dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=kky;

(dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 5 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1178-—dsUnz ljdkj] fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu

vf/kfu;e] 1946] ¼1946 dh vf/kfu;e lañ 25½ dh /kkjk 6 ds lkFk

ifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi /kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

xqtjkr jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] lfpoky;] xka/khuxj dh lgefr ls

fnukad 3 twu] 2015 dh vf/klwpuk thth@36@2015@ ,lch&1]

vkbZ,uD;w@102015@thvksvkbZ&279 ek/;e ls lkcjerh jsyos iqfyl

Fkkuk] xqtjkr esa Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 435] yksd laifÙk uqdlku

fuokj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3¼2½ ,oa 4 ,oa jsy vf/kfu;e] 1951 dh

/kkjk 151 ds v/khu iathd`r vkbZlhvkj lañ 49@2004 rFkk mi;qZDr

vijk/kksa ds laca/k esa fd, x, iz;klksa] nq"izsj.kkvksa vkSj "kM;a=ksa dh tkap

djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa ,oa

{ks=kf/kdkj dk foLrkj leLr xqtjkr jkT; esa djrh gSA

[lañ 245@35@2015&,ohMh&II]

vthr dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2015

S.O. 1178.—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 State

Government of Gujarat, Home Department, Sachivalaya,

Gandhinagar vide Notification GG/36/2015/SB-1, INQ/

102015/GOI-279 dated 3rd June, 2015, hereby extends the

powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special

Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Gujarat

for investigation of ICR No. 49/2004 U/s 435 IPC, U/sections

3(2) and 4 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act

and U/s 151 of Railway Act, 1951 registered at Sabarmati

Railway Police Station, Gujarat and attempts, abetments

and conspiracies in relation to above mentioned offences.

[No. 245/35/2015-AVD-II]

AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 24]

ubZ fnYyh] twu 7—twu 13] 2015] 'kfuokj@T;s"B 17—T;s"B 23] 1937

No. 24]

NEW DELHI, JUNE 7—JUNE 13, 2015, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 17—JYAISTHA 23, 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

2406 GI/2015

(2517)

2518

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 11 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1179-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk]

1973 ¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi/kkjk ¼8½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, egkjk"Vª jkT; fLFkr eqEcbZ esa

fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼dsñvñ C;wjks½ }kjk laLFkkfir rFkk dsUnzh;

vUos"k.k C;wjks }kjk lkSais x, ekeyksa dk ijh{k.k&U;k;ky;ksa esa rFkk mu

ekeyksa ls mRiUu vU; ekeyksa esa iqujh{k.k vFkok vihyh; U;k;ky;ksa

esa vfHk;kstu djus ds fy, Jh fdj.k ,uñ ekdklkjs]

vf/koDrk dks fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ 225@18@2014&,ñohñMhñ&II]

vthr dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2015

S.O. 1179.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government

hereby appoints Shri Kiran N. Makasare, Advocate as

Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of

cases instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI)

in the state of Maharashtra at Mumbai as entrusted to him

by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the trial courts

and appeals/revisions or other matters arising out of these

cases in revisional or appellate courts established by law.

[F. No. 225/18/2014-AVD-II]

AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.

foÙk ea=ky;

¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1180-—#X.k vkS|ksfxd daiuh ¼fo'ks"k mica/k½

vf/kfu;e] 1985 dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼5½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh tsñihñ nqvk]

vkS|ksfxd ,oa foÙkh; iqufuZekZ.k cksMZ ¼chvkbZ,Qvkj½ ds lnL; dks

v/;{k dk dk;Z&Hkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls u, v/;{k ds dk;Z&Hkkj

xzg.k djus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] chvkbZ,Qvkj esa v/;{k

ds :i esa dk;Z djus ds fy, izkf/kd`r djrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ 20@2@2011&vkbZ,Q&II ¼[kaM&I½]

,eñ,eñ nkSyk] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 20th May, 2015

S.O. 1180.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (5) of Section 6 of the Sick Industrial Companies

(Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the Central Government

hereby authorizes Shri J.P. Dua, Member in the Board for

Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) to act as

Chairman, BIFR from the date of assumption of the charge

till new Chairman, BIFR is in place or until further orders.

