रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ;एनद्ध 04/0007/2003—05 REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05 प्राध्किार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
सं. 23] नई दिल्ली, मई 31—जून 6, 2015, शनिवार/ज्येष्ठ 10—ज्येष्ठ 16, 1937
No. 23] NEW DELHI, MAY 31—JUNE 6, 2015, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 10—JYAISTHA 16, 1937
इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड ;iiद्ध
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्राालयों ;रक्षा मंत्राालय को छोड़करद्ध द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविध्कि आदेश और अध्सिूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
वित्त मंत्राालय
;वित्तीय सेवाएं विभागद्ध
(Department of Financial Services)
नई दिल्ली, 16 अप्रैल, 2015
New Delhi, the 16th April, 2015
का.आ.1132.—बैंककारी विनियम अध्निियम, 1949 ;1949 का 10द्ध की धरा 53 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए,
केन्दीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, भारतीय रिशर्व बैंक की अनुशंसा पर यह
घोषणा करती है कि उक्त अध्निियम की धरा 10 की उपधरा ;1द्ध
के खण्ड ;गद्ध के उपखण्ड (i) के उपबंध् इण्डियन ओवरसीज बैंक
पर लागू नहीं होंगे, जहां तक उनका संबंध् बैंक के प्रबंध् निदेशक एवं
मुख्य कार्यकारी अध्किारी ;सीईओद्ध श्री आर. कोटीश्वरन को संयुक्त
उद्यम कंपनी-यूनिवर्सल सोम्पो जनरल इंश्योरेंश कंपनी लिमिटेड के
S.O. 1132.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), the Government of India on the recommendations of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declare that the provisions of sub-clauses (i) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the said Act shall not apply to Indian Overseas Bank in so far as it relates to the nomination of Shri R. Koteeswaran, MD & CEO, of the Bank as Director of Joint Venture Company- Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited.
बोर्ड में नामित करने से है।
[F. No. 13/2/2015-BO.I] [पफा.सं. 13/2/2015-बीओ-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
विजय मल्होत्राा, अवर सचिव
2287 GI/2015
(2469)2470 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 23 अप्रैल, 2015
का.आ.1133.—बैंककारी विनियम अध्निियम, 1949 ;1949 का 10द्ध की धरा 53 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की अनुशंसा पर यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त अध्निियम की धरा 10 की उप-धरा ;1द्ध के खण्ड ;गद्ध के उप-खण्ड (i) के उपबंध् ओरियंटल बैंक ऑपफ कामर्स पर लागू नहीं होंगे, जहां तक उनका संबंध् बैंक के प्रबंध् निदेशक एवं मुख्य कार्यकारी अध्किारी श्री अनिमेश चौहान को केनरा एचएसबीसी ओरियंटल बैंक आपफ कामर्स लाइपफ इंश्योरेंश कंपनी लिमिटेड के बोर्ड में निदेशक ;गैर-कार्यकारीद्ध नामित करने से है।
[पफा. सं. 13/4/2015-बीओ-I] विजय मल्होत्राा, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 23rd April, 2015
S.O.1133.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), the Government of India on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declare that the provisions of sub-clauses (i) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the said Act shall not apply to Oriental Bank of Commerce in so far as it relates to the nomination of Shri Animesh Chauhan, MD & Chief Executive Officer, of the Bank as Director (Non- executive) on the board of Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
[F. No. 13/4/2015-BO.I] VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 14 मई, 2015
का.आ.1134.—बैंककारी विनियम अध्निियम, 1949 ;1949
का 10द्ध की धरा 53 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए,
केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिशर्व बैंक की सिपफारिश पर एतद्द्वारा, यह
घोषणा करती है कि उक्त अध्निियम की धारा 10 की उप-धरा
;1द्ध के खण्ड ;गद्ध के उप-खण्ड (i) के उपबंध् बैंक आपफ बड़ौदा
पर लागू नहीं होंगे, जहां तक इसका संबंध् बैंक के प्रबंध् निदेशक एवं
मुख्य कार्यकारी अध्किारी ;अतिरिक्त प्रभारद्ध श्री रंजन ध्वन को
मैसर्स बड़ौदा पायनियर असेट मैनेजमेंट कंपनी लि. ;बीपीएएमसीएलद्ध
और मैसर्स इंडिया पफस्र्ट लाइपफ इंश्योरेंश लिमिटेड
;आईएपफएलआईसीएलद्ध के बोर्ड में निदेशक नामित करने से है।
[पफा. सं. 13/18/2012-बीओ-I] विजय मल्होत्राा, अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 14th May, 2015
S.O.1134.— In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), the Government of India on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declare that the provisions of sub-clauses (i) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the said Act shall not apply to Bank of Baroda in so far as it relates to the nomination of Shri Ranjan Dhawan, MD & CEO (Addl. Charge), of the Bank as Director on the Boards of M/s. Baroda Pioneer Asset Management Company Ltd. (BPAMCL) and M/s. India First Life Insurance Company Limited (IFLICL).
[F. No. 13/18/2012-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 15 मई, 2015
का.आ.1135.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ;प्रबंध् एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध्द्ध स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड ;1द्ध और खंड 8 के उपखंड ;1द्ध के साथ पठित, बैंककारी कंपनी ;उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरणद्ध अध्निियम, 1970/1980 की धरा 9 की उप-धरा ;3द्ध के खंड ;कद्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, बैंक ऑपफ इंडिया के कार्यपालक निदेशक श्री अरुण श्रीवास्तव ;जन्म तिथि 17.06.1957द्ध को उनके पदभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से अथवा उनके अध्विर्षिता की आयु प्राप्त करने की तारीख तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, 75,500-80,000 रुपए के वेतनमान में सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंध् निदेशक एवं मुख्य कार्यकारी अध्किारी के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।
[पफा. सं. 4/4/2013-बीओ-I] विजय मल्होत्राा, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2015.
S.O.1135.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section 3 of Section 9 of The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with Sub-clause (1) of Clause 3 and sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalised Banks (Management & Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/ 1980, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Arun Shrivastava (Date of Birth: 17.06.1957), Executive Director, Bank of India as Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer, Syndicate Bank in the scale of pay of Rs.75,500- 80,000 from the date of his taking over of the charge of the post and upto the age of his superannuation, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 4/4/2013-BO-I] VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 6, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 16, 1937 2471नई दिल्ली, 15 मई, 2015
का.आ.1136.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ;प्रबंध् एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध्द्ध स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड ;1द्ध और खंड 8 के उपखंड ;1द्ध के साथ पठित, बैंककारी कंपनी ;उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरणद्ध अध्निियम, 1970/1980 की धरा 9 की उप-धरा ;3द्ध के खंड ;कद्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, बैंक ऑपफ इंडिया के महाप्रबंध्क श्री आर.ए. शंकर नारायणन ;जन्म तिथि 23.01.1960द्ध को उनके पदभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से 31.01.2020 अर्थात् उनके अध्विर्षिता की आयु प्राप्त करने की तारीख तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, 65,000-78,000 रुपए के वेतनमान में बैंक ऑपफ इंडिया के कार्यपालक निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।
[पफा. सं. 4/5/2013-बीओ-I] विजय मल्होत्राा, अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 29th May, 2015
S.O.1137.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 (41 of 1999), the Central Government hereby appoints Smt. Vijayalaxmi Rajaram Iyer, CMD, Bank of India as Whole- Time Member (Finance & Investment) in the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) in the consolidated pay package of Rs. 3.75 lakh per month, without facility of house and car, for a period of five years with effect from the date of assumption of charge of the post or till she attains the age of 62 years or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.
[F. No. R-16011/01/2014-Ins-I] N. SRINIVASA RAO, Director (Insurance)
कार्मिक, लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्राालय
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2015
;कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभागद्ध
S.O.1136.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Sub-section 3 of Section 9 of The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with Sub-clause (1) of Clause 3 and sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalised Banks (Management & Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/ 1980, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri R.A. Sankara Narayanan, (Date of Birth: 23.01.1960),General Manager, Bank of India as Executive Director, Bank of India in the scale of pay of Rs.65,000-78,000 with effect from the from the date of his taking over of the charge of the post and upto 31.01.2020, i.e. till the date of his superannuation, or until further orders, whichever is the earlier.
[F. No. 4/5/2013-BO-I] VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2015
नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015
का.आ.1138.—केन्द्र सरकार, दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन अध्निियम, 1946 ;1946 का अध्निियम सं. 25द्ध की धरा 6 के साथ पठित धरा 5 की उप-धरा ;1द्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए आंध््र प्रदेश राज्य सरकार की सहमति से दिनांक 15 अप्रैल, 2014 की अध्सिूचना सं. जी.ओ.एम.एस. सं. 73 द्वारा वेरावसम पुलिस स्टेशन में दर्ज किए गए अपराध् मामला सं. 30/12, पालाकोलू शहरी पुलिस स्टेशन में दर्ज किए गए अपराध् मामला संख्या 63/2012 तथा पालाकोलू ग्रामीण पुलिस स्टेशन के अपराध् अन्वेषण विभाग में दर्ज किए अपराध् मामला सं. 32/2012 के दुष्प्रयासों, चेष्टाओं तथा षडयंत्राों के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन के सदस्यों की शक्तियों एवं क्षेत्रााध्किारी का विस्तार एतद्द्वारा संपूर्ण आंध््र प्रदेश राज्य पर करती है।
[पफा. सं. 228/44/2014-एवीडी-II] अजीत कुमार, अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC
GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
का.आ. 1137.—बीमा विनियामक और विकास प्राध्किरण अध्निियम, 1999 ;1999 का 41द्ध की धरा 4 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, बैंक ऑपफ इंडिया की अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध् निदेशक श्रीमती विजयलक्ष्मी राजाराम अयर को पद का कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से 5 वर्ष की अवध् िके लिए अथवा उनके 62 वर्ष की आयु प्राप्त कर लेने तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, भारतीय बीमा विनियामक और विकास प्राध्किरण ;आईआरडीएआईद्ध में बिना आवास एवं कार की सुविध के 3.75 लाख रुपए प्रतिमाह के समेकित वेतन पैकेज में पूर्णकालिक सदस्य ;वित्त एवं निवेशद्ध के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।
[पफा. सं. आर-16011/01/2014-बीमा-I] एन. श्रीनिवास राव, निदेशक ;बीमाद्ध New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015
S.O.1138.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Andhra Pradesh, Home (SC.A) Department vide Notification G.O. Ms. No. 73 dated 15th April, 2014, hereby extends the powers and Jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh for investigation of Crime No. 30/12 registered at Police Station Veravasam, Crime No. 63/2012 registered at2472 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Police Station Palakollu Town and Crime No. 32/2012 registered at Palakolu Rural Police Station of Crime Investigation Department and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to the above mentioned offences.
[F. No. 228/44/2014-AVD-II]
AJIT KUMR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2015
का.आ.1139.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अध्निियम 1946 ;1946 का अध्निियम 25द्ध की धरा 6 सहपठित धरा 5 की उप-धरा ;1द्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए राजस्थान सरकार के गृह ;जी.आर. Vद्ध विभाग की अध्सिूचना संख्या एपफ. 19;17द्ध गृह-5/2015 दिनांक 27.5.2015 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से थाना मेड़ता सिटी, जिला नागौर, राजस्थान में दर्ज अपराध् संख्या 168/15 एवं 169/15 दिनांक 14.5.2015 तथा उपरोक्त अपराध् से जुड़े या संबंध्ति प्रयास, उकसाना और षड्यंत्रा करने और इस चलन में अन्य किए गए या उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अपराध् एवं अपराधें का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अध्किारिता का विस्तार संपूर्ण राजस्थान राज्य पर करती है।
[पफा. सं. -228/21/2015-एवीडी-II] अजीत कुमार, अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 29th May, 2015
S.O.1139.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946),
the Central Government with the consent of the Govt. of
Rajasthan vide Home (GR.-V) Deptt. Notification No. F.
19(17) Home-5/2015 dated 27.5.2015 hereby extends the
powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special
Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Rajasthan
for the investigation of FIR No. 168/15 and FIR No. 169/15
dated 14.5.2015 registered at Police Station Merta City,
District Nagaur, Rajasthan and attempts, abetments and
conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the above
mentioned offences and any other offence or offences
committed in the course of the same transaction or
arising out of the same facts in relation to the aforesaid
case.
[F. No. 228/21/2015-AVD-II]
AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.
उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्राालय
(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग)
(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो)े
नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2015
का.आ.1140.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ;प्रमाणनद्ध विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपविनियम ;5द्ध के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता
है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैंः-
अनुसूची
क्रम लाइसेंश संख्या स्वीकृति करने की लाइसेंसधरी का नाम एवं पता भारतीय मानक भामा सं./भाग/
संख्या
तिथि वर्ष/माह का शीर्षक खण्ड/वर्ष
1 7800000209 09/01/2015 वर्ध्मान उद्योग स्थिर संचारक टाइप पानी गरम भामा 2082ः1993
गाला 126, पहला माला, करने वाले बिजली के हीटर
हिरानंदानी इण्डस्ट्रीयल इस्टेट,
रेलवे स्टेशन के सामने कांजुरमार्ग-प
मुंबई-400078
2 7800000310 23/01/2015 के सी पावरट्रेक्स क्रासलिंक्ड पॉलीथिलीन विद्युतरोध्ी भामा 7098ः
सर्वे सं. 185/1/1, प्लॉट सं. 7 पीवीसी आवरित केबल भाग 1, 1100 वो. भाग1ः1988
दोकमर्दी, अमली गांव, सिलवासा, तक एवं सहित कार्यकारी वोल्टता हेतु
जिला दादरा एवं नगर हवेली-396230
[सं. केन्द्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/13ः11]
टी. कलैवाणन, प्रमुख ;एमयूबीओ-ईईईद्ध[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 6, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 16, 1937 2473
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
(Bureau of Indian Standards)
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2015
S.O.1140.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
Sl. Licence Grant Name and address (factory) Product No. No. Date of the party
IS No./Part/ Sec Year
1. 7800000209 09/01/2015 VARDHAMAN UDYOG Stationery storage type IS 2082 : 1993 GALA No. 126, 1ST FLOOR, electric water heaters HIRANANDANI INDL ESTATE, OPP RAILWAY STN. KUNJURMARG MUMBAI-400078
2. 7800000310 23/01/2015 K C POWER TRACKS Crosslinked polythylene IS 7098 :
insulated pvc sheathed Part 1 : 1988 SURVEY No. 185/1/1, PLOT NO. 7, DOKMARDI, cables: part 1 for working VILLAGE AMLI, SILVASSA, voltage upto and including Distt: Dadra and Nagar 1100 v. Haveli-396230
[No. CMD/13:11] T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)
नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2015
का.आ. 1141.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ;प्रमाणनद्ध विनियम 1988 के विनियम 5 के उपविनियम ;6द्ध के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो
एतद्द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे रद्द कर दिए गए हैंः-
अनुसूची
क्रम लाइसेंश संख्या लाइसेंसधरी का नाम एवं पता लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/प्रकम संब( रद्द करने की तिथि
संख्या
भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक
1. 0557352 मयूर कलर्स 5, नर्मदा इण्ड. इस्टेट भा.मा. 5346 : 1994 15/01/2015
त्रिामूर्ती इएनजी, गोडदेव नाका बि.पी. रोड, सिंथेटीक पफुड कलर प्रीपरेशन और मिक्चर्स भाईंदर ईस्ट, जिला थाणे - 401105
[सं. केन्द्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/13ः13] टी. कलैवाणन, प्रमुख ;एमयूबीओ-ईईईद्ध2474 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 20th May, 2015 S.O.1141.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl. Licence Name and address Article/process with relevant Date of
No. No. of the licensee Indian standard covered by the cancellation
Licence
1. 0557352 MAYUR COLOURS IS 5346 : 1994 15/01/2015
5, NARMADA IND. ESTATE, Synthetic food colour—preparations
TRIMURTI ENG., GODDEO NAKA and mixtures
B.P. ROAD, BHAYANDER (E)
Distt: Thane - 401105
[No. CMD/13:13]
T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)
नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2015
का.आ. 1142.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ;प्रमाणनद्ध विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपविनियम ;5द्ध के अनुसरण में भारतीय ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अध्सिूचति करता है जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृति कर दिए गए हैंः-
अनुसूची
क्रम लाइसेंसे स्वीकृति करने लाइसेंसधरी का भारतीय मानक भामा सं./ संख्या संख्या की तिथि नाम एवं पता का शीर्षक भाग/खण्ड/वर्ष वर्ष/माह
1. 7800000411 05/02/215 आर्शीर्वाद इण्डस्ट्रीज क्रासलिंक्ड पॉलीथिलीन विदयुतरीेध्ी पीवीसी भामा 7098ः प्लॉट संख्या 6/9, आवरित केबल भाग 1,1100 वो. तक भाग 1: 1988 आजाद सोप पफैक्ट्री के नजदीक, एवं सहित कार्यकारी वोल्टता हेतु आजाद नगर, खेमानी, ओटी सेक्शन-2, उल्हासनगर-421002
2. 7800000512 06/02/2015 विजन इण्डस्ट्रीज घरेलु और समान प्रयोजनों के लिए स्विचे भामा 3854ः1997 112, न्यू सतगुरू नानक इण्ड इस्टेट गोरेगॉव पूर्व मुंबई-400063
3. 7800000613 06/02/2015 पीव्हीएन पफैब्रीक्स प्रा.लि. वस्त्राादि-50 किलोग्राम अनाज की पैकेजिंग भा मा 14887ः सर्वे नं. 39/3, 40/1 सं. 40/6 के लिए उच्च घनत्व पॉनीथिलीन एचडीपीई 2014 और 41/3, विलेज डोरी कडाइया पॉपीप्रोपीलीन ;पीपीद्ध बुना बोरे दमण, दमण-396210
4. 7800000807 13/02/2015 हिन्दुस्तान इनसेक्टीसाइड लि. मोनोक्रोटोपफोस, तकनीकी भा मा 8025ः
1990 ;भारत सरकार का उपक्रमद्ध रसायनी, पनवेल जिला रायगढ-4102207
5. 7800000714 19/02/2015 ग्रेसिया मेटल प्रा. लि. 1100 वोल्ट तक कार्यकारी वोल्टता के लिए भा मा 1554 प्लॉट सं. 8/117/ए-2, पीवीसी रोध्ति ;भारी डयुटीद्ध विद्युत केबल ;भाग 1द्धः 1988 सिमेंट पफैक्टरी के नजदरीक आमगॉव इण्ड. एरिया, तलासी, जिला ठाणे-401106
[सं. केन्द्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/13ः11] टी. कलैवाणन, प्रमुख ; एमयूबीओ-ईईईद्ध[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 6, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 16, 1937 2475
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2015
S.O.1142.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
Sl. Licence Grant Name and address (factory) Product IS No.Part/Sec Year No. No. Date of the party
1. 7800000411 05/02/2015 Ashirwad Industries Crosslinked polyethylene IS 7098 : Part 1 Plot No. 6/9 insulated pvc sheathed cables: : 1988 Near Azzad Soap Factory, part 1 for working voltage Azzad Nagar, Khemani, OT Section 2 upto and including 1100v Ulhasnagar - 421004
2. 7800000512 06/02/2015 Vision Industires Switches for domestic and similar IS 3854 : 1997 112, New Satguru Nanak Indl. Estate, purposes Off. Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063
3. 7800000613 06/2/2015 PVN Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Textiles-high density polyethylene IS 14887 : 2014
foodgrains-
Survey No. 39/3, 40/1 to 40/6 & 41/3, (hdpe) polypropylene (pp) woven Village: Dori Kadaiya sacks for packing 50 kg/25 kg. Daman Daman & Diu - 396210
4. 7800000807 13/02/2015 Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. Monocrotophos, technical- IS 8025 : 1990 (Govt of India Enterprises) Rasayani Panvel Dist. - Raigad - 410207
5. 7800000714 19/02/2015 Gracia Metals Pvt. Ltd. Pvc insulated (heavy duty) IS 1554 : Part 1 Plot No. 8/117/A-2, electric cables: part 1 for working : 1988 Near Cemant Factory, voltages upto and including 1100 v AAmgaon Indl Area Talasari Dist : Thane - 401106
[No. CMD/13:11] T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)
कृषि मंत्राालय ;कृषि और सहकारिता विभागद्ध नई दिल्ली, 2 जून, 2015
का.आ.1143.—सार्वजनिक परिसर ;अनध्किृत अतिक्रमण रोकथामद्ध अध्निियम, 1971 ;1971 का 40द्ध की धरा 3 में प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार कंपनी अध्निियम, 1956 ;1956 का 1द्ध के तहत स्थापित केन्द्रीय सार्वजनिक क्षेत्रा उपक्रम, राष्ट्रीय बीज निगम के अध्किारियों तथा सरकार के राजपत्रिात अध्किारी के पद के समतुल्य अध्किारियों को उक्त अध्निियम के प्रयोजन के लिए संपदा अध्किारियों के रुप में नियुक्त करती है । ये संपदा अध्किारी प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेंगे और संबंध्ति परिसंपत्तियों अथवा उक्त निगम की ओर से अथवा द्वारा लीज पर ली गई परिसंपत्तियों में कथित तालिका के कॉलम 3 में विनिर्दिष्ट न्याय क्षेत्रा के आधर पर निर्धरित कार्य करेंगे ।
तालिका
क्र.सं. पद
न्याय क्षेत्रा की स्थानीय सीमा
;1द्ध ;2द्ध
;3द्ध
न्याय क्षेत्रा के तहत क्षेत्रा 1 प्रभारी निदेशक, केन्द्रीय राज्य पफार्म, सूरतगढ़, राजस्थान संबंध्ति केन्द्रीय राज्य पफार्म के 2 प्रभारी निदेशक, केन्द्रीय राज्य पफार्म, सरदारगढ़, राजस्थान 3 प्रभारी निदेशक, केन्द्रीय राज्य पफार्म, जैतसर, राजस्थान 4 प्रभारी निदेशक, केन्द्रीय राज्य पफार्म, हिसार, हरियाणा 5 प्रभारी निदेशक, केन्द्रीय राज्य पफार्म, रायचूर, कर्नाटक 6 प्रभारी निदेशक, केन्द्रीय राज्य पफार्म, नलहटी, पश्चिम बंगाल
[पफा.सं. 6-8/2015-एस.डी-I] रामकुमार, अवर सचिव2476 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE
(Department of Agriculture and Cooperation)
New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2015
S.O.1143.—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 officers specified in column (2) of the Table below, being officers of the National Seeds Corporation, a Central Public Sector Enterprise established under the Companies Act, 1956 ( 1 of 1956) and being officers equivalent to the rank of a gazetted officer of Government to be estate officers for the purpose of the said Act and the said estate officers shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on estate officers by or under the said Act within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction specified in column (3) of the said table in respect of the properties belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of the said Corporation.
TABLE
Sl. No. Designation
Local limits of jurisdiction (1)
(2)
(3)
1. Director Incharge, Central State Farm, Suratgarh, Rajasthan. Area under the jurisdiction of respective Central State Farm.
2. Director Incharge, Central State Farm, Sardargarh, Rajasthan
3. Director Incharge, Central State Farm, Jetsar, Rajasthan
4. Director Incharge, Central State Farm, Hisar, Haryana
5. Director Incharge, Central State Farm, Raichur, Karnataka
6. Director Incharge, Central State Farm, Nalhati, West Bengal
[F. No. 6-8/2015-S.D.-I ] RAM KUMAR, Under Secy.
मानव संसाध्न विकास मंत्राालय
;स्वूफल शिक्षा और साक्षरता विभागद्ध
नई दिल्ली, 3 जून , 2015
का. आ.1144.—वेफन्द्रीय सरकार, सरकारी स्थान ;अप्राध्किृत अध्भिोगियों की बेदखलीद्ध अध्निियम, 1971 ;1971 का 40द्ध की धरा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, नीचे सारणी वेफ स्तंभ ;2द्ध में वर्ण्ाित अध्किारियों को, राष्ट्रीय शैक्षिक अनुसंधन और प्रशिक्षण परिषद् ;एनसीईआरटीद्धऔर उसकी संघटक इकाई वेफ अध्किारी होने वेफ कारण, जो भारत सरकार में राजपत्रिात पंक्ति वेफ अध्किारी वेफ समतुल्य हैं, इस अध्निियम वेफ प्रयोजनों वेफ लिए संपदा अध्किारी नियुक्त करती है। और उक्त अध्किारी, उक्त सारणी वेफ स्तंभ ;3द्ध में तत्स्थानी प्रविष्टि में विनिर्दिष्ट सरकारी स्थानों वेफ वर्गों की बाबत अपने अध्किार क्षेत्रा की सीमाओं वेफ भीतर उक्त अध्निियम द्वारा और उसवेफ अध्ीन संपदा अध्किारियों को प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग और अध्रिोपित कर्तव्यों का पालन करेंगेः-
सारणी
व्रफ.सं. अध्किारी का पदनाम वे स्थानीय सीमाएं, जिनवेफ भीतर संपदा अध्किारी
शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेगा
;1द्ध ;2द्ध
;3द्ध
1. उप सचिव, वैंफपस एंड वेलपेफयर ;सीएंड डब्ल्यूद्ध, नेशनल इंस्टीट्यूट आपफ एजूवेफशन ;एनआईईद्ध, सेंट्रल इंस्टीट्यूट ऑपफ एजुवेफशनल टेक्नोलोजी ;सीआईईटीद्ध और नसिरपुर वैंफपस, नई दिल्ली।
एनसीईआरटी, नई दिल्ली
2. उप सचिव, पंडित सुन्दरलाल शर्मा सेंट्रल इंस्टीट्यूट ऑपफ पंडित सुन्दरलाल शर्मा सेंट्रल इंस्टीट्यूट ऑपफ वोवेफशनल एजुवेफशन वोवेफशनल एजुवेफशन ;पीएसएससीआईवीईद्ध, भोपाल ;पीएसएससीआईवीईद्ध और रीजनल इंस्टीट्यूट ऑपफ एजुवेफशन
;आरआईईद्ध, भोपाल वेफ कार्यक्षेत्रा वेफ अध्ीन वेफ स्थान।
3. एडमिनिस्टे्रटिव आपिफसर ;ए.ओ.द्ध आपफ रीजनल इंस्टीट्यूट रीजनल इंस्टीट्यूट ऑपफ एजुवेफशन ;आरआईईद्ध, अजमेर वेफ कार्यक्षेत्रा आपफ एजुवेफशन ;आरआईईद्ध, अजमेर
वेफ अध्ीन वेफ स्थान।
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 6, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 16, 1937 24774. एडमिनिस्टे्रटिव आपिफसर ;ए.ओ.द्ध आपफ रीजनल इंस्टीट्यूट रीजनल इंस्टीट्यूट आपफ एजूवेफशन ;आरआईईद्ध, भुवनेश्वर वेफ कार्यक्षेत्रा ऑपफ एजुवेफशन ;आरआईईद्ध, भुवनेश्वर वेफ अध्ीन वेफ स्थान।
5. एडमिनिस्टे्रटिव आपिफसर ;ए.ओ.द्ध आपफ रीजनल इंस्टीट्यूट रीजनल इंस्टीट्यूट आपफ एजूवेफशन ;आरआईईद्ध, मैसूर वेफ कार्यक्षेत्रा आपफ एजुवेफशन ;आरआईईद्ध, मैसूर वेफ अध्ीन वेफ स्थान।
6. एडमिनिस्टे्रटिव आपिफसर ;ए.ओ.द्ध आपफ रीजनल इंस्टीट्यूट रीजनल इंस्टीट्यूट आपफ एजूवेफशन ;आरआईईद्ध, शिलांग वेफ समीप आपफ एजुवेफशन ;आरआईईद्ध, शिलांग उमाइम वेफ कार्यक्षेत्रा वेफ अध्ीन वेफ स्थान।
[पफा. स. 1-9/2014-अन.4] दिनेश कुमार, अवर सचिव, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
(Department of School Education and Literacy)
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2015
S.O.1144.—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 Officers mentioned in column (2) of the table below, being officers in the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) and its constituent units, equivalent to the officers of Gazetted rank in the Government of India, to be the Estate Officers for the purposes of the said Act and the said officers shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed, on Estate Officers by or under the said Act, within the limits of their jurisdiction in respect of the categories of the public premises specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said table:-
Table
S. No. Designation of the Officer Local limits within which Estate
Officer shall exercise powers
(1) (2)
(3)
1 Deputy Secretary, Campus and Welfare (C & W), National Institute of Education (NIE), Central Institute of
NCERT, New Delhi. Educational Technology (CIET) and Nasirpur Campus, New
Delhi.
2. Deputy Secretary, Pandit Sunderlal Sharma Central Premises under the purview of Pandit Sunderlal Sharma
Institute of Vocational Education (PSSCIVE), Bhopal Central Institute of Vocational Education (PSSCIVE) and
Regional Institute of Education (RIE), Bhopal.
3. Administrative Officer (A.O.) of Regional Institute Premises under the purview of Regional Institute of Education
of Education (RIE), Ajmer. (RIE), Ajmer.
4. Administrative Officer (A.O.) of Regional Institute Premises under the purview of Regional Institute of Education
of Education (RIE), Bhubaneswar. (RIE), Bhubaneswar.
5. Administrative Officer (A.O.) of Regional Institute Premises under the purview of Regional Institute of Education
of Education (RIE), Mysore. (RIE), Mysore.
6. Administrative Officer (A.O.) of Regional Institute Premises under the purview of Regional Institute of Education
of Education (RIE), Shillong. (RIE), at Umaim, near Shillong.
[F. No. 1-9/2014-Sch. 4] DINESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
2478 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)](2)
(3)
स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्राालय
;स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण विभागद्ध
नई दिल्ली, 18 मई, 2015
का.आ.1145.—भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद अध्निियम, 1956 ;1956 का 102द्ध की धारा 11 की उप-धरा ;2द्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार, भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद से परामर्श करने के पश्चात्, एतद्द्वारा उक्त अध्निियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नानुसार आगे और संशोध्न करती है, अर्थात्ः- "Doctor of Medicine MD (Forensic Medicine) (Forensic Medicine)'' (This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur in respect of students being trained at RNT Medical College, Udaipur on or after 1995 restricting the number of admission 01(one) student per year.
[No. U. 12012/1028/2014-ME (P. II)] SUDHIR KUMAR, Under Secy.
वस्त्रा मंत्राालय
उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में ''राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, जयपुर'' के बाद और 'मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता' [इसके बाद कालम ;2द्ध के रूप में संदर्भित] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि तथा उससे संंबंध्ति प्रविष्टि के बाद 'पंजीकरण के लिये संक्षिप्त रूप' [इसके बाद कालम ;3द्ध के रूप में संदर्भित] शीर्षक के तहत निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा, अर्थात्ः-
;1द्ध ;2द्ध
''डॉक्टर ऑपफ मेडिसन एम.डी. ;पफोरेंसिक मेडिसिनद्ध ;पफोरेंसिक मेडिसिनद्ध'' ;यह एक मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जो आरएनटी मेडिकल कॉलेज, उदयपुर, जहां प्रति वर्ष 01;एकद्ध छात्रा का दाखिला होता है, में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे छात्राों के संबंध् में राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, जयपुर द्वारा वर्ष 1995 में अथवा उसके पश्चात् प्रदान की गई होद्ध
[सं. यू. 12012/1028/2014-एमई ;पी-IIद्ध] सुध्ीर कुमार, अवर सचिव नई दिल्ली, 26 मई, 2015
का.आ.1146.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, ;संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिएद्ध राजभाषा नियम, 1976 के 10 के उपनियम ;4द्ध के अनुसरण में, वस्त्रा मंत्राालय के अंतर्गत आने वाले निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को जिसके 80 से अध्कि कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाध्क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, अध्सिूचित करती हैः-
1. एरी अनुसंधन विस्तार केन्द्र, सीएमईआर एण्ड टीआई, केन्द्रीय रेशम बोर्ड, मकान न. 03, इस्माइलगंज, शादीपुर खुर्द, पफतेहपुर - 212601 ;उत्तर प्रदेशद्ध
2. रेशम अनुकूलन व परीक्षण गृह, सीएसटीआरआई, केन्द्रीय रेशम बोर्ड, 76/बी, मनस्कामना रोड, एसएम पल्ली, मालदा - 732 101 ;पश्चिम बंगालद्ध।
[ई. 11016/1/2011-हिन्दी] ए. मध्ुकुमार रेड्डी, संयुक्त सचिव
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of Health and Faimly Welfare)
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
New Delhi, the 18th May, 2015
S.O.1145.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (2) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government,
after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby
makes the following further amendments in the First
Schedule to the said Act.
In the said First Schedule after "Rajasthan University
of Health Sciences, Jaipur" and under the heading
'Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred
to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating
thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration'
[hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall
be inserted, namely:—
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2015
S.O.1146.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for the official purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies the following offices of the Ministry of Textiles, more than 80% staff whereof have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:
1. Eri Research Extension Centre, CMER&TI, Central Silk Board, H. No. 03, Ismailganj, Sadipur Khurd, Fatehpur - 212 601 (Uttar Pradesh)
2. Silk Conditioning & Testing House, CSTRI, Central Silk Board, 76/B, Manaskamana Road, S.M. Pally, Malda - 732 101 (W.B.).
