1765 GI/2015

(1893)

ekuo lalkèu fodkl ea=ky;

¼mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vizSy] 2015

dkñvkñ 878.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] ljdkjh LFkku ¼vizkfèd`r

vfèHkksfx;ksa dh csn[kyh½ vfèfu;e] 1971 ¼1971 dk 40½ dh

èkjk 3 }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] uhps lkj.kh ds LraHk

¼1½ esa mfYyf[kr vfèdkjh dks] Hkkjr ljdkj ds jktif=r vfèdkjh

dh iafDr ds led{k vfèdkjh gksrs gq,] mDr vfèfu;e ds iz;kstuksa

ds laink vfèdkjh ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gS] tks mDr lkj.kh ds LraHk

¼2½ esa fofufnZ"V yksd LFkkuksa ds lacaè esa viuh vfèdkfjrk dh

LFkkuh; lhekvksa ds Hkhrj mDr vfèfu;e ds }kjk ;k vèhu laink

vfèdkfj;ksa dks iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djsxk vkSj vfèjksfir drZO;ksa

dk ikyu djsxk%—

lkj.kh

vfèdkjh dk inuke

yksd LFkkuksa ds oxZ vkSj vfèdkfjrk dh

LFkkuh; lhek,a

¼1½

¼2½

jftLVªkj] Hkkjrh; izkS|ksfxdh laLFkku]

Hkkjrh; izkS|ksfxdh laLFkku] enzkl ls lacafèr

enzklA

;k mlds }kjk iês ij fy, x, ;k mlds

}kjk ;k dh vksj ls vfèx`ghr LFkku

[Qkñ lañ 5&17@2015&Vh,l&1]

fizLdk eSF;w] voj lfpo

jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 18]

ubZ fnYyh] vizSy 26—ebZ 2] 2015] 'kfuokj@oS'kk[k 6—oS'kk[k 12] 1937

No. 18]

NEW DELHI, APRIL 26—MAY 2, 2015, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 6—VAISAKHA 12, 1937

bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

1894

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education)

New Delhi, the 13th April, 2015

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:—

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.

laLd`fr ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 27 vizSy] 2015

dkñvkñ 879.—dsanz ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e 4 ds

vuqlj.k esa laLd`fr ea=ky; ds varxZr vkus okys dk;kZy;ksa ftlesa

80 izfr'kr ls vfèd vfèdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlkèd

Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vfèlwfpr djrh gS ftudk C;kSjk fuEukuqlkj

gS%—

1- vèh{k.k iqjkrRofon dk dk;kZy;] Hkkjrh; iqjkrRo losZ{k.k]

f='kwj eaMy] dsñ,lñ,pñchñ ¶ySV~l] iqYykth]

f='kwj&680012] dsjy

2- mi vèh{k.k iqjkrRo jlk;uK] Hkkjrh; iqjkrRo losZ{k.k]

t;iqj tksu] 17@130&132 iVsy ekxZ] ekuljksoj]

t;iqj&302020

3- mi vèh{k.k iqjkrRo jlk;uK] Hkkjrh; iqjkrRo losZ{k.k]

oMksnjk [kaM] iqjkrRo Hkou] pkSFkh eafty] lsaVªy ykbczsjh

ds ikl ekaMoh] oMksnjk

;g vfèlwpuk jkti= esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls izo`Rr gksxhA

[Qk- la- bZ-&13016@1@2011&fganh]

Js;k xqgk] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF CULTURE

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

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

publication in the Official Gazette.

[F. No. E 13016@1@2011&Hindi]

SREYA GUHA, Jt. Secy.

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

¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½

¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½

ubZ fnYyh] 10 vizSy] 2015

dkñvkñ 880.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988]

ds fofu;e 4 ds mi fofu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa] Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks] ,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph

esa fn;s x, gSa dks ykbZlsal iznku fd, x;s gSa%

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1895

vuqlwph

01 tuojh 2013 ls 31 fnlacj 2014 rd Lohd`r fd;s x, ykbZlsalksa dh lwph

Øe

ykbZlsal la[;k

oSèrk frFkh

ikVhZ dk uke ,oa irk ¼dkj[kkuk½

mRikn

vkbZ ,l lañ@Hkkx@

lañ

[kaM@o"kZ

1

2

3

4

5

6

1- 4778388

17@9@2014

esllZ ewÙkMa foujl ,UM baMLVªhl

lkekU;

fo fi 2@529 ,] ikYyhDdoyk]

iz;kstuksa

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

ekjafiYyh] is#ckowj

ds fy,

,j.kkdqye

IySoqM~

dsjyk&683 547

2- 4778489

17@9@2014

esllZ jsM oqM IykbZ ,UM oqM~l

lkekU;

XIII/153 ikbZizk] eqyowj

iz;kstuksa

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

isTgkDdk ihYyh ih vks

ds fy,

eqokVqIiq"kk]

IySoqM~

,j.kkdqye]

dsjyk&683 674

3- 4758281

21@07@2014

esllZ dqfêPpjk IyS ,UM oqM~l

lkekU;

XI/316,] ikWuhizk ih vks]

iz;kstuksa

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

dksêIikfV] dksreaxya

ds fy,

,j.kkdqye]

IySoqM~

dsjyk&686 692

4- 4762474

05@08@2014

esllZ ds ds , IykbZ oqM~l

lkekU;

vks ih X/36,Q] psYykeêe]

iz;kstuksa

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

jk;ks.kiqje ih vks

ds fy,

is#ckowj

IySoqM~

,j.kkdqye]

dsjyk&683 543

5- 4762575

06@08@2014

esllZ uksg IykbZowM~l ,UM cksM~l

lkekU;

VII/770 lh] pq.VEeyk]

iz;kstuksa

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

osLV osaxksyk ih vks

ds fy,

is#ckowj

IySoqM~

,j.kkdqye]

dsjyk&683556

6- 477 5584

11@09@2014

esllZ f= LVkj IykbZ oqM~l

lkekU;

XIII/154 izkbZizk] eqykowj

iz;kstuksa

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

isTgkDdk fiYyh

ds fy,

eqokVqIiq"kk ih vks

IySoqM~

,j.kkdqye]

dsjyk&686 547

1896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7- 4682476

02@01@2014

esllZ fizlVht IysoqM baMlfVªlZ izSosV fyfeVsM

lkekU;

IV/291-292] eqfMDdy ih vks

iz;kstuksa

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

okTgkdqye

ds fy,

dqékrqykVw rkywd

IySoqM~

,j.kkdqye]

dsjyk&683 547

8- 4717469

18@03@2014

esllZ ,LojsZ;k IySoqM baMlfVªt

lkekU;

fo fi VIII/354 ch osaxksyk

iz;kstuksa

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

fu;kj osykDdjk Vschay

ds fy,

vkyizk ih vks

IySoqM~

is#ckowj

,j.kkdqye]

dsjyk&683 553

9- 4718168

10@03@2014

esllZ foulZ IyS cksM~l

lkekU;

V/226,] dksêIikVh]

iz;kstuksa

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

dksreaxya

ds fy,

,j.kkdqye]

IySoqM~

dsjyk&686 692

10- 4722462

31@03@2014

esllZ lkfQ;k Lok feyl ,sUM baMLVªht

lkekU;

IX/1052] vYykizk ih vks

iz;kstuksa

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

is#ckowj

ds fy,

,j.kkdqye]

IySoqM~

dsjyk&683 553

11- 4714968

19@03@2014

esllZ gkbZ jsf;t+ IyS ,sUM cksM~l

lkekU;

,l oS uacj 436@3]436@9,]

iz;kstuksa

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

,jk eYywj foYyst]

ds fy,

dksreaxya

IySoqM~

,j.kkdqye]

dsjyk&686 691

12- 4730057

23@04@2014

esllZ daikfu;u IykbZ oqM~l

lkekU;

III/32Mh] vksVDdkyh] esÙkyk ih vks]

iz;kstuksa

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

dqékÙkqukMw rkywd]

ds fy,

,j.kkdqye]

IySoqM~

dsjyk&683 545

13- 4756277

17@07@2014

esllZ vckn~ owM bUMLVªht ,sUM IyS oqM~l

lkekU;

XI/121ch] isYyhIiqje]

iz;kstuksa

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

=hDdyxksM~] ,jukV~ rkywd]

ds fy,

,yudwj ih vks

IySoqM~

eykIiqje]

dsjyk&676 122

1

2

3

4

5

6

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1897

14 4756479

18@07@2014

esllZ ,fcy bMLVªhl

lkekU;

XXI/293fMñbZñ,Qñ thñ iqrqIikye

iz;kstuksa

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

;sjkEeywj ih vks

ds fy,

usYyhDdq"gh

IySoqM~

dksreaxya rkywd]

,j.kkdqye]

dsjyk&686 691

15 4638877

04@09@2013

esllZ gkbZVsd IykbZ oqM~l

lkekU;

iqékwj] oy;~ufpjk³jk ih vks

iz;kstuksa

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

fo fi VI@710,] osaxksyk iatk;r]

ds fy,

is#ckowj]

IySoqM~

,j.kkdqye]

dsjyk&683 556

16 4637269

02@09@2013

esllZ bcZl.ku bMLVªhl

lkekU;

isjhxksyk ih vks

iz;kstuksa

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

11@504,] dqékrqukVw]

ds fy,

,j.kkdqye]

IySoqM~

dsjyk&683 565

17 4637673

03@09@2013

esllZ U;w LVkj IykbZ oqM~l

lkekU;

losZ uacj 137@7&2]

iz;kstuksa

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

vksVDdkyh] vleékwj ih vks]

ds fy,

dqékÙkqukMw rkywd]

IySoqM~

,j.kkdqye]

dsjyk&683 549

18 4667783

26@11@2013

esllZ VksEl.k IyS ,sUM cksM~l

lkekU;

iqYyqogth ih vks]

iz;kstuksa

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

jkbZeaxya]

ds fy,

dqékÙkqukMw]

IySoqM~

,j.kkdqye]

dsjyk&683 541

19 4675176

16@12@2013

esllZ MLVku oqM

lkekU;

,l iqjea]

iz;kstuksa

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

dqfjfPp]

ds fy,

dksê;ke]

IySoqM~

dsjyk&686 532

20 4674578

13@12@2013

esllZ czkbZV bau~M;Wu IykbZ oqM~l

lkekU;

9@181 , esDdkyVh

iz;kstuksa

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

dkyVh

ds fy,

vkyqok rkywd

IySoqM~

,j.kkdqye]

dsjyk&683 574

1

2

3

4

5

6

1898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

21 4678081

23@12@2013

esllZ fdaxl IykbZ oqM~l

lkekU;

losZ uacj 364@2] oSDd;jk ih vks

iz;kstuksa

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

is#ckowj

ds fy,

jk;eaxya

IySoqM~

dqékÙkqukMw

,j.kkdqye]

dsjyk&683 549

22 4678788

27@12@2013

esllZ lsosZu LVkj IykbZ oqM~l ,sUM

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

Cyksd cksM~l , ih 6@318 ts

iz;kstuksa

vksVDdkyh] vleUuwj]

ds fy,

dqUuÙkqukMw

IySoqM~

,j.kkdqye]

dsjyk&683 549

23 4679386

31@12@2013

esllZ Cyw Vsd owV bMLVªhl

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

III@386 ch] vleUuwj]

iz;kstuksa

dqUuÙkqukMw

ds fy,

,j.kkdqye]