[F.No. 20/2/2011-IF-II (Vol. I)]

M.M. DAWLA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 3 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1181-—ljdkjh LFkku ¼vizkf/kd`r vf/kHkksfx;ksa dh csn[kyh½ vf/kfu;e 1971 ¼1971 dk 40½ dh /kkjk 3 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] uhps nh xbZ lkj.kh ds dkWye ¼2½ esa mfYyf[kr vf/kdkfj;ksa dks lEink vf/kdkjh ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh

gS tks mDr vf/kfu;e ds iz;kstu ds fy, lEink vf/kdkjh gksaxs vkSj ;g Hkh funs'k nsrh gS fd mDr vf/kdkjh vius {ks=kf/kdkj dh LFkkuh; lhekvksa

ds Hkhrj mDr lkj.kh ds dkWye ¼3½ esa mfYyf[kr ljdkjh LFkkuksa ds laca/k esa mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu dfFkr lEink vf/kdkfj;ksa dks iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk mi;ksx vkSj lkSais x, dk;ks± dks iwjk djsaxs%—

lkj.kh

Øe

vf/kdkjh dk inuke] iz'kklfud iz/kku]

ljdkjh LFkkuksa dh Jsf.k;ka vkSj vf/kdkfjrk dh

lañ

vFkok mldk tks Hkh inuke gks

LFkkuh; lhek,a

mi egkizca/kd] vkbZ,QlhvkbZ fyñ] paMhx<+

¶ySV uañ 1474] 1475&,] 1475&ch] 1477]

{ks=h; dk;kZy;] vkbZ,QlhvkbZ Hkou] 1&lh]

1476&ch ,oa 1478&lh] vkbZ,QlhvkbZ LVkQ

lsDVj 27&,] e/; ekxZ] paMhx<+&160019-

dkyksuh] lsDVj&37&ch] paMhx<+&160036-

egkizca/kd] vkbZ,QlhvkbZ fyñ] eqEcbZ {ks=h;

¶ySV uañ 204] Cyw Mk;eaM vikVZesaV] tqgw rkjk

dk;kZy;] vusZLV gkml] 9oka ry] ,ulhih,

jksM] lkarkØqt ¼oSLV½] eqEcbZ&400049-

jksM] 194] ujheu IokbaV] eqEcbZ&400021-

egkizca/kd ¼lEink½] vkbZ,QlhvkbZ fyñ] 61]

vkSjkfQu dkiksZjs'ku fyñ] 12oka ry ^ch* foax

usg# Iysl] ubZ fnYyh&110019

¼1650 oxZ QhV½] vkbZ,QlhvkbZ Vkoj] 61] usg#

Iysl] ubZ fnYyh&110019

[Qkñ lañ 2@5@2013&vkbZ,Q&I]

tsñ ,lñ QkSxkV] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2519

New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2015

S.O. 1181.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants)

Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government thereby appoints the Officers mentioned in column No. 2 of the table below

to be Estate Officers for the purpose of the said Act and further direct that the said officers shall exercise the powers

conferred and the duties imposed on a Estate Officer by or under the said Act within the local limits of their jurisdiction in

respect of the public premises falling under area as specified in column No. 3 of the table below:—

S.No.

Designation of the Officer, Administrative

Categories of public premises and

Head, whatsoever designation called

local limits of control of jurisdiction

Deputy General Manager,

FLAT Nos.

