foÙk ea=kky;
(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 16 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk-1132-—cSaddkjh fofu;e vf/fu;e] 1949 (1949
dk 10) dh /kjk 53 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,]
dsUnh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Hkkjrh; fj”koZ cSad dh vuq'kalk ij ;g
?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 10 dh mi/kjk (1)
ds [k.M (x) ds mi[k.M (i) ds mica/ bf.M;u vksojlht cSad
ij ykxw ugha gksaxs] tgka rd mudk laca/ cSad ds izca/ funs'kd ,oa
eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/dkjh (lhbZvks) Jh vkj- dksVh'oju dks la;qDr
m|e daiuh&;wfuolZy lksEiks tujy ba';ksjsa'k daiuh fyfeVsM ds
cksMZ esa ukfer djus ls gSA
[iQk-la- 13@2@2015&chvks&I]
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 16th April, 2015
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.
[F. No. 13/2/2015-BO.I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 23]
ubZ fnYyh] ebZ 31—twu 6] 2015] 'kfuokj@T;s"B 10—T;s"B 16] 1937
No. 23]
NEW DELHI, MAY 31—JUNE 6, 2015, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 10—JYAISTHA 16, 1937
bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
2287 GI/2015
(2469)
2470
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 23 vizSy] 2015
dk-vk-1133.—cSaddkjh fofu;e vf/fu;e] 1949 (1949
dk 10) dh /kjk 53 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,]
dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad dh vuq'kalk ij ;g
?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (1)
ds [k.M (x) ds mi&[k.M (i) ds mica/ vksfj;aVy cSad vkWiQ
dkelZ ij ykxw ugha gksaxs] tgka rd mudk laca/ cSad ds izca/
funs'kd ,oa eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/dkjh Jh vfues'k pkSgku dks dsujk
,p,lchlh vksfj;aVy cSad vkiQ dkelZ ykbiQ ba';ksjsa'k daiuh
fyfeVsM ds cksMZ esa funs'kd (xSj&dk;Zdkjh) ukfer djus ls gSA
[iQk- la- 13@4@2015&chvks&I]
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
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.
ubZ fnYyh] 14 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk-1134-—cSaddkjh fofu;e vf/fu;e] 1949 (1949
dk 10) dh /kjk 53 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,]
dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fj”koZ cSad dh fliQkfj'k ij ,rn~}kjk] ;g
?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr vf/fu;e dh /kkjk 10 dh mi&/kjk
(1) ds [k.M (x) ds mi&[k.M (i) ds mica/ cSad vkiQ cM+kSnk
ij ykxw ugha gksaxs] tgka rd bldk laca/ cSad ds izca/ funs'kd ,oa
eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/dkjh (vfrfjDr izHkkj) Jh jatu /ou dks
eSllZ cM+kSnk ik;fu;j vlsV eSustesaV daiuh fy- (chih,,elh,y)
vkSj eSllZ bafM;k iQLVZ ykbiQ ba';ksjsa'k fyfeVsM
(vkbZ,iQ,yvkbZlh,y) ds cksMZ esa funs'kd ukfer djus ls gSA
[iQk- la- 13@18@2012&chvks&I]
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
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.
ubZ fnYyh] 15 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk-1135.—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi[kaM (1) vkSj [kaM 8 ds
mi[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr] cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu
,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3)
ds [kaM (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh;
ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds dk;Zikyd funs'kd Jh
v#.k JhokLro (tUe frfFk 17-06-1957) dks muds inHkkj xzg.k
djus dh rkjh[k ls vFkok muds vf/of"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr djus dh
rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks]
75]500&80]000 #i, ds osrueku esa flafMdsV cSad ds izca/
funs'kd ,oa eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/dkjh ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA
[iQk- la- 4@4@2013&chvks&I]
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
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.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 6] 2015@T;s"B 16] 1937
2471
ubZ fnYyh] 15 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk-1136.µjk"Vªh;d`r cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi[kaM (1) vkSj [kaM 8 ds
mi[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr] cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu
,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3)
ds [kaM (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh;
ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds egkizca/d Jh vkj-,- 'kadj
ukjk;.ku (tUe frfFk 23-01-1960) dks muds inHkkj xzg.k djus
dh rkjh[k ls 31-01-2020 vFkkZr~ muds vf/of"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr
djus dh rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks]
65]000&78]000 #i, ds osrueku esa cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds dk;Zikyd
funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA
¹iQk- la- 4@5@2013&chvks&Iº
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2015
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.
ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1137.—chek fofu;ked vkSj fodkl izkf/dj.k
vf/fu;e] 1999 (1999 dk 41) dh /kjk 4 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] cSad vkWiQ bafM;k dh
vè;{k ,oa izca/ funs'kd Jherh fot;y{eh jktkjke vÕ;j dks
in dk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls 5 o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy,
vFkok muds 62 o"kZ dh vk;q izkIr dj ysus rd vFkok vxys
vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] Hkkjrh; chek fofu;ked vkSj fodkl
izkf/dj.k (vkbZvkjMh,vkbZ) esa fcuk vkokl ,oa dkj dh lqfo/k
ds 3-75 yk[k #i, izfrekg ds lesfdr osru iSdst esa iw.kZdkfyd
lnL; (foÙk ,oa fuos'k) ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA
[iQk- la- vkj&16011@01@2014&chek&I]
,u- Jhfuokl jko] funs'kd (chek)
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)
dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=kky;
(dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk-1138.—dsUnz ljdkj] fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu
vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh /kjk 6 ds
lkFk ifBr /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq, vka/z izns'k jkT; ljdkj dh lgefr ls fnukad 15 vizSy]
2014 dh vf/lwpuk la- th-vks-,e-,l- la- 73 }kjk osjkole
iqfyl LVs'ku esa ntZ fd, x, vijk/ ekeyk la- 30@12] ikykdksyw
'kgjh iqfyl LVs'ku esa ntZ fd, x, vijk/ ekeyk la[;k 63@2012
rFkk ikykdksyw xzkeh.k iqfyl LVs'ku ds vijk/ vUos"k.k foHkkx esa
ntZ fd, vijk/ ekeyk la- 32@2012 ds nq"iz;klksa] ps"Vkvksa rFkk
"kM;a=kksa ds vUos"k.k ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa
dh 'kfDr;ksa ,oa {ks=kkf/dkjh dk foLrkj ,rn~}kjk laiw.kZ vka/z izns'k
jkT; ij djrh gSA
[iQk- la- 228@44@2014&,ohMh&II]
vthr dqekj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC
GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
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 at
2472
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.
ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk.1139.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k
iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/fu;e 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e 25) dh
/kjk 6 lgifBr /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq, jktLFkku ljdkj ds x`g (th-vkj- V) foHkkx dh
vf/lwpuk la[;k ,iQ- 19(17) x`g&5@2015 fnukad 27-5-2015
}kjk izkIr lgefr ls Fkkuk esM+rk flVh] ftyk ukxkSj] jktLFkku esa
ntZ vijk/ la[;k 168@15 ,oa 169@15 fnukad 14-5-2015 rFkk
mijksDr vijk/ ls tqM+s ;k lacaf/r iz;kl] mdlkuk vkSj "kM~;a=k
djus vkSj bl pyu esa vU; fd, x, ;k mUgha rF;ksa ls mn~Hkwr
fdlh vijk/ ,oa vijk/ksa dk vUos"k.k djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k
iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj vf/dkfjrk dk foLrkj
laiw.kZ jktLFkku jkT; ij djrh gSA
[iQk- la- &228@21@2015&,ohMh&II]
vthr dqekj] voj lfpo
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.
miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=kky;
(miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx)
(Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks)s
ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk.1140.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk
gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%&
vuqlwph
Øe
ykblsa'k la[;k
Lohd`fr djus dh
ykblsal/kjh dk uke ,oa irk
Hkkjrh; ekud
Hkkek la-@Hkkx@
la[;k
frfFk o"kZ@ekg
dk 'kh"kZd
[k.M@o"kZ
1
7800000209
09@01@2015
o/Zeku m|ksx
fLFkj lapkjd Vkbi ikuh xje
Hkkek 2082%1993
xkyk 126] igyk ekyk]
djus okys fctyh ds ghVj
fgjkuankuh b.MLVªh;y bLVsV]
jsyos LVs'ku ds lkeus dkatqjekxZ&i
eqacbZ&400078
2
7800000310
23@01@2015
ds lh ikojVªsDl
ØklfyaDM ikWyhfFkyhu fo|qrjks/h
Hkkek 7098%
losZ la- 185@1@1] IykWV la- 7
ihohlh vkofjr dscy Hkkx 1] 1100 oks- Hkkx1%1988
nksdenhZ] veyh xkao] flyoklk]
rd ,oa lfgr dk;Zdkjh oksYVrk gsrq
ftyk nknjk ,oa uxj gosyh&396230
[la- dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11]
Vh- dySok.ku] izeq[k (,e;wchvks&bZbZbZ)
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 6] 2015@T;s"B 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
IS No./Part/
No.
No.
Date
of the party
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 :
SURVEY No. 185/1/1,
insulated pvc sheathed
Part 1 : 1988
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)
ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk. 1141.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mifofu;e (6) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os jí dj fn, x, gSa%&
vuqlwph
Øe
ykblsa'k la[;k ykblsal/kjh dk uke ,oa irk
ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izde lac¼
jí djus dh frfFk
la[;k
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
1-
0557352
e;wj dylZ 5] ueZnk b.M- bLVsV
Hkk-ek- 5346 % 1994
15@01@2015
f=kewrhZ b,uth] xksMnso ukdk fc-ih- jksM] flaFksVhd iQqM dyj izhijs'ku vkSj feDplZ
Hkkb±nj bZLV] ftyk Fkk.ks & 401105
[la- dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%13]
Vh- dySok.ku] izeq[k (,e;wchvks&bZbZbZ)
2474
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)
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk. 1142.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/lwpfr djrk gS ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`fr dj fn, x, gSa%&
vuqlwph
Øe
ykblsals
Lohd`fr djus
ykblsal/kjh dk
Hkkjrh; ekud
Hkkek la-@
la[;k la[;k
dh frfFk
uke ,oa irk
dk 'kh"kZd
Hkkx@[k.M@o"kZ
o"kZ@ekg
1-
7800000411 05@02@215
vk'khZokZn b.MLVªht
ØklfyaDM ikWyhfFkyhu fon;qrjhs/h ihohlh
Hkkek 7098%
IykWV la[;k 6@9]
vkofjr dscy Hkkx 1]1100 oks- rd
Hkkx 1: 1988
vktkn lksi iQSDVªh ds utnhd]
,oa lfgr dk;Zdkjh oksYVrk gsrq
vktkn uxj] [ksekuh]
vksVh lsD'ku&2]
mYgkluxj&421002
2-
7800000512 06@02@2015
fotu b.MLVªht
?kjsyq vkSj leku iz;kstuksa ds fy, fLops
Hkkek 3854%1997
112] U;w lrxq: ukud
b.M bLVsV xksjsxkWo iwoZ
eqacbZ&400063
3-
7800000613 06@02@2015
ihOgh,u iQSczhDl izk-fy-
oL=kkfn&50 fdyksxzke vukt dh iSdsftax
Hkk ek 14887%
losZ ua- 39@3] 40@1 la- 40@6
ds fy, mPp ?kuRo ikWuhfFkyhu ,pMhihbZ
2014
vkSj 41@3] foyst Mksjh dMkb;k ikWihizksihyhu (ihih) cquk cksjs
ne.k] ne.k&396210
4-
7800000807 13@02@2015
fgUnqLrku bulsDVhlkbM fy-
eksuksØksVksiQksl] rduhdh
Hkk ek 8025%
(Hkkjr ljdkj dk miØe)
1990
jlk;uh] iuosy
ftyk jk;x<&4102207
5-
7800000714 19@02@2015
xzsfl;k esVy izk- fy-
1100 oksYV rd dk;Zdkjh oksYVrk ds fy,
Hkk ek 1554
IykWV la- 8@117@,&2]
ihohlh jksf/r (Hkkjh M;qVh) fo|qr dscy
(Hkkx 1)% 1988
flesaV iQSDVjh ds utnjhd
vkexkWo b.M- ,fj;k] ryklh]
ftyk Bk.ks&401106
[la- dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11]
Vh- dySok.ku] izeq[k ( ,e;wchvks&bZbZbZ)
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 6] 2015@T;s"B 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
