second party herein has not admitted the genuineness of the contracts in the earlier Writ Petition. Therefore the ratio laid down in the Apex Court ruling referred by the Id. Adv. for the first party is not applicable.
17. For the same reason the ratio in Modi Spinning Mill and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. & Anr. V/s. Ladha Ram & Co. (1977) 1 SCR 728 referred by the Id. Adv. for the first party is also not helpful to them. In that case Hon'ble Court held that, when an admission has been made in the pleadings, even an amendment contrary thereto would not be permitted. On the other hand in the light of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court on identical facts in Sarva Shramik Sangh case, (supra) I hold that neither pleading of the union in this case is inconsistent nor it creates bar by principle of estoppel as has been argued on behalf of the first party.
to recent Apex Court ruling in General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Commission, Silchar V/s. Oil & Natural Gas Commission Contractual Gas Workers Union (2008) 12 SCC 275. In that case reference made by appropriate Govt. describing the workman as "contractual workers" whereas the real dispute between the parties was whether they were employees of the appellant organization or contractors. The Industrial Tribunal held that they were employees of the appellant. In Writ Petition Single Judge of Hon'ble High Court up held the objection of ONGC and held that Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding beyond the reference and allowed the writ petition. Division Bench allowed the Writ Appeal and held that, there was no ambiguity with regard to issues raised in the reference as parties were fully aware as to its meaning and import. While confirming the view of Division Bench, Hon'ble Apex Court in para 18 of the judgment observed that:
"The main issue in the present case is the status of
workmen and whether they were employees of ONGC
or of contractor, and in the event they were employees
of former, a claim to be treated on a par with other
such employees. This was the basic issue on which
parties went to trial, notwithstanding confusion
created by ill worded reference."
18. The Id. Adv. for the first party further submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has no jurisdiction to give direction to the Government to make a reference as it was done in this case. The prayer in the W.P. was not for determination of question as to whether the Contract Labour System was genuine or was mere camouflage to deprive the concerned contract employees from the benefits under Labour Laws. The Id. adv. for the first party further submitted that, High Courti n both the orders formulated the terms of reference which is impermissible. Therefore the Id. adv. for the first party submitted that, the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction. Thus he submitted that, the reference and issues are out of scope of the reference. In the circumstances he submitted that, on that ground reference should be dismissed. In support of his argument, Id. adv. for the first party referred to Apex Court ruling in Steel Authority of India Ltd. V/s. National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors. (2001) III CLR 349 wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that:
20. The facts of the case at hand are identical to the facts of the above referred Apex Court ruling. Furthermore the order of Hon'ble High Court has reached to its finality and neither this Tribunal can discard directions of Hon'ble High Court nor can even ignore the same. Therefore the objection to the reference and issues directed by Hon'ble High Court is found to be devoid of merit.
"..........the High Court ought not have given directions
in the manner done. The prayer in the writ petition
was not for determination of question whether contract
labour system was genuine or, was a mere camouflage
to deprive the concerned contract employees of the
benefits available to permanent employees of the
appellant No. 1. The High Court in both the orders
even in formulating the terms of reference which is
impermissible."
19. As against this the Id. adv. for the second party submitted that, the Hon'ble High Court has directed the Government to make reference of the real dispute between the parties and it is well within the jurisdiction of Hon'ble High Court. In support of his argument the Id. adv. resorted 21. Now I would like to deal with the main question i.e. whether the workmen under reference are the employees of the first party no. 1 or whether they are employees of the contractors? In this respect the Id. adv. for the first party pointed out that the first party had obtained the requisite license to engage contract labourers. So also all the contractors have their respective licenses. The first party used to invite tenders and after verifying the competitive rates, the concerned authority used to accept the tenders. They have produced the licenses and all concern documents about the labour contracts with list Exh. 14 and Exh. 44. In the light of these voluminous documents the Id. Adv. for the first party submitted that, these documents and the oral evidence of the witness Mr. Anil Kumar M.W.1 at Exh. 105, M.W.2 Mr. Sonare Exh. 109 and witness Kishore Katyari Exh. 115 show that the contractors and contracts are genuine. They have contended in their respective affidavits as to how the contracts, and related documents are genuine. The Id. adv. for the first party further pointed out that WW-1 has admitted in his cross examination at Ex-55 that the contractors used to issue passes to them. He has also admitted in the cross examination that, their wages and bonus is being paid through contractors and the[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1961 contractors used to deposit the PF subscription. According to the Ld. Adv. for the first party, this documentary and oral evidence on record indicates that, these workmen are the employees of the contractors.
V/s. International Air Cargo workers Union & Anr 2009- IV-LLJ 31 SC wherein Hon'ble Court on the point observed that;
"Merely because the Contract Labour Work is under
the supervision of officer of principal employer, it
cannot be taken as evidence of direct employment under
the principal employer."
25. The Ld. Adv. for the first party further submitted that the burden is on the union to establish that the labour contracts were sham and were only camouflage to deny them their rights. In support of his argument the Ld. Adv. for the first party cited Apex Court ruling in Gujarat Electricity Board V/s. Hind Mazdoor Sangh & Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 27 wherein Hon'ble Court on the point observed that:
"In such a dispute the workmen are required to
establish that, so called labour contract was sham and
only a camouflage to deny them their legitimate dues."
22. In this respect the Ld. Adv. for the second party submitted that it is not their case that, there are no such contractos in existence or the contractors are fake or fictitious. The fact is not disputed that wages, bonus are paid by the first party no. 1 through contractors and PF is also subscribed through contractors. According to them, the contractors and contract agreements and all other documents are mere paper work. The contractors are name lenders and are sham, bogus and mere camouflage to deprive these workmen from getting their legitimate rights of permanency. In this respect he pointed out that, though it is contended by these witnesses in their respective affidavits that the work of these workmen was supervised by the supervisors of the contractors the fact and circumstances show otherwise. According to the second party the work of these workmen was being supervised by the officials of the first party. In this respect the Ld. Adv. for the second party rightly pointed out that in some area, work of some workmen herein was of technical nature and it can be supervised only by the concerned officials of the Company. He pointed out that, the work of Crane operators cannot be supervised by supervisor of the contractors as it has to be supervised by the technical person under whom they are working. There is no dispute that the Crane operators were working under the engineers of the company who are supposed to look after and supervise the work of the Crane operators. The witness MW-1 Mr. Anil Kumar has admitted in his cross-examination at Ex-105 that the Crane operators are also doing the work of oiling, greasing and some repairs of the cranes. Operating a crane itself is also a technical work. Naturally such work cannot be supervised by any outsider. Only technical persons under whom they are working can supervise the same. They are working under the Officials of ONGC. It shows that the work of these workmen is being supervised by the Officials of the first party under whom they are working.
23. On the point the Ld. Adv. for the first party further submitted that the test of supervision and control is not the sole test and all other relevant factors are required to be taken into account. In support of his argument the Ld. Adv. for the first party referred the ruling, Ram Singh and Ors. V/s. Union Territory Chandigarh & Ors. 2004 (I) CLR 1981 wherein the Hon'ble Court on the point observed that:
26. The Ld. Adv. for the first party also referred Bombay High Court ruling in Bhartiya Kamgar Sena V/s. Udhe India Ltd. & Anr. 2007 (6) MHLJ 185. In this judgment the Hon'ble Court held that merely because contract is in existence for a very long time, it cannot be taken as clue to decide that the contract was not genuine. What has to be seen is the method and manner in which the work is done by the workmen and the control which is exercised by the company over the workmen. In the light of these rulings, I would like to examine the other relevant facts and the evidence on record led by the second party.
27. The Ld. Adv. for the second party on the point submitted that, the control and supervision by the officials of the first party is not the only circumstance to show that these workmen are employees of the first party. He has given the list of the facts supporting thereto which are as follows: According to him the second point is that, these workmen have worked for number of years . In this respect the Ld. Adv. for the first party submitted that these workmen are continued in service as per the interim relief granted by Hon'ble High Court. Therefore they are not entitled to get any relief. In support of his argument, Ld. Adv. referred Apex Court ruling in Dr. D.C. Wadhwa & Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. (1987) I SCR 798 where in the Hon'ble Court on the point observed that;
''Merely because an employee had continued under
cover of an order of Court which we have described as
'litigious employment' in the earlier part of he judgment,
he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or
made permanent in the service."