IySoqM~

dsjyk&683 549

24 4679487

31@12@2013

esllZ , vks.kZ IykbZ oqM~l ,sUM cksM~l

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

XII@391 Mh] jk;eaxya

iz;kstuksa ds

dqUuÙkqukMw rkywd ,j.kkdqye]

fy, IySoqM~

dsjyk&683 548

25 4688084

13@01@2014

esllZ es/kk IykbZ ,sUM cksM~l

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

VI@318] vleUuwj]

iz;kstuksa

vksVDdkyh]

ds fy,

is#ckowj

IySoqM~

,j.kkdqye

dsjyk&683 549

26 4698895

11@02@2014

esllZ Jh d`ik fMdjkDMho foujl

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

izkbZosV fyfeVsM Mksj uacj ¼,e ih vkbZ½

iz;kstuksa

131] 134]135 fu;j rkYyIiVh] dqtÙkwj

ds fy,

dkljkxksM

IySoqM~

dsjyk&671 323

27 4701151

13@02@2014

esllZ ekDl cks.M bMLVªhl

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

fdjaIijk jksM

iz;kstuksa

vkVaIifr ih vks

ds fy,

vksgkyifr

IySoqM~

ikyDdkM

dsjyk&678 556

28 4705462

24@02@2014

esllZ U;w vey IykbZ

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

IV@18&ch] usYyheqyea] iqYyqo"kh ih vks

iz;kstuksa

is#ckowj] jk;Zeaxye]

ds fy,

dqUuÙkqukMw

IySowM~

,j.kkdqye

dsjyk&683 541

1

2

3

4

5

6

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1899

29 4545567

02@01@2013

esllZ bUMsl IykbZ oqM~l

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

fo fi&XII@294 ,Q~ vkyizk ih vks

iz;kstuksa

dqfêIikaV] is#ckowj]

ds fy,

dqUurqukM` rkywd]

IySoqM~

,j.kkdqye

dsjyk&683 553

30 4545668

03@01@2013

esllZ mEes.kh foujl ,sUM IykbZ oqM~l

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

bZLV vksDdy

iz;kstuksa

vksDdy ih vks

ds fy,

psYyeêe] dqUurqukMw

IySoqM~

,j.kkdqye

dsjyk&683 550

31 6400000783

11@12@2014

esllZ jkl IyS oqM~l ,sUM cksM~l

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

IX@407&Mh] jk;eaxya] ukxsfyIiVh

iz;kstuksa

iqYyqo"th] is#ckowj]

ds fy,

,j.kkdqye]

IysoqM

dsjyk&683 541

32 4545870

03@01@2013

esllZ ;w Lêkj IykbZ oqM~l

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

ikfuizk ih vks

iz;kstuksa

dksV~VIikVh

ds fy,

dksreaxya

IySoqM~

,j.kkdqye

dsjyk&686 692

33 4545971

03@01@2013

esllZ ekrk IykbZ oqM~l

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

fu;j jcVZ ikjdZ

iz;kstuksa

oy;ufpjk³jk ih vks

ds fy,

,u egt+oUuwj

IySoqM~

,sjkIiqje] dqUurqukMw rkywd]

,j.kkdqye

dsjyk&683 556

34 4546973

03@01@2013

esllZ dksfPpu IykbZ oqM~l

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

XVI@456] 456,] 456ch] ikbZizk

iz;kstuksa

eqokpqiqTgk rkywd]

ds fy,

eqMkowj ih vks

IySoqM~

,j.kkdqye

dsjyk&686 669

35 4547167

03@01@2013

esllZ Xykscy da.MDVslZ izSbZosM fyfeVsM

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

ds fi 22oh

iz;kstuksa

baMfLVª;y VsoyiesV ,fj;k

ds fy,

,#eÙkyk ih vks

IySoqM~

,j.kkdqye

dsjyk&683 505

1

2

3

4

5

6

1900

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

36 6400000177

04@12@2014

esllZ foDV IyS bMLVªhl

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

, ih VIII 585@ch bMLVªh;y

iz;kstuksa

Vsokyki~esUV ¶yksV] vuMwj] rfyijck]

ds fy,

i"tkf'kfudVow ih vks] dUuwj]

IySoqM~

dsjyk&670563

37 4547268

03@01@2013

esllZ ,e ,l cksM~lZ ,sUM ikuyl

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

VI@606] ijkDdksM~]

iz;kstuksa

iqUuwjDdksM] osefcYyh ih vks]

ds fy,

dqUuÙkqukMw rkywd]

IySoqM~

,j.kkdqye

dsjyk&683 565

38 4555065

29@01@2013

esllZ ouy{eh oqM izksMDVlZ

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

VIII@400 fM] glMªx rkywd]

iz;kstuksa

fuys'oj ,e]

ds fy,

dkljxksM

IySoqM~

dsjyk&671 314

39 4565573

21@02@2013

esllZ dsjyk lkW feYl IykbZ oqM~l

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

fi ,e lh 17@1948

iz;kstuksa

is#ckowj ih vks] dqUu=qukMw ,j.kkdqye

ds fy,

dsjyk&683 542

IySoqM~

40 4578986

26@03@2013

esllZ mLekfu;k oqM fMDdksjl

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

IX@1@153] dht+ekn iatk;r]

iz;kstuksa

vkyqok] ,j.kkdqye]

ds fy,

dsjyk&683 105

IySoqM~

41 4609062

02@07@2013

esllZ uS'kuy IykbZ oqM~l bMLVªhl

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

IyksV ua 23]24]25] jcM ikdZ] bZ'kiqje

iz;kstuksa

osy;ufpjkMjk ih vks

ds fy,

,j.kkdqye]

IySoqM~

dsjyk&683 556

42 4609163

02@07@2013

esllZ ,l ch IykbZ oqM~l bMLVªhl

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

XI@296 ,] fdt+gDdEcya

iz;kstuksa

dqEckuksM] ifêeêe ih vks]

ds fy,

,j.kkdqye]

IySoqM~

dsjyk&683 562

43 4618568

12@07@2013

esllZ vy&vehu oqM~l bMLVªhl

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

iqEekyk] ps#DdqUuke]

iz;kstuksa

vleUuwj ih vks] dqUuÙkqukMw]

ds fy,

,j.kkdqye]

IySoqM~

dsjyk&683 549

44 4621961

30@07@2013

esllZ iadt IykbZ oqM~l

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

1@814 ch iqTt'kksjh] osLV osaxksyk ih vks

iz;kstuksa

vjD;kIikfV iatk;r] dqUuÙkqukM] is#ckoqj ds fy,

,j.kkdqye]

IySoqM~

dsjyk&683 556

1

2

3

4

5

6

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1901

45 4631459

07@08@2013

esllZ dsfe fofujl

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

XVII@381] psYykDdqye

iz;kstuksa

ifêeêe

ds fy,

,j.kkdqye]

IySoqM~

dsjyk&683 562

46 6400000682

11@12@2014

esllZ psfê;kdqfUuy oqM bMLVªhl

lkekU; iz;kstuksa

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

lh ih-,Dl@147 Mh] pkizkikVkow]

ds fy,

ukMqdkfu] dwosjh]

IySoqM~

rfyIikjck] dUuwj

dsjyk&670 581

47 4631863

07@08@2013

esllZ , ,e , IykbZ ,sUM cksM~lZ

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

6@6, ,sUM ch] vleUuwj ih vks]

iz;kstuksa

is#ckoqj] dqUuÙkqukMw

ds fy,

,j.kkdqye]

IySoqM~

dsjyk&683 549

48 4634263

26@08@2013

esllZ ikjkekSM oqM bMLVªhl

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

, ih VIII] 569 Mh vksQ v.Vwj iatk;r]

iz;kstuksa

v.Vwj ryhIijkcw rkywd]

ds fy,

dUuwj

IySoqM~

dsjyk&670563

49 4634364

26@08@2013

esllZ ijkDdkVq IykbZ ,sUM cksM~lZ

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

ds ih VI@76 ifVDdykIijk]

iz;kstuksa

dwOokIikVh ih vks

ds fy,

is#ckoqj] dqUuÙkqukMw rkywd]

IySoqM~

,j.kkdqye]

dsjyk&683 544

50 4634465

26@08@2013

esllZ jsfM;l IykbZ oqM

lkekU;

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

dksêfPpjk] vksVDdkyh]

iz;kstuksa

esÙkyk ih vks] 11@548 lh

ds fy,

vleUuwj] is#ckowj

IySoqM~

,j.kkdqye]

dsjyk&683 545

51 4650160

04@10@2013

esllZ Vªkdks dsfcy daiuh fyfeVsM

f'kjksifj izs"k.k

vkbZ ,l

bfjCcuea

dk;ks± ds fy,

398% Hkkx 4 1996

,j.kkdqye]

,sY;qfefu;e ds

dsjyk&682 309

pkyd Hkkx 4

,sY;qfefu;e

feJ?kkrq yM+nkj

pkyd

52 4596281

22@05@2013

esllZ vyVªk Vsd~ flesaV fyfeVsM

iksVySV

vkbZ ,l 1489

;qfuV dksfPpu c¡Yd Vsjfeuy

ikstksykuk flesaV

Hkkx 1 1991

losZ ua 2578@4] b¯njkxkfU/k jksM

Hkkx 1 IykbZ

foYxB.k bZlysV] ,j.kkdqye

vk"k

dsjyk&682 003

1

2

3

4

5

6

1902

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

53 4801155

19@11@2014

eSllZ dk.kkeIiqje osfujl

ejhus IykbZ oqM

vkbZ ,l 710% 2010

XII@427 ch] bZjhxksy ih vks

ds fy,

oêDdkVqIikMh is#ckowj

,j.kkdqye dsjyk&683 548

54 4787490

15@10@2014

eSllZ ijkDdkrq IykbZ ,UM cksM~lZ

ejhus IykbZ oqM

vkbZ ,l 710%2010

ds fi VI@76] ifVDdykIijk

ds fy,

dwoIikfV ih vks ,j.kkdqye

dsjyk&683 544

55 4788088

17@10@2014

eSllZ ekWfifYy IykbZ oqM bMLVªhl

ejhus IykbZ oqM

vkbZ ,l 710% 2010

1@303 , ok"gkdqye]

ds fy,

eqfVDdy ih vks]

,j.kkdqye dsjyk-683 547

56 4750063

26@06@2014

eSllZ LVsj¯yx IykbZ cksM~lZ

ejhus IykbZ oqM

vkbZ ,l 710% 2010

9@408 Mh] ,ykeackDdkfifYy

ds fy,

ih vks dwoIikVh] osaxwj

osLV foYyst+ eqMDdq"kk

xzke iapk;r dqUurqukMw rkywd]

is#ckowj ,j.kkdqye

dsjyk&683544

57 4750164

26@06@2014

eSllZ pfUnzdk IykbZ oqM~l

ejhus IykbZ oqM

vkbZ ,l 710% 2010

fo th ih 4@230 ch

ds fy,

eqfMDdy ih vks ok"gkdqye

dqUurqukMw rkywd]

is#ckowj ,j.kkdqye

dsjyk&683547

58 4745070

30@05@2014

eSllZ buMsl IykbZ oqM~l

ejhus IykbZ oqM

vkbZ ,l 710% 2010

fo fi XII@294 ,Q] r.MsDdkV~

ds fy,

vkykizk ih vks osaxksyk

dqUurqukMw rkywd]

iw#ckowj ,j.kkdqye

dsjyk&683553

59 4732061

21@04@2014

eSllZ ,e , oqM izksM~DVl izkbZosV fyfeVsM

ejhus IykbZ oqM

vkbZ ,l 710% 2010

ckfê;kiVow] fc¯YMx] uacj

ds fy,

,e ih vkbZ@4360

dksfy;wj foYyst] oksjDdkfV ih vks]

o;k eats'koj dkljkxksM

dsjyk&671323

60 4714665

18@03@2014

eSllZ ckW¡e~cs IykbZ oqMl~ bMLVªhl

ejhus IykbZ oqM

vkbZ ,l 710% 2010

V@270 ,] dksêIikVh] ikfuizk ih vks]

ds fy,

dksrexya ,j.kkdqye

dsjyk&683692

1

2

3

4

5

6

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1903

61 4705563

24@02@2014

eSllZ U;w vey IykbZ

ejhus IykbZ oqM

vkbZ ,l 710% 2010

VI@18 ch] usYyheksye

ds fy,

fiYyqo"kh ih vks is#ckowj]

jk;Zeaxya dqUurqukMw ,j.kkdqye

dsjyk&683541

62 4701252

13@02@2014

eSllZ Jh d`ik fMdjkDMho foujl

ejhus IykbZ oqM

vkbZ ,l 710% 2010

izkbZosV fyfeVsM

ds fy,

Mksj uacj ¼,e ih vkbZ½

131]134]135 fu;j rkYyIiVh]