[E. 11016/1/2011-Hindi]
A. MADHUKUMAR REDDY, Jt.Secy.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 6, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 16, 1937 2479नई दिल्ली, 2 जून, 2015
का.आ.1147.—कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास) अधिनियम, 1957 (1957 का 20) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 9 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी भारत के राजपत्र, भाग II, खंड 3, उपखंड (ii) तारीख 8 अप्रैल, 2015 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का. आ. 386(अ), तारीख 5 फरवरी, 2015 तथा शुद्धि-पत्र संख्यांक 989(अ), तारीख 10 अप्रैल, 2015 के प्रकाशन पर उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णिंत अनुसूची 'क' में वर्णित 219.198 हेक्टेयर (लगभग) या 541.64 एकड़ (लगभग) माप वाली भूमि में सभी अधिकार, अनुसूची 'ख' में वर्णित 15.593 हेक्टेयर (लगभग) या 38.53 एकड़ (लगभग) माप वाली भूमि में खनन अधिकार और अनुसूची 'ग' में वर्णित 14.91 हेक्टेयर (लगभग) या 36.84 एकड़ (लगभग) माप वाली भूमि में सतह के अधिकार (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त भूमि कहा गया है) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर, आत्यंतिक रूप में केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित हो गए हैं;
और, केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है कि ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, संकतोड़यिा, डाकघर -दिशेरगढ़, जिला बर्द्धवान (पश्चिम बंगाल) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् सरकारी कंपनी कहा गया है), ऐसे निबंधनों और शर्तों का, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार इस निमित्त अधिरोपित करना उचित समझे, अनुपालन करने के लिए रजामंद है;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 11 की उप-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निदेश देती है कि इस प्रकार निहित वर्णिंत अनुसूची 'क' में वर्णित 219.198 हेक्टेयर (लगभग) या 541.64 एकड़ (लगभग) माप वाली भूमि में सभी अधिकार, अनुसूची 'ख' में वर्णित 15.593 हेक्टेयर (लगभग) या 38.53 एकड़ (लगभग) माप वाली भूमि में खनन अधिकार और अनुसूची 'ग' में वर्णित 14.91 हेक्टेयर (लगभग) या 36.84 एकड़ (लगभग) माप वाली भूमि में सतह के अधिकार तारीख 6 फरवरी, 2015 से केन्द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने के बजाए, निम्नलिखित निबंधनो ं और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हए, सरकारी कंपनी में निहित हो जाऐंगे, अर्थात् -
1. सरकारी कंपनी, उक्त अधिनियम के उपबंधों के अधीन यथा अवधारित प्रतिकर, ब्याज, नुकसानियों और वैसी ही मदों की बाबत् किए गए संदायों की केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतिपूर्ति करेगी;
2. शर्त (1) के अधीन सरकारी कम्पनी द्वारा केन्द्रीय सरकार को संदेय रकमों का अवधारण करने के प्रयोजनों के लिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 के अधीन एक अधिकरण का गठन किया जाएगा और किसी ऐसे अधिकरण और अधिकरण की सहायता के लि, नियुक्त व्यक्तियों के संबंध में उपगत सभी व्यय, सरकारी कंपनी द्वारा वहन किए जाएंगे और इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के लिए जैसी सभी विधिक कार्यवाहियों की बाबत् उपगत, सभी व्यय भी, सरकारी कंपनी द्वारा वहन किए जाएंगे ;
3. सरकारी कंपनी, केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों की ऐसे किसी अन्य व्यय के संबंध में क्षतिपूर्ति करेगी, जो इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के बारे में, केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों द्वारा या उनके विरुद्ध किन्हीं कार्यवाहियों के संबंध में आवश्यक हो;
4. सरकारी कंपनी को केन्द्रीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन के बिना, उक्त भूमि को किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को अंतरित करने की शक्ति नहीं होगी; और
5. सरकारी कंपनी ऐसे निदेशों और शर्तों का पालन करेगी, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा, जब कभी आवश्यक हो, उक्त भूमि के विशिष्ट क्षेत्रों के लिए दिए जाएं या अधिरोपित किए जाएं ।
[फा.सं. 43015/10/2011-पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1] जगदीश कुमार, उप सचिव
New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2015
S.O.1147.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal, number S.O.386(E), dated the 5th February,2015 and corrigendum number S.O. 989(E), dated the 8th April, 2015, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 6th February, 2015 and the 10th April, 2015 respectively, issued under sub- section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the lands measuring 219.198 hectares(approximately) or 541.64 acres (approximately) as all rights over the said land described in Schedule 'A', mining rights in the land measuring 15.593 hectares (approximately) or 38.53 acres (approximately) in Schedule 'B' and surface rights over 14.91 hectares (approximately) or 36.84 acres (approximately) in Schedule 'C' appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act.
And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria, Post Office Dishergarh, District Burdwan (West Bengal) (hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf ;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central2480 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Government hereby directs that the land measuring
219.198 hectares (approximately) or 541.64 acres
(approximately) as all rights over the said land described
in Schedule 'A', mining rights in the land measuring 15.593
hectares (approximately) or 38.53 acres (approximately) in
Schedule 'B' and surface rights over, 14.91 hectares
(approximately) or 36.84 acres (approximately) in Schedule
'C', so vested shall, with effect from 6th February, 2015
instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government,
shall vest in the Government Company, subject to the
following terms and conditions, namely :—
(1) the Government Company shall reimburse to the
Central Government all payments made in respect
of compensation, interest, damages and the like,
as determined under the provisions of the said
Act;
(2) a Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of
the said Act, for the purpose of determining the
amounts payable to the Central Government by
the Government Company under condition (1), and
all expenditure incurred in connection with any
such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the
Tribunal shall be borne by the Government
Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred
in respect of all legal proceedings for or in
connection with the rights, in or over the said
lands, so vesting, shall also be borne by the
Government Company;
(3) the Government Company shall indemnify the
Central Government or its officials against any
other expenditure that may be necessary in
connection with any proceedings by or against
the Central Government or its officials,
regarding the rights in or over the said lands
so vested;
(4) the Government Company shall have no power to
transfer the said lands and the rights to any other
person without the prior approval of the Central
Government; and
(5) the Government Company shall abide by such
directions and conditions as may be given or
imposed by the Central Government for
particular areas of the said lands, as and when
necessary.
[F.No.43015/10/2011 – PRIW-I]
JAGDISH KUMAR, Dy. Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 5 जून, 2015
का.आ.1148.—केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि,
इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में कोयला
अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है;
और रेखांक संख्या एसईसीएल/ बीएसपी/ जीएम
(पीएलजी)/भूमि/472, तारीख 15 अप्रैल, 2015 का जिसमें उक्त
अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि क्षेत्र के ब्यौरे अन्तर्विष्ट है, निरीक्षण
कलक्टर, जिला कोरबा (छत्तीसगढ़) के कार्यालय में या कोयला
नियंत्रक, 1, काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता - 700001 के
कार्यालय में या साऊथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड (राजस्व
अनुभाग), सीपत रोड, बिलासपुर-495006 (छत्त्तीसगढ़) के कार्यालय
में किया जा सकता है;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और
विकास) अधिनियम, 1957 (1957 का 20) (जिसे इसमें इसके
पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 4 की
उप-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, पूर्वोक्त
अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने
आशय की सूचना देती है;
उपरोक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति-
(i) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 4 की उप-धारा (3) के अधीन
की गई कार्रवाई से हुई क्षति या सम्भावित क्षति अधिनियम
की धारा 6 की उप- धारा (1) के अधीन किसी नुकसानी
के लिये प्रतिकर का दावा कर सकेगा;
(ii) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उपधारा (1) के अधीन
समाप्त हो गई पूर्वेक्षण अनुज्ञप्तियों के संबंध में या उक्त
अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उप-धारा (4) के अधीन
समाप्त हो गये खनन पट्टे के लिये प्रतिकर का दावा
कर सकेगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उप-ध्
ाारा (1) के खंड (i) से खंड (iv) में विनिर्दिष्ट मदों के
संबंध में उपगत व्यय को उपदर्शित करने के लिये
उक्त भूमि से संबंधित सभी मानचित्रों, चार्टों और अन्य
दस्तावेजों को सुपुर्द करेगा, इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र
में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर
भारसाधक अधिकारी या विभागाध्यक्ष (राजस्व), साऊथ
ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, सीपत रोड,
बिलासपुर-495006 (छत्तीसगढ़) को सौपेगा।
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 6, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 16, 1937 2481अनुसूची
विजय पश्चिमी ओसीपी ( विजय पश्चिमी ब्लाक), चिरिमिरी क्षेत्र,
जिला- कोरबा (छत्तीसगढ़)
(रेखांक संख्या एसईसीएल/बीएसपी/ जीएम (पीएलजी)/ भूमि/472, तारीख 15 अप्रैल, 2015)
सभी अधिकारः
(क) संरक्षित वन भूमिः
क्रम सं. कक्ष संख्या श्रेणी प्रभाग क्षेत्र हेक्टर में टिप्पणियां
1. 1569 पसान कटघोरा 8.479 भाग
2. 1570 पसान कटघोरा 71.673 भाग
3. 1571 पसान कटघोरा 198.973 भाग
4. 1572 पसान कटघोरा 419.428 भाग
5. 1573 पसान कटघोरा 144.391 भाग
6. 1576 पसान कटघोरा 29.165 भाग
7. 1578 पसान कटघोरा 116.445 भाग
कुल :-988.554 हेक्टर (लगभग) या 2442.717 एकड़ (लगभग)
(ख) राजस्व भमिः
क्रम सं. ग्राम का नाम पटवारी हल्का संख्या तहसील जिला क्षेत्र हेक्टेयर में टिप्प्णियां
1. रानी अटारी (अरक्षित) 4 कटघोरा कोरबा 45.973 पूर्ण
2. कन्डई (अरक्षित) 4 कटघोरा कोरबा 76.405 पूर्ण
3. बिजाडांड (अरक्षित) 4 कटघोरा कोरबा 34.702 भाग
4. महदेई टिकरा (अरक्षित) 4 कटघोरा कोरबा 74.041 भाग
कुल : 231.121 हेक्टर (लगभग) या 571.100 एकड़ (लगभग)
कुल योग(कख)=1219.675 हेक्टर (लगभग) या 3013.817 एकड़ (लगभग)
सीमा वर्णनः
ब्लाक-।ः
क-ख रेखा, ग्राम बिन्दु 'क' से आरंभ होती है और कक्ष संख्या 1570,1569,1573,1572 से गुजरती हुई जाती है और बिन्दु 'ख' पर मिलती है।
ख-ग रेखा, बिन्दु 'ख' से आरंभ होती है और कक्ष संख्या 1576, ग्राम बिजाडांड के मध्य भाग से गुजरती है और ग्राम बिजाडांड के दक्षिणी सीमा में बिन्दु 'ग' पर मिलती है।
ग-घ-ङ रेखा, बिन्दु 'ग' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम बिजाडांड के भागतः दक्षिणी सीमा, कक्ष संख्या 1578 और बिन्दु 'घ' से होती हुई जाती है और बिन्दु 'ङ' पर मिलती है।
ङ-च-छ रेखा, बिन्दु 'ङ' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम महदेई टिकरा के भागतः उत्तरी सीमा, बिन्दु 'च', ग्राम महदेई टिकरा के उत्तरी भाग से होती हुई जाती है और बिन्दु 'छ' पर मिलती है।
छ-ट-ज रेखा, बिन्दु 'छ' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम महदेई टिकरा के भागतः पश्चिमी सीमा, बिन्दु 'ट' से होती हुई ग्राम महदेई टिकरा के पश्चिमी सीमा में बिन्दु 'ज' पर मिलती है।
ज-झ- रेखा, बिन्दु 'ज' से आरंभ होती है और कक्ष संख्या 1571, बिन्दु 'झ', ग्राम रानी अटारी के भागतः दक्षिणी सीमा से होती हुई बिन्दु '' पर मिलती है।
-क रेखा, बिन्दु '' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम रानी अटारी के भागतः पश्चिमी सीमा, कक्ष संख्या 1570 से होती हुई आरंभिक बिन्दु 'क' पर मिलती है।
2482 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]ब्लाक-।।ः
छ-ठ- रेखा, बिन्दु 'छ' से आरंभ होती है और कक्ष संख्या 1571, बिन्दु 'ठ' से होती हुई जाती है और ग्राम रानी अटारी के दक्षिणी सीमा में बिन्दु '' पर मिलती है।
-झ-ट रेखा, बिन्दु '' से आरंभ होती है और कक्ष संख्या 1571, बिन्दु 'झ' से होती हुई जाती है और ग्राम महदेई टिकरा के पश्चिमी सीमा में बिन्दु 'ट' पर मिलती है।
ट-छ रेखा, बिन्दु 'ट' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम महदेई टिकरा के भागतः पश्चिमी सीमा से होती हुई जाती है और आरंभिक बिन्दु 'छ' पर मिलती है।
ब्लाक-।।।ः
ग-ड-च रेखा, बिन्दु 'ग' से आरंभ होती है और कक्ष संख्या 1578, बिन्दु 'ड' से होती हुई ग्राम महदेई टिकरा के
उत्तरी सीमा में बिन्दु 'च' पर मिलती है।
च-घ-ग रेखा, बिन्दु 'च' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम महदेई टिकरा के भागतः उत्तरी सीमा, कक्ष संख्या 1578, बिन्दु 'घ' से होती हुई जाती है और आरंभिक बिन्दु 'ग' पर मिलती है।
[फा. सं. 43015/13/2015-पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-I]
जगदीश कुमार, उप सचिव
New Delhi, the 5th June, 2015
S.O.1148.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the locality mentioned in the Schedule annexed hereto;
And whereas, the plan bearing number SECL/ BSP/ GM(PLG)/LAND/ 472, dated the 15th April, 2015 containing details of the area covered by this notification may be inspected at the office of the Collector, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001 or at the office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur -495006 (Chhattisgarh);
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal in the land described in the aforesaid Schedule;
Any person interested in the land described in the
above mentioned Schedule may--
(i) claim compensation under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by any action taken under sub- section (3) of Section 4 thereof; or
(ii) claim compensation under sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the said Act, in respect of prospecting license ceasing to have effect or under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the said Act for mining lease ceasing to have effect, and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land to show the expenditure incurred in respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the said Act, to the Officer-In- Charge or Head of the Department (Revenue), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattishgarh) within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.
Schedule
Vijay West OCP (Vijay West Block), Chirimiri Area,
District Korba, Chhattisgarh
(Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM (PLG)/LAND/ 472, dated the 15th April, 2015)
All Rights: (A) Protected Forest Land: Sl. No. Compartment number Range Division Area in hectares Remarks 1. 1569 Pasan Katghora 8.479 Part 2. 1570 Pasan Katghora 71.673 Part 3. 1571 Pasan Katghora 198.973 Part 4. 1572 Pasan Katghora 419.428 Part 5. 1573 Pasan Katghora 144.391 Part 6. 1576 Pasan Katghora 29.165 Part 7. 1578 Pasan Katghora 116.445 Part
Total: 988.554 hectares (approximately) or 2442.717 acres (approximately)
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 6, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 16, 1937 2483(B) Revenue Land:
Sl.No. Name of village Patwari halka number Tahsil District Area in hectares Remarks 1. Rani Atari (Unsurveyed) 4 Katghora Korba 45.973 Full 2. Kandai (Unsurveyed) 4 Katghora Korba 76.405 Full 3. Bijadand (Unsurveyed) 4 Katghora Korba 34.702 Part 4. Mahdei Tikra (Unsurveyed) 4 Katghora Korba 74.041 Part
Total: 231.121 hectares (approximately) or 571.100 acres (approximately)
Grand Total (A+B)= 1219.675 hectares (approximately)
or 3013.817 acres (approximately)
Boundary description:
BLOCK-I:
A-B Line starts from point 'A' and passes through Forest compartment number 1570,1569,1573,1572 and meets at point 'B'.
B-C Line starts from point 'B' and passes through Forest compartment number 1576, middle part of village Bijadand and meets at point 'C' on the southern boundary of village Bijadand.
C-D-E Line starts from point 'C' and passes along partly southern boundary of village Bijadand, through Forest compartment number 1578, point 'D' and meets at point 'E' on the northern boundary of village Mahdei Tikra.
E-F-G Line starts from point 'E' and passes along partly northern boundary of village Mahdei Tikra, point 'F', through northern part of village mahdei Tikra and meets at point 'G' on the western boundary of village Mahdei Tikra.
G-K-H Line starts from point 'G' and passes along partly western boundary of village Mahdei Tikra, point 'K' and meets at point 'H' on the western boundary of village Mahdei Tikra.
H-I-J Line starts from point 'H' and passes through Forest compartment number 1571, point 'I', along partly southern boundary of village Rani Atari and meets at point 'J'.