"No doubt control is one of the important test but it not
to be taken as a sole test. In determining the relationship
of employer and employee all other relevant facts and
circumstances are required to be considered including
the terms and conditions of the contract"
24. The Ld. Adv. for the first party also referred Apex Court ruling in International Airport Authority of India 28. In this respect the Ld. Adv. for the second party submitted that these workmen are working for number of years, much before the interim protection granted by Hon'ble High Court. Therefore the ratio laid down in the above ruling is not attracted to the set of facts of the1962 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] present case. The workmen herein are working with ONGC for more than 3 to 10 years continuously before the interim protection. As per the list of workmen at Exh. A one of the workmen is shown to have been working since 1985. Two of them are working since 1989. Four workers are shown to have joined their respective work in 1990 and every year 3 to 4 workers are shown to have joined the work. In the year 1996, some nine workers have joined the work of the company. The joining dates of respective workers are given in the list Ex-A. These joining dates are not challenged by the management or any witnesses thereof. Though the period of interim protection is excluded it is clear that these workmen have worked continuously more than 3 to 10 years and thereafter by way of interim relief their service is continued. It is also one of the factors to show that, they are not employees engaged by any contractor. Thirdly the Ld. Adv. for the second party pointed out that, these workmen are working continuously for number of years whereas contractors were changed after interval of a year or two it also indicates that the contracts are sham and bogus. Fourthly most of the workmen are doing technical work as Crane operators which need special training and they cannot be replaced by any other ordinary untrained workmen.
29. Fifthly the Ld. Adv. for the second party pointed out that the first party has signed MoU with the union to which contractors were not party. In this respect Ld. Adv. for the first party tried to explain that, the first party can sign MoU as per Rule 30 of I.D. Rules and it was signed to protect the interest of these workmen. However no convincing explanation was given as to why concerned contractor was not party to the MoU. If the workmen are the employees of the contractors they would have also signed the MoU. From the fact of signing MoU, it indicates that the workers were to remain in the employment of the first party for further period and the contractor inducted at the relevant time was not to be continued after the period of his contract. Therefore contractor of the particular year when MoU came to be was not expected to sign the MoU as the terms and conditions in the MoU would not be binding on the contractors after his contract period is over. In the circumstances no contractor was expected to sign the MoU.
Furthermore, the Ld. Adv. for the second party also pointed out that, in the case at hand witness of ONGC Shri Anil Kumar in his cross at Ex.-105 has admitted, that ONGC can direct the contractor to disengage particular employee. He has also admitted in his cross that, training of Crane operators of the cranes used by ONGC is given outside. It indicates control was of ONGC.
31. Seventh point is that it the specific case of the union that, the first party has engaged them and contractors are inducted afterwards and periodically. The first party has neither pleaded nor led any evidence, as to initially which contractor has engaged these workmen. It supports the version of the union that initially first party had engaged them and contractors were inducted subsequently. Eighth point put forth by Ld. Adv. for the second party is that, the work being performed by these workmen is of perennial nature and required to be performed by permanent employees' .Employing temporary or contract workmen for such perennial work amount unfair labour practice. Ninth point is that,the premises, instruments for oiling greasing and the machines such as cranes operated by these employees are owned by ONGC and all the facilities provided to these workmen by ONGC. All these facts supports the version of the union that, these workmen were engaged by the first party no.1 and contractors were inducted periodically, merely to deprive them from getting the benefits available under Labour Legislation
32. In the light of all these facts the Id. adv. for the second party submitted that, as the labour contract are Sham and bogus, the workmen are the employees of ONGC and deserves to be regularised. In support of his arguments,the Ld. Advocate for the second party resorted to Apex Court ruling reported in Hindalco industries Ltd. V/s. Association of Engineering workers AIR 2008 SC 1867 wherein the canteen employees were working continously for 10-15 years. The contractors were changed the some workmen continued. Neither the workmen were replaced nor fresh appointments were made. On the other hand,same workmen were continued even on the date of complaint. Taking note of all the facts and circumstances on record, the Hon'ble Apex Court in that case observed that:
"The Industrial Court is perfectly right in arriving the
conclusion that the evidence coupled with the terms of
agreement show that contract is nothing but paper
agreement as stated earlier. Inspite of change of
replaced nor fresh appointments were made. On the
other hand, same workmen were continuing even on
the date of filling of the complaint."
30. On the point Ld. Adv. for the second party submitted that the fact that, the contractor is not party to MoU is one of the circumstances indicating that workmen are employees of the first party and contractors are sham and bogus. In support of his argument, the Ld. Adv. resorted to Bombay High Court ruling in ONGC Ltd. V/s. Transport and Dock Workers Union & Ors. 2007 II LLJ wherein Memorandum of Understaning signed between the parties without intervention of contractors and without contractor being a party thereto and VRS package was given directly by ONGC to the workers without intervention of the contractor. The Hon'ble Court found that these facts are the prima facie evidence to show that contracts are sham and bogus.
33. In this respect the Id. adv. for the second party union has further submitted that the workers under reference are doing the work of perennial nature such as Crane operators, doing services of technical nature including oiling, greasing, and repairing the cranes. The Id. adv. pointed out that MW-1 Anil kumar Manager HR with ONGC has admitted in[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1963 recruitment procedure prescribed ther for. In support of his argument he has resorted to Apex Court ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors.V/s. Umadevi & Ors. 2006 II CLR 261 wherein the Hon'ble Court held that;
"Unless the appointment was in terms of relevant rules, no rights are conferred on the appointee."
In the same judgement, Hon'ble Court also observed
that;
"Merely because he is continued beyond his term of
appointment does not entitle him to be absorbed in
regular service or made permanent."
his cross-examination at Ex.105 page 26 thereof, that the work of crane operator is of perennial nature. He further admitted that crane operators appointed by ONGC and the crane operators of contractors do the same job on the same type of cranes. He also admitted that is difference in the payment of the crane operators of ONGC and crane operators angaged as contract workers. MW-2, N.K. sonare, S.E. Production has admitted that the crane operators of ONGC and crane operators of contractors are working on the same crane. They do the technical service including oiling, greasing and repairing etc. He further says that engine crane operators require certificate issued by some agency. It indicate their job is of technical in nature and untrained workman cannot do the same.
34. All these facts lead me to the conclusion that, the workmen under reference are the employees of first party No. 1 and not of the intermediate contractors. Consequently I hold that the labour contrators inducted into periodically by the first party are sham, bogus and mere camouflage to deprive these workmen from getting their legitimate rights under the Labour Legislation. Accordingly I decide this issue Nos.1 in the affirmative.
Issue No.2 to 4:—
35. These issues are interconnected, therefore in order to avoid repitition of discussion they are discussed and decided simultaneously. In issue No. 1 above it is held that, the workmen under reference are the employees of the first party and the labour contractors are sham and bogus and mere camouflage to deprive them from getting the legitimate benefits under Labour Legislations. Now another important point for my determination is whether these workmen are entitled to the declaration and consequential relief of Pay and allwances at par with permanent workmen.
36. In this respect Ld. Adv. for the first party submitted that the contract labourers cannot be regularized as they are not recruited by the company. In support of his argument, the Id. adv. cited Apex Court ruling in The workmen of Food Corporation of India V/s. M/s. Food Corporation of India (1985) II LLJ4 wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that,
39. As against this the Ld. Adv. for the second party union pointed out that, in that case relief of regularization was sought for. In the case at hand the workmen are not claiming regularization or permanency on the ground that they were continued beyond the term of their respective appointments. On the other hand they are claiming that the contracts between the contractors and principal employer are sham and bogus. They claim that, they are skilled workers. Though the contractors were changed after every year or two, the workers working with ONGC are the same. They are working at their respective places, since last number of years. ONGC has signed MoU with union without contractors etc. In issue No. 1 hereinabove it is held that these workmen are the employees of the first party and contractors are sham and bogus. Therefore the ratio laid down, in the above ruling is not attracted, to the set of facts of the case at hand.
40. The Ld. advocate for the first party also relied on the landmark ruling on the point reported in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and ors. V/s. National Union Waterfront Workers and ors. 2001 III CLR 349 = AIR 2001 SC 3527 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that;
"Neither Section 10 of the CLRA Act nor any other
provision in the Act, whether expressly or by necessary
implication, provides for automatic absorption of
contract labour on issuing a notification by
appropriate Government under Sub-section (1) of
Section 10 prohibiting employment of contract labour
in any process, operation or other work in any
establishment. Consequently the principal employer
cannot be required to order absorption of the contract
labour working in the concerned establishment."
"Workman employed by contractor cannot be the
workman of a third party who engages a contractor."
37. The ratio laid down in this ruling would not be attracted to the set of facts of the present case, as in the issue No.1 herein above it is held that, the workmen herein are the employee of ONGC and not engaged by any of the contractors.
38. The Id. Adv. for the first party in this respect, further submitted that, the temporary workmen or contract labourers cannot be regularized merely as they are working for a long period as they are not recruited by following 41. On the point, the Ld. Adv. for the second party submitted that, the above observations are in respect of contract labourers. However in the case at hand, in issue No. 1 herein above it is held that the workmen under reference are the employees of ONGC. Therefore the above ratio is not applicable to the case at hand. On the other hand Ld. Adv. for the second party pointed out that in the same ruling, in para 121(5) the Hon'ble Court further observed that;
"If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere
camouflage, so the so called contract labour will have
1964 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]to be treated as employees of the principal employer
who shall be directed to reqularize the services of the
contract labourer in the concerned establishment
subject to conditions as may be specified by it for that
purpose...."