dqtÙkj dkljkxksM dsjyk&671 323

63 6400000379

04@12@2014

eSllZ ;qjks IyS ,UM cksM~l

ejhus IykbZ oqM

vkbZ ,l 710% 2010

VII@558&ch ih ih jksM] osaxksyk

ds fy,

is#ckowj] ,j.kkdqye

dsjyk&683554

64 4673071

10@12@2013

eSllZ Vsyêk IykbZ oqM~l ,UM cksM~lZ

ejhus IykbZ oqM

vkbZ ,l 710% 2010

XVIII@vkbZ@,] bZfjxksyk ih vks

ds fy,

isfjckowj ,j.kkdqye

dsjyk&683548

65 4635770

29@08@2013

eSllZ isfj;kj oqM izksMDMl

ejhus IykbZ oqM

vkbZ ,l 710% 2010

fi fi ,Dl 490] U;w ua ,Dl 395 ,]

ds fy,

rq#fFk jksM] pqxe vjksyh]

ikIiu'kksjh dUuwj

dsjyk&670 561

66 4574271

05@03@2013

eSllZ dksIij dsfedy esuqQsDpsjl

dkIij

vkbZ ,l 1507%1977

18@153]169 ikfuizk] iwukIikfV

vkDlhDyksjkbM

eqMoj ih vks] eqokVqIiqTgk

ikuh esa

,j.kkdqye

fNrjusokyk

dsjyk&686 669

lkaUnz ikmMj

67 4568781

05@03@2013

eSllZ ouY{eh oqM izksMDMl

Cyksd cksM~l

vkbZ ,l 1659% 2004

VIII@fM fuys'oj ¼,e½

gkslMªx rkywd dkljxksM

dsjyk&671314

68 4627367

07@08@2013

eSllZ ,s"kk oqM izksMDVl

Cyksd cksM~l

vkbZ ,l 1659%2004

ih ih XII 1087 ,

ih ih XIII 483 ,y

U;w fr#fÙk o;y pquXxe]

ikfIifu'kksfj ih vks dUuwj

dsjyk&670 561

69 4803159

24@11@2014

eSllZ eks.kkdZ IySoqM bUMlVªhl~

Cyksd cksM~l

vkbZ ,l 1659%2004

vkuarkIiqjk] dqEcyk ¼o;k½]

dkljkxksM] dsjyk&671 321

1

2

3

4

5

6

1904

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

70 4735168

21@04@2014

eSllZ foul IykbZ cksM~lZ

Cyksd cksM~l

vkbZ ,l 1659%2004

V/226 ,] dksêkIikVh]

dksreaxya ,j.kkdqye

dsjyk&686 692

71 4713966

10@03@2014

eSllZ ekDl cks.M baMLVªhl

Cyksd cksM~l

vkbZ ,l 1659%2004

fdjaIijk jksM vkVaIifr

ih vks vksgkyifr ikyDdkM

dsjyk&678 556

72 4656576

24@10@2013

eSllZ lWnWu bUM IykbZoqM baMLVªhl~

Cyksd cksM~l

vkbZ ,l 1659%2004

1@638 eq.MDdjkIiqje osLV

osaxksyk ih vks is#ckoqj ,j.kkdqye

dsjyk&683 556

73 4703963

19@02@2014

eSllZ Jh d`ik fMdjkDMho foujl

Cyksd cksM~l

vkbZ ,l 1659%2004

izkbZosV fyfeVsM Mksj uacj ¼,e ih vkbZ½

131] 134] 135 fu;j rkYyIiVh]

dqtÙkwj dkljkxksM

dsjyk&671 323

74 4678889

27@12@2013

eSllZ lsosu LVkj IykbZ oqM~l ,UM

Cyksd cksM~l

vkbZ ,l 1659%2004

Cyksd cksM~l , ih 6@318 ts

vksVDdkyh] vleUuwj]

dqUuÙkqukVw ,j.kkdqye]

dsjyk&683 549

75 4554164

09@01@2013

eSllZ dqékrku oqM izksMDVl

ydM+h ds

vkbZ ,l 2202

VI@318] losZ ua 352@7]352@6]352@2]

likV njokts

Hkkx 1%1999

Cyksd ua 14] vleékwj] vksVDdkfyy

ds 'kVj ¼Bksl

,j.kkdqye]

dksj VkbZi½

dsjyk&683 549

Hkkx 1 IySoqM ds

lrg ;qä iYysa

76 4635871

28@08@2013

eSllZ ikjkekSM oqM baMLVªhl

ydM+h ds

vkbZ ,l 2202

, ih VIII]569 Mh vksQ v.Vwj iapk;r]

likV njokts

Hkkx 1% 1999

v.Vwj] ryhIijkcw] rkywd]

ds 'kVj ¼Bksl

dékwj

dksj VkbZi½

dsjyk&670563

Hkkx 1 IySoqM ds

lrg ;qä iYysa

77 4704056

18@02@2014

eSllZ Jh d`ik fMdjkDMho foujl

ydM+h ds

vkbZ ,l 2202

izkbZosV fyfeVsM

likV njokts

Hkkx 1%1999

Mskj uacj ¼,e ih vkbZ½ 131]134]135

ds 'kVj ¼Bksl

fu;j rkYyIiVh] dqtÙkwj

dksj VkbZi½

dkljkxksM

Hkkx 1 IySoqM

dsjyk&671 323

ds lrg ;qä iYysa

1

2

3

4

5

6

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1905

78 4687789

06@01@2014

eSllZ foul IykbZ cksM~lZ

ydM+h ds

vkbZ ,l 2202

V@226 ,] dksêkIikVh] dksreaxya

likV njokts

Hkkx 1%1999

,j.kkdqye

ds 'kVj ¼Bksl

dsjyk&686 692

dksj VkbZi½ Hkkx

1 IySoqM ds

lrg ;qä iYysa

79 64000000278

04@12@2014

eSllZ foDV IyS baMLVªhl

ydM+h ds

vkbZ ,l 2202

, ih VIII 585@ch bMLVªh;y

likV njokts

Hkkx 1%1999

MSokyki~esUV IyksV]

ds 'kVj ¼Bksl

vuMwj] rfyijck]

dksj VkbZi½

i"tkf'kfudVow ih vks]

Hkkx 1 IySoqM

dékwj]

ds lrg ;qä

dsjyk&670 563

iYysa

80 4758786

22@07@2014

eSllZ ,y ;q , baMLVªhl~

fLFkj HkaMkj.k

vkbZ ,l 2082%1993

VI/263] dqékrqDdjk] ik#j rkywd

izdkj

lkSFk vknqok'kksjh ih vks

bySfDVªd okWVj

,j.kkdqye]

ghVj

dsjyk&683 578

81 4752168

02@07@2014

eSllZ IysUV fyfiVl~ çkbZosV fyfeVsM

[kkn~; mRiknksa

vkbZ ,l%2557%1994

VIII@547] vbZDdjkukMw

ds fy, vukVksa

dkMkbZ#Iiq] dqékÙkqukVw rkywd]

ds jax

dksfPp] ,j.kkdqye]

dsjyk&682 311

82 4747680

09@06@2014

eSllZ gbZ ds;j ikWfyest+ çkbZosV fyfeVsM

lftZdy jcM+

vkbZ ,l 4148%1989

11@436 , ch lh ikykdq"gk

nLrkus

eqokVqIiq"gk rkywd] dqrkV~VqDdqye

,j.kkdqye] dsjyk&686 686

83 4673273

03@12@2013

eSllZ vkyIih ysVDl çkbZosV fyfeVsM

lftZdy jcM+

vkbZ ,l 4148%1989

;w.khV III] XyWo; fMfojtWu

nLrkus

ewfuyo ih vks ikyk dksê;e

dsjyk&686 586

84 4661569

11@11@2013

eSllZ lsbV esjht+ jcM çkbZosV fyfeVsM

lftZdy jcM+

vkbZ ,l 4148%1989

XykSl fMfojtWu

nLrkus

dwoiYyh] dkfKjkiYyh dksêk;e

dsjyk&686 518

85 4636065

29@08@2013

eSllZ Lokns'kh ikWyhest+

ikuh ds vkiwfrZ

vkbZ ,l 4984%1995

10588 fdaUQzk usYysM]

ds fy, mPp

dqékrqukV rkywd]

èuRo okys

eqokVqIiqTgk

ik¡fy,fFkyhu

,j.kkdqye]

ikbi

dsjyk&686 669

1

2

3

4

5

6

1906

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

86 4658580

25@10@2013

eSllZ fouVsd ik¡fy,dLVª"kul

ikuh ds vkiwfrZ

vkbZ ,l 4984%1995

IyksV uacj 10] baMLVªh;y ,LVsV]

ds fy, mPp

oVdjk CykWd]

èuRo okys

vgth;wj iatk;r

ikbi

dks"khDdksV~ dsjyk&673312

87 4658479

25@10@2013

eSllZ vksf"k;u iSIl

is;ty dh

vkbZ ,l 4985%2000

XIV/149 , vokékwj]

vkiwfrZ ds fy,

f='kwj rkywd]

vlqèfV;rk

f='kwj]

ih-oh-lh- ikbZi

dsjyk&680541

88 4787389

15@10@2014

eSllZ gkfjl.l bUMLVªhl

is;ty dh

vkbZ ,l 4985%2000

Mksj uacj 462¼1½]

vkiwfrZ ds fy,

gkfjl.l Iyklk]

vlqèfV;rk

vkyadksM~]

ih-oh-lh- ikbZi

vkfê³y] fr#ouUriqjea]

dsjyk&695 102

89 4732768

25@04@2014

eSllZ VksEl iSIl çkbZosV fyfeVsM ;q.khê&III is;ty dh

vkbZ ,l 4985%2000

XI/649 ,p] os#j bMLVªh;y ,LVsV

vkiwfrZ ds fy,

bMLVªh;y uxj ih vks

vlqèfV;rk

p³uk'kksjh

ihñohñlhñ ikbZi

dksêk;ke dsjyk&686106

90 4750568

27@06@2014

eSllZ QSzUM+l ik¡fyest+

is;ty dh

vkbZ ,l 4985%2000

XIII/393 ¼ih vkj oS½

vkiwfrZ ds fy,

ikWjfr'kksfj] bfjKkfydqVk

vlqèfV;rk

f='kwj

ihñohñlhñ ikbZi

dsjyk&680125

91 4746072

04@2014

eSllZ LyksoZ IykfLVDl izksMDl izkbZosV

is;ty dh

vkbZ ,l 4985%2000

fyfeVsM

vkiwfrZ ds fy,

rksyhdksV ih vks

vlqèfV;rk

iquywj

ihñohñlhñ ikbZi

dksYye dsjyk&691333

92 4579685

26@03@2013

eSllZ lkSFk bafM;k IykfLVd

is;ty dh

vkbZ ,l 4985%2000

Mskj uacj X@350,] okOokdkoq ih vks]

vkiwfrZ ds fy,

d#ukxkiYyh

vlqèfV;rk

dsjyk&690 528

ihñohñlhñ ikbZi

93 4757481

21@07@2014

eSllZ pfUnzdk IykbZ] owM~l

daØhV ds jkVfjax

vkbZ ,l 4990%2011

fo th ih&4@230fc]

dk;Z ds fy,

eqfMdy ih-vks-

IykbZoqM

is#Eckowj ,j.kkdqye

dsjyk&683 547

1

2

3

4

5

6

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1907

94 4722361

31@03@2014

eSllZ dqékrku oqM izksMsDVl

daØhV ds

vkbZ ,l 4990%2011

VI/318] losZ ua 352@2]352@6]352@7]

jkVfjax dk;Z

vleékwj ih vks] vksVDdkfyy

ds fy, IykbZoqM

,j.kkdqye dsjyk&683 549

95 4717267

19@03@2014

eSllZ izf;e ouhjl fyfeVsM

daØhV ds jkVfjax

vkbZ ,l 4990%2011

fey jksM cfy;iêe

dk;Z ds fy,

oyiê.ke dékwj

IykbZoqM

dsjy&670 010

96 4788189

20@10@2014

eSllZ ekWfiYyh IyS owM bUVLVªhl

daØhV ds jkVfjax

vkbZ ,l 4990%2011

1@303&,] ok'gdqye]

dk;Z ds fy,

eqfVD;y ih vks

IykbZoqM

,j.kkdqye

dsjyk&683547

97 4671067

05@12@2013

eSllZ Vsy~êk IykbZ oqM~l ,UM cksMZl

daØhV ds jkVfjax

vkbZ ,l 4990%2011

XVIII/,]

dk;Z ds fy,

bZfjaxksyk ih vks]