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
foodgrains-
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)
Ñf"k ea=kky;
(Ñf"k vkSj lgdkfjrk foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 2 twu] 2015
dk-vk.1143.—lkoZtfud ifjlj (vuf/d`r vfrØe.k jksdFkke) vf/fu;e] 1971 (1971 dk 40) dh /kjk 3 esa çnÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk ç;ksx djrs gq, dsUæ ljdkj daiuh vf/fu;e] 1956 (1956 dk 1) ds rgr LFkkfir dsUæh; lkoZtfud {ks=k miØe] jk"Vªh; cht fuxe
ds vf/dkfj;ksa rFkk ljdkj ds jktif=kr vf/dkjh ds in ds lerqY; vf/dkfj;ksa dks mDr vf/fu;e ds ç;kstu ds fy, laink vf/dkfj;ksa
ds #i esa fu;qDr djrh gS A ;s laink vf/dkjh çnÙk 'kDfr;ksa dk ç;ksx djsaxs vkSj lacaf/r ifjlaifÙk;ksa vFkok mDr fuxe dh vksj ls vFkok
}kjk yht ij yh xbZ ifjlaifÙk;ksa esa dfFkr rkfydk ds dkWye 3 esa fofufnZ"V U;k; {ks=k ds vk/kj ij fu/kZfjr dk;Z djsaxs A
rkfydk
Ø-la-
in
U;k; {ks=k dh LFkkuh; lhek
(1)
(2)
(3)
1
çHkkjh funs'kd] dsUæh; jkT; iQkeZ] lwjrx<+] jktLFkku
lacaf/r dsUæh; jkT; iQkeZ ds
2
çHkkjh funs'kd] dsUæh; jkT; iQkeZ] ljnkjx<+] jktLFkku
U;k; {ks=k ds rgr {ks=k
3
çHkkjh funs'kd] dsUæh; jkT; iQkeZ] tSrlj] jktLFkku
4
çHkkjh funs'kd] dsUæh; jkT; iQkeZ] fglkj] gfj;k.kk
5
çHkkjh funs'kd] dsUæh; jkT; iQkeZ] jk;pwj] dukZVd
6
çHkkjh funs'kd] dsUæh; jkT; iQkeZ] uygVh] if'pe caxky
[iQk-la- 6&8@2015&,l-Mh&I]
jkedqekj] voj lfpo
2476
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.
ekuo lalk/u fodkl ea=kky;
(LowQy f'k{kk vkSj lk{kjrk foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 3 twu ] 2015
dk- vk.1144.—osQUnzh; ljdkj] ljdkjh LFkku (vizkf/d`r vf/Hkksfx;ksa dh csn[kyh) vf/fu;e] 1971 (1971 dk 40) dh /kjk 3
}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] uhps lkj.kh osQ LraHk (2) esa of.Zkr vf/dkfj;ksa dks] jk"Vªh; 'kSf{kd vuqla/ku vkSj izf'k{k.k ifj"kn~
(,ulhbZvkjVh)vkSj mldh la?kVd bdkbZ osQ vf/dkjh gksus osQ dkj.k] tks Hkkjr ljdkj esa jktif=kr iafDr osQ vf/dkjh osQ lerqY; gSa] bl
vf/fu;e osQ iz;kstuksa osQ fy, laink vf/dkjh fu;qDr djrh gSA vkSj mDr vf/dkjh] mDr lkj.kh osQ LraHk (3) esa rRLFkkuh izfof"V esa
fofufnZ"V ljdkjh LFkkuksa osQ oxksZa dh ckcr vius vf/dkj {ks=k dh lhekvksa osQ Hkhrj mDr vf/fu;e }kjk vkSj mlosQ v/hu laink vf/dkfj;ksa
dks iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx vkSj vf/jksfir drZO;ksa dk ikyu djsaxs%&
lkj.kh
ozQ-la-
vf/dkjh dk inuke
Oks LFkkuh; lhek,a] ftuosQ Hkhrj laink vf/dkjh
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djsxk
(1)
(2)
(3)
1-
mi lfpo] oSaQil ,aM osyisQ;j (lh,aM MCY;w)]
us'kuy baLVhV~;wV vkiQ ,twosQ'ku (,uvkbZbZ)] lsaVªy baLVhV~;wV vkWiQ
,ulhbZvkjVh] ubZ fnYyh
,tqosQ'kuy VsDuksyksth (lhvkbZbZVh) vkSj ufljiqj oSaQil] ubZ fnYyhA
2-
mi lfpo] iafMr lqUnjyky 'kekZ lsaVªy baLVhV~;wV vkWiQ
iafMr lqUnjyky 'kekZ lsaVªy baLVhV~;wV vkWiQ oksosQ'kuy ,tqosQ'ku
oksosQ'kuy ,tqosQ'ku (ih,l,llhvkbZohbZ)] Hkksiky
(ih,l,llhvkbZohbZ) vkSj jhtuy baLVhV~;wV vkWiQ ,tqosQ'ku
(vkjvkbZbZ)] Hkksiky osQ dk;Z{ks=k osQ v/hu osQ LFkkuA
3-
,MfefuLVsªfVo vkfiQlj (,-vks-) vkiQ jhtuy baLVhV~;wV
jhtuy baLVhV~;wV vkWiQ ,tqosQ'ku (vkjvkbZbZ)] vtesj osQ dk;Z{ks=k
vkiQ ,tqosQ'ku (vkjvkbZbZ)] vtesj
osQ v/hu osQ LFkkuA
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 6] 2015@T;s"B 16] 1937
2477
4-
,MfefuLVsªfVo vkfiQlj (,-vks-) vkiQ jhtuy baLVhV~;wV
jhtuy baLVhV~;wV vkiQ ,twosQ'ku (vkjvkbZbZ)] Hkqous'oj osQ dk;Z{ks=k
vkWiQ ,tqosQ'ku (vkjvkbZbZ)] Hkqous'oj
osQ v/hu osQ LFkkuA
5-
,MfefuLVsªfVo vkfiQlj (,-vks-) vkiQ jhtuy baLVhV~;wV
jhtuy baLVhV~;wV vkiQ ,twosQ'ku (vkjvkbZbZ)] eSlwj osQ dk;Z{ks=k
vkiQ ,tqosQ'ku (vkjvkbZbZ)] eSlwj
osQ v/hu osQ LFkkuA
6-
,MfefuLVsªfVo vkfiQlj (,-vks-) vkiQ jhtuy baLVhV~;wV
jhtuy baLVhV~;wV vkiQ ,twosQ'ku (vkjvkbZbZ)] f'kykax osQ lehi
vkiQ ,tqosQ'ku (vkjvkbZbZ)] f'kykax
mekbe osQ dk;Z{ks=k osQ v/hu osQ LFkkuA
¹iQk- l- 1&9@2014&vu-4º
fnus'k dqekj] voj lfpo]
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)]
LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=kky;
(LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 18 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk.1145.—Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn vf/fu;e] 1956
(1956 dk 102) dh /kkjk 11 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUnz ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn
ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh izFke
vuqlwph esa fuEukuqlkj vkxs vkSj la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~%&
mDr izFke vuqlwph esa ^^jktLFkku LokLF; foKku
fo'ofo|ky;] t;iqj** ds ckn vkSj ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk*
¹blds ckn dkye (2) ds :i esa lanfHkZrº 'kh"kZd ds varxZr
vafre izfof"V rFkk mlls lacaf/r izfof"V ds ckn ^iathdj.k ds fy;s
laf{kIr :i* ¹blds ckn dkye (3) ds :i esa lanfHkZrº 'kh"kZd