42. Though the work is of perennial nature, even after notification of abolition of contracts, the workmen were shown to have continued as contract labourers, which is illegal. In this respect I would like to point out that, the labour contracts herein are held sham, bogus and mere camouflage to deprive the workers from getting benefits under labour legislation. Thus this ruling does not extend any help to the first party. On the other hand, as observed by the Apex Court in para 121(5) of this judgment direction shall have to be given to the first party no. 1 to regularise the service of these workmen.
43. In the light of the discussions and findings, herein above it is clear that the workmen under reference are the employees of ONGC. Consequently I hold that they are entitled to all the benefits of the permanent employees since the date of their respective appointments (excluding the probation period of two years). Thus the reference has to be allowed.
the Tribunal as well. According to the Ld. Adv. for ONGC, even the Apex Court has observed in some judgments that the subsequent developments should be taken in to account.Therefore after interval of few months, he is in a habit to file such applications for placing facts on record. Such applications are time killing. If at all there is any change in the circumstances, it can be considered at any stage of the proceedings. Party can seek amendment to that effect and lead evidence for the same. In this proceeding, I found that the delay tactics were adopted on behalf of advocate of the first party. The most unfortunate part is that it is done by the advocate representing the Government Undertaking. Sincerely I feel, it should be stopped hence forth. In this respect while arguing the matter on some interim applications the Ld. Adv. for the second party submitted that ONGC may have spent much more amount in this litigation than the difference and dues of payable to these workmen. If it is a fact, the company i.e. high officials thereof and concern Ministry should think about it seriously. Such types of litigations are, not only against the State Policy but also affect the national interest as well. They should keep some check on such litigation and should avoid the National waste. I express my total displeasure in the manner this litigation was protracted by the Ld. Adv. for first party. Lengthy pleadings, bulky record and evidence, number of relevant, irrelevant rulings are also placed herein to cause delay in passing the award. Beside these delay tactics, this Tribunal is also facing some administrative difficulties such as there is no Steno and since last few years the post of Stenographer is vacant all those reasons were given in detail in the earlier award.
45. In the light of findings on issues No. 1 to 3, I come to the conclusion that the union is entitled to the declaration that the contract between ONGC and the intermediate contractors are sham and bogus and mere camouflage to deprive these workmen from getting their legitimate right under the Labour Legislation. I further hold that these workmen are entitled to get pay, allowances and all other facilities at par with the regular employees of ONGC. In short, I allow the reference and proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
1. The reference is allowed as follows.
2. The labour contracts between ONGC and its contractors in respect of the workmen under reference are hereby declared sham, bogus and mere camouflage to deprive the workmen under reference from getting benefits of permanent employees.
44. Before parting with the judgment, it would not be out of place to take survey of the reasons for delay. In this matter while directing the Govt. to make Reference, Hon'ble High Court has given direction to this Tribunal to dispose of this Reference in 2003. There was little delay in passing the order of reference. It was passed in the year 2003 and thereafter the delay tactics were adopted on behalf of ONGC. The delay in the court proceedings are being bitterly criticized from every corner. This reference is an example as to how the proceedings are protracted for years together. In this Reference, though the point for determination is very short, the record has become very bulky. It took about 12 years' time to dispose of this reference. I would like to observe certain unpleasant facts on record causing delay and leading to waste of time of the parties and Tribunal as well. I found there is delay at every stage of the proceeding. It starts from the pleadings. The statement of claim EX-6 is of 9 pages, whereas the written statement of ONGC EX-26 is very exhaustive running in to 84 paras and 21 pages. Thereafter number of applications were filed on behalf of ONGC and were required to be replied by the other side and ordres are passed thereon. In addition to that, the Ld. Adv. for ONGC is also in a habit of filing applications for "placing some facts on record". Such applications for placing facts on record are neither part of pleading nor they can be read as evidence on record. Infact such applications cannot be considered and fact narrated therein cannot be taken into account. Inspite of that I noticed that, not only in this proceeding, but also in many matters same Ld. Adv. for ONGC is in a habit of filing such applications. It amounts to waste of time of the other side and the time of
3. The workmen under reference are hereby declared as permanent workmen of first party ONGC. They are entitled to the pay and other allowances and benefits at par with the permanent employees.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1965Appearances:
4. The first party ONGC is directed to pay the difference in wages and to give all other benefits to the workers under reference at par with the permanent employees of the respective grades from the date of their respective appointments with benefit of promotions etc.
Date: 27/02/2015
K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer/Judge
नई दिल्ली, 28 अप्रैल, 2015
For the first party No. 1 : Mr. Lancy D'Souza Management
For the second party/ : Mr. R.D. Bhatt, Adv. Union No. 1
For the second party/ : Mr. G.S. Baj, Adv. Union No. 2
State
: Maharashtra
Mumbai, dated the 8th day of Apil 2015.
AWARD
का॰आ॰. 895.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार हिंदुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय 1, मुंबई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 33/2007)को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20/4/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-30011/29/2007-आई आर (एम)]
जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 28th April, 2015
1. The present Reference has been made by the Central Government by its order dated 2.7.2007 passed 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. The terms of Reference as per the Schedule to the said order are as under:
"Whether the action of the management of Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mumbai is justified
and proper in keeping the 263 workers (list enclosed)
on contract basis for a long duration of period and
still continuing on a sham and bogus contract system?
If not, then what relief these 263 workmen are entitled
to?"
S.O. 895.—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. 33/2007) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court 1, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20/4/2015.
[No. L-30011/29/2007-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
2. A perusal of the above-quoted Reference Order shows that the Reference was made in respect of 263 workers whose list was enclosed with the Reference Order. The Reference was at the instance of Petroleum Employees' Union and General Employees' Association (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the second party/Union No. 1").
ANNEXURE
3. It further appears that subsequently an Application for Implement was filed on behalf of Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh claiming to represent some of the workmen out of 263 workmen mentioned in the above Reference Order. The said Impleadment Application filed on behalf of Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh was allowed by this Tribunal by the Order dated 5.10.2011, and the said Union, namely, Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh was impleaded as the second party Union/ No. 2 in the case.
4. Pleadings were exchanged between the parties. The BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 MUMBAI case is at the stage of evidence.
Present
JUSTICE S.P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/33 OF 2007
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
And
Their workmen
5. The case was lastly on 18.3.2015. By the Order dated 18.3.2015, the case was fixed for 8.4.2015, i.e. today. Accordingly, the case is put up today.
6. Shri Lancy D'Souza, learned counsel for the first party/ Management (i.e. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.), Shri R.D. Bhatt, learned counsel for the second party/Union No. 1 and Shri G.S. Baj, learned counsel for the second party/Union No. 2 are present.
1966 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]7. On 18.2.2015, a Joint Application on behalf of the first party/Management, namely, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and the second party/Union No. 1 was filed. The said Joint Application dated 18.2.2015 has been signed by Shri Vijay Katne, General Manager (In- charge), Human Resources on behalf of the first party/ Management, Shri D.N. Vidhate, on behlf on General Employees' Association and Shri N.A. Khanvilkar on behalf of Petroleum Employees' Union. The said two Unions, as noted above, are being collectively referred to as "the second party/Union No. 1". The said Joint Application dated 18.2.2015, is further signed by Mr. Lancy D'Souza, learned counsel for the first party/Management and Mr. R.D. Bhatt, learned counsel for the second party/Union No. 1.
8. It is, inter-alia, stated in the said Joint Application dated 18.2.2015 filed on behalf of the first party/Management and the second party/Union No. 1 that the parties have entered into a Settlement by Consent of and with all the parties therein; and that the Reference be disposed of and an Award be passed in terms thereof. The Consent Terms and the Memorandum of Understanding have been filed along with the said Joint Application dated 18.2.2015. The said Consent Terms have again been signed by the aforesaid Vijay Katne on behalf of the first party/ Management, the aforesaid D.N. Vidhate on behalf of General Employees' Union and the aforesaid N.A. Khanvilkar on behalf of Petroleum Employees' Union. The said Consent Terms have also been signed by Mr. Lancy D'Souza, learned cousel for the first party/ Management and Mr. R.D. Bhatt, learned counsel for the second party/Union No. 1.
9. Today, another Joint Application has been filed on behalf of the first party/Management and the second party/ Union No. 2, namely, Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh. The said Joint Application dated 8.4.2015 has been signed by the aforesaid Vijay Katne on behalf of the first party/Management, namely, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. The said Joint Application has further been signed by Ashok Jagtap, General Secretary, Bhartiya Kamgar Karmchari Mahasangh (second party/Union No. 2). The said Joint Application has also been signed by Mr. Lancy D'Souza, learned counsel for the first party/ Management and Mr. G.S. Baj, learned counsel for the second party/Union No. 2.
