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.