ds rgr fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%&
(1)
(2)
^^MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMlu
,e-Mh- (iQksjsafld esfMflu)
(iQksjsafld esfMflu)**
(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk
gksxh tks vkj,uVh esfMdy dkWyst]
mn;iqj] tgka izfr o"kZ 01(,d) Nk=k
dk nkf[kyk gksrk gS] esa izf'kf{kr fd,
tk jgs Nk=kksa ds laca/ esa jktLFkku LokLF;
foKku fo'ofo|ky;] t;iqj }kjk o"kZ
1995 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku
dh xbZ gks)
[la- ;w- 12012@1028@2014&,ebZ (ih&II)]
lq/hj dqekj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of Health and Faimly Welfare)
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:—
(2)
(3)
“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.
oL=k ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk.1146.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa
ds fy,) jktHkk"kk fu;e] 1976 ds 10 ds mifu;e (4) ds
vuqlj.k esa] oL=k ea=kky; ds varxZr vkus okys fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa
dks ftlds 80» ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku
izkIr dj fy;k gS] vf/lwfpr djrh gS%&
1- ,jh vuqla/ku foLrkj dsUnz] lh,ebZvkj ,.M VhvkbZ] dsUnzh;
js'ke cksMZ] edku u- 03] bLekbyxat] 'kknhiqj [kqnZ] iQrsgiqj
& 212601 (mÙkj izns'k)
2- js'ke vuqdwyu o ijh{k.k x`g] lh,lVhvkjvkbZ] dsUnzh;
js'ke cksMZ] 76@ch] euLdkeuk jksM] ,l,e iYyh]
ekynk & 732 101 (if'pe caxky)A
[bZ- 11016@1@2011&fgUnh]
,- e/qdqekj jsM~Mh] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
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.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 6] 2015@T;s"B 16] 1937
2479
ubZ fnYyh] 2 twu] 2015
dk-vk.1147.—dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½
vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr
vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu
tkjh Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi[kaM (ii) rkjh[k
8 vçSy] 2015 esa çdkf'kr Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=ky; dh
vf/klwpuk la[;kad dk- vk- 386¼v½] rkjh[k 5 Qjojh] 2015
rFkk 'kqf)&i= la[;kad 989¼v½] rkjh[k 10 vçSy] 2015 ds
çdk'ku ij mDr vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kaZr
vuqlwph ^d* esa of.kZr 219-198 gsDVs;j ¼yxHkx½ ;k 541-64
,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki okyh Hkwfe esa lHkh vf/kdkj] vuqlwph ^[k* esa
of.kZr 15-593 gsDVs;j ¼yxHkx½ ;k 38-53 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki
okyh Hkwfe esa [kuu vf/kdkj vkSj vuqlwph ^x* esa of.kZr 14-91
gsDVs;j ¼yxHkx½ ;k 36-84 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki okyh Hkwfe esa
lrg ds vf/kdkj ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dgk
x;k gS½ mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds
v/khu] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj] vkR;afrd :i esa
dsUæh; ljdkj esa fufgr gks x, gSa(
vkSj] dsUæh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd
bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] ladrksM+f;k] Mkd?kj &fn'ksjx<+]
ftyk c)Zoku ¼if'pe caxky½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ ljdkjh
daiuh dgk x;k gS½] ,sls fuca/kuksa vkSj 'krksaZ dk] tks dsUæh;
ljdkj bl fufeRr vf/kjksfir djuk mfpr le>s] vuqikyu
djus ds fy, jtkean gS(
vr% vc] dsUæh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 11
dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk çnRr 'kfDr;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] ;g
funs'k nsrh gS fd bl çdkj fufgr of.kaZr vuqlwph ^d* esa of.kZr
219-198 gsDVs;j ¼yxHkx½ ;k 541-64 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki okyh
Hkwfe esa lHkh vf/kdkj] vuqlwph ^[k* esa of.kZr 15-593 gsDVs;j
¼yxHkx½ ;k 38-53 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki okyh Hkwfe esa [kuu
vf/kdkj vkSj vuqlwph ^x* esa of.kZr 14-91 gsDVs;j ¼yxHkx½ ;k
36-84 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki okyh Hkwfe esa lrg ds vf/kdkj rkjh[k
6 Qjojh] 2015 ls dsUæh; ljdkj esa bl çdkj fufgr cus jgus
ds ctk,] fuEufyf[kr fuca/kuksa vkSj 'krks± ds
v/khu jgrs g,] ljdkjh daiuh esa fufgr gks tk,saxs] vFkkZr~ &
1- ljdkjh daiuh] mDr vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds v/khu
;Fkk vo/kkfjr çfrdj] C;kt] uqdlkfu;ksa vkSj oSlh gh
enksa dh ckcr~ fd, x, lank;ksa dh dsUæh; ljdkj dks
çfriwfrZ djsxh(
2- 'krZ ¼1½ ds v/khu ljdkjh dEiuh }kjk dsUæh; ljdkj
dks lans; jdeksa dk vo/kkj.k djus ds ç;kstuksa ds fy,
mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 14 ds v/khu ,d vf/kdj.k
dk xBu fd;k tk,xk vkSj fdlh ,sls vf/kdj.k vkSj
vf/kdj.k dh lgk;rk ds fy] fu;qDr O;Dfr;ksa ds
laca/k esa mixr lHkh O;;] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd,
tk,axs vkSj bl çdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds
vf/kdkjksa ds fy, tSlh lHkh fof/kd dk;Zokfg;ksa dh ckcr~