10. It is, inter-alia stated in the said Joint Application dated 8.4.2015 filed on behalf of the first party/Management and the second party/Union No. 2 that the parties have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding by consent of and with all the parties therein; and that the Reference be disposed of and an Award be passed in terms thereof. Alongwith the said Joint Application dated 8.4.2015, the Consent Terms and the Memorandum of Understanding have been filed. The Consent Terms have been signed by the aforesaid Vijay Katne on behalf of the first party/ Management and by the aforesaid Ashok Jagtap on behalf of the second party/Union No. 2. The Consent Terms have also been signed by Mr. Lancy D'Souza, learned counsel for the first party/Management and Mr. G.S. Baj, learned counsel for the second party/Union No. 2.
11. In view of the aforesaid Joint Application dated 18.2.2015, filed on behalf of the first party/Management and the second party/Union No. 1 and the aforesaid Joint Application dated 8.4.2015 filed on behalf of the first party/ Management and the second party/Union No. 2, the Industrial Dispute forming the subject-matter of the Reference is decided in terms of the Consent Terms and the Memorandum of Understanding filed with the aforesaid Joint Application dated 18.2.2015 and the Consent Terms and the Memorandum of Understanding filed along with with the aforesaid Joint Application dated 8.4.2015.
12. The Reference is, therefore, answered by stating that the Industrial Dispute forming the subject-matter of the Reference is decided in terms of the Consent Terms and the Memorandum of Understanding filed along with the aforesaid Joint Application dated 18.2.2015 and the Consent terms and the Memorandum of Understanding filed along with the aforesaid Joint Application dated 8.4.2015.
13. Award is passed accordingly. The aforesaid Consent Terms and the Memorandum of Understanding filed along with the Joint Application dated 18.2.2015 as well as the Consent Terms and the Memorandum of Understanding filed along with the Joint Application dated 8.4.2015, will form part of the Award.
JUSTICE S.P. MAHROTRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2015
का॰आ॰. 896.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकाें और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 80/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23/04/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-40012/144/2012-आई आर (डीयू)]
पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 24th April, 2015
S.O. 896.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 80/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, No. II, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1967 Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23/04/2015.
[No. L-40012/144/2012-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer 2. Neither workman Mahanand Paswan nor any authorized Representative appeared nor any written statement with any documents filed on his behalf. Mr.
Sushil Prasad, Ld. Advocate of the OP/Management is also absent.
ANNEXURE
On perusal of the case record, I find this has been all along pending for filing W.S. with documents on behalf of the workman since 21.06.2014, for which three Regd. Notices dt. 29.4.2013, 23.04.2014 and 04.02.2015 have been issued to the workman by his name on his address as noted in the 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 itself. But the workman did not respond to any of the Notices of the Tribunal. The workman by his reluctant conducts appears to be quite uninterested and unwilling to contest the case.
Under these circumstances, it is no longer the Industrial Dispute related to an issue over his alleged termination; hence it is closed and accordingly, it is passed an order of REFERENCE NO. 80 OF 2013.
Parties : Sri Mahanand Paswan, S/o Shri Uchit Paswan, R/o Mohala Salempur PO: Nannmari PS: Kariparsurai, NALANDA (BIHAR).
'No Industrial Dispute'.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2015
Vs.
Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Patna, Patna Telecom Circle, Patna.
Ministry's Order No. L-40012/144/2012-IR(DU) dt. 18.03.2013.
का॰आ॰. 897.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का
14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार कौंसिल फॉर एडवांसमेंट
ऑफ़ पीपल एक्शन एंड रूरल टेक्नोलॉजी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकाें
और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में
Appearances:
On behalf of the work- : None woman/Union
On behalf of the : Mr. Sushil Prasad, Management Ld. Advocate.
State : Bihar Industry Telecommunication
Dated, Dhanbad, the 30th Mar., 2015.
केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय 2, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 326/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय
सरकार को 23/04/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-42012/124/2000-आई आर (डीयू)]
पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 24th April, 2015
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on the 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-40012/144/ 2012-IR(DU) dt. 18.03.2013.
S.O. 897.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 326/2005) of the
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Patna, in terminating the services of Shri Mahanand Paswan S/o Shri Uchit Paswan is legal and justified? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum- Labour Court, No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Council for Advanced of People Action and Rural Technology and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23/04/2015.
[No. L-42012/124/2000-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer1968 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No. 326/2005
Registered on 12.8.2005
Sh. Kedar Singh Mehta, S/o Gusain Singh Mehta, R/o
House No. 66-B, Sector 30B, Chandigarh.
..Petitioner His services were terminated after 31.3.2004 without paying him any retrenchment compensation. That new persons were also employed by the management without serving him any notice. In the circumstances, the termination of his services is illegal and unfair.
Versus
The Council for Advancement of People Action and Rural Technology (Regional Committee), through its Director (CAPART), SCO No. 179-180, 2nd Floor, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
..Respondents The management filed written reply pleading that office was opened at Chandigarh in March-April and contract was given to M/s Rakshak Security Services Private Limited for providing the services of security arrangement, house- keeping and Secretarial Services. That the said company assigned the claimant to the management in May, 1998 and it was the company who used to pay him the salary and was responsible for deducting ESI, PF and to meet all the necessary requirements under the labour Laws. That the workman was never appointed by the management and has no disciplinary control over him. That the workman was never an employee of the management. That the services of the workman were not terminated by it.
APPEARANCES
For the workman : Sh. D.C. Mittal Adv.
For the Management : Ex parte
In support of its case the workman appeared in the witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as set out in the claim petition.
Award
Passed on 18.3.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/124/ 2000-IR(DU) Dated 28.9.2000, by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub-Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-Section (2-A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') had referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of Regional Committee of the Council for Advancement of People's Action and Rural Technology, Chandigarh in terminating the services of Sh. Kedar Singh Mehta S/o Sh. Gusain Singh Mehta w.e.f. 1.4.1999 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
In response to the notice, the workman filed statement of claim pleading that he was selected by a duly constituted selection committee and was appointed as Data Entry Operator by the management through M/s Rakshak Security Services Private Limited and he joined the service with the management on 8.5.1998 at a fixed salary of Rs. 2300/- per month which was later on enhanced to Rs. 3120/-
It is further pleaded that management has all the disciplinary control over his work, attendance, leave and it was the management who used to pay him the salary. That the work is of permanent nature and is still continuing with the management.
It is further pleaded that in fact no contract was given to M/s Rakshak Security Services but the arrangement was only made for payment of salary which was a camouflage.
The management was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23.2.2012 and application filed by it for setting aside the ex parte order was dismissed vide order dated 22.5.2014. As such the management did not lead any evidence.
I have heard Sh. D.C. Mittal, counsel for the workman.
It was contended by the learned counsel for the workman that the workman was directly appointed by the respondent management who terminated his services without paying him any retrenchment compensation. That the management also employed new persons in his place without serving any notice on him and as such, the termination is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the learned counsel.
It may be added at the outset that the first question to be seen in whether the workman was ever engaged by the respondent management who is a statutory body. It has its rules and regulations for making the appointment. Nothing has come on the file that any such procedure was followed while giving appointment to the workman. No appointment letter has been placed on record by the workman to establish that he was actually appointed by the respondent management.
It is the case of the respondent management that services were hired from M/s Rakshak Security Services Private Limited when its office was opened in Chandigarh in 1998 and the workman himself pleaded in his statement of claim that his services were hired through the said agency. He has further pleaded that the arrangement for payment of salary through M/s Rakshak Security Services was made which is a camouflage. Thus the workman himself admits that his services were hired by M/s Rakshak Security[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1969
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Services who used to pay salary. Though workman has appeared in the witness box but he did not lead any evidence to show that his ESI and PF was deducted by the management at any point of time.
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No. 334/2005
Registered on 12.1.2005
Sh. Joginder Pal, S/o Sh. Bishan Dass, Ex. Peon (Daily Wage Basis), O/o Executive Engineer (Electrical), BSNL, R/o Village and Post Office Mahadipur, Distt. Jalandhar.
...Petitioner
Versus
In the circumstances, when no appointment letter was issued by the respondent management and the workman was not paid and salary by it and it is not proved on the file that his PF etc. was ever deducted by the management, the workman cannot claim himself to be the employee of the respondent management. In view of his own pleadings, it can be safely concluded that he was an employee of M/s. Rakshak Security Services Private Limited who provided him to the management for doing certain job and it was the said company who terminated the services and the said company has not been made party to this reference.
Being so, it cannot be said that the services of the workman were terminated by the respondent management and he is not entitled to any relief. The reference is accordingly answered against the workman. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for information and further necessary action.
1. Superintending Engineer (Electrical), Telecom Electrical Wing, BSNL, SCO No. 332-34, Sector 34, Chandigarh.
2. Executive Engineer (Electrical), BSNL, Electrical Division, Lamba Pind Exchange, Guru Gobind Singh Avenue, Jalandhar.
3. Deputy Secretary (Administration), Department of Telecom, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi.
...Respondents
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
APPEARANCES
नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2015
For the workman — Sh. Brajesh Mittal, Adv.