IykbZoqM

is#ckowj] ,j.kkdqye]

dsjyk&683 548

98 4667682

27@11@2013

eSllZ pkDdksl ¶ySowM~ feYl

daØhV ds jkVfjax

vkbZ ,l 4990%2011

izkbosV fyfeVsM XVIII/490

dk;Z ds fy,

ch lh fM egtkoékwj] dqékrqukVw rkywd

IykbZoqM

,j.kkdqye

dsjyk&683 556

99 4710657

06@03@2014

eSllZ eykckj ysVDl

lkfUnzr ifjjf{kr

vkbZ ,l% 5430%1981

fcY¯Mx uacj ,e ih@VII/324

veksf.k;k

,sUM 327 vksQ esYykrwj iatk;r

izkd`frd jcM+

dkfKjkIikjk

ysVsDl

fpEef.k;ksV~ ih vks esYykÙkwj

eyIiqjea dsjyk&679325

100 4582674

26@03@2013

eSllZ cksbZl jcM+ ,LVsV çkbZosV fyfeVsM

lkfUnzr ifjf{kr

vkbZ ,l% 5430%1981

35oka ehy] eq.MDd;e

veksf.k;k

bMqDdh

izkd`frd jcM+

dsjyk&686 513

ysVsDl

101 4784484

01@10@2014

eSllZ ,fejsV~lZ fjesaV baUMh;k izkbZosV fyfeVsM

lQsn iksVySV

vkbZ ,l% 8042%1989

losZ uacj 150@6]151@1] ih Vh] iqnq'kksjh]

flesaV

ikykDdkV rkywd ikykDdkV

dsjyk&678 624

102 4596382

22@05@2013

eSllZ vyVªk Vsd~ flesaV fyfeVsM

43 xzsM lkèkj.k

vkbZ ,l% 8112%2013

;qfuV dksfPpu c¡Yd Vsjfeuy

iksVySV flesaV

losZ ua 2578@4] bfnajkxka/kh jksM

foYxB.k bZlysV] ,j.kkdqye

dsjyk&682 003

1

2

3

4

5

6

1908

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

103 4624058

06@08@2013

eSllZ bZlVsu esêfjLlZ izSosV fyfeVsM

xn~nhnkj

vkbZ ,l% 8391%1987

iqrqisfj;kje

cukus ds fy,

rksVqIiqT+gk ihñvksñ

jcM+ ;qä

bVqDdh

ukfj;y tVk

dsjyk&685 584

dh 'khV

104 4780274

19@09@2014

eSllZ us'k.ky iSIl

foèqr laLFkkiuksa

vkbZ ,l 9537

lh ih 309] fpYyksjk iatk;r

ds fy,]

Hkkx 3 1983

dkIikV~ dékwj

ukfydk,sa%

dsjyk&670006

Hkkx 3&foèqr

jksèu lkexzh

dh nq< lknh

ukfydk,saA

105 4780375

19@09@2014

eSllZ czãk IykLV bUMLVªhl

foèqr laLFkkiuksa

vkbZ ,l 9537

IV/96] vkbZ fM ih] vÙkk.kh

ds fy,]

Hkkx 3 1983

voékwj] isfjxkMwj iksLV

ukfydk,sa%

f='kwj

Hkkx 3&foèqr

dsjyk&680501

jksèu lkexzh dh

nq< lknh ukfydk,saA

106 4775786

11@09@2014

eSllZ fV ts ik¡fyest+

foèqr laLFkkiuksa

vkbZ ,l 9537

fcYMhax uacj VIII/953,

ds fy,]

Hkkx 3 1983

dqoIikVh ih vks

ukfydk,sa%

,j.kkdqye

Hkkx 3&foèqr

dsjyk&683 544

jksèu lkexzh dh

nq< lknh ukfydk,saA

107 4732364

25@04@2014

eSllZ tksl~dks IykfLVDl

foèqr laLFkkiuksa

vkbZ ,l 9537

XXII/251] baMLVªh;y Msoyies.V

ds fy,]

Hkkx 3 1983

,fj;k vDxkekyh

ukfydk,sa%

lkSFk ih vks

Hkkx 3&foèqr

,j.kkdqye

jksèu lkexzh dh

dsjyk&683 573

nq< lknh ukfydk,saA

108 4554168

09@10@2013

eSllZ fQfuDl IykfLVd baMLVªht

fo/kqr laLFkkiuksa

vkbZ ,l 9537

Mka% uacj VIII/314

ds fy, ukfydk,a % Hkkx 3 1983

usVqdq{kq

Hkkx 3 &fo/kqr

iÙkukiqja

jks/ku lkexzh dh

dksYyea

nq< lknh

dsjyk&689 695

ukfydk,asaA

109 4622155

31@07@2013

eSllZ flaVsDl ikWyheslZ

fo/kqr laLFkkiuksa

vkbZ ,l 9537

X@587 feuh baMfLVª;y ,LVsV

ds fy, ukfydk,sa%

Hkkx 3 1983

dhtekn

Hkkx 3&fo/kqr

,#eryk

jks/ku lkexzh dh

vyqok

nq< lknh

,j.kkdqye

ukfydk,saA

dsjy&693112

1

2

3

4

5

6

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1909

110 4636570

14@08@2013

eSllZ fl Vsd VsDuksyth izkseks'ku lsUVj

'kjhj ds

vkbZ ,l 10775% 1984

lsUVj Qksj VsoyiesV vksQ vMokUlM

larqyu

daiwfVM ¼fl Vsd½

lgk;rk izkIr

fV lh 14@992] osYy;acye

djus dh

fr#oUriqje

fof'kf"V

dsjy&695 033

111 4635366

16@08@2013

eSllZ lWuioj lhesaV daiuh

53 xszM

vkbZ ,l 12269% 1987

VIII1072 isVªksusV~V jksM

lk/kkj.k

oSbt+ ikdZ

iksVZySaM

dkft+dksM ih vks

lhesaV

ikyDdkM

dsjyk&678 621

112 4596483

22@05@2013

eSllZ vyVªk Vsd flesaV fyfeVsM

53 xzsM

vkbZ ,l 12269% 1987

;qfuV dksfPpu cWYd Vsjfeuy

lk/kkj.k

losZua 2578@4] bafnjkxkfU/k jksM

iksVZySaM

foYxB.k bZlysV] ,j.kkdqye

lhesaV

dsjyk&682 003

113 4764377

14@08@2014

eSllZ vkye iYyh izs'kQj VsLVhxa

de dkcZu bLikr

vkbZ ,l 13258%2014

daiuh izkbosV fyfeVsM

osYMsM flysaMjksa de

9@19 bZ baMLVªh;y fMosyiesUV ,fj;k

ncko nzo.k; ds

vkyqok

fy, 5 fyVj ikuh ds

,#eRryk ih vks

{kerk ls vf/kd ds

,j.kkdqye

fy, fofunsu'ku xSl

dsjyk&683112

,yihth flysaMjksa

vko';drkvksa dk

fufj{k.k th.kksa)kj ds

fy, bLrseky fd;k

114 4766482

20@08@2014

eSllZ chVk gsYr ds;j izksMDV~l izkbZosV

izk;ksT; lftZdy

vkbZ ,l 13422%1992

fyfeVsM

jcM+ nLrkus

IyksV ua 21 ch

dksfPp u Lisf'k;y bDuksfed tks.k

dkDukV ,j.kkdqye

dsjyk&682 037

115 4761876

04@08@2014

eSllZ ftr ,sUM ftr XykWol

izk;ksT; lftZdy

vkbZ ,l 13422%1992

29&876,] ySu 22] turk jksM]

jcM+ nLrkus

oSfêyk ih vks

dksfPp ,j.kkdqye

dsjyk&682 019

116 4746274

05@06@2014

eSllZ gbZ ds;j ikWfyest+ izkbZosV fyfeVsM

iz;ksT; lftZdy

vkbZ ,l 13422%1992

11@436,] ch] lh] ikykDdq'gk

jcM+ nLrkus

eqokV~Viq'gk rkywd dwÙkkV~VDdqye

,j.kkdqye dsjyk&686 686

1

2

3

4

5

6

1910

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

117 4756782

18@07@2014

eSllZ vkyIih ysVDl çkbZosV fyfeVsM

izk;ksT; lftZdy

vkbZ ,l 13422%1992

;q.khV III XyWo; fMfojtWu

jcM+ nLrkus

ewfuyo ih vks ikyk dksê;e

dsjyk&686 586

118 4661670

11@11@2013

eSllZ lsbV esjht+ jcM+ çkbZosV fyfeVsM

izk;ksT; lftZdy

vkbZ ,l 13422%1992

XykSol fMfojtW+u] dwoiYyh ih vks

jcM+ nLrkus

dkKhjkiYyh dksêk;e

dsjyk&686518

119 4605761

21@06@2013

eSllZ lsQZ ds;j jcM+ izksMDVl

izk;ksT; lftZdy

vkbZ ,l 13422%1992

çkbZosV fyfeVsM

jcM+ nLrkus

QzksV uacj 19 dksfPp ua Lisaf'k;Zy

,D.kksfed t+ks.k dkDdukM+

dksfPpu ,j.kkdqye

dsjy& 682 037

120 4605862

20@06@2013

eSllZ Vhtku chojst+l fyfeVsM

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

fcfYMax uacj VI@58&62 ¼U;w uacj½

ty ¼iSdstcan

¼vksYM uacj V@75&79½

izkd`frd

dqékkeiYyh ih- vks

feujy ty ds

esYyqj] eqdqUriqje rkywd

vykok½

fÙk'kwj dsjy& 680 311

121 4605559

20@06@2013

eSllZ ds fo ,u feujyl

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

9@830 fc 1 jktfxjh osYyh ih- vks

ty ¼iSdstcan

dkDdukV

izkd`frd

dksfPp u

feujy ty ds

,j.kkdqye

vykok½

dsjy &682 039

122 4605054

20@06@2013

eSllZ thok bfyDlj lfoZl lkslbVh

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

V@93 vkoksfypky]

ty ¼iSdstcan

usfj;eaxye ih- vks

izkd`frd

dksreaxye

feujy ty ds

,j.kkdqye dsjyk&686 693

vykok½

123 4609870

02@07@2013

eSllZ eqYyk'ksjh feujyl ,sUM chojst+l

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

usMqoUuqj XI@294 lh

ty ¼iSdstcan

pksojk ih vks

izkd`frd

,l uacj- 155@14]

feujy ty ds

psMeaM iapk;r] vkyqok

vykok½

,j.kkdqye dsjyk&683 571

124 4613962

15@07@2013

eSllZ xszslZ isdst+M fMªfUadx okêj ;qfuV

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

XI@40 , vj.kdksM

ty ¼iSdstcan

byoafrêk iksLV eT+gosYyh

izkd`frd

foYyst dkst+gspsjh foYyst

feujy ty ds

irukefrV~Vk

vykok½

dsjyk&689625

1

2

3

4

5

6

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1911

125 4608565

02@07@2013

eSllZ ts ds chojst+l

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

fcfYMax uacj XI@1553

ty ¼iSdstcan

losZ uacj 4545

izkd`frd

usékh;ksM ikyksV

feujy ty ds

usVqeaMkV

vYkkok½

fr:oauUriqje dsjyk&695 562

126 4589587

06@05@2013

eSllZ fi fV lh bUMLVªht

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

Vh lh 32@493&¼1½ ,aM ¼2½]

ty ¼iSdstcan

¶ysV~ uacj% 43

izkd`frd

,s Vh , okyh] dVdaiYyh foYyst+

feujy ty ds

VSbVkfu;e ih vks

vykok½

fr#ouUraiqje dsjyk& 695 021

127 4600044

03@06@2013

eSllZ pfUnzdk QwM~l ,aM fcojst+l daiuh iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