J-A Line starts from point 'J' and passes along partly western boundary of village Rani Atari, through Forest compartment number 1570 and meets at starting point 'A'.
BLOCK-II :
G-L-J Line starts from point 'G' and passes through Forest compartment number 1571, point 'L' and meets at point 'J' on the southern boundary of village Rani Atari.
J-I-K Line starts from point 'J' and passes through Forest compartment number 1571, point 'I' and meets at point 'K' on the western boundary of village Mahdei Tikra.
K-G Line starts from point 'K' and passes along partly western boundary of village Mahdei Tikra and meets at starting point 'G'.
BLOCK-III:
C-M-F Line starts from point 'C' and passes through Forest compartment number 1578, point 'M' and meets at point 'F' on the northern boundary of village Mahdei Tikra.
F-D-C Line starts from point 'F' and passes along partly northern boundary of village Mahdei Tikra, through Forest compartment number 1578, point 'D' and meets at starting point 'C'.
[F. No. 43015/13 /2015-PRIW-I] JAGDISH KUMAR, Dy. Secy.
श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्राालय नई दिल्ली , 21 मई, 2015
का.आ. 1149.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय बैंगलोर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 76/2008) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल. 22012/210/2003/आई आर (सीएम-II)]
मो. जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अधिकारी2484 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 21st May, 2015
2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in C R 76/2008 when notices were issued to both the parties, I Party entered its appearance through Sh. S Raju, Advocate and filed claim statement on 29.06.2010, whereas, II Party entered its appearance through Sh. B L Sanjeev, advocate and filed its counter statement on 16.11.2010.
S.O. 1149.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.76/ 2008) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/05/2015.
[No. - L-22012/210/2003 - IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
Dated :17th March, 2015 PRESENT : Shri S N NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
C R No. 76/2008
I Party II Party Shri C.S. Murli Manohar The Senior Regiona Manager
Food Corporation of India, Secretary (Officer), FCI RO, No. 10, P Kalinga Road Employees Union C/o Road, Subbaiah Circle, FCI Reg Office, Mission Road, 10, Pallavi Kaling Rao BENGALURU - 560 027 Rd., BENGALURU-560 027
Appearances
I Party : Shri S Raju
Advocate
II Party : Shri B L Sanjeev
Advocate
A W A R D
1. The Central Government vide Order No. L-22012/ 210/2003-IR(CM-II) dated 06.11.2008 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
3. In the claim statement it is alleged that the five workmen i.e., Smt. C V Lakshmi, Sh. B V Purushotham, Sh. G Y Narasimha, Sh. S Sreenivasa and Sh. Mohammed Mehboob (hereinafter referred as I Party workmen) covered in this reference joined the services of the II Party as Typists on 26.11.1976, 15.12.1976, 09.12.1976, 13.12.1976 and 13.12.1976 respectively and subsequently came to be promoted as Assistant Grade II (general) vide order dated 10.05.1996 and 23.07.1997 respectively and were placed at Sl. No. 608, 627, 728, 629 and 630 in the Seniority List of South Zone as on 31.12.1999. It is also asserted that since there was no promotion avenues they were provided with the benefit of selection grade pay scale in the year 1993 and later on promoted in May, 1996 and July, 1997 and it is also asserted that one Smt. E Sumathy who also joined as Typist on 14.03.1977 in the Tamil Nadu Region was transferred to Karnataka Region who was at Sl. No. 640 was given selection grade pay on 01.12.1990 and was drawing pay of RS. 8,900 whereas the I Party workmen were drawing pay of Rs. 8,750. On coming to know this fact the I Party workmen gave a representation to the management to look into the matter and received a reply stating that it cannot step up the pay as sought by them. It is also asserted that as per the policy of the II Party in respect of unequal pay wherein a Senior Employee would be getting lesser pay that of his Junior the pay of Senior Employee should be stepped up on par with their junior. Therefore, the I Party workmen are entitle for stepping up of their pay w.e.f. 29.12.1993 the date on which both Junior and Seniors prayed this tribunal to direct the II Party to fix the pay of the I Party workmen on par with Smt. E Sumathy w.e.f. 27.07.1997 with backwages and interest thereon. INTERALIA, in the counter statement without disputing the fact of the entry into service of the I Party workmen it is contended that the dispute being raised after a period of 13 years and that Smt. E Sumathy belongs to reservation category i.e., SC/ST community, hence she had been granted with selection grade pay w.e.f. 01.12.1990 whereas the I Party workmen since belong to the General Cadre they were given selection grades w.e.f. 29.12.1993 and that only 30% of sanction strength are given with the Selection grade and that the I Party workmen are not eligible for the said stepping up of pay prayed for rejection of the reference.
4. On completion of the pleadings when the matter came to be posted for evidence, counsel appearing for the "Whether the demand of FCI Employees Union for stepping up of pay of S/Shri B.V. Purushottam, G.Y. Narasimha, S. Sreenivasa, Mohammed Mehboob Khan and Smt. C.V. Lakshmi at par with the pay of their junior namely Smt. E.Sumathy is legal and justified? To what relief these 5 workmen are entitled for?"[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 6, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 16, 1937 2485 it is not the case of the II Party that the CR's of these five workmen for the preceding three years were not satisfactory or any evidence is adduced in that regard. When their Junior Smt. Sumathi when fall in vacancy under 30% Selection Grade Quota there was no reason as to why these five workmen could not fall in that category. Only because this dispute came to be raised after lapse of 13 years it is no ground to reject the reference since there is no time limitation for raising the dispute. Under these circumstances, the demand of FCI Employees Union for stepping up of pay at par with the pay of their junior namely Smt. E Sumathy is legal and justified. In the result, I pass the following
O R D E R
I Party examined Sh. K R Madhu, Advisor of the I Party Union as WW 1 and got exhibited true copies of Resolution dated 27.08.2010; representation of C V Lakshmi, Jeeva N Narasimha, B V Purushotham, Srinivas dated 09.04.2002 and Mohd. Mahboob Khan dated 15.04.2002; Seniority list of Assistant Grade III category dated 17.03.1978; pay drawn particulars of I Party workmen; reply given by the management dated 11.07.2002; office order dated 23.07.1997; seniority list of AG II Category as on 31.12.1999 and circular issued by Deputy General Manager (RTI), FCI dated 14.06.2012 in continuation of its circular dated 24.09.1997 as Ex W-1 to Ex W-12. Inter alia, counsel for II Party examined Sh. G K Murthy, Assistant General Manager as MW 1 and got exhibited true copies of Office Order regarding selection grade dated 13.02.1995; Order regarding pay fixation dated 18.03.1995; Circulars No. 22/1992 & 13/1997 dated 13.12.1992, 24.12.1997; letter addressed by Sh. Shashi Mishra, Executive Director (Personnel) to Zonal Manager, FCI dated 05.07.1994; Rules and Regulations of the FCI Staff Regulation 1971 regarding placement of Selection Grade dated 17.08.1994; leave rules and Seniority list of AG III (MIN) as on 31.12.1978 as Ex. M-1 to Ex. M-8 and when the matter came to be posted for arguments counsel for both sides addressed their arguments.
5. On appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record in the light of the arguments put forward by the learned advocates, I have arrived at conclusion the demand of FCI Employees Union for stepping up of pay at par with the pay of their junior namely Smt. E Sumathy is legal and justified and that they are entitle for the same for the following The demand of FCI Employees Union for stepping up of pay of S/Shri B V Purushottam, G Y Narasimha, S. Sreenivasa, Mohammed Mehboob Khan and Smt. C V Lakshmi at par with the pay of their junior namely Smt. E Sumathy is legal and justified and that they are entitle for stepping up of their pay on par with Smt. E. Sumathy w.e.f. 27.07.1997 and they are entitle for arrears/difference of wages.
S. N. NAVAL GUND, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 21 मई, 2015
REASONS
6. The II Party which contended that the employees can be considered for selection grade only when their CR's are satisfactory for preceding three years and when there is vacancy under 30% selection grade quota and subject to reservation for SC/ST employees failed to produce any record that Smt. Sumathy was SC/ST Employee and was considered under that quota. Moreover, it has been unequivocally admitted by MW 1 that five workers covered in this reference as well as Smt. Sumathy joined service initially as Typists and that till 1995 the five workmen covered in this reference as well as Smt. Sumathy were in the same pay scale and that for the purpose of promotion the caste is not a consideration. Therefore, the II Party failed to substantiate its contention for refusing to step up the pay of these five workmen par with their Junior Smt. Sumathy. Of course, the promotion is a matter of policy and employees can be considered for Selection grade only when their CR's are satisfactory but का.आ. 1150.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार जवाहर नवोदय विद्यालय के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय न0 2, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 104/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं0 एल.- 42012/149/2004-आई आर (सीएम-II)] मो. जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 21st May, 2015
S.O. 1150.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.104/ 2005) of theCent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management
of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/05/2015.
[ No. L-42012/149/2004 - IR(CM-II)] Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer2486 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
Workman appeared in the witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as set out in the claim petition. He also examined Sh. Ishwar Singh of the respondent management who placed on record the list of the working days of workman which is Exhibit WW2/1.
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No.104/2005
Registered on 19.7.2005
Sh. Surinder Singh, S/o Sh. Mahabir Singh, R/o Village Ladawas (Loharu) District Bhiwani.
On the other hand the management has examined Sh. Pushkaran, Principal, who filed his affidavit along with the photocopy of the complaints Exhibit M1 to M10.
I have heard Sh. Mayank Sharma, counsel for the workman and Sh. Kailash Sharma, counsel for the management.
Petitioner
Versus
The Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Devrala
(Bhiwani)
Respondents
It was argued by the learned counsel that workman continuously worked from 1.1.2002 to 4.8.2003 and his services were arbitrarily terminated without serving any notice or payment of compensation, as well the persons junior to him were retained in service and therefore the termination is illegal and he be reinstated in service with back wages.
APPEARANCES
For the workman Sh. Mayank Sharma, Adv.
For the Management Sh. Kailash Sharma, Adv. I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
AWARD
Passed on 15.4.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/ 149/2004-IR(CM-II)) Dated 29.6.2005, by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
"Whether the action of the management of Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya, Bhiwani in terminating the services of Sh. Surinder Singh, S/o Sh. Mahabir Singh, w.e.f. 4.8.2003 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
In response to the notice, the workman submitted statement of claim pleading that he was appointed as Helper-cum-Peon by the respondent on 1.1.2002 and his monthly wages were Rs.1100 per month. His services were arbitrarily terminated on 4.8.2003 when new Principal joined the service. That termination of his services is illegal as no compensation was paid to him and the persons junior to him were retained in service.
The management filed written statement pleading that workman was a part-time Mess Helper and his services were not terminated. There were several complaints (Annexure M1 to M9) regarding which an inquiry was conducted. He did not respond to the notice and himself deserted the service.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
Though the management has taken the stand that there were several complaints against the workman and inquiry committee was constituted who submitted a report but no action was taken on the basis of that report and therefore the said complaints and the inquiry report has no relevance. The fact remains that workman worked with the management from 1.1.2002 to 31.7.2003 and the same is also evident from the summary produced by Ishwar Singh which is Exhibit WW2/1 on the file. Its perusal shows that the workman continuously worked from July, 2002 to July, 2003 and completed 240 days of service. It is not disputed that he was not paid any retrenchment compensation and no notice for terminating his services is required under the law was given. Therefore it cannot be said that his services were legally terminated.
Now the question is whether he can be reinstated in service. There is nothing on the file that the workman was appointed as per any rules and procedure of the management and against a regular post. If he was employed by not following any statutory rules, he cannot claim reinstatement. The only alternative is only to give him compensation. He has worked from 1.1.2002 to 31.7.2003 and getting a salary of Rs.1100 per month. Ordinarily, the workman is entitled to compensation of one month's pay in lieu of notice and 15 days' pay for every completed year but since the workman became out of the job all of a sudden, a suitable compensation is to be paid to him by doing a guess work. Considering the totality of the circumstances, Rs.75000 is a just compensation which is payable to the workman.
In result, the reference is answered holding that termination of the services of the workman is not legal and[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 6, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 16, 1937 2487
Appearances:
justified and he is entitled to compensation of Rs.75000 from the respondent management. The management shall pay the same within two months of the publication of the award failing which the workman shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the award till realization.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer For the Employers.:- Shri U.N.Lall, Advocate
For the workman. :- Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate
State :- Jharkhand
Industry:- Food
Dated 05/05/2015
AWARD
नई दिल्ली , 21 मई, 2015
By Order No.L-22012/238/1992-IR (C-II), dated. 25/10/1997, 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
का.आ. 1151.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय न0 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 178/1997) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं0 एल. 22012/238/1992–आई आर (सी-II)] मो. जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 21st May, 2015
S.O.1151.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.178/ 1997) of theCent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/05/2015.
[No. L-22012/238/1992 - IR(C-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer " (i) Whether the action of the management of FCI, Patna in not regularising the service of Sh. Pradeep Kumar Ex- Casual Employee of FCI, Chanduati (Gaya) is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled and from which date?"
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 10.11.1997. After notice both parties appeared. After long delay, the Sponsoring Union files their written statement on 2/6.05.2002. The management files their written statement-cum-rejoinder on 30.09.2002. Thereafter document filed by the parties. Two witness examined on behalf of the management but one witness examined on behalf of the workman. Document marked of the workman as W-1 to W-4 but the management's documents marked as M-1 to M-16.
3. Short point to be decided in the reference, is whether the workman, who was a casual employee, asked not to work under the management is to be regularized or not.
4. The workman submits in his written statement that he was employed by the management at Food Storage Depot, Chandauti w.e.f. 01.10.1981 to 31.07.1989 as causal employee.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD.
5. The management submitted that, the workman is not a regular employee, management is at liberty to ask him to discontinue the service.
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)
OF I.D. ACT, 1947.
Ref. No. 178 of 1997
Employers in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India, Patna
AND
Their workmen.
Present:- Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer 6. But the workman submits that he has been working in the corporation for more than 240 days, in many calendar year, preceding his termination but the management has not complied the mandatory provision U/S 25 F of I.D Act.
7. The workman also files document i.e W-1 to W- 4,. In W-3 Series Shows that the concerned workman received bonus for the period of 83-84 as well as 1984- 85. In 1983-84 the workman received bonus for 232 days, which shows that the workman worked continuously.
2488 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD.
8. The workman files a circular and also submits in his argument that there is a circular dated 06.05.87 issued by the management for regularization of causal employees who have completed 90 days service before 02.05.1986 in category IV.
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) OF I.D.ACT, 1947.
Ref. No. 179 of 1997
9. In MW-1, Sri Sailendra Sharan submits " I know the concerned workman. I Know them as they were working there. And he also submits that the concerned workman used to work under our supervision "
Employers in relation to the management of Food
Corporation of India, Patna
AND
Their workmen.
Present:- Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,
Presiding officer
Appearances:
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the action of the management of FCI, Patna in not regularising the service of Sh. Pradeep Kumar Ex- Casual Employee of FCI, Chanduati (Gaya) is not legal and justified, Hence the workman be regularised atonce against the regular post without giving any back wages. If the award is not implemented within a month from the date of publication of award in the Gazette of India, and the management did not pray time to implement the same award, the management to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 P.M for the 31st day from the publication of award, towards compensation.
This is my award.
For the Employers. :- Shri U.N.Lall, Advocate For the workman. :- Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate State :- Jharkhand
Industry:- Food Dated. 1/5/ 2015
AWARD.
R.K.SARAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 21 मई, 2015
By Order No.L-22012/242/1992-IR (C-II), dated 25/10/1997, 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
का.आ.1152.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय न0 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 179/1997) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल. 22012/242/1992–आई आर (सी-II)]
मो. जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 21st May, 2015
S.O.1152.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.179/ 1997) of theCent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/05/2015.
[No. L-22012/242/1992 - IR(C-II)] Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer " (i) Whether the action of the management of FCI, Patna in not regularising the service of Sh. Rajendra Prasad, Ex- Casual Employee of FCI, Chanduati (Gaya) is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled and from which date?"
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 10.11.1997. After notice both parties appeared. After long delay, the Sponsoring Union files their written statement on 2/6.05.2002. The management files their written statement-cum-rejoinder on 30.09.2002. Thereafter document filed by the parties. Two witness examined on behalf of the management but one witness examined on behalf of the workman. Document marked of the workman as W-1 to W-2 but the management's document marked as M-1 to M-16.
3. Short point to be decided in the reference, is whether the workman, who was a casual employee, asked not to work under the management is to be regularized or not.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 6, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 16, 1937 24894. The workman submits in his written statement that he was employed by the management at Food storage Depot, Chandauti w.e.f. 01.10.1981 to 31.07.1989 as casual employee.
5. The management submitted that, the workman is not a regular employee, management is at liberty to ask him to discontinue the service.