For the Management — Sh. G.C. Babbar, Adv.
AWARD
का॰आ॰. 898.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंध्तत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय 2, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 334/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23/04/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-40012/77/2004-आई आर (डी यू)]
पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 24th April, 2015
S.O. 898.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 334/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23/04/2015.
[No. L-40012/77/2004-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer Passed on 3.3.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/77/ 2004-IR(DU) Dated 30.11.2004, by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub-Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub- Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom (BSNL) in terminating the services of Sh. Joginder Pal S/o Sh. Bishan Dass, Ex-peon (daily wage basis) w.e.f. 21.3.1997 without notice in prescribed manner and without any payment of retrenchment compensation etc. in violation of the statutory provisions of the ID Act is legal and just? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was engaged as Peon on daily wage basis by the respondent management on 4.11.1988 and his services were terminated on 20.3.1997 without serving him notice or payment of retrenchment compensation. His termination is illegal and he be reinstated in service.
1970 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]Respondent management filed written reply controverting the averments and pleaded that workman was engaged as daily rated mazdoor on need basis and since his services were no longer required, notice was given to him on 17.2.1997 (Annexure R1) and on the expiry of the notice period, his services stood terminated. It is further pleaded that the workman challenged the said notice before the Central Administrative Tribunal who dismissed his application on 17.3.1997. The workman filed Writ Petition No. 3546 of 1998 which was disposed of with the direction to the respondent management to consider the claim of the workman for daily rated mazdoor and his representation was disposed of by the management by passing the order dated 14.1.1999 which was again challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal who directed the respondent management to consider the case of the workman for grant of temporary status. The representation of the workman was disposed of vide order dated 12.2.2002 which was again challenged by filing a writ petition No. 16005 of 2002 which was dismissed. That termination of the services of the workman is legal and valid.
In support of its case the workman appeared in the witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the stand taken by it in the statement of claim.
On the other hand, the management has examined Sh. Amarjit Singh, who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand taken by the management in the written statement.
I have heard Sh. Barjesh Mittal, counsel for the workman
and Sh. G.C. Babbar, counsel for the management.
In result, it cannot be said that the termination of the
services of the workman are not legal and just and workman
is not entitled to any relief. The reference is accordingly
answered against the workman. Let hard and soft copy of
the award be sent to the Central Government for information
and further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer,
नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2015
का॰आ॰. 899.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसारण में केन्द्रीय सरकार हिन्दुस्तान साल्ट लिमिटेड मंडी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्र्रम न्यायलय 2, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 147/2011 को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23/04/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-42012/194/2010-आईआर(डीयू)]
पी॰के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 24th April, 2015
S.O. 899.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 147/2011) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court
No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Hindustan Salt Ltd., Mandi and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 23/04/2015.
[No. L-42012/194/2010-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
It is the case of the workman himself that he was appointed as daily rated Peon in the office of the management and since he himself pleads that he was a daily rated mazdoor, the services of the daily rated mazdoor comes to an end at the end of the day and the same do not amount to 'retrenchment' and in this respect reliance may be placed on Divisional forest Officer, Rohtak Vs. Jagat Singh and others reported in 2010 (4) SLR 390, wherein it was observed in para 4 of the judgment as follow:
It may be noticed that the definition of retrenchment in Section 2(oo) of the Act is applicable to the provisions contained in chapter VA containing Sections 25F and 25H of the Act. The termination of daily wager is not retrenchment failing within Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act. Therefore, the workman, who is a daily wager, cannot be reinstated as it does not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Sections 25F and 25G of the Act.
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 147/2011
Registered on 24.5.2011
Sh. Manoj Kumar, through Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar,
Working President, Pb INTUC, 211-L, Brari, P.O. Partap
Nagar, Nangal Dam, 'Distt. Ropar.
...Petitioner
Versus
However, the workman himself admits during cross- examination that the management issued a notice to him terminating his services and on the expiry of the notice period, his services stood terminated. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any violation of the provisions of the Act while terminating the services of the workman.
1. The Manager, Hindustan Salt Ltd., Mandi.
...Respondents[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1971
APPEARANCES
For the workman — Sh. R.K. Singh, A.R.
For the Management — Sh. S.K. Gupta, Adv. 1265/2006)को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23/04/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-40012/71/2005-आईआर (डीयू)]
पी॰के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी
AWARD
Passed on 19.3.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/194/ 2010-IR(DU) Dated 4.4.2011, by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub-Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub- Section (2- A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of Senior Superintendent of Hindustan Salt Limited., Mandi in terminating the services of their workman Sh. Manoj Kumar w.e.f. 1.7.2009 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"
New Delhi, the 24th April, 2015
S.O. 900.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 1265/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23/04/2015.
[No. L-40012/71/2005-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 1265/2006
In response to the notice, the workman submitted statement of claim pleading that he was engaged by respondent as unskilled mazdoor on 11.11.2006 at Darang where he worked till 30.6.2009. His services were terminated on 1.7.2009 without serving any notice or payment of compensation and management indulged in unfair labour practice. Since his termination is illegal, he be reinstated in service.
The management filed written reply denying the relationship and pleaded that workman was paid wages at daily rates for the day he worked and he did not work regularly.
Registered on 10.5.2006
Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ex Daily Wage casual lorry driver, O/o Executive Engineer (Civil), Telecom Civil Division, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Kothi No.414-15, J.P. Nagar, Jalandhar.
......Petitioner
Versus
The workman availed several opportunities but did not
lead any evidence. 1. Chief General Manager Telecom, Punjab Telecom
Circle, BSNL, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.
Today the case was again fixed for evidence of the
workman and his counsel made statement not pressing 2. Principal General Manager Telecom 'District',
the present reference. BSNL, Jalandhar Telecom district, Jalandhar.
In view of his statement, the rereference is answered 3. Executive Engineer (Civil), Telecom Civil Division,
against the workman and it is held that he is not entitled to BSNL, Kothi No. 414-415, JP Nagar, Jalandhar.
any relief. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to
the Central Government for further necessary action.
.......Respondents
APPEARANCES
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2015
For the workman — Sh. Brajesh Mittal, Adv.
For the Management — Sh. G.C. Babbar, Adv.
AWARD
का॰आ॰ 900.—औ़द्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्ि ाकरण एवं श्रम न्यायाल 2 चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या Passed on 17.3.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/71/ 2005 IR (DU) Dated 19.4.2006, by exercising its powers under Section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d) and sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter1972 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] referred to as Áct') has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management Telecommunication, Jalandhar in not granting temporary status to Sh. Ashok Kumar, Daily Wage Casual Lorry Driver and six other workmen with all consequential benefits is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was engaged as daily wage casual lorry driver in February, 1995 on muster roll by the respondent department. He was transferred to another office on 3.4.1996. He was driving an official vehicle and was paid monthly wages by Sh. Hari Krishan, JTO vide different receipts. That he was to be considered for the grant of temporary status as casual mazdoor in accordance with the rules as similar status has been provided to Baljinder Singh as well as to the persons who were junior to him. He filed various representations to consider him for the grant of temporary status but were of no consequence.
He filed a writ before the Hon'ble High Court who vide its order dated 20.4.2004 directed the department to consider his representation but the department rejected his claim vide order dated 15.5.2004. He again filed a writ petition in 2004 which was disposed of vide order dated 17.12.2004 to approach the appropriate Forum. In pursuance thereof, the present reference was made. Since he worked continuously for nine years with the respondent department as daily wage casual lorry driver from 1995, he is entitled to the grant of temporary status. He be granted all the consequential benefits.
The grouse of the workman is that he continuously worked for nine years from February, 1995 as a casual labour on daily wage basis and he was entitled to the 'temporary status casual mazdoor'. Now the first question to be seen whether he was ever engaged by the department as a daily wage labour? The definite stand of the department is that workman was engaged only as a casual labour for three months from April,1996 to June, 1996 and thereafter the work was given to different contractors and in support of its claim, it has placed on record the agreements R1 to R4. Thus it was for the workman to prove that he was actually engaged by the respondent department during the period in question i.e. from the year 1995 onwards but there is no convincing evidence on the file that he was engaged during all this period by the department except the statement of the workman. No record has been produced to show that he was paid any salary by the department during all this period except for three months from April, 1996 to June, 1996 as admitted by the department. The workman has placed on record hand-written receipts Exhibit W2 to W8 but he did not examine the author of the said receipts who has written the same. He has specifically pleaded that Hari Krishan, JTO used to make him the payment. Again he was not examined by the workman to prove his case that it was the department who engaged him and it was the department who used to pay him the salary. In the absence of convincing evidence on file, it can be held that workman was engaged during the period alleged, by the department except from April 1996 to June, 1996.
The government published a scheme vide No.296-10/ 89-STN dated 7.11.1989 for grant of temporary status to casual labourers and its para 5(1) reads as follow:—
Temporary status would be conferred on all the casual
labourers currnetly employed and who have rendered
a continuous service of at least one year out of which
they must have been engaged on work for a period of
240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing five
day week). Such casual labourers will be designated
as Temporary Mazdoor.