II@233 lh] ps#ekjh] dqékkFksMÙkq

ty ¼iSdstcan

myh;ékqj ih- vks] dksMqMYyqj foYyst+

izkd`frd

vkyqok

feujy ty ds

,j.kkdqye

vykok½

dsjyk& 683108

128 4577378

20@03@2013

eSllZ I;qj ykbQ QqM ,sUM fcojstl

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

daikuh foYyks.kh ih vks

ty ¼iSdstcan

dksêk;ke

izkd`frd

dsjyk&686 008

feujy ty ds vykok½

129 4555671

29@01@2013

eSllZ ,l ,sUM ,l QqM bUMLVªht

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

losZ ua 1225] ekrÙkwjDdqUuq ih vks]

ty ¼iSdstcan

oklqiqjea] dksVDdjk

izkd`frd

f='kwj

feujy ty ds

dsjyk&680684

vykok½

130 4545062

02@01@2013

eSllZ dqêukMw fcojstl daiuh

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

usMqizke iatk;r

ty ¼iSdstcan

iksV;kMh ih vks

izkd`frd

fr#oYyk

feujy ty ds

irukefrêk

vykok½

dsjyk& 689 110

131 4655060

18@10@2013

eSllZ dSjyh feujyl ,UM fcojst+l

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

fcY¯Mx uacj IV@636 Mh

ty ¼iSdstcan

jkbZeaxya ih- vks

izkd`frd

dqékrqukV rkywd

feujy ty ds

,j.kkdqye

vykok½

dsjyk&683 545

1

2

3

4

5

6

1912

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

132 4644367

19@09@2013

esllZ vks';Wuk fLizUx

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

,l oS uacj 47@7] 47@8 ,s#j foYyst+

ty ¼iSdstcan

,s#j lkSFk ih vks

izkd`frd

jkUuh rkywd

feujy ty ds

irukefrêk

vykok½

dsjyk &689 611

133 4709167

26@02@2014

esllZ LVsjfyax osYyh

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

XIV@35 lh ¼ losZ uacj- 54@13½

ty ¼iSdstcan

lkSFk e"koUuwj ih vks

izkd`frd

,"kIiqjea dqérqukV rkywd

feujy ty ds

,j.kkdqye

vykok½

dsjyk& 686 669

134 4693077

28@01@2014

esllZ iqfyewf+V~Vy QqMl~ ,sUM fcojst+l

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

izSosV fyfeVsM VI@268,] fu;j rkykeêa

ty ¼iSdstcan

Jh egknsok Vsachay]

izkd`frd

ekMkDdrkuea ih vks

feujy ty ds

eaTtkYyqj]

vykok½

eqokV`iqTgk] ,j.kkdqye

dsjyk& 686 670

135 4696386

06@02@2014

esllZ isfj;kj okYyh

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

,l oS uacj 105@3] osaxksyk foYyst+

ty ¼iSdstcan

ik¡Kk'kksjh ih vks

izkd`frd

r.VsdkVw] dqékrqukVq rkywd

fejuy ty ds

is#ckowj

vykok½

,j.kkdqye dsjyk&683 547

136 4754475

11@07@2014

esllZ Dykfld okV~Vj izksM+DV

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

Mksj ua- 39@1744 ch &1] chp jksM

ty ¼iSdstcan

iYyhDdkUêh

izkd`frd

iqfr;xkM+h ih- vks

feujy ty ds

dksf"kDdksM+

vykok½

dsjyk&673 021

137 4750669

27@06@2014

esllZ cj dk QqM~l

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

fcfYMax uacj- 20@46] dksXxy]

ty ¼iSdstcan

ijkowj

izkd`frd

dksYyea

feujy ty ds

dsjyk&691301

vykok½

138 4751368

30@06@2014

esllZ fjoj okyh

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

,u fi 9@342 ch] ehueqfê

ty ¼iSdstcan

usfék;ksV ih vks

izkd`frd

ikyk¡V usVqeuxkV~

feujy ty ds

fr#ouUriqjea

vykok½

dsjyk&695 562

1

2

3

4

5

6

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1913

139 4744977

30@05@2014

esllZ gjhrk uSpjSy vDok

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

VI@570] ,fyDdksV]

ty ¼iSdstcan

ikykfiYyh ih vks

izkd`frd

okjkUrjkfiYyh foYyst f='kwj]

feujy ty ds

dsjyk&680304

vykok½

140 4736776

08@05@2014

esllZ vks.kkÙkq ijkfcy QqMl ,sUM

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

fcojst+l izSosV fyfeVsM

ty ¼iSdstcan

III@224,] dhjaikjk

izkd`frd

dksrkeaxya

feujy ty ds

,j.kkdqye

vykok½

dsjyk&686 681

141 4736877

08@05@2014

esllZ tykfy;k bu~VWuS'kWuy

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

Mksj uacj- III@223] iqDdksVqeuk

ty ¼iSdstcan

pqXxÙkjk ih vks

feujy ty ds

eykIiqjea

vykok½

dsjyk& 679 334

142 4712156

11@03@2014

esllZ usêksl~] fcojst+l

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

V@259@3 uh.VDdjk

ty ¼iSdstcan

dksYyea dkWIijs'ku

izkd`frd

dksYyea

feujy ty ds

dsjyk&691 582

vykok½

143 4683074

03@01@2014

esllZ vkst+ks.kZ vDok feujyl

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

VII@283 fc] ekjkfM]

ty ¼iSdstcan

dkW;ukV]

izkd`frd

`

eqokVqiqTgk]

feujy ty ds

vksjkeuk ih vks

vykok½

,j.kkdqye dsjyk& 686 663

144 4721056

26@03@2014

esllZ lkyksfeu vDok

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

,l oS- uacj- 168@3] psMjk

ty ¼iSdstcan

,#osfê ih vks

izkd`frd

dkoékj iatk;r

feujy ty ds

,jukV rkywd

vykok½

eykIiqje dsjyk& 673 639

145 4732162

25@04@2014

esllZ eksfrjkfifVdk QqM ikjd~

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

6@615] gkbZ Ldwy jksM

ty ¼iSdstcan

ps#Iiqyk'kksfj

izkd`frd

ikyDdkV~

feujy ty ds

dsjyk&679503

vykok½

146 4732263

25@04@2014

esllZ xWihdk MsjhQkeZ

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

II@264,] vkyUxkV~ iatk;r

ty ¼iSdstcan

dksUxksjiYyh dwue~Eekow

izkd`frd

,j.kkdqye

feujy ty ds

dsjyk&683525

vykok½

1

2

3

4

5

6

1914

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

147 4730158

23@04@2014

esllZ vDok xzhu

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

13@763 rd~;kow jksM

ty ¼iSdstcan

d#osyh ifV

izkd`frd

dksfPp

feujy ty ds

,j.kkdqye

vykok½

dsjyk&682005

148 4725165

08@04@2014

esllZ Xykscy vDok feujyl

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

,l oS- uacj- 2@1] ds lh ih@VIII@106ch

ty ¼iSdstcan

ik;e foYyst~] bM¸dua

izkd`frd

dhTgwj] dko'kksjh] bfjêh

feujy ty ds

dékwj]

vykok½

dsjyk& 670 703

149- 4761371

31@07@2014

esllZ ,;p~y fcojst+l izSosV fyfeVsM

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

,l oS uacj % 50314 fcfYaMx uacj

ty ¼iSdstcan

IV@587&1] vjk.kknzqDdjk] fczt jksM

izkd`frd

,yrq#r ih vks

feujy ty ds

f='kwj]

vykok½

dsjyk&680611

150- 4799703

11@11@2014

esllZ ,e ds izksM{ku

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

losZ ua 1@18] EDdqdMk

ty ¼iSdstcan

e#frDdqUuq] ukokbZDdqye ih vks

izkd`frd

fpjkf;ufdTgq

feujy ty ds

fr:ouUriqje

vykok½

dsjyk&695 603

151- 6400000480

08@12@2014

esllZ dsjyk bfjxs"ku bUQzkMsDpjy

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

fMosyWi~eWUV dksjijs"ku fyfeVsM

ty ¼iSdstcan

fcYMhax uacj II@107 , ,sUM 1078]

izkd`frd

djhaDdqUue foYyst~ ekyk xV~Ve ihvks]

feujy ty ds

rksMqIiqT"kk] bMqDdh]

vykok½

dsjyk&685 587

152- 6400000884

15@12@2014

eSllZ csu~ vDok izksMDl

iSdstcan is;

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

IyksM uacj 10]

ty ¼iSdstcan

bUM`fLVhZa;y VsoyiesM ,fj;k]

izkd`frd

osyh] fr#ouUriqjea]

feujy ty ds

dsjyk& 695 021

vykok½

153- 4727977

16@04@2014

esllZ Jh eqÙkIiu bUVjLVªhl

lqckgd vfXu

vkbZ ,l 15683%2006

fcYMhax uacj&vksYV~ 10@51] U;w 6@64

'kked&

dfjeUuw iksLV vkWQ dksf"k+´aIikjk]

dk;Zdkfjrk vkSj

ikykDdkV

fuekZ.k

dsjyk& 678555

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

ds- dfnjosy] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ch vkbZ ,l] dksfPp 'kk[kk

1

2

3

4

5

6

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 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-670563

1916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1917

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

1918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1919

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-683554

1

2

3

4

5

6

1920

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1921

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 :

Products

(solid core type): Part I plywood

Part 1 : 1999

VI/318,

face panels

Survay No. 352/7 352/6, 352/2,

Block No. 14, Asmanoor,

Odakalil Eranakulam

Kerala-683549

1

2

3

4

5

6

1922

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 :

V/226 A,

(solid core type): Part I plywood

Part 1 : 1999

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1923

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-683556

1

2

3

4

5

6

1924

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1925

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-680311

1

2

3

4

5

6

1926

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1927

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-686670

1

2

3

4

5

6

1928

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1929

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 Branch

1

2

3

4

5

6

1930

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 10 vizSy] 2015

dkñvkñ 881-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988] ds fofu;e] 5 mi fofu;e ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa] Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks]

,rn}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k okys ykbZlsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZ;h xbZ rkjh[k ls jí@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gSaA

vuqlwph

01 tuojh 2013 ls 31 fnlacj 2014 rd jí fd;s x, ykblsalksa dh lwph

Øe- la-

ykbZlsal la[;k

ykbZlsal dk uke ,oa irk

ykbZlsalksa ds varxZr oLrq@izde lEc)

jí djus dh

Hkkjr ekud dk 'kh"kZd

frfFk o"kZ ekg

1-

3438460

osUukyh QqM vk.M chojst+l

iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan

04@07@2014

iruefrV~Vk

izkd`frd feujy ty ds vykok½

2-

3453254

Dykfld okV~Vj izksMDV

iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan

12@11@2013

dksf'kDdksM+

izkd`frd feujy ty ds vykok½

3-

3556971

us'kuy cwM izksMDV

daØhV ds jkVfjax dk;Z

25@03@2013

dkljxksM

ds fy, IykbZoqM fof'k"V

4-

4529771

izf;e ouhjl fyfeVsM

daØhd ds jkVfjax dk;Z

14@08@2013

dUuqj

ds fy, IykbZoqM fof'k"V

5-

6082664

izfQV~dksj iSIl fyfeVsM

is; ty dh vkiwfrZ ds fy,

10@02@2014

,j.kkdqye

vlq/kfV;rk ihñohñlhñ ikbZi&fof'k"V

6-

6133150

fjgsfcfyVs;'kul fyfeVsM dksYye

dPph izkd`frd jcM dh fof'k"V

08@08@2013

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

ds- dfnjosy] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k chvkbZ,l] dksfPp 'kk[kk

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1931

Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vizSy] 2015

dk- vk- 882-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e]

1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk 91d ds lkFk ifBr èkjk 88 }kjk

iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~}kjk Hkkjrh; bLikr izkfèdj.k

fyfeVsM fjQz sDVjh dh bdkbZ;ksa fHkykbZ] NÙkhlx<+ vkbZ,QvkbZlhvks]

ekjj] >kj[k.M vkSj jkaph jksM] ekjj] >kj[k.M ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa

ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dks bl vfèfu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku

djrh gSA ;g NwV] 02 ebZ] 2015 ls ,d o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, ykxw

jgsxhA

2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds vèhu gS( vFkkZr~%µ

¼1½ iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr g®] ,d jftLVj

j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke

fn[kk;s tk;saxs(

¼2½ bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vfèfu;e ds vèhu

,slh izlqfoèk,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl

vfèlwpuk }kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ

lanÙk va'knkuksa ds vkèkj ij gdnkj gks tkrs g®(

¼3½ NwV izkIr vofè ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh fd,

tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs(

¼4½ mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vofè dh ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vfèfu;e

¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vofè dgk x;k gS½

izorZeku Fkk ,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh

fof'kf"V;ksa lfgr nsxk tks deZpkjh jkT; chek ¼lkèkj.k½

fofu;e] 1950 ds vèhu mls mDr vofè dh ckcr nsuh

visf{kr gksrh Fkha(

¼5½ fuxe }kjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e dh èkjk

45 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds vèhu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ

lkekftd lqj{kk vfèdkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufer izkfèd`r

dksbZ vU; inèkjh(

¼i½ èkjk 44 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds vèhu] mDr vofè

dh ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'k"V;ksa dks

lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ( vFkok

¼ii½ ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh

jkT; chek ¼lkèkj.k½ fofu;e] 1950 }kjk

;Fkkvisf{kr jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vofè ds

fy, j[ks x;s Fks ;k ugha( ;k

¼iii½ ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]

fu;kstd }kjk fn;s x, mu Qk;nksa dks] ftlds

QyLo:i bl vfèlwpuk ds vèhu NwV nh tk jgh

gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk

gqvk gS ;k ugha( ;k

¼iv½ ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vofè

ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds lacaè esa vfèfu;e

ds micaè izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha micaèksa dk vuqikyu

fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds

fy, l'kDr gksxk%µ

¼d½ izèku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk

fd og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr

fujh{kd ;k vU; inèkjh vko';d le>rk

gS( vFkok

¼[k½ ,sls izèku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds

vfèHkksxkèhu] fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk]

dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh mfpr

le; ij izos'k djuk vkSj mlds izHkkjh ls ;g

vis{kk djuk fd og O;fDr;ksa ds fu;kstu vkSj

etnwjh ds lank; ls lacafèr ,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka

vkSj vU; nLrkost] ,sls fujh{kd ;k vU;

inèkjh ds le{k izLrqr djsa vkSj mudh ijh{kk

djus nsa ;k ,slh tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d

le>rs g®( ;k

¼x½ izèku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds vfHkdrkZ

;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh O;fDr dks] tks ,sls

dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa ik;k tk,] ;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr

dkj.k gS fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk( ;k

¼?k½ ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk] cgh ;k vU;

nLrkost dh udy rS;kj djuk ;k m)j.k ysuk(

¼³½ ;FkkfuèkZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA

6- fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznÙk NwV Lor% jí gks tk,xh

vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr ljdkj dh vuqefr ysuh

gksxhA

[la- ,l-38014@11@2013&,l,l&I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

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.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 883-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lyky ikoj LVs'ku

T;ksfriqje vkSj vkFklZ ds izcaèr= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 1 paMhx<+ ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k No. 198@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 16@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y--42011@156@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

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

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

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

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.

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

S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vizSy] 2015

dkñvkñ 884-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVs'ku dekaMj ,;j

QkslZ LVs'ku cfBaMk ds izcaèr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 1 paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

15@2006] 16@2006] 17@2006] 18@2006] 19@2006 and 20@2006½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@04@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y-14012@17@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]

lañ ,y-14012@15@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]

lañ ,y-14012@19@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]

lañ ,y-14012@20@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]

lañ ,y-14012@18@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]

lañ ,y-14012@16@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh

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 Officer

1934

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Details of Industrial Disputes to be answered:

(1) ID No. 15 of 2006. Reference No. L-14012/17/2005-

IR(DU) dated 16.05.2006

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.

3.

Mejor Singh S/o Late Sh. Mastan Singh R/o 10,

Village Bhisiana, Teh. & Distt. Bhathinda.

4.

Hansa Singh S/o Late Sh. Mastan Singh R/o 10,

Village Bhisiana, Teh. & Distt. Bhathinda.

5.

Gurdeed Kaur D/o Late Sh. Mastan Singh R/o 10,

Village Bhisiana, Teh. & Distt. Bhathinda.

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.

Applicant

VERSUS

1. The Station Commander, Air Force Station, Bhisiana

(Bhathinda), Punjab.

Respondent

Term of Reference:

"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?"

(2) ID No. 16 of 2006. Reference No. L-14012/15/2005-

IR(DU) dated 16.05.2006

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.

Applicant

VERSUS

1. The Station Commander, Air Force Station, Bhisiana

(Bhathinda), Punjab.

Respondent

Term of Reference:

"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-

IR(DU) dated 16.05.2006

Sh. Shamsher Singh S/o Sh. Angrej 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

1. The Station Commander, Air Force Station, Bhisiana

(Bhatinda), Punjab.

Respondent

Term of Reference:

"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-

IR(DU) dated 16.05.2006

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

1. The Station Commander, Air Force Station, Bhisiana

(Bhathinda), Punjab.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1935

Term of Reference:

"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?"

(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?"

(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?"

APPEARANCES

For the workmen:

Sh. P.K. Longia advocate.

For the management:

Shri R.N. Sharma advocate.

AWARD PASSED ON: 26.03.2015

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:—

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.

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.

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 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:—

"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) ........................

But does not include—

(1) ...................

(2) ...................

(3) ...................

(4) ...................

(5) ...................

(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

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

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vizSy] 2015

dkñ vkñ 885-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj]

,uVhihlh] ,l,lVhihih lksuHknz ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas

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

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

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 126@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 23@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@64@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

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 Officer

1938

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Present: Sri Shubhendra Kumar, HJS.

Industrial Dispute No. 126 of 2013.

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.)

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

statement on his behalf, whereas management

representative appeared on few occasions without

filing of his authority to represent the case on

behalf of the management.

4.

Be that as it may, a copy of an order dated

14.12.2013 and 21.07.2014, passed by the Hon'ble

High Court, Allahabad was filed by the

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

proceedings of the present case but vide order

dated 21.07.14, the reference made to this tribunal

was quashed.

5.

This would mean that at present there is no

reference before the tribunal to be answered.

6.

Accordingly it is held that the present file be

consigned to recrod room and accordingly it is

ordered.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vizSy] 2015

dkñvkñ- 886-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj]

vkWMZusUl QSDVªh] dkuiwj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

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

¼lanHkZ la[;k 23@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 23@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&14012@16@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Present: Sri Shubhendra Kumar, HJS.

Industrial Dispute No. 23 of 2011.

Between:

Sri Ganesh Shanker Srivastava,

Son of late Surya Prasad Srivastava,

116/91, Ganesh Nagar,

Rawatpur, Kanpur.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1939

And

The General Manager,

Ordnance Factory,

Kalpi Road,

Kanpur.

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.

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.

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.

6.

Reference is answered accordingly against the

workman.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 887.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vky bafM;k jsfM;ks ds

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

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

Je U;k;ky; dkuiwj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 58@2000½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@50@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 58 of 2000

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 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

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vizSy] 2015

dkñvkñ 888.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k ds dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj fuxe

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

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

kdj.k ,o Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 42@2008½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@04@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@09@2008&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

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

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 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. The

1944

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.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1945

19.

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.

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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vizSy] 2015

dkñ vkñ 889.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj fuxe

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

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

kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 40/2014) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&40011@05@2014&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

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

The District Secretary

: 1st Party/Petitioner

Tamil Manila Telecom Contract

Union

Labour Union

B-7, Telecom Employees

Quarters, Andhiyur

Chennai - 638501

1946

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.

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?"

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

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

to Varadaraj with continuity of service and other

monetary benefits.

4. The Respondents have filed Counter Statement

contending as below :

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 :

(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

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1947

his re-examination that he was working with the

Respondents continuously from 1991 to 2014.

9. Out of the documents produced by the petitioner in

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

claimed.

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

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union

: WW1,

Sri

P.

Varadaraj

For the 2nd Party/1st and 2nd

: None

Management

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

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 :

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 28 vizSy] 2015

dkñvkñ 890.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ykWbQ bU'kqjsUl

dkWjiksjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k ,oa vU; ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xksnkofj[kkfu ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 9@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

20@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la-,y&17025@1@2015&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

1948

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

GODAVARIKHANI

Present :

SRI G.V. KRISHNAIAH,

Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 9 OF 2013

Monday, the 21st day of July, 2014

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.

3.

The Zonal Manager, Life Insurance

Corporation of India, South Central Zone,

Zonal Office, Secretariat Road, Saifabad,

Hyderabad.

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 :—

AWARD

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

ubZ fnYyh] 28 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 891.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkfnR; flesUV oDlZ

,oa vU; ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 72@2005½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@4@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@20@2005&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 28th April, 2015

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

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

I.D. 72/2005

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.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1949

V/s

The Executive President

M/s. Aditya Cement Works

Adityapuram

Sawa-Shambhupura

Distt. Chittorgarh, Rajasthan,

Chittorgarh

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?"

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

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 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:—

lsok esa]

Jheku U;k;k/kh'k egksn;]

Annexure-I

dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ¼jkt-½

izdj.k la[;k 72@2005

Jh ;kdqc [kku

cuke

dk;Zdkjh v/;{k] vkfnR; lhesUV

oDlZ] vkfnR;iqje

izkFkZuk i= okLrs foMªk djus dk izdj.k

egksn; th]

mijksDr izdj.k esa nksuksa i{kdkjku dh vksj ls ekuuh; U;k;ky;

vkils fuosnu fuEu vuqlkj gS%µ

1-

;g gS fd izkFkhZ us mijksDr vuoku dk izdj.k tfj;s lfpo]

Hkkjrh; etnwj la?k] 'kk[kk fpÙkkSMx<+ ekuuh; U;k;ky;

vki esa izLrqr fd;k gS ftlesa foi{kh ds :i esa dk;Zdkjh

v/;{k] vkfnR; lhesUV oDlZ] vkfnR;iqje dks i{kdkj

cuk;k x;k gSA bl izdj.k esa izkFkhZ }kjk vius vkidks

foi{kh laLFkku eSllZ vkfnR; lhesUV oDlZ dk deZdkj

gksuk vafdr fd;k gS tks lR; ugha gS D;ksafd izkFkhZ }kjk eSllZ

vkfnR; lhesUV oDlZ ds fu;kstu esa dk;Z ugha dj Bsdsnkj

eSllZ d`".kk VªsfMax dEiuh ds tfj;s crkSj Bsdk Jfed

dk;Z fd;k x;k FkkA

2-

;g gS fd izkFkhZ ,oa izkFkhZ ds fu;kstd eSllZ Jh d`".kk VªsfMax

dEiuh ds chp LosPNk ls vkilh jkthukek gks pqdk gS rFkk

vc izkFkhZ ds ,oa izkFkhZ ds fu;kstd eSllZ Jh d`".kk VªsfMax

dEiuh ds e/; fdlh Hkh rjg dk dksbZ fookn 'ks"k ugha jgk

gSA blh vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ ,oa foi{kh laLFkku eSllZ vkfnR;

lhesUV oDlZ ds e/; Hkh vc fdlh Hkh rjg dk dksbZ fookn

izkFkhZ ds fu;kstu ds lanHkZ esa ugha jgk gSA izkFkhZ us eSllZ Jh

d`".kk VªsfMax dEiuh ls viuh lEiw.kZ cdk;k jkf'k izkIr

dj yh gSA

1950

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3-

;g gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk eSllZ Jh d`".kk VªsfMax dEiuh ls iw.kZ