mixr] lHkh O;; Hkh] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd,
tk,axs (
3- ljdkjh daiuh] dsUæh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kkfj;ksa dh
,sls fdlh vU; O;; ds laca/k esa {kfriwfrZ djsxh] tks bl
çdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds ckjs
esa] dsUæh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kkfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds
fo#) fdUgha dk;Zokfg;ksa ds laca/k esa vko';d gks(
4- ljdkjh daiuh dks dsUæh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds
fcuk] mDr Hkwfe dks fdlh vU; O;fDr dks varfjr djus
dh 'kfDr ugha gksxh( vkSj
5- ljdkjh daiuh ,sls funs'kksa vkSj 'krksaZ dk ikyu djsxh] tks
dsUæh; ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko';d gks] mDr Hkwfe
ds fof'k"V {ks=ksa ds fy, fn, tk,a ;k vf/kjksfir fd, tk,a
A
[Qk-la- 43015@10@2011&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&1]
txnh'k dqekj] mi lfpo
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 Central
2480
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.
ubZ fnYyh] 5 twu] 2015
dk-vk.1148.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd]
blls mikc) vuqlwph esa mfYyf[kr ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe esa dks;yk
vfHkizkIr fd, tkus dh laHkkouk gS;
vkSj js[kkad la[;k ,lbZLkh,y@ ch,lih@ th,e
¼ih,yth½@Hkwfe@472] rkjh[k 15 vizSy] 2015 dk ftlesa mDr
vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe {ks= ds C;kSjs vUrfoZ"V gS] fujh{k.k
dyDVj] ftyk dksjck ¼NRrhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk
fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkÅl LVªhV] dksydkrk & 700001 ds
dk;kZy; esa ;k lkÅFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM ¼jktLo
vuqHkkx½] lhir jksM] fcykliqj&495006 ¼NÙrhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy;
esa fd;k tk ldrk gS;
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj
fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds
i”pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh
mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] iwoksZDr
vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius
vk”k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS;
mijksDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) dksbZ O;fDr&
¼i½ mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds v/khu
dh xbZ dkjZokbZ ls gqbZ {kfr ;k lEHkkfor {kfr vf/kfu;e
dh /kkjk 6 dh mi& /kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu fdlh uqdlkuh
ds fy;s izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk(
¼ii½ mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu
lekIr gks xbZ iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa ds laca/k esa ;k mDr
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ ds v/khu
lekIr gks x;s [kuu iV~Vs ds fy;s izfrdj dk nkok
dj ldsxk vkSj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/
kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼i½ ls [kaM ¼iv½ esa fofufnZ"V enksa ds
laca/k esa mixr O;; dks minf”kZr djus ds fy;s
mDr Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr lHkh ekufp=ksa] pkVks± vkSj vU;
nLrkostksa dks lqiqnZ djsxk] bl vf/klwpuk ds jkti=
esa izdk”ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs fnu ds Hkhrj
Hkkjlk/kd vf/kdkjh ;k foHkkxk/;{k ¼jktLo½] lkÅFk
bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lhir jksM]
fcykliqj&495006 ¼NRrhlx<+½ dks lkSisxkA
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 6] 2015@T;s"B 16] 1937
2481
vuqlwph
fot; if”peh vkslhih ¼ fot; if”peh Cykd½] fpfjfejh {ks=]
ftyk& dksjck ¼NRrhlx<+½
¼js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@ th,e ¼ih,yth½@ Hkwfe@472] rkjh[k 15 vizSy] 2015½
lHkh vf/kdkj%
¼d½ lajf{kr ou Hkwfe%
Øe la-
d{k la[;k
Js.kh
izHkkx
{ks= gsDVj esa
fVIif.k;ka
1-
1569
ilku
dV?kksjk
8.479
Hkkx
2-
1570
ilku
dV?kksjk
71.673
Hkkx
3-
1571
ilku
dV?kksjk
198.973
Hkkx
4-
1572
ilku
dV?kksjk
419.428
Hkkx
5-
1573
ilku
dV?kksjk
144.391
Hkkx
6-
1576
ilku
dV?kksjk
29.165
Hkkx
7-
1578
ilku
dV?kksjk
116.445
Hkkx
dqy %&988-554 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 2442-717 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½
¼[k½ jktLo Hkfe%
Øe la-
xzke dk uke
iVokjh gYdk la[;k
rglhy
ftyk
{ks= gsDVs;j esa
fVIIf.k;ka
1-
jkuh vVkjh ¼vjf{kr½
4
dV?kksjk
dksjck
45.973
iw.kZ
2-
dUMbZ ¼vjf{kr½
4
dV?kksjk
dksjck
76.405
iw.kZ
3-
fctkMkaM ¼vjf{kr½
4
dV?kksjk
dksjck
34.702
Hkkx
4-
egnsbZ fVdjk ¼vjf{kr½
4
dV?kksjk
dksjck
74.041
Hkkx
dqy % 231-121 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 571-100 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½
dqy ;ksx¼d$[k½¾1219-675 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 3013-817 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½
lhek o.kZu%
Cykd&A%
d&[k