Respondent management filed written reply pleading that the workman was engaged only for three months i.e. April, 1996 to June, 1996 and thereafter he was not directly engaged by the management. Work was got performed on contract basis. That the work was given to different contractors and he was not paid any salary by the department and as such, he was not employee of the department.
Parties were given opportunity to lead their evidence.
In support of its case the workman appeared in the witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the stand as taken in the claim statement.
On the other hand the management has examined Sh. I.N. Mishra and Sh. A.K. Suri who filed their respective affidavits supporting the stand taken by the respondent management in the written statement.
I have heard Sh. Barjesh Mittal, counsel for the workman and Sh. G.C. Babbar, counsel for the management and perused the file carefully.
Thus, as per this scheme, the labourers who were employed in the year when this scheme came into existence and have completed 1 year of service were to be considered for the grant of temporary status but the present workman allegedly joined the service in 1995, which is not otherwise proved on the file; and therefore, the workman cannot take any benefit of the said scheme.
In result, it is held that the action of the management in not granting temporary status to the workman and six other workmen with all consequential benefits is legal and justified and he is not entitled to any relief. Let hard an soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1973
AWARD
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2015
का॰आ॰. 901.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार उतर रेलवे के प्रबंध् तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकाें और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण, चण्डीगड के पंचाट संदर्भ संख्या (1071/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29/04/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-41012/23/2001 आई आर (बी-1)]
सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2015
S.O. 901.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 1071/2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indust. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No.-II Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Northern Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29/04/2015.
[No. L-41012/23/2001-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
————
Passed on 20.3.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-41012/23/ 2001 [IR(B-I)] Dated 16.5.2001 read with corrigendum dated 28.9.2010, by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of Northern Railway in terminating the services of Sh. Rajinder Kumar is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"
The facts, in breif, are that workman was engaged as Khalasi in April, 1990 on the basis of being worked as Casual labour in Northern Railway, Bathinda and he was transferred to some other place on 14.10.1991. During the posting, it was found that he connived with the staff of the Railways and he got himself appointed as Khalasi without facing any proper selection and he even could not work in the Construction division in Bathinda in 1983. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 5/1993. He was charge-sheeted to which he submitted reply and Inquiry officer was appointed who found the allegations against the workman as proved. On the basis of the inquiry report, he was dismissed from service. The appeal preferred by him was also rejected.
Parties were given opportunities to lead its evidence.
ANNEXURE
However, the workman did not appear on 10.11.2014
and was proceeded against ex parte.
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
Counsel for the management made statement not to lead
any evidence.
Case No. I. D. No. 1071/2005
Registered on 20.09.2005
Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Resident of House No. 174, Gali No. 4, Shahid Udham Singh Nagar, P.O. Satnampur, Phagwara, District Kapurthala, Punjab.
...Petitioner I have heard Sh. R. S. Rana, counsel for the management.
It may be added that workman had challenged the inquiry proceedings on the basis that he was not given opportunity to file reply, and even he was proceeded against ex parte, and he could not again engage a defence respresentative due to paucity of funds.
Versus
1. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway,
Ambala Cantt.
2. Assistant Engineer, Northern Railway, Rajpura
District Patiala (Punjab).
3. The General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda
House, New Delhi.
...Respondents The management submitted the photocopies of the inquiry proceedings and after hearing the counsel for the parties, the inquiry was found to be fair and just by this Court vide order dated 12.9.2011. That order was not challenged and has attained finality. Thus the inquiry conducted in the case is legal and valid whereby it was found that vide report dated 10.8.1994 the workman got hemself appointed as Khalasi fraudulently and in the circumstances, he has no right to remain in service and his services have been validly terminated.
APPEARANCES
For the workman Sh. Ex Parte, Adv.
For the Management Sh. R. S. Rana, Adv. In result, the reference is answered that the action of the respondent management in terminating the services of the workman are justified and he is not entitled to any releif. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the1974 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Central Government for information and further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2015
का.आ. 902.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का By Order No. L-12012/137/2006-IR (B-I) Dated 09.02.2007, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
SCHEDULE
14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के
प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में
निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण
ध्नबाद के पंचाट संदर्भ संख्या (10/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो
केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29/04/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल. - 12012/137/2006 आई आर (बी-1)]
सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2015
S.O. 902.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No.-1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29/04/2015.
[No. L-12012/137/2006-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer "Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Regional Office, Muzaffarpur in terminating Shri Devanand Mishra workman w.e.f. December, 2004 and not paying the terminal benefits without complying Section 25F of the I.D. Act 1947 and not reinstating into the service in a regular post of subordinate cadre is legal and justified? If not, what relief Shri Devanand Mishra is entitled to?"
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 01.05.2007. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. The workman files their written statement on 23.07.2007. Thereafter the management files their written statement on 31.10.2008. Rejoinder and Document filed by the parties. One witness each examined by both side. Document marked as W-1 to W-7.
3. The Short point to be decided in the case is whether the workman is to be regularized in Bank as regular employee or not.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1)(D)(2A) OF I.D. ACT, 1947
4. Admittedly the workman was working in the Bank as a daily wager for a long period. It is stated by the Bank management that there was a scheme to regularize the suitable daily wager but the present workman could not come as per the norms for which he was asked not to continue. But the workman who rendered service for such a long period as daily wager should not suffer, he be taken as daily wager in the bank to save him from starvation and may be allowed to appear for the test of regularization, in future, when vacancy occurs.
Ref. No. 10/2007
Employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India, R.O, Muzaffarpur
And
their workman
Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,
Presiding Officer.
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2015
Appearances:
For the Employers : Sri S. N. Goswami, Advocate
For the workman : Sri Devanand Mishra, workman
State : Bihar Industry: Banking
Dated 1/4/2015 का.आ. 903.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकाें और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट संदर्भ संख्या (542/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29/04/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल- 12012/265/2003 आई आर (बी-1)]
सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अध्किारी[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1975 New Delhi, the 29th April, 2015
S.O. 903.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 542/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No.-1I, 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 29/04/2015.
[No. L-12012/265/2003-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer between the parties. It was reopened at the instance of the manager who was annoyed with the workman who failed to do his personal work. He was issued a charge-sheet and thereafter an inquiry was conducted and he was dismissed from service. That there were latches in the inquiry proceedings and the punishment awarded on its basis is not legal and valid and he be reinstated in service.
ANNEXURE
Management filed written reply pleading that he committed fraud for wrongly withdrawing Rs. 700/- on 4.10.2000 and Rs. 300/- on 9.10.2000 from the account of Kamla Rana who was already dead at that time. He was duly charge-sheeted and proper inquiry was held. After perusal of the inquiry report and considering the other facts, the punishing authority removed him from service with superannuation benefits which is legal and valid.
The following charge-sheet was served on the workman.
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
CHARGE SHEET
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No. 542/2005
Registered on 22.8.2005
Sh. Devinder Kumar Chopra, Village and P.O. Sahnewal, This has reference to your explanation called for vide our letter No. ROL/STAFF/5265 dated 23.7.2001 and your reply dated 3.8.2001 thereto, which is not considered satisfactory. Hence you are served with charge sheet as under:—
Gali Baba Mundra Wala, Partap Nagar, Sahnewal.
.......Petitioner While posted as Daftri at our Sahnewal Branch since 14.6.99, you are alleged to have committed the following acts of misconduct:—
Versus
1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Sahnewal
Distt. Ludhiana.
......Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the Workman Sh. R.P. Rana, Adv.
For the Management Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv. 1. On 5.10.2000 you presented a withdrawal from dated 4.10.2000 for Rs. 700/- on Saving Bank A/c No. 01170006170 of Smt. Kamla Rani to the Teller. You also identified the signatures of the account holder, Smt. Kamla Rani on the reverse of the said withdrawal from and received its payment from the Teller stating that she was sitting at a distance and could not come to the Teller Counter.
AWARD
Passed on 5-3-2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/265/ 2003 IR(B-I) Dated 22.3.2004 read with corrigendum dated 28.9.2010, by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub- Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Patiala, Sahnewal in removing Sh. Devinder Kumar Chopra, Ex-Daftry from service w.e.f. 4.12.2002 is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was posted as Daftari at Sahnewal Branch. Smt. Usha Rani withdrew Rs. 1000/- from her account and the matter was settled 2. Similarly, on 9.10.2000, you presented another withdrawal form for Rs. 300/- from the above said Saving Account of Smt. Kamla Rani and received its payment from the Teller after identifying her signatures on the back of withdrawal form again stating that she was sitting at a distance and could not come to the Teller Counter.
3. It subsequently came to the notice of the Bank that Smt. Kamla Rani had already expired on 26.8.2000 and the signatures on both the withdrawal forms were also forged.