6. But the workman submits that he has been working in the corporation for more than 240 days, in many calendar year, preceding his termination but the management has not complied the mandatory provision U/s 25 F of I.D Act.
7. The workman also files document i.e marked as W-1 to W-2,. In W-2 Series shows that the concerned workman received bonus for the period of 83-84 as well as 1984-85. In 1983-84 the concerned workman Sri Rajendra Prasad received bonus for 245 days , which shows that the workman worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year.
(संदर्भ संख्या 228/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल. 23012/35/2004–आई आर (सीएम-II)]
मो. जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 21st May, 2015
S.O.1153.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.228/ 2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bhakra Beas Management Board, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/05/2015.
[No. L-23012/35/2004 - IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
8. The workman files a circular and also submits in his argument that there is a circular dated 06.05.87 issued by the management for regularization of casual employees who have completed only 90 days service before 02.05.1986 in category IV.
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
9. In MW-1, Sri Sailendra Sharan submits " I know the concerned workman. I know them as they were working there. And he also submits that the concerned workman used to work under our supervision ".
Present: SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No.228/2005 Registered on 5.8.2005
Sh. Gurnam Singh, S/o Sh. Matan Singh, C/o Cheema
Bhawan, Sector 30B, Chandigarh.
... Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Madhya Marg, Sector 19B, Chandigarh.
...Respondents
APPEARANCES
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the action of the management of FCI, Patna in not regularising the service of Sh. Pradeep Kumar Ex- Casual Employee of FCI, Chanduati (Gaya) is not legal and justified, Hence the workman be regularised at once against the regular post without giving any back wages. If the award is not implemented within a month from the date of publication of award in the Gazette of India, and the management did not pray time to implement the same award, the management to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- P.M for the 31st day from the publication of award, towards compensation.
This is my award.
For the Workman Sh. R.K. Parmar, A.R.
For the Management Sh. S.K. Goyal, Law Officer
Award
Passed on 27/4
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 21 मई, 2015
का.आ.1153.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बी. बी. एम. बी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय न0 2, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट Central Government vide Notification No. L-
23012/35/2004 IR(CM-II) Dated 21.3.2011, 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:-
2490 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]"Whether the action of Bhakra Beas Management Board in not providing re-employment to the retrenched workman of BSL, Sh. Gurnam Singh S/o Matan Singh is justified and in or? If not, to what relief he is entitled to and from which date?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared and submitted statement of claim pleading that he joined the services of Beas Sutlej Link Project w.e.f. 16.9.1969 and he was retrenched from service on 30.3.1984. The project was merged in Bhakra Beas Management Board after its completion. It is pleaded that large number of employees were re-deployed after his retrenchment vide Circular No.17/2/80. The workman was employed through employment exchange and was getting Rs.1800/- per month as salary plus allowances.
After his retrenchment, he applied for re-employment to Bhakra Beas Management Board vide application dated 23.4.1984, 21.4.1990 and 14.12.1992 but he was not re- employed. The persons who were junior to him were re- employed and therefore the respondent management contravened the provisions of Section 25H of the Act.
He again moved an application on 14.1.1993 and the concerned Executive Engineer asked him to give proof that he was employed through employment exchange. He again made several representations but was not absorbed in service.
Since there is a contravention of Section 25H of the Act, he be re-employed as workman w.e.f. 30.3.1984.
Respondent management filed written statement pleading that Bhakra Management Board which was later on renamed as Bhakra Beas Management Board was constituted under Section 79 of the Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966, whereas Beas Construction Board was constituted under Section 80 of the said Act. Beas Sutlej Link Project falls under Section 79 of the Act. That Beas Construction Board constituted under Section 80 was responsible for the construction and completion of the Beas Sutlej Link Project and on its completion, the project was handed over to Bhakra Beas Management Board, whereas its employees were not to be transferred to the said Board and as such the workman has no claim against the present management.
Parties were given opportunities to lead evidence.
In support of its case workman appeared in the witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating his stand taken by him in the statement of claim. He has placed on file copies of various representations made to the department.
I have heard Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar, AR of the workman and Sh. S.K. Goyal, Law Officer for the management.
It was vehemently argued by the A.R. of the workman that the persons junior to the workman were given re-employment by the respondent management and as such the workman is also entitled to be re-employed and since he has attained the age of more than 60 years, he be paid compensation and he has carried me through the copy of the award passed by Industrial Tribunal, Central, Chandigarh, in support of his arguments.
I have considered the contention of the Learned Counsel.
It is almost not disputed that workman joined the services of Bhakra Sutlej Link Project in 1979 and was retrenched on 30.3.1984. It is his own case that he left for abroad for some time and he made various representations to the authorities concerned for his re-employment. It is not disputed that Beas Sutlej Project was to be constructed by the Beas Management Board constituted under Section 80 of the Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966. Whereas, the Bhakra Beas Management Board was constituted under Section 79 of the said Act. It is not disputed that Beas Sutlej Link Project has been taken over by the Bhakra Beas Management Board for its maintenance and operation.
Now, the question whether the employees of the Beas Management Board have a right to get employment in the Bhakra Beas Management Board and the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jaswant Singh and Others Vs. Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 115, has specifically held that the employees of the Beas Management Board did not become the employees of the Bhakra Beas Management Board and observed as follows:-
A Branch of the same argument is that under
section 80(S), components of the Beas Project the
construction of which has been completed after
November 1, 1966 have to be transferred to the
Bhakra Management Board and thereupon the
provisions of Section 79 come into operation as
if the transferred works were included in clauses
(a) to (g) of section 79(1). It is urged that if any
completed component of the Beas Project is
transferred to the Bhakra Management Board as
required by section 80(S), as has been done in
the present case on May 15, 1976, the petitioners
would become the employee of the Bhakra
Management Board, since the work in connection
with which they were employed is transferred to
that Board. There is no warrant for this submission
because, though section 80(5) requires a
completed work of the Beas Project to be transferred
to the Bhakra Management Board, it does not
On the other hand, management has examined Manwinder Singh, SDO, who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand of the management taken in the written statement.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 6, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 16, 1937 2491ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No.1118/2005
Registered on 22.9.2005
Sh. Karambir Singh, Son of Sh. Ram Sarup, Resident
of VPO Khanda Kheri, District Jind.
...Petitioner
Versus
provide that persons who were employed in
connection with such a work should also be
transferred as employees of the Bhakra
Management Board. In the very nature of things
there could be no such provision because if any
persons were employed for the Beas Project only,
their employment would normally cease on
completion of that project. In fact, the petitioners
were taken in employment on temporary posts for
the purpose of completing the Beas Project. On the
completion of that Project or any other works for
which they were employed their employment would
normally come to an end, especially since the
statute from which their rights are said to flow does
not protect that employment.
Since, the workman has no right to claim employment with the respondent, it cannot be said that he was to be re-employed by it after his retrenchment and as such, he has no right to ask for the relief claimed.
1. The Executive Engineer, TSLC Division, Beas
Construction Board, BBMB, Bhiwani.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, TSLC Division, Beas
Construction Board, BBMB, Jind.
...Respondents
APPEARANCES
In result, the reference is answered against the workman 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 For the Workman : Sh. Tara Chand Dhalwal, Adv.
For the Management : Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.
Award
Passed on 17.4.2015
नई दिल्ली , 21 मई, 2015
का.आ.1154.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बी. बी. एम. बी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय न. 2, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 1118/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल. 23012/5/2002–आई आर (सीएम-II)] मो. जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 21st May, 2015
S.O.1154.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.No.1118/ 2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of TSLC Divn., Beas Construction Board, BBMB, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/05/2015.
[No. L-23012/5/2002 - IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer Central Government vide Notification No. L- 23012/5/2002 IR(CM-II) Dated 27.1.2003, 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 Bhakra Beas Construction Board now Bhakra Beas Management Board in terminating Sh. Karambir Singh, S/o Sh. Ram Sarup work Charge T/Mate from services w.e.f. 30.11.1987 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled to?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was appointed on daily wages in the office of the SDO, TSLC Division, Beas Construction Board, Jind where he worked continuously from 13.1.1987 to 31.12.1987. His name was struck off from the muster roll on 1.4.1988 without serving any notice or paying him any compensation. That persons junior to him were retained in service. In the circumstances, his termination is illegal and he be reinstated in service with full back wages.
It is further pleaded that he approached the Labour court at Hisar who had no jurisdiction to decide the case2492 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] and thereafter he moved fresh demand notice and hence this reference.
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.
The department filed written statement admitting that the workman was engaged for the period in question on daily wage basis, but it is pleaded that he was engaged on contract basis for a specific work for erection of 400 KV Dehar-Bhiwani Line Section and on the completion of the work, his services were disengaged. That the disengagement do not fall within the definition of retrenchment. It is further pleaded that his services were disengaged in the year 1987 and filed the demand notice in the year 2000 i.e. after a lapse of 13 years and as such he is not entitled to any relief.
In replication the workman has pleaded that he was not appointed against any particular work and he also worked on 220 KV Prem Nagar-Bhiwani-Dadri line.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence.
In support of its case the workman appeared in the witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the stand taken by him in the statement of claim. He placed on record a certificate issued by the concerned officer regarding his engagement on daily wage basis from 13.1.1987 to 31.12.1987.
On the other hand the respondent management has examined Satbir Singh who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand of the respondents as stated in the written statement.
I have heard Sh. Tara Chand Dhalwal, counsel for the workman and Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.
It was vehemently contended by the Learned Counsel for the workman that workman continuously worked with the management from 13.1.1987 to 31.12.1987 and he has completed more than 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year and since his services were terminated without payment of retrenchment compensation, the termination is illegal.
I have considered the contention of the Learned Counsel.
It may be added at the outset that workman himself claims that he was appointed on daily wages and the discontinuance of service of such a person 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:
As per case of the workman, his services were discontinued on 31.12.1987. He made the demand notice in 2000. Though, he claims that he previously made an attempt in the Labour Court at Hisar. But he did not produce any document to support his assertions that he was pursuing the remedy somewhere else. Since he lodged claim after a lapse of more than 13 years, he cannot be given the relief claimed after such a lapse of long time.
It is the definite case of the respondent management that the workman was engaged for a specific for erection of 400 KV Dehar-Bhiwani Line Section and this has been so deposed by Satbir Singh, examined by the management. His statement remains unrebutted on the file and therefore it can be safely said that the workman was engaged on daily wage basis for a specific work and on completion of the work, his services automatically came to an end and he cannot claim any retrenchment compensation.
In view of the circumstances stated above, if the workman has completed 240 days of service, the same do not entitle him to claim any relief.
In result it is held that the workman is not entitled to any relief and the reference is accordingly answered against him. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for information and further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2015
का.आ.1155.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय न. 2, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 200/1999) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/391/1998–आई आर (सीएम-II)] मो. जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 21st May, 2015
S.O.1155.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.. 200/ 1999) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the 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[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 6, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 16, 1937 2493 industrial dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/05/2015.
[No. L-22012/391/1998 - IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer Management of Food Corporation of India, Ranchi to regularize the services of Sh. Suresh Ram, Casual Driver is proper and justified? And whether the Management should regularize the workman."
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
2. Neither Union Representative nor workman Suresh Ram appeared nor any witness for his evidence produced despite 3rd Regd Notice to the Union concerned for it. Mr. A. K. Sinha, Ld. Advocate for the OP/Management appeared later on.
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. 200 OF 1999
PARTIES : Sri Binod Shankar Prasad,
Food Corp. Of India, Ltd.,
ARDC, Arunchal Building, Exhibition
Road, Patna.1
Vs. The Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India Ltd.,
Exhibition Road, Patna.1.
Ministry' Order No.L-22012/391/98/
IR(CM-_II) dated 25.05.1999 On perusal of the case record, it is apparent the case of the year 1999 which is related to an issue for the regularization of the services of the workman, Casual Driver. It also reveals that the case has been pending for the evidence of the workman right from 05. 06. 2006. Three Regd Notices dtt.30.06.2014, 04.08.2014 and lastly 23.02.2015 were issued to Shri Binod Shanker Prasad, the Union Representative on his address noted in the Reference itself for the evidence of the workman, yet not a single witness on behalf of the workman has been produced in support of his claim. The Union Representative and the workman by their conducts appear to quiet reluctant to pursue the case for its final adjudication.
Under these circumstances, it seems no longer an Industrial Dispute existent. Hence the case is closed accordingly by passing an order of 'No Dispute Award'.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman/Union : Mr. K.Chakraborty,
Ld. Adv.
On behalf of the Management : Mr. A. K. Sinha,
Ld. Adv.
State : Bihar Industry : Food
Dated, Dhanbad the 20th April,2015 का.आ.1156.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 09/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल.-22012/12/2012–आई. आर. (सीएम-II)] मो. जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अधिकारी
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under
Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the
following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide
their Order No. L-22012/391/98/IR (CM-II) dated
25.05.1999 .
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015
S.O.1156 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 09/2012 of the Cent.Govt.Indu.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of North Searsole Colliery, M/s. E.C.Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/05/2015.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the Food Corporation of India's employees Union before the
[No. L-22012/12/2012 - IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer2494 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
the case. As such the case is closed and accordingly an order of "No Dispute Award" may be passed.
ORDER
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE No. 09 OF 2012
PARTIES: The management of J. K. Nagar Colliery of
M/s. ECL
Vs.
Sri Gopal Gorai
Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 25 मई, 2015
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management : None
For the union (Workman) : D. K. Routh, Br. Jt. Secy.,
CMC (HMS)
INDUSTRY: COAL STATE : WEST BENGAL
Dated : 25.03.2015
का.आ. 1157.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय आसनसोल के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 20/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
A W A R D
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/12/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 28.03.2012 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
[सं. एल-22012/88/2003–आईआर (सीएम-II)] मो. जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of J. K. Nagar Colliery of M/s. ECL in not payment HRA @ 10% of basic to Sri Gopal Gorai S/o Sri Late Chandra Kanta Gorai is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled? "
S.O. 1157.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref.No. 20/ 2004 of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bahula Colliery under Kenda Area, M/s ECL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/05/2015.
[No. L-22012/88/2003-IR(CM-II)] Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
FORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
RIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.
PRESENT: Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE No. 20 OF 2004
Having received the Order No. L-22012/12/2012- IR(CM-II) dated 28.03.2012 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 09 of 2012 was registered on 19.04.2012 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
PARTIES : The management of Bahula Colliery under
Kenda Area, ECL
Vs.
Sri Robin Bouri
REPRESENTATIVES:
On perusal of the case record I find that the case was kept reserved for an award by my predecessor (Late Jayanta Kumer Sen, the then P.O.) because Sri D. K. Routh, Branch Joint Secretary of the union [CMC (HMS)], representing the workman submitted that the workman is not any more interested to proceed with the case further. Since the workman as well as the union are not interested to proceed with the case I think it wise to close For the management: Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate, ECL
For the union (Workman):Sri Rakesh Kumar, President, KMC
INDUSTRY : COAL STATE: WEST BENGAL
DATED: 30.03.2015[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 6, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 16, 1937 2495
A W A R D
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/88/2003-IR(CM-II) dated 23.02.2004 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
dismissal. Workman has prayed for re-instatement in service with full back wages and consequential benefit.
SCHEDULE
" Whether the action of the management of Bahula Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing Sri Robin Bouri, Cleaning Mazdoor from service vide Order No. Pers/KEND/Termination/1060 dated 23/ 25.06.1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled to?"
Having received the Order No. L-22012/88/2003- IR(CM-II) dated 23.02.2004 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 20 of 2004 was registered on 23.03.2004. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through their representative and filed their separate sets of written statement in support of their respective claims.
In brief compass the case of the workman concerned as per his written statement is that Sri Robin Bouri the concerned workman was a permanent employee of the company as Cleaning Mazdoor having U.M. no 519465. He could not attend his duty with effect from 8th September, 1998 due to his sickness. He was absent for 3 months and 20 days only. He was charge sheeted on 28th December, 1998. The workman replied to the charge sheet. Management decided to hold a domestic enquiry and accordingly the enquiry was held. The workman participated in the enquiry proceeding and stated his reason for his absence from duty. The Management did not consider his explanation and passed dismissal order with effect from 25.06.1999. The workman again represented to the management for his re-instatement but his request was not considered. The punishment should always be proportionate to the nature of offence but in this case punishment awarded to workman is quite disproportionate to the nature of offence. Sri Robin Bouri belongs to schedule caste community which is weaker section of the society. He is not aware of the rules and regulations of the company. His absence was unintentional but due to his sickness. He should not have been awarded the punishment of On the other hand, the defence case of the management as per their statement in brief is that reference is misconceived one. Further the case of the management is that Sri Robin Bouri, the workman was Cleaning Mazdoor in Bahula Colliery. He was charge sheeted by management vide charge sheet No. Agent/BC/C-6E/31/98/2089 dated 28.12.98 for his act of misconduct under clause 17(i) (n) of Model Standing Order. The workman submitted his reply to the said Charge Sheet but explanation offered by ex- workman was found unsatisfactory. Therefore the domestic enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer against charge sheeted workman in his presence. The workman was given all reasonable opportunity to defend his case in accordance with the Principle of Natural Justice. After conclusion of enquiry, Enquiry Officer submitted his report. The Disciplinary Authority after careful consideration of charge sheet, enquiry proceeding and other connected papers was pleased to award an Order of Dismissal of the concerned workman from his service. The guilt of the workman was proved. It is denied that ex- workman was absent due to his illness. It is denied that the punishment awarded to delinquent workman is harsh and disproportionate. The workman is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
The workman has filed copy of letter to the management of Bahula Colliery, copy of Fitness Certificate and copy of Letter to General Manager in documentary evidence. The Management has filed copy of Show Cause, copy of Enquiry Notice, copy of Enquiry Proceeding and Enquiry Report, copy of Notice, copy of 2nd Notice after enquiry and copy of Dismissal Order in documentary evidence.