js[kk] xzke fcUnq *d* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj d{k
la[;k 1570]1569]1573]1572 ls xqtjrh gqbZ tkrh
gS vkSj fcUnq *[k* ij feyrh gSA
[k&x
js[kk] fcUnq *[k* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj d{k la[;k
1576] xzke fctkMkaM ds e/; Hkkx ls xqtjrh gS
vkSj xzke fctkMkaM ds nf{k.kh lhek esa fcUnq *x* ij
feyrh gSA
x&?k&³
js[kk] fcUnq *x* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke fctkMkaM ds
Hkkxr% nf{k.kh lhek] d{k la[;k 1578 vkSj fcUnq *?k*
ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq *³* ij feyrh gSA
³&p&N
js[kk] fcUnq *³* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke egnsbZ
fVdjk ds Hkkxr% mRrjh lhek] fcUnq *p*] xzke
egnsbZ fVdjk ds mRrjh Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS
vkSj fcUnq *N* ij feyrh gSA
N&V&t
js[kk] fcUnq *N* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke egnsbZ
fVdjk ds Hkkxr% if”peh lhek] fcUnq *V* ls gksrh
gqbZ xzke egnsbZ fVdjk ds if”peh lhek esa fcUnq
*t* ij feyrh gSA
t&>&´
js[kk] fcUnq *t* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj d{k la[;k
1571] fcUnq *>*] xzke jkuh vVkjh ds Hkkxr% nf{k.kh
lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq *´* ij feyrh gSA
´&d
js[kk] fcUnq *´* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke jkuh
vVkjh ds Hkkxr% if'peh lhek] d{k la[;k 1570
ls gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq *d* ij feyrh gSA
2482
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Cykd&AA%
N&B&´
js[kk] fcUnq *N* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj d{k la[;k
1571] fcUnq *B* ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj xzke jkuh
vVkjh ds nf{k.kh lhek esa fcUnq *´* ij feyrh gSA
´&>&V
js[kk] fcUnq *´* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj d{k la[;k
1571] fcUnq *>* ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj xzke
egnsbZ fVdjk ds if”peh lhek esa fcUnq *V* ij
feyrh gSA
V&N
js[kk] fcUnq *V* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke egnsbZ
fVdjk ds Hkkxr% if”peh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh
gS vkSj vkjafHkd fcUnq *N* ij feyrh gSA
Cykd&AAA%
x&M&p
js[kk] fcUnq *x* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj d{k la[;k
1578] fcUnq *M* ls gksrh gqbZ xzke egnsbZ fVdjk ds
mRrjh lhek esa fcUnq *p* ij feyrh gSA
p&?k&x
js[kk] fcUnq *p* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke egnsbZ
fVdjk ds Hkkxr% mRrjh lhek] d{k la[;k 1578]
fcUnq *?k* ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj vkjafHkd fcUnq
*x* ij feyrh gSA
[Qk- la- 43015@13@2015&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]
txnh”k dqekj] mi lfpo
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)
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 6] 2015@T;s"B 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.
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh ] 21 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1149.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,Q- lh-
vkbZ- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; caSxyksj ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 76@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
21@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y- 22012@210@2003@vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
2484
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
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
“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?”
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.
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
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 6] 2015@T;s"B 16] 1937
2485
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
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
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
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
ubZ fnYyh ] 21 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1150.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj tokgj
uoksn; fo|ky; ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; u0 2] p.Mhx<+
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 104@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la0 ,y-& 42012@149@2004&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e-II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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 Officer
2486
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No.104/2005
Registered on 19.7.2005
Sh. Surinder Singh, S/o Sh. Mahabir Singh, R/o Village
Ladawas (Loharu) District Bhiwani.
Petitioner
Versus
The Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Devrala
(Bhiwani)
Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
Sh. Mayank Sharma, Adv.