IFCI Limited,

1474, 1475-A, 1475-B, 1477, 1476-B

Chandigarh Regional Office,

& 1478-C

IFCI Bhavan, 1-C, Sector 27-A,

IFCI Staff Colony, Sector-37 B,

Madhya Marg,

Chandigarh-160036

Chandigarh-160 019

General Manager

Flat No. 204

IFCI Limited

Blue Diamond Apartment,

Mumbai Regional Office,

Juhu Tara Road,

Earnest House,

Santacruz (W),

9th Floor, NCPA Road,

Mumbai-400 049

194, Nariman Point,

Mumbai-400021

General Manager (Estates)

Aurafin Corp. Ltd.

IFCI Limited

12th Floor,

61, Nehru Place

'B' Wing (1650 sq. ft.),

New Delhi-110019

IFCI Tower,

61, Nehru Place,

New Delhi-110019

[F.No. 2/5/2013-IF-I]

J.S. PHAUGAT, Under Secy.

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

¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½

¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1182-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fu;e 4 ds mifu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

Lohd`r djus dh

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

Hkk ek

Hkkx

vuq

o"kZ

la[;k la[;k

frfFk o"kZ@ekg

o irk

la[;k

720000298 02@01@2015

g"kZ bjhxs'ku izk- fyfeVsM

QfVZykbtj rFkk dSfedy

14483

1997

ch 11] iq"ie lkslkbVh] [kkjkokyk dEikmaM

butSDVj flLVe

bluiqj] vgenkckn&382443

720000327 02@01@2015

vatyh fcojsftl

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

2004

losZ uacj 46] IykV uacj 64]

¼vnj nSu iSdstM uspqjy

Hkkjruxj dks&vksiñ gkmflax lkslkbVh]

feujy okVj½

?ku';ke uxj ds ihNs] ojkNk jksM]

lwjr&395006

2520

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

720000177 05@01@2015

izHkqnkl ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa

1417

1999

43] ';ke dkEiySDl] ukscy uxj]

f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

ujksMk] vgenkckn&382330

720000207 05@01@2015

vkLFkk eSU;wQSDpfjax

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

2004

okfMyky QSDVjh ds lkeus] iqu/kkjk]

¼vnj nSu iSdstM uspqjy

rk ekulk] xka/khuxj&382855

feujy okVj½

720000217 05@01@2015

vkse fcojsftl

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

jSosU;w losZ uacj] 1203

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

rkokfM;k jksM] esglkuk&384001

720000227 07@01@2015

fjef>e ,dok

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

2004

,&108] ek#fr baMfLVª;y ,LVsV]

¼vnj nSu iSdstM uspqjy

foHkkx&1] ujksMk Qk;j LVs'ku ds lkeus

feujy okVj½

ujksMk jksM] vgenkckn&382345

720000237 07@01@2015

ek:fr fcojsftl

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

2004

IykV uacj] 169@170] eku ljksoj lkslkbVh]

¼vnj nSu iSdstM uspqjy

fMuMksyh Vyko ds ikl] ,V fMuMksyh

feujy okVj½

lwjr&395040

720000247 08@01@2015

vkj Qzs'k fcojsftl

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

vjcqnkuxj 'kkWfiax lsaVj] NxuHkkbZ dh

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

okMh ds ikl] vjcqnkuxj]

vks<o] vgenkckn&382415

720000198 08@01@2015

,&1 Qsal izksMDVl daiuh izk- fyfeVsM

buMSDl Vªw LVhy MSfLxus'ku

16014

2012

lksuhokMh ds ihNs] okudl lc LVs'ku jksM

xkao V;wac] rk vacjxkao] oylkn&396150

10-

720000278 12@01@2015

mfe;k ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa

1417

1999

ch@1 18 ek#fr dkEiySDl] ,l th jksM]

f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

fl)iqj] ikVu&384151

11-

720000288 12@01@2015

Dohd eSVy baMLVªht

MkseSfLVd izs'kj dqdlZ

2347

2006

IykV uacj 525@26] 'kSM uacj 2]