Neither party of the reference has submitted any
oral evidence.
I have heard the argument of Sri Rakesh Kumar, Union Representative on behalf of the workman and Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate on behalf of the management.
Sri Rakesh Kumar, Union Representative has argued that as per N.C.W. Agreement if any workman upto age of 45 years remained absent upto 9 months he will be re- instated. The workman was absent only for 3 months and 20 days. Therefore, as per N.C.W. Agreement he ought to have been re-instated. He further argued that the punishment awarded to delinquent workman i.e. dismissal from service is too harsh and disproportionate for absence of only for 3 months and 20 days and the workman was absent due to his illness. On the other hand Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate has argued on behalf of management is that in the Enquiry Proceeding the explanation of workman regarding sickness was found unsatisfactory. Therefore, after Enquiry Proceeding he was dismissed.
2496 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]The workman has participated in Enquiry Proceeding. If workman remained absent from the duty any industry can not function. The punishment of dismissal is quite proportionate to the gravity of misconduct.
It is not disputed that Sri Robin Bouri was a permanent employee of Bahula Colliery of Eastern Coal Fields Limited as Cleaning Mazdoor. It is admitted by both the parties that he remained absent from duty for 3 months and 20 days with effect from 8th September ,1998.
In so far as the relationship of Industrial employment is concerned, a workman has certain express implied obligations towards his employer. Any conduct on the part of the employee inconsistent with the official discharge of his duties towards his employer would be misconduct. In Industrial Law the word misconduct has acquired a specific connotation. It can not mean only inefficiency and slackness, it is something for more positive and certainly deliberate. The charge of misconduct is therefore conduct which would be quite incompatible with the express of implied terms of relationship of the employee to the employer. The misconduct has been defined in Model Standing Order of Eastern Coal Fields Limited.
The workman as per his version was absent from his duty due to his sickness. He has submitted a copy of fitness certificate dated 9th day of January, 1999 of Dr. H. Bouri who is B.A.M.S doctor. As per medical certificate he was suffering from hepatitis. As per medical certificate he was under treatment from 8th September, 1998 to 8th January, 1999. But this fitness certificate is not supported with any treatment of history, prescription and purchase of medicine and any Pathological report etc.
This Medical Certificate does not inspire confidence. The workman has filed a letter to General Manager for his explanation regarding his absence.
For absence of delinquent workman the enquiry was conducted. The Agent, Bahula Colliery issued Show Cause Notice in reference of Model Standing Order to delinquent workman Sri Robin Bouri by a letter No. Agent/BC/C-6E/31/98/2809 dated 28th December, 1998. After receiving explanation from Sri Robin Bouri, the delinquent workman, the enquiry officer issued Notice of Enquiry of Sri Robin Bouri by letter No. Agent/ BC/C-6E/31/17/103 dated 9th January, 1999. Though the copy of Enquiry Notice has been filed on record by the management but the management has not filed the copy of charge sheet supplied to workman.
Charge sheet is a charter of disciplinary action. Domestic enquiry commences with the service of charge sheet. In other words before the proceeding with the domestic enquiry against an offending workman, he must be informed clearly, precisely and accurately of the charges leveled against him. It is the duty of the employer to indicate the delinquent employee not only precise nature of charges, but also the document, if any, upon which charges are based.
The charge sheet should specifically set out all charges, which the workman is called upon to show cause against and should also state all relevant particulars, without which he can not defend himself. The object of this requirement is that the delinquent workman must know what he is charged with and have the amplest opportunity to meet the charge and to defend himself by giving proper explanation, otherwise it will amount that he is condemned unheard. Fair hearing pre-supposes a precise and definite catalogue of charges, so that the workman charged may understand effectively to meet them. Any amount of evidence led in the enquiry is no substitute for a charge sheet, clearly setting forth the allegations. If without issuing charge sheet, the domestic enquiry is held, there is no domestic enquiry at all.
In the present reference there is no copy of charge sheet against the delinquent workman. It is necessary to re-iterate that copy of enquiry proceeding has been submitted by the management. It was the duty of the management to furnish the copy of charge sheet on the filed reference of the tribunal. If there is copy of enquiry proceeding and report but without copy of charge sheet it will be presumed that there is no charge sheet against the workman. If the workman is punished without being served the charge sheet, it is clear violation of Principle of Natural Justice.
Though from the enquiry proceeding it transpires that workman has participated in enquiry proceeding he has been cross-examined the witness of management. He was given second show cause notice before passing Order of Dismissal. But no amount of evidence led in the enquiry is substitute for charge sheet. If enquiry proceeding is conducted without framing of charge against workman and having served to the delinquent workman, it will be presumed that there is no domestic enquiry at all in the eye of law.
As per N.C.W. Agreement if any workman whose age is below 45 years remained absent upto nine months he can be re-instated. In the present case the workman was absent only for 3 months and 20 days. Therefore, as per N.C.W. Agreement also the workman concerned could have been re-instated for this period of absence though it is misconduct.
When different categories of penalties can be imposed in respect of absence from duty, one of which is dismissal of service, the Disciplinary Authority is required to consult himself for selecting most appropriate penalty from out of range of penalties available that can be imposed, having regard to the nature, content and[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 6, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 16, 1937 2497 gravity of the default. If the lesser penalty can be imposed without seriously jeopardizing the interest of employer or industry, Disciplinary Authority should not impose maximum of penalty of dismissal from service. Dismissal from service for merely absence for 3 months and 20 days is quite harsh and disproportionate to the fault of the delinquent workman.
industrial dispute between the management of Lachipur Colliery of M/s ECL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/05/2015.
[No - L-22012/337/1999 - IR(CM-II)] Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT: Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 14 OF 2000
The workman has not stated anywhere in the written statement that he was not gainfully employed anywhere during the period of dismissal. The burden of proof that he was not gainfully employed anywhere is initially on the workman. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan V/s S.C. Sharma, AIR 2005 page 768 has held that when the question of determining entitlement of a person to back wages is concerned the employee has to show that he was not gainfully employed.
In view of the discussion above, I think it just and proper to modify and substitute the punishment exercising power u/s 11(a) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and accordingly the impugned order of dismissal of the concerned workman Sri Robin Bouri is hereby set aside and is directed to be re-instated with the continuity of the service with punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. It is further directed that workman will be entitled to get only 25% of back wages with all consequential benefits.
PARTIES : The management of Lachipur Colliery
of M/s. ECL
Vs.
Sri Kalipada Bouri
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management : Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate,
ECL
For the union (Workman): Sri Rakesh Kumar, President,
KMC
INDUSTRY: COAL STATE: WEST BENGAL
O R D E R
Dated : 06.04.2015
A W A R D
Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 25 मई, 2015
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/337/99/IR(CM-II) dated 27.01.2000 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
का.आ.1158.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय आसनसोल के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 14/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/337/1999–आईआर (सीएम-II)] मो. जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015
S.O. 1158.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No.14/ 2000 of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the " Whether the action of the management of Lachipur Colliery of M/s. ECL in dismissing Sh. Kalipada Bouri, workman from services is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to? "
Having received the Order No. L-22012/337/99/ IR(CM-II) dated 27.01.2000 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 14 of 2000 was registered on 07.02.2000 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance2498 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REFERENCE NO. 10 OF 2011
of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
Case called out. Sri Rakesh Kumar, President, KMC, representing the workman and Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate on behalf of the management are present.
Sri Rakesh Kumar submits that the case may be closed and a no dispute award may be passed as the workman has expired. Since the workman has expired and none of his legal heirs are interested to proceed with the case further, the case is closed and accordingly a 'No Dispute Award' may be passed.
PARTIES: The management of MIC Jhanjra Project
Colliery of M/s. ECL
Vs.
Sri Dilip Kumar Nayak
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management: None
For the union (Workman): Sri S. K. Pandey, Gen. Secy.,
CMC
INDUSTRY : COAL STATE : WEST BENGAL
ORDER
Dated : 08.04.2015
A W A R D
Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/57/2011-IR(CM-II) dated 18.07.2011 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
का.आ.1159.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय आसनसोल के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 10/2011) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/57/2011–आईआर (सीएम-II)] मो. जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015
S.O. 1159.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 10/2011 of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/05/2015.
[No. L-22012/57/2011-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer " Whether the action of the management of MIC Jhanjra Project Colliery under M/s ECL in dismissing Sri Dilip Kumar Nayak, Carpenter Helper, U.M. No. 694334 w.e.f. 12.09.2009 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled to? "
Having received the Order No. L-22012/57/2011- IR(CM-II) dated 18.07.2011 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 10 of 2011 was registered on 07.02.2000 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
Case called out. Sri S. K. Pandey, General Secretary of the union (CMC) appears on behalf of the workman but none on behalf of the management.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT: Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
Sri S. K. Pandey makes an endorsement on the order sheet to the effect that the workman is not interested to proceed with the case further. So the case may be closed. Since the workman is not interested to proceed with the case further the case is closed and a "No Dispute Award" may be passed accordingly.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 6, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 16, 1937 2499ORDER
INDUSTRY : COAL STATE : WEST BENGAL
Dated : 10.04.2015
A W A R D
Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/271/98-IR(CM-II) dated 05.05.1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
का.आ. 1160.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बी. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय आसनसोल के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 53/1999) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/271/1998–आईआर (सीएम-II)] मो. जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015
S.O.1160 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 53/ 1999 of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Victoria West Colliery of M/s BCCL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/05/2015
[No. L-22012/271/1998 - IR(CM-II)] Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer " Whether the action of the management of Victoria West Colliery under C.V. Area of M/s. BCCL is justified in denying the pay protection in fixation of initial pay in the regularized / converted category is justified? If not, to what relief Sh. Dharmesh Deva and 13 others are entitled?"
Having received the Order No. L-22012/271/98- IR(CM-II) dated 05.05.1999 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 53 of 1999 was registered on 07.06.1999 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
Case called out. Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Adv. appears on behalf of the management but none appears on behalf of the workman.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 53 OF 1999
PARTIES: The management of Victoria West Colliery of M/s. BCCL
Vs.
This reference belongs to year 1999. Since many date workman / union is not present in spite of this reference is one of the oldest references of this tribunal. Even after passing of 16 years union / workman has not file written statement yet. Registered notice has been served on 01.12.2014, even after service of registered notice date was fixed on 05.02.2015. Workman / union representative are absent even today no one present on behalf of the workman. It appears that the workman is not interested in contesting the reference anymore. There is no use of fixing another date. Hence, a "No Dispute Award" may be passed accordingly.
ORDER
Sri Dharmesh Deva and 13 others
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management: Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Adv. BCCL
For the union (Workman):Sri S. K. Pandey, Gen. Secy.,
CMC
Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer2500 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015
का.आ.1161.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय आसनसोल के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 09/1999) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल.-22012/79/1998–आईआर (सीएम-II)] मो. जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015
S.O.1161.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref.09/1999 of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Shankarpur Colliery of M/s ECL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/05/2015
[No. L-22012/79/1998-IR(CM-II)] Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer " Whether the action of the management of Pure Seetalpur Unit of Shankarpur Colliery of M/s. ECL by not regularizing Sh. T. K. Pandey, Timber Mistry, as Canteen Manager is legal and justified? If not, to what relief Sh. Dharmesh Deva and 13 others are entitled? "
Having received the Order No. L-22012/79/98- IR(CM-II) dated 22.01.1999 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 09 of 1999 was registered on 22.01.1999 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
Case called out. Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Adv. representing the management and Sri S. K. Pandey, General Secretary of the union (CMC), representing the workman are present.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT: Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
Sri. S. K. Pandey submits that the case may be closed and necessary order to that effect may be passed as the workman is not anymore interested to proceed with the case further. The case is also too old – 1999. I find no reason to keep this old record pending, as the workman is not at all interested to proceed with the case further. As such the case is closed a 'No Dispute Award' may be passed accordingly.
REFERENCE NO. 09 OF 1999
ORDER
PARTIES: The management of Pure Seetalpur Unit of Shankarpur Colliery of M/s. ECL
Vs.
Sri T. K. Pandey
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management: Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Adv. ECL
For the union (Workman): Sri S. K. Pandey, Gen. Secy.,
CMC
INDUSTRY : COAL STATE : WEST BENGAL
Dated : 22.04.2015 Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015
A W A R D
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/79/98-IR(CM-II) dated 22.01.1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
का.आ. 1162.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सीएमपीडीआई के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय आसनसोल के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 18/1999) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/110/1998 - आईआर (सीएम-II)] मो. जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अधिकारी[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 6, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 16, 1937 2501 New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015
S.O.1162. —In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No.18/ 1999 of the Cent.Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of CMPDI and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/05/2015.
[No.- L-22012/110/1998 - IR(CM-II)] Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
Case called out. Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Adv. representing the management and Sri S. K. Pandey, General Secretary of the union (CMC), representing the workman are present.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT: Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 18 OF 1999
PARTIES: The management of CMPDI, Regional Institute, Sri. S. K. Pandey submits that the case may be closed and necessary order to that effect may be passed as the workman is not anymore interested to proceed with the case further. He also made endorsement on the order sheet in this regard. This is a very old case in the year of 1999 and the workman is also not interested to proceed with the case further. So I have no option left but to close the case. As such the case is closed and accordingly a 'No Dispute Award' may be passed.
ORDER
Asansol
Vs.
Sri N. L. Dubey
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management: Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Adv. ECL
For the union (Workman): Sri S. K. Pandey, Gen. Secy.,
CMC
INDUSTRY: COAL STATE: WEST BENGAL
Dated : 23.04.2015 Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015
A W A R D
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/110/98-IR(CM-II) dated 27.01.1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
का.आ. 1163. —औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 30/1999) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं0 एल. 22012/251/1998–आईआर (सीएम-II)] मो. जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015
SCHEDULE
" Whether the action of the management of
CMPDI, Regional Institute, Asansol in not
regularizing Sh. N.L. Dubey, Cat. I Mazdoor as
Clerk is justified? If not, to what relief is the
workman entitled?"
Having received the Order No. L-22012/110/98- IR(CM-II) dated 27.01.1999 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 18 of 1999 was registered on 09.02.1999 and accordingly an S.O. 1163.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 30/1999 of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Chora Colliery of M/s ECL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/05/2015.
[No.- L-22012/251/1998 - IR(CM-II)] Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer2502 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
President of the union (KMC), representing the workman are present.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT: Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 30 OF 1999
PARTIES: The management of Chora Colliery of M/s. ECL
Vs.
Sri Jageshwar Bhuiya
Sri. Rakesh Kumar submits that the case may be closed and necessary order to that effect may be passed as the workman is not anymore interested to proceed with the case further. He also made endorsement on the order sheet in this regard. This is one of the oldest cases of this tribunal - in the year of 1999. Since the workman is not interested to proceed with the case further I have no option left but to close the case. As such the case is closed and accordingly a 'No Dispute Award' may be passed.
ORDER
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management: Sri P. K. Goswami, Ld.
Adv. ECL
For the union (Workman): Sri Rakesh Kumar,
President , KMC
INDUSTRY : COAL STATE : WEST BENGAL
Dated : 28.04.2015 Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/251/98-IR(CM-II) dated 26/27.05.1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
का.आ.1164 . —औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय आसनसोल के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 92/1999) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
SCHEDULE
[सं0 एल. 22012/361/1998–आईआर (सीएम-II)] मो. जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015
" Whether the action of the management of
Chora Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited in having the age of Sh. Jageshwar
Bhuiya, Ex-Line Mazdoor assessed by Apex
Medical Board and forcefully superannuating
him on 25.01.1990 is legal and justified? If not,
to what relief is the workman entitled?"
S.O. 1164. —In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 92/ 1999 of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Nageshwar Satgram Colliery of M/s ECL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/05/2015.