For the Management
Sh. Kailash Sharma, Adv.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
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
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 6] 2015@T;s"B 16] 1937
2487
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
ubZ fnYyh ] 21 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1151.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,Q- lh-
vkbZ- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; u0 1] /kuckn ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 178@1997) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 21@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la0 ,y- 22012/238/1992–vkbZ vkj (lh-II)]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD.
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)
OF I.D. ACT, 1947.
Ref. No. 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
Appearances:
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
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
“ (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.
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 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)]
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.
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 ”
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.
R.K.SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh ] 21 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk.1152.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,Q- lh-
vkbZ- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; u0 1] /kuckn ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 179@1997) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 21@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y- 22012/242/1992–vkbZ vkj (lh-II)]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD.
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1)
(D) (2A) OF I.D.ACT, 1947.
Ref. No. 179 of 1997
Employers in relation to the management of Food
Corporation of India, Patna
AND
Their workmen.
Present:- Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,
Presiding officer
Appearances:
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.
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
“ (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.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 6] 2015@T;s"B 16] 1937
2489
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 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.
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.
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 “.
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.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh ] 21 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk.1153.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- ch-
,e- ch- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; u0 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 228@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 21@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y- 23012/35/2004–vkbZ vkj (lh,e-II)]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
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
For the Workman
Sh. R.K. Parmar, A.R.
For the Management
Sh. S.K. Goyal, Law Officer
Award
Passed on 27/4
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.
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.
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
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 6] 2015@T;s"B 16] 1937
2491
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.
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
ubZ fnYyh ] 21 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk.1154.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- ch-
,e- ch- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; u- 2] p.Mhx<+ ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1118@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y- 23012/5/2002–vkbZ vkj (lh,e-II)]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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
ANNEXURE
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
1.
The Executive Engineer, TSLC Division, Beas
Construction Board, BBMB, Bhiwani.
2.
Sub Divisional Officer, TSLC Division, Beas
Construction Board, BBMB, Jind.
...Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the Workman :
Sh. Tara Chand Dhalwal, Adv.
For the Management : Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.
Award
Passed on- 17.4.2015
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 case
2492
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.
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:
It may be noticed that the definition of retrenchment
in Section 2(oo) of the Act is applicable to the
provisions contained in chapter VA containing
Sections 25F and 25H of the Act. The termination
of daily wager is not retrenchment failing within
Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. Therefore, the
workman, who is a daily wager, cannot be reinstated
as it does not amount to retrenchment within the
meaning of Sections 25F and 25G of the Act.
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
ubZ fnYyh] 21 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk.1155.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,Q- lh-
vkbZ- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; u- 2] /kuckn ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 200@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 21@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&22012/391/1998–vkbZ vkj (lh,e-II)]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 6] 2015@T;s"B 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
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT
Shri Kishori Ram,
Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D.Act.,1947.
REFERENCE No. 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
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
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 .
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Food Corporation
of India’s employees Union before the
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.”
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.
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
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk-1156.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- lh- ,y-
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
09@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
25@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-&22012/12/2012–vkbZ- vkj- (lh,e-II)]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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.
[No. L-22012/12/2012 - IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
2494
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
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
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
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.
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? ”
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.
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
the case. As such the case is closed and accordingly an
order of “No Dispute Award” may be passed.
ORDER
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
ubZ fnYyh ] 25 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1157.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- lh-
,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; vklulksy ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 20@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 25@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&22012/88/2003–vkbZvkj (lh,e-II)]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015
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
PARTIES :
The management of Bahula Colliery under
Kenda Area, ECL
Vs.
Sri Robin 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
DATED: 30.03.2015
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 6] 2015@T;s"B 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.
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
dismissal. Workman has prayed for re-instatement in
service with full back wages and consequential benefit.
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
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 6] 2015@T;s"B 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.
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.
O R D E R
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
ubZ fnYyh ] 25 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk-1158.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- lh-
,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; vklulksy ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 14@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&22012/337/1999–vkbZvkj (lh,e-II)]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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
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
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
Dated : 06.04.2015
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-22012/337/99/IR(CM-II) dated 27.01.2000 has been
pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by
this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ 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 pursuance
2498
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
ORDER
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
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk-1159.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- lh-
,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; vklulksy ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 10@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y-22012/57/2011–vkbZvkj (lh,e-II)]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 10 OF 2011
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
Dated : 08.04.2015
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-22012/57/2011-IR(CM-II) dated 18.07.2011 has been
pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by
this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ 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.
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.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 6] 2015@T;s"B 16] 1937
2499
ORDER
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
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1160.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh-
lh- ,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; vklulksy ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 53@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&22012/271/1998–vkbZvkj (lh,e-II)]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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
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.
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
INDUSTRY : COAL STATE : WEST BENGAL
Dated : 10.04.2015
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-22012/271/98-IR(CM-II) dated 05.05.1999 has been
pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by
this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ 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.
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
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
2500
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk-1161.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- lh-
,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; vklulksy ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 09@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y--22012/79/1998–vkbZvkj (lh,e-II)]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 09 OF 1999
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
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.
SCHEDULE
“ 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.
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.
ORDER
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
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1162.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947
(1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
lh,eihMhvkbZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; vklulksy
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 18@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y-22012/110/1998 - vkbZvkj (lh,e-II)]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 6] 2015@T;s"B 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
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,
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1163. —vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- lh-
,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 30@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 25@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la0 ,y- 22012/251/1998–vkbZvkj (lh,e-II)]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015
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 Officer
2502
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
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
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
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.
SCHEDULE
“ 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?”
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.
Case called out. Sri P. K. Goswami, 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 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
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
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk-1164 . —vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947
(1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
bZ- lh- ,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; vklulksy
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 92@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la0 ,y- 22012/361/1998–vkbZvkj (lh,e-II)]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015
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
PRESENT: Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 92 OF 1999
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 6] 2015@T;s"B 16] 1937
2503
PARTIES:
The management of Nageshwar Satgram
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
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.