#nzk{k dkEiySDl ds ihNs] xzhM LVs'ku ds ikl

vks<o jksM] vgenkckn&382415

12-

720000317 12@01@2015

gjfo'k ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

,l@,Q 231 =hok dkEiySDl]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa

vfHk"ksd dkyksuh] uV~VwHkkbZ ldZy]

eqgjkadu

oMksnjk&390007

13-

720000448 12@01@2015

Jh/kj bjhxs'ku izk- fyfeVsM

bZjhxs'ku bD;wiesaV

12786

1989

Cykd uacj] 93] foa>wokMk nkyksM jksM

ikyhFkyhu ikbZIl Qkj

,V iksLV foa>wokMk] rk eaMy]

bjhxs'ku ysVjyl

vgenkckn&382130

14-

720000257 12@01@2015

lksuh fouksndqekj ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa

1417

1999

61713 eksVk cktkj] uolkjh&396445

f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

15-

720000268 13@01@2015

}kjds'k ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa

1417

1999

'kkWi uacj 3] j?kqdqy vikVZesaV]

f'kYdkjh 'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

okMZ uacj 10@494@4] fyEMkpkSd]

tykyiqj jksM] uolkjh&396445

16-

720000307 16@01@2015

Mh Mh LVhy

dkcZu LVhy dkLV fcySV buxksVl]

2830

2012

vkj ,l uacj 79] xk¡o % oudiqj

fcySVl cywel rFkk lyScl Qkj

rk xks/kjk] iapegy&389001

fj&jksfyax baVw LVhy Qkj tujy

LVdpjZy ijil

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2521

17-

720000337 19@01@2015

fouk;d iksfyikbZIl izkñ fyfeVsM

vuIykfLVlkbZtM ih oh lh

12818

2010

losZ uacj 589] 590@2] vgenkckn

LØhu rFkk dsflax ikbZIl QkWj

gjlksy gkbos] isVªksy iEi ds ikl]

cksj@V~;wcoSy

rk rkyksM] lkcjdkaVk[k~] gjlksy&383305

18-

720000348 19@01@2015

vfnR; ,DokVSd

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

2004

lh ds rFkk daiuh dEikmaM

¼vnj nSu iSdstM uspqjy feujy

lqij vkWVks xSjkt ds ihNs] cgqpjkth jksM]

okVj½

dkjsyhckx] oMksnjk&390018

19-

72000417

21@01@2015

uh;kslhy ,MgSflo izkñ fyfeVsM

lksyoSaV flesaV QkWj ;wl

14182

1994

,&323 jkty{eh dkEiySDl]

fon vuIykfLVlkbZM

cMZ ldZy ds ikl] vks ih jksM]

ikyhfoukbydyksjkbM IykfLVd

oMksnjk&390007

ikbZi rFkk fQfVaxl

20-

720000378 23@01@2015

/kksaMs ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa

1417

1999

'kkWi uacj 1@,]] 1304] Jh jke dks&

f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

vksi gkmflax lkslkbVh] usg: LVªhV]

okih] oylkn&396191

21-

720000358 27@01@2015

vkj ds ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa

1417

1999

3 vksedkj vikVZesaV] gkml uacj 3055

f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

vukfoy okMh ds lkeus] tks'kh LVªhV]

uolkjh&396445

22-

720000368 27@01@2015

Jh tykjke lqo.kZegy vksjukeSaV izkñ fyfeVsM

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa

1417

1999

ikSVjh QkeZ jksM] Hkksykuxj Ldwy ds ikl]

f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

vrqy oylkn&396020

23-

720000388 28@01@2015

n'kZu dscy baMLVªhl

Økl fyadM ikyhFkyhu

7098

1988

IykV uacj lh@1@135] thvkbZMhlh baMfLVª;y

balwysfVM ihohlh 'khFkM dscyl

,LVsV] Qsl 1] iq"id baMfLVª;y ,LVsV ds ikl]

oVok] vgenkckn&382445

24-

720000398 28@01@2015

jkt iEi dkWiksZjs'ku

lceflZcy iEilSV

8034

2002

,&14] eaxye ,LVsV] vfer izkslSl daikmaM]

vkseuxj Økflax ds ikl] ujksMk jksM]

vgenkckn&380025

[lañ lh,eMh@13%11]

MkWñ ,lñ ,yñ ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2015

S.O. 1182.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations, 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in

the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences

Grant Date

Name & Address

Title of the Standard

IS No.