[No. - L-22012/361/1998 - IR(CM-II)] Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
Having received the Order No. L-22012/251/98- IR(CM-II) dated 26/27.05.1999 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 30 of 1999 was registered on 07.06.1999 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
PRESENT: Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 92 OF 1999
Case called out. Sri P. K. Goswami, Ld. Adv. representing the management and Sri Rakesh Kumar,[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 6, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 16, 1937 2503 PARTIES: The management of Nageshwar Satgram
ORDER
Colliery of M/s ECL
Vs.
Smt. Lotni Bouri
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management: Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Adv. ECL
For the union (Workman): Sri Rakesh Kumar, President,
KMC
INDUSTRY: COAL STATE: WEST BENGAL
Dated : 11.05.2015 Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015
A W A R D
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/361/98-IR(CM-II) dated 09.07.1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
का.आ. 1165. —औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय आसनसोल के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 67/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं0 एल. 22012/527/1999–आई. आर. (सीएम-II)] मो. जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015
SCHEDULE
S.O.1165 . —In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 67/ 2000 of theCent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Banshra Satgram Colliery of M/s ECL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/05/2015.
"Whether the action of the management of
Nageshwar Satgram Colliery, ECL in denying
voluntary retirement and denial of medical
examination by Apex Medical Board to Smt. Lotni
Bouri is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is
the workman concerned entitled?"
[No. - L-22012/527/1999 - IR(CM-II)] Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT: Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE No. 67 OF 2000
Having received the Order No. L-22012/361/98- IR(CM-II) dated 09.07.1999 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 92 of 1999 was registered on 23.07.1999 / 19.09.2001 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
Case called out. Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Adv. representing the management and Sri Rakesh Kumar, President of the union (KMC), representing the workman are present.
Sri Rakesh Kumar submits that the workman has already superannuated from service and now no dispute exists between the parties. He also endorsed it on the order sheet. Since no dispute exists between the parties, the case is closed and accordingly a "No Dispute Award" may be passed.
PARTIES: The management of Banshra Colliery of
M/s ECL
Vs.
Sri Bindheswar Mahato
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management: Sri P. K. Goswami, Ld. Adv.
ECL
For the union (Workman): None
INDUSTRY: COAL STATE: WEST BENGAL
Dated : 12.05.20152504 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
A W A R D
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/ 527/99-IR(CM-II) dated 27.07.2000 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015
का.आ.1166 . —औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय आसनसोल के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 02/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
SCHEDULE
" Whether the action of the management of Banshra Colliery in refusing to accept the date of birth w.e.f. 26.05.45 as per the Mining Sirdarship Certificate in respect of Sh. Bindheswar Mahato, Safety Production Assistant is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?" [सं0 एल. 22012/254/1999–आईआर (सीएम-II)] मो. जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 25 May, 2015
S.O.1166.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 02/2000 of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Khas Kajora Colliery of M/s ECL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/05/2015.
[No. - L-22012/254/1999 - IR(CM-II)] Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.
Having received the Order No. L-22012/527/99- IR(CM-II) dated 27.07.2000 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 67 of 2000 was registered on 07.08.2000 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
Case called out both parties are absent.
PRESENT: Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 02 OF 2000
On perusal of case record I find that the case was ordered for "No Dispute Award" on 14.03.2002 and accordingly. No Dispute Award was issued on the same date i.e. 14.03.2002. On 29.04.2002 the union applied for restoration of the reference and accordingly the reference was restored on 01.02.2006 the reference case was restored and fixed for filing written statement by the union. Registered notice was issued on 25.03.2009, 16 dates were granted after that. Again notice was issued on 04.01.2012 and 18 dates granted. Final notice was again sent to the union on 19.12.2014 but to no effect. So it is apparent from the record that the workman is not at all interested to proceed with the case further. As such the case is closed and accordingly a "No Dispute Award" may be passed.
PARTIES: The management of Khas Kajora Colliery,
ECL
Vs.
Sri Damu Dakua
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management: Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate,
ECL
For the union (Workman):Sri Rakesh Kumar, President,
KMC
INDUSTRY: COAL STATE: WEST BENGAL
DATED: 14.03.2015
ORDER
A W A R D
Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/ 254/1999-IR(CM-II) dated 21.12.1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 6, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 16, 1937 2505 Tribunal.
of Natural justice'.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Khas
Kajora Colliery, of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited,
in dismissing Sri Damu Dakua, General Mazdoor
is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is
entitled to?"
Having received the Order NO. L-22012/254/1999- IR(CM-II) dated 21.12.1999 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 02 of 2000 was registered on 05.01.2000 / 10.10.2001. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through their representative and filed their separate sets of written statement in support of their respective claims.
The workman has stated in his written statement that the workman Sri Damu Dakua was a permanent employee of Khas Kajora Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited bearing U.M.No. 862335. His date of birth is 01.10.1949 and date of appointment is 01.01.1972. Sri Damu Dakua was served with the charge sheet on 03.11.1997 for his absence from duty from 20.05.1997. He replied the charge sheet and informed the management that he was sick and therefore, he could not attend his duties. The information about his sickness was sent by his colleague and also by the Union representative. The absence was un-intentional and beyond his control. Total period of absence of the concerned employee was five and half months only i.e. from 20.05.1997 to 03.11.1997. When the workman reported for duty, the management assured that he will be allowed to join duty but instead of allowing him to join duty, the management issued the order of dismissal from service. The quantum of punishment is extremely harsh and dis-proportionate to the nature of guilt. As per the letter of Director (P) CIL dated 20.01.1994 though the quantum of punishment is dis-proportionates, the management did not follow the guidelines of CIL. The workman appealed in Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has been pleased to pass order dated 12.08.1998 and 24.08.1998 considering the case in favour of the workman concerned but the management did not comply with the order of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and dismissed the workman from service before issuing 2nd Show Cause notice which is clear violation of the guideline issued by Director (P&IR) CIL issued on 12.05.1994. The management also flouted the 'Principle The management has stated in his Written Statement that the concerned workman was absent from his duty with effect from 20.05.1997 without any prior permission or information or leave. As such he was issued charge sheet dated 03.11.1997 under section 17(1) (C) of Model Standing Order applicable to Coal Mining Industry. The workman failed to submit any explanation. Therefore, domestic enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer into the said charge sheet. The notice of the enquiry was sent to the workman but the workman deliberately avoided the notice. After seven months the concerned workman replied to the above charge sheet. The workman alleged sickness for his absence. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with principle of natural justice. The concerned workman fully participated in the enquiry through his co- worker. The concerned workman was given all reasonable opportunity by the Enquiry Officer during the enquiry proceedings. The charges were established and his misconduct was totally proved. The plea of illness was not accepted by the Enquiry Officer. Disciplinary authority after careful consideration of the charge sheet, enquiry proceedings, enquiry report and all other connected papers was pleased to award an order of dismissal from service against the workman in accordance with the gravity of the misconduct. Thus the punishment awarded to the concerned workman is quite proportionate to the guilt committed by him and the quantum of punishment was not at all dis-proportionate.
The workman has filled additional Written Statement. He has stated that the workman Sri Damu Dakua was transferred from Mugma Area to Kajora Area and was posted at Khas Kajora Colliery of M/s. ECL. Since he was new at Khas Kajora Colliery, he was trapped by money lenders and anti-social elements. Due to this reason he was mentally disturbed. He started his medical treatment at Kajora Gram and left the colliery premises. He went to his brother's Quarter at Jhanjra Project. He requested the management for his transfer to Jhanjra Project of M/s. ECL and the same was under consideration. But, in the meantime, he was charge sheeted and enquiry was conducted by the management.
The workman has filed photo copies of Application of Sri Damu Dakua for resumption of duty, Sickness/ Treatment certificate issued by Doctor, letter addressed to G.M., Kajora for changing the place of enquiry, letter to CMD, ECL and others by his advocate, reply of second show cause notice, Order dated 12.08.1998 of Hon'ble High Court to pay the wages, Order of Hon'ble High Court dated 24.08.1998 directing the management to follow the guidelines of CIL , guideline of D(P) CIL on the basis of Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgement, minutes of the meeting held with CMD, ECL and minutes of the meeting held with the local management. The workman has filed2506 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] affidavit in his oral evidence. The workman has been cross examined by the management. The management has filed the file of domestic enquiry and the management has not adduced any oral evidence.
I have heard the arguments of Sri Rakesh Kumar, Ld. union representative on behalf of the workman and also of Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate on behalf of the management. Sri Rakesh Kumar argued that the workman was sick and therefore, due to his sickness he could not attend his duties. He also stated that as per guideline of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, and letter of Director (P&IR) CIL dated 20.01.1994 the workman ought to have given show cause notice before passing order of dismissal from service. But the workman has already been dismissed and then 2nd show cause notice was issued which was a violation of guideline of the Company as well as of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
On the other hand, Sri P. K. Das, learned advocate has argued that in passing the order of dismissal there was no illegality. He further argued that the workman has already retired from service and therefore, the workman can neither be re-instated nor entitled for any back wages.
The case of workman is that due to his absence from duty without information or permission he was issued charge sheet and after domestic enquiry he was dismissed. Though as per the workman his absence was due to some valid reason beyond his control as he was sick. Whereas the case of management is that the theory of sickness of the workman was false as held in domestic enquiry and therefore, after enquiry he was dismissed from service.
It is admitted fact that the concerned workman Sri Damu Dakua has been dismissed for his absence after conducting domestic enquiry. The workman has filed a medical report of Dr. H. N. Singh. Dr. H. N. Singh has issued a medical certificate that Sri Damu Dakua was suffering from infectious type Hepatitis and he was under his treatment from 20.05.1997 to 03.11.1997 and has been declared medically fit to resume his duty. The concerned physician is an outside medical practitioner and the certificate is also not supported by any case history. The workman has not filed any prescription or any other document supporting his illness. This medical certificate, therefore, does not inspire confidence. The workman has filed a copy of enquiry proceedings. It appears from the enquiry proceedings that the workman has participated in the domestic enquiry. He has been given due opportunity to defend himself by the enquiry officer. The workman has stated in his Affidavit that he was served Charge Sheet No. KKC/P&IR/C-6/19/249 dated 03.11.1997. He has stated that he replied the charge sheet refusing the allegations as he was sick which has been duly supported by medical certificate of a registered medical practitioner. He also added that as per practice the management allowed so many other workers who have absented from duty for longer period but in his case the management has deliberately decided to dismiss him from service which is unjustified. During cross-examination the workman has stated that he is 60 years old and he sent information to the management regarding his illness. He, however, could not file any document in favour of his sending intimation to the management.
The workman has stated in his evidence that he is 60 years old. He had sent information to the management regarding his illness but the workman has not filed any paper regarding his information to the management. His medical certificate also does not inspire confidence.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (1973) 1 LLJ 278, 'Workmen' of Firestone Tyre and Rubber manufacturing Company -vs- Management, has held that right to take disciplinary action and to decide upon quantum of punishment are mainly managerial functions. If the dispute is referred to Tribunal, the tribunal has power to see whether the action of management is justified. Before imposing the punishment, the employer is expected to conduct a proper enquiry in accordance with the provision of Standing Order, if applicable, and on the principle of natural justice. Interference on the management will be justified only when the findings arrived at in the enquiry are perverse and management is guilty for adopting unfair labour practice or malafide attitude.
The Tribunal is now at liberty to consider not only whether the findings of the misconduct recorded by the workman are correct but also to defer from that findings if a proper case is made out.
Now the tribunal has to see whether the punishment imposed by the employer is commensurate with the gravity of act of misconduct committed by the delinquent workman. It is relevant to mention that in the instant case the workman has participated in the domestic enquiry. He has been cross-examined. The workman has not challenged the fairness of the enquiry proceedings. He has challenged that he was not given 2nd Show Cause notice before passing the order of dismissal from service.
The workman should have been given copies of enquiry report and enquiry proceedings. Workman has right to show cause against the findings of the report and right to show cause against the proposed penalty. After enquiry proceedings and after issuance of 2nd Show Cause notice by management workman has right to represent against the enquiry report. After hearing the workman the order of punishment can be passed. But in this reference case, the workman has already been dismissed from service and then 2nd show cause notice was issued to him. It is a clear violation of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and principle of natural justice.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 6, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 16, 1937 2507New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015
S.O.1167.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 50/2009 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 M/s. BCCL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/05/2015.
[No. L-20012/64/2009 – IR (CM-I)] M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
When different penalties can be imposed in respect of alleged reference case, one of which is dismissal from service, the disciplinary authority is required to consult himself for selecting most appropriate penalty from different ranges of penalties that can be imposed based on nature, content and gravity of the default. Unless, the disciplinary authority reaches to the conclusion that nature, content and magnitude of the fault committed by the employee concerned is so serious that it will be absolutely unsafe to retain him in service, the maximum penalty of dismissal from service can not be imposed. If the lesser penalty can be imposed without seriously jeopardizing the interest of employer, the disciplinary authority cannot impose the maximum penalty i.e. dismissal from service 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. 50 of 2009
The concerned workman has admitted in his cross- examination that he is 60 years old. As per Written Statement the workman's date of birth is 01.10.1949. Therefore at present he is more than 60 years old. Had he been in service, he would have retired till now. Therefore, question of reinstatement of the concerned workman does not arise. So far as the back wages is concerned the workman has not stated that during that period of dismissal he was not employed anywhere.
Employers in relation to the management of Lodna Area of M/S BCCL
AND
Their workmen.
Present: Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,
Presiding officer
Appearances:
In view of discussion above, I think it just and proper to modify and substitute the punishment exercising the power under Section 11 A of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The impugned order of dismissal is set-a-aside. Management is directed to pay all retirement benefits to the concerned workman. I think it fit and proper that the delinquent workman be imposed stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. The workman will get 25% of back wages.
For the Employers: None
For the workman: Shri S.C.Gour,Rep.
State : Jharkhand Industry: Coal
O R D E R
Dated. 15/4/2015
AWARD
Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015
By Order No.L-20012/64/2009-IR (CM-I), dated 18/08/2009, 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
" (i) Whether the demand of the Koyla Ispat Mazdoor
Panchayat from the management of Lodna Area of
M/S BCCL to give promotion /up gradation to Shri
Mangal Harijan as Excavation Grade "B" is
justified and legal?" (ii) To what relief is the
workman concerned entitled?"
का.आ.1167. —औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, न0 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 50/2009) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं0 एल-20012/64/2009–आई आर (सीएम-I)] एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी 2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on .02.09.2009. After notice both parties appeared , the Sponsoring Union files their written statement on 13.10.2009.. After long delay, the management files their2508 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
written statement-cum-rejoinder on 27.06.2013.Thereafter document filed by the parties.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No 55/1993
3. The short point to be decided in this reference as to whether the workman entitled for promotion as he claimed on the ground, that his junior have been given promotion to higher grade, ignoring the claim of the present workman.
4. The promotion is not at all a right of the workman, it is considered taking into capability discipline and performance. Merely saying that the management did not given promotion, is not at all a ground unless glaring discrimination is shown. Moreover the person who superseded the workman concerned are not before the Tribunal.
Employer in relation to the of Management of P B Area of M/S. B.C.C.L .
AND.
Their workmen.
Present: : Sri R.K. Saran
Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
5. The workman has not taken the ground that the management by grudge did not give him promotion. Since promotion is the prerogative of management.
For the Employers: Sri N. M. Kumar, Advocate
For the workman: None
State: Jharkhand Industry: Coal
Dated- 16/04/2015
AWARD
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of his case, I hold that, the demand of the Koyla Ispat Mazdoor Panchayat from the management of Lodna Area of M/S BCCL to give promotion /up gradation to Shri Mangal Harijan as Excavation Grade "B" is not justified and legal. Hence the workman will not get any relief in this reference.
This is my award.
R.K.SARAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015
By order No. L-20012/366/1991 IR (C-1)) dated 06/01/1993, 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 referr4ed the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of RCMS (INTUC) for
regularization of Sri Mithiles Paswan and 19 others
on the roll of Balihari Colliery, M/s. B.C.C.Ltd is
justified ? If so, to what relief the workmen are
entitled to"
का.आ.1168. —औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, न0 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 55/93) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
Annexure
List of workmen
[सं. एल-20012/366/1991–आईआर (सी-I)] एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015
S.O. 1168.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 55/93 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 M/s. BCCL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/05/2015.
[No. L-20012/366/1991–IR (C-I)] M.K. SINGH, Section Officer 1. Mithilesh Paswan 2. Barandeo Singh
3. Raghu Thakur 4. Degan Thakur
5. Lalan Ram 6. Niranjan Singh
7. Ramashis Singh 8. Isarail
9. Inam 10. Sri Anawar
11. Sri Sabdul 12. Md. Basir
13. Sri Nasim 14. Sri Lamaman Ram
15. Laldeo Paswan 16. Sri Sitaram Paswan
17. Sri Abul Hasan 18. Shri Deo Narain Rana
19. Safik 20. Asaiaf[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 6, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 16, 1937 2509
AWARD
2. After receipt of the reference , both parties are noticed. But none appears on behalf of the workman inspite of regd. Notice. Case remain pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R.K.SARAN, Presiding Officer By order No. L-20012/376/1991 IR (C-I) dated 05/01/1993, 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 dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015
का.आ.1169. —औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, न0 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 42/93) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/376/1991–आईआर (सी-I)] एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015
S.O. 1169.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/ 93 )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 M/s. BCCL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/05/2015.