4. It is alleged that you fraudulently received payment of Rs. 700/- on 5.10.2000 and Rs. 300/- on 9.10.2000 from Saving Bank A/c No. 01170006170 of Smt. Kamla Rani, knowing fully well that she had died on 26.8.2000 and signatures on both the withdrawal forms were forged. You identified her signatures on both the withdrawal forms. It is evidenced from the fact that when her1976 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] husband lodged a complaint with our Sahnewal Branch on 23.10.2000 you quickly deposited back the amount of Rs. 1000/- in the said Saving Bank Account No. 01170006170 of Smt. Kamla Rani under your own signatures.
The above acts of omission and commission on your part, tantamount to gross misconduct under the provisions of Clause 19.5 (J) of 1st Bipartite Settlement 1966 read with the provisions of Shastri/Desai Awards and subsequent Bipartite settlement.
You are advised to submit your reply to the above charge sheet within 10 days of the receipt hereof failing which it will be presumed that you have no defence to offer and we shall proceed further in the matter as per bank's rules.
अरनाकुलम के पंचाट संदर्भ संख्या (21/2013) के प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29/04/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल- 41011/111/2012 आई आर (बी-1)] सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2015
S.O. 904.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2013) of the
Cent.Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Southern Railway and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 29/04/2015.
[No.-L-41011/111/2012-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the inquiry proceedings, the inquiry was held to be fair and proper vide order dated 27.10.2014. That order has not been challenged and therefore it cannot be said that the inquiry proceedings were not proper.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
I have heard the counsel for the parties on the quantum of punishment awarded. It was argued by the counsel for the workman that workman deposited the amount and no pecuniary loss has been caused to the bank and therefore the punishment awarded to him is harsh. It may be added that workman withdrew a sum of Rs. 700/- on 5.10.2000 and again Rs. 300/- on 9.10.2000 by presenting withdrawal forms allegedly bearing the signature of Smt. Kamla Rana and she was dead at that time. Thus the act of the workman who dared to withdraw the amount of a person who was already dead is not pardonable. The bank officers are required to maintain higher standard of integrity as they deal the public money and enjoys the trust of the account holders but the workman totally acted against his responsibilities and withdrew the amount from the account of a dead person by forging her signature. In the circumstances, no ground is made out to interfere with the punishment awarded by the punishing authority.
Present: Shri D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LLB. Presiding
Officer
( Tuesday the 31st day of March, 2015/10th Chaitra, 1937)
I.D. 21/2013
Union : The Secretary
All India Loco Running Staff
Association Palakkad
By Adv. Shri T C Govindaswamy
Management : The Divisional Personnel Officer
Southern Railway, Patakkad
By Adv. Shri PMM Najeeb Khan
This case coming up for final hearing on 23.03.2015 and
this Tribnunal-cum-Labour Court on 31.03.2015 passed the
following:-
AWARD
In result, it is held that the removal of the workman from service is just and legal and he is not entitled to any relief. The reference is accordingly answered against the workman. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, दिनांक 29 अप्रैल, 2015
का.आ. 904.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिण रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, 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 as per Order No-L-41011/
111/2012-IR(B-1) dated 14.03.2013 referred the industrial
dispute scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this
tribunal.
2. The dispute is:
"Whether the action of the management of Southern
Railway, Palakkad Division in withdrawing the privilege
injoyed by the Loco Running Staff in waking the up by
calling boys which is provided in all the major stations[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1977 of the division is legal and justified? If not to what relief they are entitled?"
to report for duty in the early morning in the absence of a call boy. Subsequently message was given calling upon the loco pilots to inform their own User Group No. CUG to the Station Master, Chervathur, while signing of all Chervathur so that the Station Master could call the loco pilot and assistant loco pilot in CUG phone. This was not practically possible since many of the loco pilots were not provided with sim card having CUG No. Name of the assistant loco pilots were given the CUG No. As per the instructions the CUG number cannot be used for private purpose and are expected to use it only in extreme emergencies involving the train. The loco pilots and assistant loco pilots are persons who have to work round the clock and they would not get rest or sleep. The railway administration must ensure that the crew should be given a call so that they can take rest peacefully and discharge their functions safely. The Senior Divisional Operations Manager has no authority to withdraw a privilege or a condition of service which was in existence for the last several decades unilaterally. Hence the action on the part of Senior Divisional Operations Manager in withdrawing the facility of calling the train crew two hours in advance of the expected departure of the train is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
4. In the written statement management would state that the issue in the ID is as to the withdrawal of the traditionally provided privilege of manual calling of crews/ guards at the Chervathur railway station and its replacement by alerting of crews/guards through a bell installed in the running rooms, or by calling them on the CUG mobile numbers at the time of sign on/sign off. It is contended that the Indian Railways function based on general rules, codes and manuals pertaining to the concerned departments and also according to the instructions issued by Railway Board from time to time. There is not mention about the calling of crew/guard anywhere in those rules and instructions. However, activities like calling of crew and guard and handling of line boxes etc. are still continued as traditions or customs since those activities are directly connected with train operation so as to ensure smooth functioning of the system. In the year 2000 Railway Board had given directions to all Zonal Railways to explore the feasibilities to discontinue all those activities by providing alternate arrangements viz., pager service for calling of crew and individual suitcase and handbage instead of boxes. The pager was replaced by mobile services. It had already been implemented in the other Zonal Railways but in the Southern Railway especially in the Palakkad Division the old system is still being continued. The Railway Station at Chervathur is only a wayside Railway Station from where only one pair passenger train is originated/terminated. There is not mechanical or operating staff in that Railway station. Presently there is only a station master and a sweeper-cum-porter there. The service of the lone After appearance of both the parties union filed calim statement alleging that it represents the loco running staff of the Palakkad Division of Southern Railway including Assistance Loco Pilots, Loco Pilots(Shunting), Loco Pilots(Goods), Loco Pilots(Passenger) and Loco Pilots(Mail). The Loco Pilots who are to drive the trains must have proper rest free of tension in order to run the trains safely and peacefully without endangering the safety of the public and hence the Railways have provided separate rest rooms at major stations called as running rooms. In the Palakkad Division of Southern Railway running rooms are provided at Palakkad, Shornur, Calicut, Chervathur, Mangalore Central and Mangalore Junction Stations. The loco running staff are expected to sign on half an hour before the expected departure of the train in major stations. In certain other stations, where the train examining staff are not provided, they have to sign on at least one hour before the expected departure of the train. In order to facilitate signing on in the stations where running rooms are provided call boys are engaged to inform the running staff well in advance about the expected departure of the train. In the absence of call boys the duty of calling the crew is to be done by the Station Master by deploying one of the traffic departmental staff. It is a mandatory requirement and has been in existence for the past several decades. In the Chervathoor station the running rooms is provided in the 1st platform and the call was given by the Station Master through one of his traffic staff or through a mechanical department staff available at the station two hours in advance of the expected departure of the train. But for the first time the Senior Divisional Operations Manager, Palakkad Division issued an order dated 11.02.2011 directing to inform through the standing order book that the guards and driver of the train running between Nilambur and Chervathur would not be given calling and they should sign on themselves. The Senior Divisional Operations Manager of the Traffic/Operating department has no authority to issue such a direction to the loco running staff since they belong to the mechanical or electrical department and their controlling officers are either the Divisional Mechanical Engineer or Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operations). The order is grossly unjust and without any autority of law. On getting information about the order an immediate message was given by the then Divisional Secretary of the All India Loco Running Staff Association, Palakkad to the Divisional Railway Manager, Palakkad division on 14.10.2011 and a copy of the same was sent to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Ernakulam. In the meanwhile, another message was given by the Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer directing that the crew should not wait for calling but must attend the duties without any delay as no call duty can be arranged. The crew and the guards were finding it difficult1978 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] sweeper-cum-porter was used to provide the manual calling of crews/guards. Due to increase in the train/goods services in the station passing through Cheruvathur the services of sweeper-cum-porter could not be continued as he had to attend other important dutes. Under such circumstances the manual calling of crews/guards was replaced by the above stated alternate methods. At the conclusion of the conciliation proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central), Ernakulam the management was directed to maintain status-quo until it is decided by the appropriate forum. Pursuant to it the facility of calling of crews/guards is still provided unabated and it has been decided to continue with the same till a decision is taken for uniform implementation of an alternate method of calling of crews/guards in Southern Railway .The present industrial dispute has become infructuous and hence the same can be closed.
5. No. evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced from both sides. The arguments for both sides were heard.
6. The points for determination are:
(i) Whether the action of the management in withdrawing the privilege enjoyed by the loco running staff in waking up by the call boys is legal and justified?
(ii) Whether the ID has become infructuous?
(iii) To what relief, if any, the workmen are entitled to?