Part

Sec.

Year

No. No.

of the party

720000298

02/01/2015

Harsh Irrigation Pvt. Ltd.

Fertilizer and chemical

14483

1997

B 11, Pushpam Society,

injector system

Kharawala Compound, Isanpur,

Ahmedabad-382443

720000327

02/01/2015

Anjani Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Survey No. 46, Plot No. 64,

(other than packaged

Bharatnagar Co-op. Housing

natural mineral water)

Society, Behind Ghanshyam Nagar,

Varachha Road Surat-395006

2522

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

720000177

05/01/2015

Prabhudas Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys

1417

1999

43, Shyam Complex, Nobalnagar,

jewellery/artefacts-

Naroda, Ahmedabad-382330

fineness and marking

720000207

05/01/2015

Aastha Manufacturing

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Opp Vadilal Factory, Pundhara,

(other than packaged

Tal Mansa, Gandhinagar-382855

natural mineral water)

720000217

05/01/2015

Aum Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Revenue Survey No. 1203

(other than packaged

Tavadiya Road, Mehsana-384001

natural mineral water)

720000227

07/01/2015

Rimzim Aqua

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

A-108, Maruti Industrial Estate

(other than packaged

Vibhag-1, Opp. Naroda Ire Station,

natural mineral water)

Naroda Road, Ahmedabad-382345

720000237

07/01/2015

Maruti Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Plot No. 169/170, Man Sarovar Soc. (other than packaged

Near Dindoli Talav, AT: Dindoli

natural mineral water)

Surat-395040

720000247

08/01/2015

R Fresh Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Arbudanagar Shopping Centre

(other than packaged

NR Chhaganbha Ni Wadi

natural mineral water)

Arbudanagar, Odhav,

Ahmedabad-382415

720000198

08/01/2015

A-1 Fence Products Company

Index to steel designations

16014

2012

Pvt. Ltd, Behind Soniwadi, Vankas

Sub-station Road, Village: Tumb,

TA: Umbergaon, Valsad-396150

10.

720000278

12/01/2015

Umiya Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

B/1 18 Maruti Complex

jeweller/artefacts-

S J Road Siddhpur, Patan-384151

fineness and marking

11.

720000288

12/01/2015

Kwik Metal Industries

Domestic pressure cookers

2347

2006

Plot No. 525/526, Shed No. 2

Behind Rudraksh Complex,

Near Grid Station, Odhav Road,

Ahmedabad-382415

12.

720000317

12/01/2015

Harvish Jewels

Gold and gold alloys

1417

1999

S/F 231 Trivia Complex

jewellery/artefacts-

Abhishek Colony, Natubhai

fineness and marking.

Circle, Vadodara-390007

13.

720000448

12/01/2015

Shreedhar Irrigation Pvt. Ltd.

Irrigation equipment

12786

1989

Block No. 93, Vinzuvada-

polyethylene pipes for

Dalod Road, AT Post: Vinzuvada,

irrigation laterals.

Tal: Mandal Ahmedabad-382130

14.

720000257

12/01/2015

Soni Vinodkumar Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys

1417

1999

61713, Mota Bazar,

jewellery/artefacts/

Navsari-396445

fineness and marking.

15.

720000268

13/01/2015

Dwarkesh Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys

1417

1999

Shop No. 3, Raghukul Appartment,

jewellery/artefacts/

Ward No. 10/494/4, Limdachok,

fineness and marking.

Jalalpore Road, Navasari-396445

16.