,oa vafre Hkqxrku izkfIr dh jlhn dh izfr;ka bl izkFkZuk

i= ds lkFk layXu gSA

4-

;g gS fd nksuksa i{kdkjku dh vksj ls ;g jkthukek yksd

vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls izsfjr gksdj fcuk fdlh ncko ds

vki U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr gSA nksuksa i{kdkjku dh vksj

ls bl vkilh jkthukek ckcr dksbZ fookn ugha gksusµ dks

vi ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk Lohdkj fd;s tkus dk uez

fuosnu gSA

gLrk{kj viBuh;

gLrk{kj viBuh;

vr% fuosnu gS fd nksuksa i{kdkjku dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g la;qDr

izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj Qjek;k tkdj i{kdkjku ds e/; dksbZ fookn 'ks"k

ugha jg tkus ds vk/kkj ij gLrxr izdj.k dks foMªk fd, tkus dh

vuqefr iznku djkos ,oa blh vk/kkj ij izdj.k dks blh LVst ij

fuLrkfjr dj lekIr fd;s tkus ckcr~ mfpr vkns'k iznku djkosA

LFkku% t;iqj

fnukad% 31-3-2015

gLrk{kj viBuh;

gLrk{kj

izkFkhZ@vf/koDrk@izfrfuf/k

gLrk{kj viBuh;

gLrk{kj foi{kh@vf/koDr@izfrfuf/k

eSñ vYVªkVsd lhesUV fyfeVsM

bdkbZ&eSllZ vkfnR; lhesUV oDlZ] vkfnR;iqje

fnukad% 31-3-2015

jlhn

eSa ;kdqc [kku firk Jh vdcj [kku fuoklh xkao&iksLV&lkok]

rg- o ftyk& fpÙkkSM+x<+] ¼jkt-½ us LosPNk ls R;kxi= nsdj vkt

fnukad 31-3-2015 dks iw.kZ ,oa vafre pqdrk Hkqxrku ¼Full & Final

Settlement½ ds :i esa Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad] 'kk[kk vkfnR;iqje

¼jktLFkku½ dk pSd la[;k 172972 fnukad 31-3-2015 #i;k

2]51]000@& ¼v{kjs nks yk[k bD;kou gtkj #i;s ek=½ izkIr dj

;g jlhn fy[k nh gSA bl Hkqxrku ds i'pkr~ esjk eSllZ Jh d`".kk

V¥ªsfMax dEiuh ,oa crkSj eq[; fu;ksDrkµ eSllZ vYVªkVsd lhesUV fyfeVsM

bdkbZ& vkfnR; lhesUV oDlZ ls jkstxkj vU; fdlh Hkh izdkj dh

cdk;k jkf'k ;k Hkqxrku ysuk 'ks"k ugha jg x;k gSA mDr /kujkf'k esa esjs

}kjk vftZr ,oa lHkh fof/kd ns; jkf'k ftlesa xzsP;qVh] yho ,uds'kesaV

,oa vU; ykHk ifjykHk lfEefyr gSA mDr /kujkf'k ds izkfIr ds lkFk

gh esjk eSllZ Jh d`".kk VªsfMax dEiuh ,oa eq[; fu;ksDrk ds lkFk dksbZ

Hkh okn] fookn ,oa Dyse 'ks"k ugha jgrk gSA bl jlhn ds lkFk&lkFk esjs

}kjk vkt ekuuh; U;k;ky;] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;

¼dsUnzh;½] t;iqj esa yfEcr izdj.k foMªk dj fy;k x;k gS rFkk bl

jlhn ls ;g izdj.k ,oa vU; dksbZ fookn tks esjs }kjk laLFkkfir fd;s

x;s gS] Lor% gh lekIr le>s tk,axsA ;g jlhn eSaus LosPNk ls iw.kZ

gks'kks&gokl esa fy[k nh gS tks oDr t:jr esa dke vkosaA

fnukad% 31-3-2015

gLrk{kj

gLrk{kj viBuh;

¼;kdqc [kku½

5. Following order was passed on the withdrawal

application:

31.3.2015

LOK-ADALAT

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.

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1951

ubZ fnYyh] 28 vizSy] 2015

dkñvkñ 892.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkfnR; flesUV oDlZ

,oa vU; ds izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 71@2005½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] rks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 20@4@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&29012@21@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

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.

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.

V/s

The Executive President

M/s Aditya Cement Works

Adityapuram

Sawa-Shambhupura

Distt. Chittorgarh, Rajasthan,

Chittorgarh.

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 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?

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.

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 Singh

1952

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:

lsok esa]

Jheku U;k;k/kh'k egksn;]

Annexure-I

dsUæh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ¼jktñ½

izdj.k la[;k 71@2005

nsoh flag

cuke

dk;Zdkjh v/;{k] vkfnR; lhesUV

oDlZ vkfnR;iqje

izkFkZuk i= okLrs foMªk djus dk izdj.k

egksn;th]

mijksDr izdj.k esa nksuksa i{kdkjku dh vksj ls ekuuh; U;k;ky;

vkils fuosnu fuEu vuqlkj gS%

1-

;g gS fd izkFkhZ us mijksDr vuoku dk izdj.k tfj;s lfpo]

Hkkjrh; etnwj] la?k] 'kk[kk fpRrkSM+x<+ ekuuh; U;k;ky;

vki esa izLrqr fd;k gS ftlesa foi{kh ds :i esa dk;Zdkjh

v/;{k] vkfnR; lhesUV oDlZ] vkfnR;iqje dks i{kdkj

cuk;k x;k gSA bl izdj.k esa izkFkhZ }kjk vius vkidks

foi{kh laLFkku eSllZ vkfnR; lhesUV oDlZ dk deZdkj

gksuk vafdr fd;k gS tks lR; ugha gS D;ksafd izkFkhZ }kjk eSllZ

vkfnR; lhesUV oDlZ ds fu;kstu esa dk;Z ugha dj Bsdsnkj

eSllZ Jh d`".kk VªsfM+x daiuh ds tfj;s crkSj Bsdk Jfed

dk;Z fd;k x;k FkkA

2-

;g gS fd izkFkhZ ,oa izkFkhZ ds fu;kstd eSllZ Jh d`".kk VªsfM+x

daiuh ds chp LosPNk ls vkilh jkthukek gks pqdk gS rFkk

vc izkFkhZ ds ,oa izkFkhZ ds fu;kstd eSllZ Jh d`".kk VªsfM+x

daiuh ds e/; fdlh Hkh rjg dk dksbZ fookn 'ks"k ugha jgk

gSA blh vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ ,oa foi{kh laLFkku eSllZ vkfnR;

lhesUV oDlZ ds e/; Hkh vc fdlh Hkh rjg dk dksbZ fookn

izkFkhZ ds fu;kstu ds laUnHkZ esa ugha jgk gSA izkFkhZ us eSllZ Jh

d`".kk VªsfM+x daiuh ls viuh laiw.kZ cdk;k jkf'k izkIr dj

yh gSA

3-

;g gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk eSllZ Jh d`".kk VªsfM+x daiuh ls iw.kZ ,oa

vafre Hkqxrku izkfIr dh jlhn dh izfr;ka bl izkFkZuk i= ds

lkFk layXu gSA

4-

;g gS fd nksuksa i{kdkjku dh vksj ls ;g jkthukek yksd

vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls izsfjr gksdj fcuk fdlh ncko ds

vki U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr gSA nksuksa i{kdkjku dh vksj

ls bl vkilh jkthukek ckcr~ dksbZ fookn ugha gksus & dks

vki ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk Lohdkj fd;s tkus dk uez

fuosnu gSA

gLrk{kj iBuh;

gLrk{kj viBuh;

vr% fuosnu gS fd nksuksa i{kdkjku dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g la;qDr

izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj Qjek;k tkdj i{kdkjku ds e/; dksbZ fookn 'ks"k

ugha jg tkus ds vk/kkj ij gLrxr~ izdj.k dks foMªk fd;s tkus dh

vuqefr iznku djkos ,oa blh vk/kkj ij izdj.k dks blh LVst ij

fuLrkfjr dj lekIr fd;s tkus ckcr~ mfpr vkns'k iznku djkosA

LFkku % t;iqj

fnukad 31-03-2015

gLrk{kj iBuh;

gLrk{kj

izkFkhZ@vf/koDrk@izfrfuf/k

gLrk{kj viBuh;

gLrk{kj foi{kh@vf/koDrk@izfrfuf/k

eSñ vYVªkVsd lhesUV fyfeVsM

bdkbZ vkfnR; lhesUV oDlZ] vkfnR;iqje

fnukad% 31-03-2015

jlhn

eSa nsoh flag firk Jh lksgu flag fuoklh xkWo&jsy dk vejkuk] rg]

o ftyk&fpRrkSM+x<+] ¼jktñ½ us LosPNk ls R;kxi= nsdj vkt fnukad

31-03-2015 dks iw.kZ ,oa vafre pqdrk Hkqxrku (Full & Final Settle-

ment) ds :i esa Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad] 'kk[kk vkfnR;iqje ¼jktLFkku½

dk pSd la[;k 172971 fnukad 31-03-2015 #i;k 2]51]000@&

¼v{kjs nks yk[k bD;kou gtkj #i;s ek=½ izkIr dj ;g jlhn fy[k

nh gSA bl Hkqxrku ds i'pkr~ esjk eSllZ Jh d`".kk VªsfM+x daiuh ,oa

crkSj eq[; fu;ksDrk & eSllZ vYVªkVsd lhesaUV fyfeVsM bdkbZ&vkfnR;

lhesUV oDlZ ls jkstxkj vU; fdlh Hkh izdkj dh cdk;k jkf'k ;k

Hkqxrku ysuk 'ks"k ugha jg x;k gSA mDr /kujkf'k esa esjs }kjk vftZr ,oa

lHkh fof/kd ns; jkf'k ftlesa xzsT;qVh] yho ,uds'kesaV ,oa vU; ykHk

ifjykHk lfEefyr gSA mDr /kujkf'k ds izkfIr ds lkFk gh esjk eSllZ Jh

d`".kk VªsfM+x daiuh ,oa eq[; fu;ksDrk ds lkFk dksbZ Hkh okn] fookn

,oa Dyse 'ks"k ugha jgrk gSA bl jlhn ds lkFk&lkFk esjs }kjk vkt

ekuuh; U;k;ky;] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;

¼dsUæh;½] t;iqj esa yfEcr izdj.k foMªk dj fy;k x;k gS rFkk bl

jlhn ls ;g izdj.k ,oa vU; dksbZ fookn tks esjs }kjk laLFkkfir fd;s

x;s gS] Lor% gh lekIr le>s tk,axsA ;g jlhn eSaus LosPNk ls iw.kZ

gks'kks&gokl esa fy[k nh gS tks oDr t:jr esa dke vkosaA

fnukad 31-03-2015

gLrk{kj

gLrk{kj iBuh;

¼nsoh flag½

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1953

5. Following order was passed on the withdrawal

application:

31-03-2015

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.

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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 28 vizSy] 2015

dkñvkñ- 893.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkfnR; flesUV oDlZ

,oa vU; ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 70@2005½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@4@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&29012@22@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

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

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

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

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)]

“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?”