7. Point Nos.(i) & (ii):— It is not in dispute in order to facilitiate signing on by the loco running staff at major stations separate rest rooms were provided and call boys are engaged to inform them well in advance about the expected departure of the train so as to sign on in time. The Senior Divisional Operations Manager, Palakkad issued order dated 11.10.2011 informing that the usual practice of arrangement of the call boys is put an end to in the Chervathur Railway Station and they should sign on themselves, Challenge is made with regard to that order by raising this industrial dispute on the ground that the Senior Divisional Operations Managers has no authority to issue such an order to withdraw unilaterally such a privilege enjoyed for several decades and it is totally arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional.
8. On the other hand it is contended by the management that there is no rule or any instruction in the codes or manuals issued by the Railway Board for providing call boys and as it was a traditional practice connected with train operation the Railway Board had given directions to explore the feasibilties to discontinue it by providing alternate arrangement. Call boys could not be provided in Chervathur Station as there was only the Station Master on duty and a sweeper-cum-porter in that Railway Station.
9. At the outset it is to be pointed out that the initial burden is on the union to prove that the withdrawal of the practice of calling of crews/guards by the call boys is not legal and justified and the same is not duly discharged by adducing any evidence. No evidence was adduced by the union to satisfy that the Senior Divisional Operations Manager has no authority it issue the order withdrawing the usual practice of calling by call boys. There is also no evidence to prove that it is a condition of service. Anyhow at the time of argument learned counsel for both sides have submitted that the facility of calling of crews is still provided and it would continue till a decision is taken uniformly for implementation in Southern Railway as regard to provision of alternate method of calling of crews and hence it is not necessary to enter into a decision on merits. In para 5 of the written statement it is expressly stated that a decision was taken to continue the facility of calling of crews/guards untilo will be taken for uniform implementation of an alternate method of calling in Southern Railway pursuant to the direction of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Ernakulam to the management to maintain status-quo as regard to the provision of calling of crews/guards until the matter is decided at the appropriate Forum. So there is no necessity to consider the question as to the legality and justifiability of withdrawal of privilege of waking up by call boys as it will continue until a decision will be taken for uniform implementation of alternate method of calling in Southern Railway. Hence it can be said that the ID has become infructuous as contended by the management.
10. Point No.(iii):— In view of the above findings on point Nos. (i) & (ii) the reference is closed. The award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 31st day of March, 2015
D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX NIL
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2015
का.आ. 905.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैक ऑफ पटियाला के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 1040/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29/4/2015 प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल. 12012/104/2001-आई आर (बी-I)] सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 2, 2015/वैशाख 12, 1937 1979 New Delhi, the 29th April, 2015
S.O. 905.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1040/2005) of the Cent. Govt.Indus.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 29/4/2015.
of Patiala in compulsory retiring Sh. N.P. Sharma S/o Sh. Jia Ram is just and legal? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared and submitted statement of claim to which written reply was filed. The facts emerging are that workman was posted at Rania Branch as Head Cashier from the year 1993 to 1997. He was served the following charge-sheet dated 4.9.1998.
CHARGE-SHEET
[No. L-12012/104/2001-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer 1. By Misutilising your official position you had borrowed moneys as per details hereunder from the constituents of Rania Branch;
ANNEXURE
(i) Rs. 3500/- on 23.4.1995 from M/s Kisan Beej
Bhandar, Bus Stand Rania.
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present:- Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 1040/2005
(ii) Rs. 5000/- on 1.5.1995 from Sh. Atul Jindal
Prop. M/s Jindal Cloth Store, Main Bazar,
Rania.
Registered on 19.9.2005
(iii) Rs. 5000/- in September, 1995 from M/s Juneja
Rice and General Mills, Rania.
Sh. N.P. Sharma, Son of Sh. (late) Jia Ram R/o Village Dharelu Tehsil and Distt. Bhiwani (Haryana) through J.G. Verma, Authorized representative 3030/1 Sector 44-D, Chandigarh.
2. By demanding illegal gratification for writing
opinion reports of constituents as under of Rania
Branch;
Through LRs
1. Smt. Batheri Devi, Wife of deceased (NP Sharma).
2. Sunil, son of deceased (NP Sharma).
3. Kamal Sharma, Son of deceased (NP Sharma).
(i) Rs.2000/-from Sh. Atam Prakash S/o Sh. Nota
Ram, Manager, M/s Jagdamba Oil Agency
Rania, in connection with enhancement of
Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 2 lac to Rs. 5 lacs on
20.7.1996
...Petitioner
Versus
3. By harassing the parties as above in paras 1 and
2 of Rania Branch who did oblige you in lending
moneys and not giving moneys for writing opinion
reports which has adversely affected the image/
business of Rania Branch.
1. Assistant General Manager, State Bank of Patiala Region III, Punjab Zonal Office, Leela Bhawan, Patiala.
4. By approaching Punjab Kesari for planting false
news published in its issue dated 29.8.1996 for
maligins the image of Rania Branch.
2. Sh. R.A. Abrol, the then Regional Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Region III, Zonal Office, Leela Bhawan, Patiala.
...Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the Workman Sh. Abhimanyu Sharma, Adv.
For the Management Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.
5. By writing directly to top Management (Chief
General Manager) vide letter dated 24.1.1997 in
violation of bank's service rules and levelled false
and misleading allegations to browheat the
branch manager, Rania Branch and to cover your
own misconduct mentioned here above.
AWARD
Passed on 12.3.2015
6. On 9.10.1997 you left the office at 1:00 pm
unauthorizedly without seeking any permission
but marked the attendance.
Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/ 104/2001 IR (B.I) Dated 11.6.2001, by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub- section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'] has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of state Bank He submitted reply. after considering the same, the inquiry officer was appointed who conducted the inquiry and vide his report dated 31.3.1999 came to the conclusion that all the charges are proved against the workman. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to him and after considering the entire facts, he was ordered to1980 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] be compulsory retired from service vide order dated 4.8.1999.
Now according to the workman, the Branch Manager was biased against him who instigated the complaints against him as he asked him to support a borrower to increase the cash credit limit. That the inquiry officer conducted the inquiry against the principle of natural justice and the statements of the witnesses were recorded at his back and as such the inquiry is illegal; and the punishment based on its report is also not sustainable. Several allegations were also raised for serving a charge- sheet on him.
The respondent bank in its reply pleaded that workman committed acts of misconduct and he was rightly charge- sheeted and on the basis of the inquiry, he was rightly retired from service. There is no defect in the inquiry which was conducted as per rules.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence.
In support of its case workman appeared in the witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand, the bank has examined Sh. Jograj who filed his affidavit supporting the case of the management.
During the pendency of the proceedings the workman died nad his legal representative were brought on record vide order dated 27.12.2010.
It was argued by the learned counsel that the branch manager got inimical and he invited the complaints against workman and otherwise bank did not suffer any loss and the inquiry officer without any evidence wrongly concluded that charges are proved against him and the punishment based on such a report is not sustainable. It may be added that there is no convincing evidence on the file that the Branch Manager, at any time, was inimical towards the workman. During the inquiry, 11 withnesses were examined besides placing on record decuments numbering 22. after appreciating all the oral and documentary evidence, the inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the workman borrowed Rs. 3500 on 28.4.1995 from M/s Kisan Beej Bhandar Rania, Rs. 5000 on 1.5.1995 from M/s Jindal Cloth Store and Rs. 5000/- in September, 1995 from Juneja Rice and General Mills and this finding is based on the basis of the statements of the witnesses who deposed before the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer relying on the statement of one Atam Prakash again came to the conclusion that workman demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 2000/- from M/s Jagdamba Hiring Agency, Rania for enhancement of cash credit limit and similarly relying on the other evidence he concluded that other charges are also proved against the delinquent officer.
The grievance of the workman as mentioned in the statement of claim is that the statements of the witnesses had been recorded at his back. Perusal of the inquiry report shows that he was represented by Sh. Ashwani Sharma, who attended the proceedings and it cannot be said that the statement of the witnesses were recorded in this absence. He was given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses as well as to lead evidence in defence but he did not lead any evidence in defence. The learned counsel did not point out any rules or regulations which were violated in holding the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer has thoroughly discussed the evidence led before him and in his detailed report dated 31.3.1999 came to the conclusion that charges are proved against the workman. Thus there is no defect in the conduct of the inquiry which is fair and proper.
If the bank has not suffered any pecuniary loss, the same do not exonerate the workman from his misconduct as he borrowed the money from the customers and even demanded illegal gratification from one of the borrowers. In such a situation, if no pecuniary loss is caused to the bank, the same do not exonerate the workman from his act of misconduct.
It was submitted that since no peculiar loss has occurred to the bank, the punishment awarded to him is not warranted and a lenient view be taken. No doubt this Court can interfere with the punishment awarded but in rare cases. In the present case the workman is a bank employee and was supposed to act with due diligence and honesty in the discharge of his functions but instead, he borrowed money from the customers and even demanded illegal gratification which tantamount to gross misconduct and no reason is made out to take another view than taken by the punishing authority. Therefore the order of punishment cannot be interfered with.
In result, it is held that the action of the management in compulsory retiring the workman is just and legal and he is not entitled to any relief. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.