720000307

16/01/2015

D.D. Steel

Carbon steel cast billet

2830

2012

R S No. 79, Village:

ingots, billets, blooms and

Vanakpur Taluka: Godhra,

slabs for re-rolling into

Panchamahal-389001

steel for general structural

purposes.

17.

720000337

19/01/2015

Vinayak Polypipes Pvt. Ltd.

Unplasticized pvc screen

12818

2010

Survey No. 589, 590/2,

and casing pipes for bore/

Ahmedabad-Harsol Highway,

tubewell

Near Petrol Pump, Tal: Talod,

Sabarkantha, Harsol-383305

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2523

18.

720000348

19/01/2015

Aditya Aquatech

Package drinking water

14543

2004

C K & Company Compound

(other than packaged

BH. Super Auto Garage

natural mineral water)

Bahucharaji Road, Karelibaug

Vadodara-390018

19.

720000417

21/01/2015

Neoseal Adhesive Pvt. Ltd.,

Solvent cement for use

14182

1994

A-323, Rajlaxmi Complex

with unplasticized

Near Bird Circle, O P Road,

polyvinylchloride plastic

Vadodara-390007

pipe and fittings

20.

720000378

23/01/2015

Dhonde Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys

1417

1999

Shop No. 1/A, 1304,

jewellery/artefacts/

Shree Ram Co-op Hou. Soc.,

fineness and marking.

Nehru Street, Vapi, Valsad-396191

21.

720000358

27/01/2015

R K Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys

1417

1999

3 Omkar Appartment, House No.

jewellery/artefacts/

3055, Opp Anavil Wadi,

fineness and marking

Joshi Street, Navsari-396445

22.

720000368

27/01/2015

Shree Jalaram Suvarnamahal,

Gold and gold alloys

1417

1999

Ornaments Pvt. Ltd.,

jewellery/artefacts/

Paultry Farm Road, Near

fineness and marking

Bholanagar School,

Atul, Valsad-396020

23.

720000388

28/01/2015

Darshan Cable Industries

Crosslinked polyethylene

7098

1988

Plot No. C-1/135, GIDC

insulated pvc sheathed

Industrial Estate Phase 1,

cables

Near Pushpak Ind. Estate

Vatva, Ahmedabad-382445

24.

720000398

28/01/2015

Raj Pump Corporation

Submersible pumpsets

8034

2002

A-14, Mangalam Estate,

Amit Process Compound

Near Omnagar Crossing,

Naroda Road, Ahmedabad-380025

[No. CMD/13:11]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1183-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e ¼5½ ds mifofu;e ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZ;h xbZ rkjh[k ls jn~n@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gS%—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izde lEc)

jn~n djus dh frfFk

la[;k

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

lh,e@,y&

3614151

eSllZ xq:d`ik ekdsZfVax

iSdstcan is;ty

07@01@2015

617] vkj ds baMfLVª;y ,LVsV&1 fl)dqVhj ds lkeus]

¼vnj nSu iSdsTM uspqjy feujy okVj½

okjNk jksM] lwjr] 395006

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

7819694

eSllZ T;ksfr ikoj Vªkalfe'ku izkñ fyfeVsM

,ywfefu;e daMDVj Qkj vksojgSM

15@01@2015

IykV uacj ,&9@17@19 LVhy Vkmu] uksok isVªksfy;e]

Vªkalef'ku ijil

xkao eksjS;k rk lkuan] fMfLVªdV vgenkckn

IS 398 % ikVZ 2 % 1996

2929676

eSllZ iSjh baftfu;fjax ,aVjizkbZfll bafM;k fyfeVsM

vkbZ ,l vkbZ gSaMcqd vkWQ

21@01@2015

¼V;wQySDl bafM;k fMfotu½ 702&704]

eSFkeSfVdy] fQlhdy] dSfedy rFkk

th vkbZ Mh lh] ikyst] fMfLVªDV Hkk:p] 392220

baftfu;fjax Vscyl

vkbZ ,l 16008 % 2012

[lañ lh ,e Mh@13%13]

MkW- ,l- ,y- ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

2524

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2015

S.O. 1183.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below

have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences No.