SCHEDULE
“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?”
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.
ORDER
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
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1165. —vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947
(1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
bZ- lh- ,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky; vklulksy
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 67@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la0 ,y- 22012/527/1999–vkbZ- vkj- (lh,e-II)]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015
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.
[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
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 : 12.05.2015
2504
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.
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?”
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.
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.
ORDER
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
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk-1166 . —vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- lh-
,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; vklulksy ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 02@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 25@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la0 ,y- 22012/254/1999–vkbZvkj (lh,e-II)]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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.
PRESENT: Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 02 OF 2000
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
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/
254/1999-IR(CM-II) dated 21.12.1999 has been pleased
to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 6] 2015@T;s"B 16] 1937
2505
Tribunal.
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
of Natural justice’.
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 filed
2506
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.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 6] 2015@T;s"B 16] 1937
2507
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
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.
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.
O R D E R
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
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk-1167. —vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] u0 1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 50/2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 25/05/2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la0 ,y&20012/64/2009–vkbZ vkj (lh,e-I)]
,e- ds- flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New 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
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
Employers in relation to the management of Lodna
Area of M/S BCCL
AND
Their workmen.
Present:
Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,
Presiding officer
Appearances:
For the Employers:
None
For the workman:
Shri S.C.Gour,Rep.
State : Jharkhand Industry: Coal
Dated. 15/4/2015
AWARD
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?”
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 their
2508
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
written statement-cum-rejoinder on 27.06.2013.Thereafter
document filed by the parties.
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.
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.
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
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk-1168. —vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] u0 1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 55/93) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
25/05/2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&20012/366/1991–vkbZvkj (lh-I)]
,e- ds- flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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
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
Reference: No 55/1993
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:
For the Employers: Sri N. M. Kumar, Advocate
For the workman:
None
State: Jharkhand Industry: Coal
Dated- 16/04/2015
AWARD
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”
Annexure
List of workmen
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
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 6] 2015@T;s"B 16] 1937
2509
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
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk-1169. —vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] u0 1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 42/93) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
25/05/2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&20012/376/1991–vkbZvkj (lh-I)]
,e- ds- flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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
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
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
Appearances:
For the Employers:
None
For the workman:
None
State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal
Dated : 17/04/2015
AWARD
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
“ 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
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk-1170. —vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] u0 1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
10/2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
25/05/2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&20012/60/2009–vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)]
,e- ds- flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015
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
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD
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
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
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:
SCHEDULE
“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?”
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.
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
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk-1171 . —vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] u0 1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
53/93) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25/05/
2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012/411/1991–vkbZ vkj (lh-I)]
,e- ds- flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2015
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
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
Reference: No 53/1993
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
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
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 6] 2015@T;s"B 16] 1937
2511
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
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?”
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
'kqf¼ i=k
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1172. —dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky; vlylksy }kjk ikfjr lanHkZ la[;k 129@vkbZVhlh@2005
fnukad 02@07@2013 ds varxZr iapkV] ftldh lela[;d vfèklwpuk
fnukad 13@08@2013 dks vf/dkfjd jkti=k esa izdkf'kr gqvk Fkk]
dks lanfHkZr fd;k tkrk gSA
2 mfYyf[kr iapkV ds lanHkZ esa 'kqf¼i=k fnukad 01@12@2014
iwoZ esa vkf/dkfjd jkti=k esa izdkf'kr gqvk Fkk]
3 mfYyf[kr iapkV esa iqu'kqZf¼dj.k fuEuksDr :i esa izHkkoh
gksaxsA
(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.
[la- ,y&22012@40@2005&vkbZvkj (lh&II)]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhiQ] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
CORRIGENDUM
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.
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
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
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT
Ref. No. 129/ITC/(2005)-
Dated: 25.03.2015
Ref:
Ministry’s order No. L-22012/40/2005-IR (CM-II)
This office Ref. No. 129/2005 (a copy of award
enclosed)
SCHEDULE
“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
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:—
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.
ORDER
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
2512
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk-1173. —vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947
dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad
vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds
deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] /kuckn ds iapkV
(48/2005) esa izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29.05.2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012/01/2005-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèkdkjh
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
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD
In The Matter of a Reference U/s 10(1) (D) (2A) OF I.D.
Act, 1947
Ref. No. 48/2005
Employers in relation to the management of Bank
of India, Dhanbad Zone
And
Their workman
Present:Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,
Presiding officer
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
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of 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 .
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.
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.
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
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 6] 2015@T;s"B 16] 1937
2513
ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1174.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼a1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVªy cSad
vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjkas
ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vk|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la-
22@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29-
05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011/63/2005-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
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
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD.
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)
OF I.D.ACT, 1947.
Ref. No. 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
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
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of 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.
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.
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.
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 Officer
2514
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 6, 2015/JYAISTHA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk-1175 . —vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947
dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkQ
bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ
la- 1/2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
29.05.2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-& 12012/24/2012-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèkdkjh
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
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
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
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
sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether The action of the management of 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?”
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.
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.
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
ubZ fnYyh] 4 twu] 2015
dk-vk-
dk-vk-
dk-vk-
dk-vk-
dk-vk- 1176. —vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ohvkse
usVodZ izkbosV fyfeVsM ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj
muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk
ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 79@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 02@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-42012/167/2014-vkbZ vkj (Mh ;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 6] 2015@T;s"B 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
ANNEXURE
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.
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.
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:
“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
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
ubZ fnYyh] 4 twu] 2015
dk-vk. 1177.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chvkse
usVodZ izkbosV fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas
vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 78 of 2014) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02/06/2015 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la-,y&42012/165/2014-vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
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.
[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.
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)]
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:
“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
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 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”.
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.