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:—

lsok esa]

Jheku U;k;k/kh'k egksn;]

vuqca/k - I

dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]

t;iqj ¼jktñ½

izdj.k la[;k 70@2005

Jh Hkwjk yky /kkdM+

cuke

dk;Zdkjh v/;{k] vkfnR; lhesUV oDlZ] vkfnR;iqje

izkFkZuk i= okLrs foMªk djus izdj.k

egksn;th]

mijksDr izdj.k esa nksuksa i{kdkjku dh vksj ls ekuuh; U;k;ky;

vkils fuosnu fuEu vuqlkj gS%µ

1-

;g gS fd izkFkhZ us mijksDr vuoku dk izdj.k tfj;s lfpo]

Hkkjrh; etnwj la?k] 'kk[kk fpÙkkSM+x<+ ekuuh; U;k;ky;

vki esa izLrqr fd;k gS ftlesa foi{kh ds :i esa dk;Zdkjh

v/;{k] vkfnR; lhesUV oDlZ]vkfnR;iqje dks i{kdkj

cuk;k x;k gSA bl izdj.k esa izkFkhZ }kjk vius vkidks

foi{kh laLFkku eSllZ vkfnR; lhesUV oDlZ dk deZdkj

gksuk vafdr fd;k gS tks lR; ugha gS D;ksafd izkFkhZ }kjk eSllZ

vkfnR; lhesUV oDlZ ds fu;kstu esa dk;Z ugha dj Bsdsnkj

eSllZ Jh d`".kk VªsfM+x dEiuh ds tfj;s crkSj Bsdk Jfed

dk;Z fd;k x;k FkkA

2-

;g gS fd izkFkhZ ,oa izkFkhZ ds fu;kstd eSllZ Jh d`".k VªsfM+x

dEiuh ds chp LosPNk ls vkilh jkthukek gks pqdk gS rFkk

vc izkFkhZ ds ,oa izkFkhZ ds fu;kstd eSllZ Jh d`".kk VªsfM+x

dEiuh ds e/; fdlh Hkh rjg dk dksbZ fookn 'ks"k ugha jgk

gSA blh vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ ,oa foi{kh laLFkku eSllZ vkfnR;

lhesUV oDlZ ds e/; Hkh vc fdlh Hkh rjg dk dksbZ fookn

izkFkhZ ds fu;kstu ds laUnHkZ esa ugha jgk gSA izkFkhZ us eSllZ Jh

d`".kk VªsfM+x dEiuh ls viuh lEiw.kZ cdk;k jkf'k izkIr

dj yh gSA

3-

;g gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk eSllZ Jh d`".kk VªsfM+x dEiuh ls iw.kZ

,oa vafre Hkqxrku izkfIr dh jlhn dh izfr;ka bl izkFkZuk

i= ds lkFk layXu gSA

4-

;g gS fd nksuksa i{kdkjku dh vksj ls ;g jkthukek yksd

vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls izsfjr gksdj fcuk fdlh ncko ds

vki U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr gSA nksuksa i{kdkjku dh vksj

ls bl vkilh jkthukek ckcr~ dksbZ fookn ugha gksus & dks

vki ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk Lohdkj fd;s tkus dk uez

fuosnu gSA

gLrk{kj iBuh;

gLrk{kj viBuh;

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1955

vr% fuosnu gS fd nksuksa i{kdkjku dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g la;qDr

izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj Qjek;k tkdj i{kdkjku ds e/; dksbZ fookn 'ks"k

ugha jg tkus ds vk/kkj ij gLrxr izdj.k dks fonMªk fd;s tkus dh

vuqefr iznku djkos ,oa blh vk/kkj ij izdj.k dks blh LVst ij

fuLrkfjr dj lekIr fd;s tkus ckcr~ mfpr vkns'k iznku djkosA

LFkku% t;iqj

fnukad% 31-03-2015

gLrk{kj iBuh;

gLrk{kj

izkFkhZ@vf/koDrk@izfrfuf/k

gLrk{kj viBuh;

gLrk{kj foi{kh@vf/koDrk@izfrfuf/k

eSñ vYVªkVsd lhesUV fyfeVsM

bdkbZ & vkfnR; lhesUV oDlZ] vkfnR;iqje

fnukad% 31-03-2015

jlhn

eSa Hkwjk yky /kkdM+ firk Jh xaxkjke /kkdM+ fuoklh xkao&dY;k.kiqjk]

rg- o ftyk&fpÙkkSM+x<+] ¼jkt-½ us LosPNk ls R;kxi= nsdj vkt

fnukad 31-03-2015 dks iw.kZ ,oa vafre pqdrk Hkqxrku (Full &

Final Settlement) ds :i esa Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad] 'kk[kk vkfnR;iqje

¼jktLFkku½ dk pSd la[;k 172970 fnukad 31-03-2015 #i;k

2]51]000@& ¼v{kjs nks yk[k bD;kou gtkj #i;s ek=½ izkIr dj ;g

jlhn fy[k nh gSA bl Hkqxrku ds i'pkr~ esjk eSllZ Jh d`".kk Vªs¯Mx

dEiuh ,oa crkSj eq[; fu;ksDrk & eSllZ vYVªkVsd lhesUV fyfeVsM

bdkbZ & vkfnR; lhesUV oDlZ ls jkstxkj vU; fdlh Hkh izdkj dh

cdk;k jkf'k ;k Hkqxrku ysuk 'ks"k ugha jg x;k gSA mDr /kujkf'k esa esjs

}kjk vftZr ,oa lHkh fof/kd ns; jkf'k ftlesa xzsP;qVh] yho ,udS'kesaV

,oa vU; ykHk ifjYkkHk lfEefyr gSaA mDr /kujkf'k ds izkfIr ds lkFk

gh esjk eSllZ Jh d`".kk Vªs¯Mx dEiuh ,oa eq[; fu;ksDrk ds lkFk dksbZ

Hkh okn] fookn ,oa Dyse 'ks"k ugha jgrk gSA bl jlhn ds lkFk&lkFk esjs

}kjk vkt ekuuh; U;k;ky;] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;

¼dsUnzh;½] t;iqj esa yfEcr izdj.k fonMªk dj fy;k x;k gS rFkk bl

jlhn ls ;g izdj.k ,oa vU; dksbZ fookn tks esjs }kjk laLFkkfir fd;s

x;s gSa] Lor% gh lekIr le>s tk,axsA ;g jlhn eSus LosPNk ls iw.kZ

gks'kks&gokl esa fy[k nh gS tks oDr t:jr esa dke vkosaA

fnukad% 31-03-2015

gLrk{kj

gLrk{kj iBuh;

¼Hkwjk yky /kkdM+½

5. Following order was passed on the withdrawal

application:

31.03.2015

Lok-Adalat

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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 28 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 894.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

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

,oa vU; ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 2@2003½

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

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30015@8@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

1956

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.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

K.B. KATAKE

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/2 OF 2003

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

OF OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD &

9 ORS.

(1)

The Group General Manager HR/ER

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

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.

(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.

904 to 906, Windsor Plaza

R.C. Dutt Road, Alkapuri

Baroda 390 005.

(10)

M/s. Supreme Construction

JN-1, 18-A 2, Sector - 9

Vashi

Navi Mumbai 400 703.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The General Secretary

ONGC General Kamgar Sanghatana

B/7, Municipal Colony

Agarwada, Sion

Mumbai 400 022.

APPEARANCES :

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

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?"

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 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 agreements

1958

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

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.

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:

S.No.

Issues

Findings

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

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

Issue Nos. 1:—

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.

Yes.

Yes.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1959

10. 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:

"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.

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 admitted

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."

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."

1960

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.

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:

"..........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

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."

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.

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 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.

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:

"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

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."

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."

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 the

1962

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.

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.

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."

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1963

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,

"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

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."

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."

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.

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

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.

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.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1965

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

ubZ fnYyh] 28 vizSy] 2015

dkñvkñ- 895.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fganqLrku isVªksfy;e

dkWjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 1] eqacbZ ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 33@2007½dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

20@4@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30011@29@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 28th April, 2015

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.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 MUMBAI

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

Appearances:

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

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?"

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").

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

case is at the stage of evidence.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vizSy] 2015

dkñvkñ- 896.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

fuxe fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

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

80@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@04@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@144@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

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

REFERENCE NO. 80 OF 2013.

Parties : Sri Mahanand Paswan,

S/o Shri Uchit Paswan,

R/o Mohala Salempur PO: Nannmari PS:

Kariparsurai, NALANDA

(BIHAR).

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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.

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

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

'No Industrial Dispute'.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vizSy] 2015

dkñvkñ- 897.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkSafly QkWj ,MokalesaV

vkWQ+ ihiy ,D'ku ,aM :jy VsDuksykWth ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas

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

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

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 326@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 23@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@124@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 24th April, 2015

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

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 Officer

1968

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

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

APPEARANCES

For the workman

:

Sh. D.C. Mittal Adv.

For the Management

:

Ex parte

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1969

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.

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.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vizSy] 2015

dkñvkñ- 898.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj fuxe

fyfeVsM ds izcaèr= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

334@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@04@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y-40012@77@2004&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh

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

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

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

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

APPEARANCES

For the workman — Sh. Brajesh Mittal, Adv.

For the Management — Sh. G.C. Babbar, Adv.

AWARD

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.

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.

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.

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,

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vizSy] 2015

dkñvkñ- 899.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlkj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fgUnqLrku lkYV

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

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

vf/kdj.k ,oa Jze U;k;y; 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

147/2011 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@04@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y-42012@194@2010-vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ihñdsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

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

1. The Manager, Hindustan Salt Ltd., Mandi.

...Respondents

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1971

APPEARANCES

For the workman

—

Sh. R.K. Singh, A.R.

For the Management

—

Sh. S.K. Gupta, Adv.

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?"

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.

The workman availed several opportunities but did not

lead any evidence.

Today the case was again fixed for evidence of the

workman and his counsel made statement not pressing

the present reference.

In view of his statement, the rereference is answered

against the workman and it is held that he is not entitled to

any relief. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to

the Central Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vizSy] 2015

dkñvkñ 900.—vkS+|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj fuxe

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

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

kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky 2 paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

1265@2006½dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@04@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@71@2005&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñdsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

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

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

1.

Chief General Manager Telecom, Punjab Telecom

Circle, BSNL, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

2.

Principal General Manager Telecom 'District',

BSNL, Jalandhar Telecom district, Jalandhar.

3.

Executive Engineer (Civil), Telecom Civil Division,

BSNL, Kothi No. 414-415, JP Nagar, Jalandhar.

.......Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

—

Sh. Brajesh Mittal, Adv.

For the Management

—

Sh. G.C. Babbar, Adv.

AWARD

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 (hereinafter

1972

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.

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.

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.

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1973

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vizSy] 2015

dkñvkñ- 901.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mrj jsyos ds izcaè

ra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k] p.MhxM

ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼1071@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 29@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y-41012@23@2001 vkbZ vkj ¼ch-1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

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

————

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.

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

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

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. Ex Parte, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. R. S. Rana, Adv.

AWARD

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.

However, the workman did not appear on 10.11.2014

and was proceeded against ex parte.

Counsel for the management made statement not to lead

any evidence.

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.

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.

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 the

1974

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2015/VAISAKHA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Central Government for information and further necessary

action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 902.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds

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

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

èuckn ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼10@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- & 12012@137@2006 vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

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

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

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.

Appearances:

For the Employers

:

Sri S. N. Goswami, Advocate

For the workman

:

Sri Devanand Mishra, workman

State

:

Bihar

Industry: Banking

Dated 1/4/2015

AWARD

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

"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.

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.

This is my award.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 903.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

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

ifV;kyk ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèdj.k] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼542@2005½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y& 12012@265@2003 vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 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

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

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,

Gali Baba Mundra Wala, Partap Nagar, Sahnewal.

.......Petitioner

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.

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

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.

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.

CHARGE SHEET

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:—

While posted as Daftri at our Sahnewal Branch since

14.6.99, you are alleged to have committed the following

acts of misconduct:—

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.

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 her

1976

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.

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.

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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] fnukad 29 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 904-&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k jsyos ds

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

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

vjukdqye ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼21@2013½ ds izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@04@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y& 41011@111@2012 vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

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

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

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 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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 12] 1937

1977

of the division is legal and justified? If not to what relief

they are entitled?"

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 difficult

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

1978

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

ubZ fnYYkh] 29 vizSy] 2015

dk-vk- 905-&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSd vkWQ

ifV;kyk ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

1040@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@4@2015

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- 12012@104@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 2] 2015@oS'kk[k 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.

[No. L-12012/104/2001-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present:- Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 1040/2005

Registered on 19.9.2005

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.

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).

...Petitioner

Versus

1.

Assistant General Manager, State Bank of Patiala

Region III, Punjab Zonal Office, Leela Bhawan,

Patiala.

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.

AWARD

Passed on 12.3.2015

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

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

1. By Misutilising your official position you had

borrowed moneys as per details hereunder from

the constituents of Rania Branch;

(i) Rs. 3500/- on 23.4.1995 from M/s Kisan Beej

Bhandar, Bus Stand Rania.

(ii) Rs. 5000/- on 1.5.1995 from Sh. Atul Jindal

Prop. M/s Jindal Cloth Store, Main Bazar,

Rania.

(iii) Rs. 5000/- in September, 1995 from M/s Juneja

Rice and General Mills, Rania.

2. By demanding illegal gratification for writing

opinion reports of constituents as under of Rania

Branch;

(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

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.

4. By approaching Punjab Kesari for planting false

news published in its issue dated 29.8.1996 for

maligins the image of Rania Branch.

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.

6. On 9.10.1997 you left the office at 1:00 pm

unauthorizedly without seeking any permission

but marked the attendance.

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 to

1980

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.