[No. L-20012/376/1991 – IR (C-I)] M.K. SINGH, Section Officer " Whether the action of the management of Amlabad D.G.Project of M/s. B.C.C.L, P.O. Amlabad, District- Dhanbad in not departmentalizing/ regularizing Sri Sushil Kumar Mukherjee is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
2. After receipt of the reference , both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates, none appears subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R.K.SARAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015
का.आ.1170. —औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, न0 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 10/2010) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25/05/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
ANNEXURE
[सं. एल-20012/60/2009–आईआर (सीएम-I)] एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act. 1947
Reference: No 42/1993
Employer in relation to the management of Amlabad D.G. Projects of M/s. BCCL .
AND
Their workmen
Present: Sri R.K.Saran,
Presiding Officer
S.O. 1170. —In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/ 2010) 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 M/s. BCCL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/05/2015.
[No. L-20012/60/2009 – IR (CM-I)] M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
Appearances:
ANNEXURE
For the Employers: None
For the workman: None
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD
State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal
Dated : 17/04/2015 In the matter of a rererence U/s 10(1) (D) (2A) of I.D. ACT, 1947.
2510 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]Ref. No. 10 of 2010
Employers in relation to the management of Sijua Area, M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present: Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,
Presiding officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2015
का.आ.1171 . —औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, न0 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 53/93) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25/05/ 2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
Appearances:
For the Employers: Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman: Shri S.C.Gour, Rep.
State : Jharkhand Industry: Coal.
Dated : 16/4/2015
[सं. एल-20012/411/1991–आई आर (सी-I)] एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/60/2009-IR (CM-I), dated 18/01/2010, 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:
S.O.1171 . —In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/93) 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 M/s. BCCL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/05/2015.
[No. L-20012/411/1991-IR (C-I)] M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
SCHEDULE
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
"Whether the action of the management of Basudeopur Colliery of M/s. BCCL in Superannuating Shri Gopal Yadav, Tyndal w.e.f. 01.07.2007 is justified and legal? (ii) To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?"
In the matter of reference U/s 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No 53/1993
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 28.01.2010. After notice both parties appeared , the Sponsoring Union files their written statement on 15.03.2010. But after long delay, the management files their written statement-cum-rejoinder on 15.10.2012.
3. The short point to be decided in this reference is whether the retirement of the concerned workman on 01.07.2007 is proper or not. Parties filed rejoinder and documents. Workman examined himself as WW-1, But from the side of management none has been examined.
Employer in relation to the management of Koyala Bhawan of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present: Sri R.K.Saran,
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers: None
For the workman: Sri S.C. Gour, Advocate
State : Jharkhand Industry: Coal
Dated: 17/04/2015
AWARD
4. The workman in his evidence stated that he is now aged 70, and he has no age proof document to file in court. Even accepting age 70 as on today , if calculated roughly he is more than 60 years on the date of its superannuation. Hence he has been rightly superannuated by the management. The workman is not entitled to any relief in this reference .
This is my award.
R.K.SARAN, Presiding Officer By order No. L-20012/411/1991 IR (C-I) dated 06/01/1993, 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[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 6, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 16, 1937 2511 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
2. An earlier Corrigendum in respect of the aforesaid award was published in the official gazette dated 01.12.2014.
3. Further corrections in the aforesaid award are
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. BCCL. Koyala Bhawan, P.O. Koyala Nagar, Dist. Dhanbad in stopping the leave facility w.e.f. 01/01/1980 which was being enjoyed by Shri K. R. Kutty earlier is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
efected as follows:—
(i) In line No. 2 of Page No. 3, the name of the workman may be read as "Dilip Bouri" instead of "Lala Bouri".
(ii) In line No. 2 of Page No. 3, "75 percentage" of back wages may be read as "50%" of back wages.
[No. L-22012/40/2005-IR (CM-II)] Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
2. This case is received from the Ministry on 11/02/1993.. During the pendency of the case, The representative of workman submits that workman is not interested to contest the case. It is felt that the dispute between parties is resolved. Hence "No dispute" award is passed. communicate.
R.K.SARAN, Presiding Officer OFFICE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT
Ref. No. 129/ITC/(2005)- Dated: 25.03.2015
शु(ि पत्रा
नई दिल्ली, 26 मई, 2015
Ref: Ministry's order No. L-22012/40/2005-IR (CM-II)
This office Ref. No. 129/2005 (a copy of award
enclosed)
SCHEDULE
का.आ. 1172. —केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय असलसोल द्वारा पारित संदर्भ संख्या 129/आईटीसी/2005 दिनांक 02/07/2013 के अंतर्गत पंचाट, जिसकी समसंख्यक अधिसूचना दिनांक 13/08/2013 को अध्किारिक राजपत्रा में प्रकाशित हुआ था, को संदर्भित किया जाता है।
2 उल्लिखित पंचाट के संदर्भ में शु(िपत्रा दिनांक 01/12/2014
पूर्व में आध्किारिक राजपत्रा में प्रकाशित हुआ था,
"Whether the action of the management of B.M.P. Group of Mines of M/s. ECL in dismissing Sh. Dilip Bouri, Rail Mazdoor from services w.e.f. 27.12.97 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
CORRIGENDUM
3 उल्लिखित पंचाट में पुनर्शु(िकरण निम्नोक्त रूप में प्रभावी
होंगे।
(i) In line No. 2 of Page No. 3, the name of the workman may be read as "Dilip Bouri" instead of "Lala Bouri".
(ii) In line No. 2 of Page No. 3, "75 percentage" of back wages may be read as "50%" of back 1. In line No. 2 of Page No. 3, the name of the workman may be read as "Dilip Bouri" instead of "Lala Bouri".
2. In line No. 2 of Page No. 3, "75 percentage" of back wages may be read as "50%" of back wages.
Now the last page of the award will be read as:—
wages.
[सं. एल-22012/40/2005-आईआर ;सी-IIद्ध]
मो. जाहिद शरीपफ, अनुभाग अध्किारी Accordingly the Order of dismissal is hereby set-a- side. The management is directed to allow the workman Dilip Bouri to join in the service with 50% of back wages within three months from the date of Notification.
CORRIGENDUM
ORDER
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2015
S.O.1172 . —The reference is invited to the a ward passed by CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Asansol vide their Ref. No. 129/ITC/(2005)-dated 02.07.2013, which was published in the official gazette vide Notification of even number dated 13.08.2013.
Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer2512 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2015
(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
का.आ.1173. —औघोगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औघोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औघोगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, धनबाद के पंचाट (48/2005) में प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29.05.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-12012/01/2005-आई आर (बी-II)] रवि कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 29th May, 2015
S.O. 1173.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 48/ 2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 1, Dhanbadas shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29/05/2015.
[No. L-12012/01/2005 - IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer " Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, Dhanbad Zone Dhanbad in terminating Sh. Subhas Saw from the service of the bank in subordinate cadre i.e. as Driver from may 2004 is justified? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 18.07.2005. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. The workman files their written statement on 02.08.2005. Thereafter the management files their written statement on 25.01.2006. Document filed by the workmen.
3. The Short point to be decided whether the workman , who was a driver of Bank Officer , rendering service is to be regularized as a driver in the bank or not.
4. The workman submitted that he was entrusted to drive Bank's vehicle and gave the vehicle number in his written statement .
ANNEXURE
5. Bank Management without disputing the same , submits that the Bank officers allowed to get perks such as vehicle and they used to engage drivers and the driver get salary from the Bank Officers which bank provides to the officers.
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. 48/2005
Employers in relation to the management of Bank
of India, Dhanbad Zone
And
Their workman
Present: Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,
Presiding officer
6. In this case the workman filed photocopy of log Book ( not disputed), received money from officers (not disputed) If the workman was the personal driver of the officer, why he will maintain log Book, which was countersigned by Bank officers.
7. The Bank management failed to adduce any evidence in this case. Moreover Apex court vide judgment 2005 LLR 443 orders such workmen to be regularized.
Appearances:
For the Employers : Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman: Sri D. Mukherjee, Advocate.
State: Jharkhand Industry: Banking
Dated. 30/3/2015
AWARD
By Order No.L-12012/01/2005-IR (B-II), dated 30/05/2005, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the action of the management of Bank of India, Dhanbad Zone Dhanbad in terminating Sh. Subhas Saw from the service of the bank in subordinate cadre i.e. as Driver from may 2004 is not justified. Hence the he be regularized in the post of driver atonce i.e within month. however no back wages is awarded. If the workman is not given job within one month from the date of publication of award, and management prays court to allow time, that will be considered. If no request made to Court, from the 31st day , after date of publication of the award in the Gazette, the workman will be given @ Rs. 10,000/- P.M by the Bank Management.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 6, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 16, 1937 2513 नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2015
(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
का.आ. 1174.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सैंट्रल बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकाें और उनके कर्मकाराें के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार आद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 22/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29. 05.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-12011/63/2005-आई आर (बी-II)] रवि कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 29th May, 2015
S.O. 1174.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.No. 22/2014) 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 Central Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29/05/2015.
[No. L-12011/63/2005 - IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer " Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Muzaffarpur in terminating the service of Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sub-Staff, Devapur Branch, P.O-Motihari, Distt. East Champaran (Bihar) is legal and or justified? If not, what relief Sri Ramesh Kumar is entitled to?"
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 16.10.2006 by CGIT No.2, Dhanbad . After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. The management files their written statement on 23.01.2008. Thereafter the Sponsoring Union files their rejoinder of W/S of the management on 12.05.2011. thereafter Document filed by the both side .
3. Two witness examined by the workman and one witness examined on behalf of the management. Management's document marked as M-1 to M-1/26 and workman's document marked as W-1 to W-3.
4. hereafter As per letter No.L- 12011/63/2005 IR (B- II) dated 12/02/2014. This case is received by the CGIT No.2 and registered in CGIT No.1 as Ref. No. 22/14.
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.
5. The short point to be decided in this reference, is the workman who was engaged as casual employee under the management for 26.7.99 to 13.05.2000 is to be regularized under the management.
Ref. No. 22/2014
Employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India, Muzaffarpur
And
their workman
Present:Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers: Sri B.B.Manjhi, Manager Law
For the workman.: Sri B.Prasad, Rep.
State :-Bihar Industry: Banking
Dated : 6/04/2015
6. The management submitted that the workman worked as purely temporary and casual employee from 26.07.99 to 13.05.2000 and took his wage.
7. The workman received information from bank management, which has been supplied under R.T.I Act. From the R.T.I report, it is seen that the workman worked for 293 days. From the said document it has not been mentioned , that the workman was not engaged continuously or intermittently. Therefore, before termination of the workman, Sec 25 F of the I.D Act must be complied. Since the workman has been asked not to work, retrenchment compensation U/S 25.F, is to be given to him. In the absence of that the termination is illegal.
AWARD
By Order No.L-12011/63/2005-IR (B-II), dated 18/09/2006, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Muzaffarpur in terminating the service of Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sub-Staff, Devapur Branch , P.O- Motihari, Distt- East Champaran(Bihar) is not justified. Hence the workman be engaged atonce , without giving any back wages.
This is my award
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer2514 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 29 मई, 2015
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
का.आ.1175 . —औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 1/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29.05.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
"Whether The action of the management of Bank
of India in terminating the services of Shri
Parameshwar Das w.e.f 15.4.2010 , is legal and
justified? Whether the demand of Shri Das for his
reinstatement in Bank service with full back wages
and continuity of service with all benefits is just
and proper? What relief the concerned workman
is entitled to?"
[सं. एल.- 12012/24/2012-आई आर (बी-II)] रवि कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 29th May, 2015
S.O. 1175.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.No. 01/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbadas shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bankof India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29/05/2015.
[No. L-12012/24/2012 - IR(B-II)] RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer 2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 06.02.2013. After notice both parties appeared. The workman files their written statement on 02.05.2013. But the Management never appeared inspite of regd. Notice being sent. Thereafter the case is heard as ex parte. workman files their document which is marked as W-1. & W-10.
3. The short point that is involved in this case whether the workman is to be regularized as Messenger/ daily wager in the Bank or not. The claim of the workman is that they were engaged by the Bank Manager and they were rendering service continuously but the Bank Management without any reason asked them not to come to Bank for work.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act. 1947
4. In spite of valid notice the Bank Management did not appear nor filed any written statement. The workman files documents to show that he worked as casual workman. There is no reason to disbelieve the document of the workman which has been given on bank pad.
Reference: No. 1/2013
Parties: Employer in relation to the management of Bank of India, Jamshedpur Zone
AND
Their workmen
Present: Sri R.K.Saran,
Presiding Officer
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that at this situation it is held that the Bank Management to accept them as casual employee/daily wager and they be engaged in the Bank as and when required by the Bank Management.
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 जून, 2015
Appearances:
For the Employers : None
For the workman : Sri S.B.Sen, Advocate.
State : Jharkhand Industry: Banking
Dated 26/9//2014
AWARD
By Order No.L-12012/24/2012 -IR (B-II) dated 23/11/ 2012 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 1176. —औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार वीओम नेटवर्क प्राइवेट लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकाें और उनके कर्मकाराें के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 79/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/06/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-42012/167/2014-आई आर (डी यू)] पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 6, 2015/ज्येष्ठ 16, 1937 2515 New Delhi, the 14th June, 2015
S.O. 1176.—in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D Reference No. 79 of 2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the VIOM Network Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 02/06/2015.
[No. L-42012/167/2014-IR(DU)] P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer was represented by the Ld. Counsel concerned. It appears from the record that the workman at whose instance the present reference case has been initiated, has not turned up for the last three consecutive dates.
3. From such behavior of the concerned workman it may reasonably be presumed that he is not at all interested about this case. So, no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending.
4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, present reference is disposed of by passing a "No Dispute Award".
JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
ANNEXURE
नई दिल्ली, 4 जून, 2015
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 79 of 2014
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
M/s. VIOM Network Pvt. Ltd.
A N D
Their workmen.
का.आ. 1177.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बीओम नेटवर्क प्राइवेट लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकाें और उनके कर्मकाराें के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 78 of 2014) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/06/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
Present: Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer
Appearance: On behalf of the Management: Mr. Soumyo Deep Banerjee, Ld. Counsel for M/s. Viom Networks Ltd.
Mr. Chanchal Kr. Chandra, Ld. Counsel with Mr. Soumyak Bhattacharyya, Ld. Counsel for M/s. Soltek Insolation Pvt. Ltd.
On behalf of the Workman: None.
State: West Bengal Industry: Telecommunication.
Dated: 25th May, 2015.
[सं.एल-42012/165/2014-आईआर (डीयू)] पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2015
S.O. 1177.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D Reference No.78 of 2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the VIOM Network Pvt Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 02/06/2015.
AWARD
By Order No.L-42012/167/2014-IR(DU) dated 03.12.2014 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
[No. L-42012/165/2014-IR(DU)] P.K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 78 of 2014
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
M/s. VIOM Network Pvt. Ltd. A N D Their workmen.
"Whether the action of the management of M/s
Soltek Insolation Pvt Ltd. is justified by terminating
the service of Shri Sudip Kumar Bayen is legal
and/or justified? If not, what relief the workmen
are entitled to?"
2. When the case was taken up for hearing on 21.05.2015, none appeared on behalf of the workman in spite of service of notice though the management side Present: Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer
Appearance: On behalf of the Management: Mr. Soumyo Deep Banerjee, Ld. Counsel for M/s. Viom Networks Ltd.
2516 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]and/or justified? If not, what relief the workmen
are entitled to?"
Mr. Chanchal Kr. Chandra, Ld. Counsel with Mr. Soumyak Bhattacharyya, Ld. Counsel for M/s. Soltek Insolation Pvt. Ltd.
On behalf of the Workman: None.
State: West Bengal. Industry: Telecommunication.
Dated: 25th May, 2015
AWARD
By Order No.L-42012/165/2014-IR(DU) dated 03.12.2014 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
2. When the case was taken up for hearing on 21.05.2015, none appeared on behalf of the workman inspite of service of notice though the management side was represented by the Ld. Counsel concerned. It appears from the record that the workman at whose instance the present reference case has been initiated, has not turned up for the last three consecutive dates.
3. From such behavior of the concerned workman it may reasonably be presumed that he is not at all interested about this case. So, no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending.
4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, present reference is disposed of by passing a "No Dispute Award".
"Whether the action of the management of M/s
Soltek Insolation Pvt Ltd. Is justified by terminating
the service of Shri Debasish Mandal is legal
Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, 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.