Name & Address of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant

Date of Cancellation

No.

CM/L-

Indian Standards covered

by the licence cancelled

3614151

M/s. Gurukrupa Marketing

packaged drinking water

07/01/2015

617, R.K. Industrial Estate-1, Opp. Siddkutir,

(other than packaged natural

Varachha Road, Surat,

mineral water)

Distt : Surat 395006

IS 14543 : 2004

7819694

M/s. Jyoti Power Transmission Pvt. Ltd.

aluminium conductors for

15/01/2015

Plot No. A-9/17/19 Steel Town, Opp. Nova

overhead transmission

Petrolium, Village: Moraiya,

purposes:

Tal : Sanand, Distt. Ahmedabad

IS 398 : Part 2: 1996

2929676

M/s. Parry Enterprises India Ltd.

ISI handbook of mathematical,

21/01/2015

(Tuflex Indian Division) 702-704, GIDC Palej,

chemical and engineering tables

Palej

IS 16008 : 2012

Distt : Bharuch-392220

[No. CMD/13:13]

Dr. S.L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1184-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fu;e 4 ds mifu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

Lohd`r djus

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

Hkk ek

Hkkx

vuq

o"kZ

la[;k

dh frfFk

la[;k

o"kZ@ekg

1- 720000407

02@02@2015

fgjy ,aVjizkbZl

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

2004

142@2] dkMh Nrjky gkbos]

¼vnj nSu iSdstM uspqjy

rqylh isVªksyiEi ds lkeus] dj.kuxj] esglkuk]

feujy okVj½

dMh&382715

2- 720000428

02@02@2015

rkjk VªsMfyad izkñ fyfeVsM

VSDLVkbZy Vkjiksfyul esM

7903

2011

IykV uacj 25] lksge baVhxzfVM VSDlVkbZy ikdZ]

Qz ke gkbZ MSaflVh iksyfFkyhu

eghtkMk rFkk fVack] nlØkbZ] vgenkckn&382425

oksou QScfjd

3- 720000608

02@02@2015

Jh lkbZ , d fcojsftl

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

2004

IykV uacj 40] ,V rFkk iksLV % vVkyh

¼vnj nSu iSdstM uspqjy

izkbejh Ldwy ds ikl] rk okxjk] Hkk:p&392130

feujy okVj½

4- 720000438

06@02@2015

izfr xksYM Mk;eaM rFkk xksYM toSyjh

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

ch&44] jked`".kk lkslkbVh] jked`".kk Ldwy ds ikl]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa

,y ,p jksM] okjNk] lwjr&395006

eqgjkadu

5- 720000458

09@02@2015

jks;y fcojsftl

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

2004

,l vkj uacj 622@ih 1] ,V rFkk ih vks % vkd:aM

¼vnj nSu iSdstM uspqjy

rk% /kulqjk] lkcjdkaBk&383260

feujy okVj½

6- 720000468

09@02@2015

y{eh ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

tquk cktkj] fgEeruxj]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa

lkcjdkaBk&383001

eqgjkadu

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2525

7- 720000488

10@02@2015

HkhethHkkbZ toSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

2] olaq/kjk dkEiySDl] gjuh ojklh;k fjax jksM]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa

oMksnjk&390022

eqgjkadu

8- 720000478

12@02@2015

fu;wj IykfLVd baMLVªht

dkaM;wVl Qkj bySfDVªdy

9537

1983

806] dksBkjh baMfLVª;y ,lVsV] dksBkjh pkj jLrk]

baLVkys'ku

xka/khuxj] lkarst

9- 720000498

13@02@2015

Jh lkeksj xksYM

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

8] fo'ok jSflMsalh] foJkeuxj ds ikl]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa

xq:dqy jksM] vgenkckn&380052

eqgjkadu

10- 720000508

16@02@2015

foedks Øki lkb±l

lkbijeSFkfju bZ lh

12016

1987

98@3] fyEckfM;k xkao] ,u ,p uacj 8] jkuklu

ikoj gkml ds ikl] xka/khuxj]

xkao fyEckfM;k&382330

11- 720000518

16@02@2015

vtark toSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

okMZ uacj 4] gkml uacj 916] uolkjh VªsM lSaVj]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa

uolkjh&396445

eqgjkadu

12- 720000528

20@02@2015

izeq[k toSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

11] JhukFkxh] cSad vkQ cM+ksnk ds ikl]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa

fgEeruxj] lkcjdkaBk&383001

eqgjkadu

13- 720000548

20@02@2015

'kqHkkX;k QqM rFkk fcojsftl

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

Cykd uacj 207@629] isVykM&cksjlkM jksM

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

,V % :fi;kikjk] rk isVykM] vkuan&388450

14- 720000568

20@02@2015

Vh ,l ds ,aVjizkbZl

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

IykV uacj 122] Qsl&2] th vkbZ Mh lh ,lVsV

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

jktihiyk] xkao jktihiyk ¼:jy½

¼duojikjk½] ukuMksM] ueZnk jktihiyk&393145

15- 720000558

23@02@2015

dukf;;k vkVZ toSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

pksdlh cktkj] Vkoj cktkj ds ikl]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa

vkuan&388001

eqgjkadu

16- 720000538

23@02@2015

xksih toSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

'kkWi uacj 5@11] 'kkuds'oj dkEiySDl]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa

/kkschokM] oh ih jksM] oylkn

eqgjkadu

17- 720000578

26@02@2015

uanfd'kksj paidyky lksuh

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

th@79] f'koe dkEiySDl] jktiqjh jksM]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa

cyklhuksj&388255 [ksMk

eqgjkadu

18- 720000588

26@02@2015

lksuh gjth rFkk lUl toSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

okMZ uacj 4@2633] f'koe dkEiySDl] lSaVªy cSad]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa

l;kth jksM] uolkjh

eqgjkadu

19- 720000628

26@02@2015

vgenkckn E;wfufliy dkiksZjs'ku

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

2004

losZ uacj 1] Cykd uacj 31

¼vnj nSu iSdstM uspqjy

,V% dksVkjiqj] rk% vgenkckn&382475

feujy okVj½

20- 720000638

27@02@2015

xkSre xksYM toSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

th&1 vksedkj Iyktk Hkkrkj jksM]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa

,ych flusek ds lkeus] lwjr

eqgjkadu

21- 720000648

27@02@2015

,e ts fcojsftl

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

52] fueZy baMfLVª;y ikdZ] U;w th vkbZ Mh lh]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

xkstkfj;k] esglkuk&382825

2526

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

22- 720000658

27@02@2015

ekmaVsu fcojsftl

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

'kqHkykHk ,lVsV] jkts'k baMLVªht ds ihNs] egs'ojh

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

fey jksM] rkoMhiqjk] 'kkghckx] vgenkckn&380004

23- 720000668

27@02@2015

,D;wjr fcojsftl

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

Hkkyst] jsyos Økflax ds ihNs] rk mejsB]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

vkuan&388205

24- 720000618

27@02@2015

fcyVSd fcfYMax ,yheSaVl fyfeVsM

dkaØhV eSlujh ;wfuVl

2185

1984

Cykd uacj 309] ikVdks QqMl ds lkeus] ,u ,p

uacj 8] ,V iksLV /kkeMksM] rk eaxjksy] lwjr&394125

25- 720000598

27@02@2015

ojktjkt ,dok

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

vkj ,l uacj 295] jruiqj] nkcgksbZ jksM]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

oMksnjk&390004

[lañ lh ,e Mh@13%11]

MkWñ ,lñ ,yñ ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2015

S.O. 1184.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in

the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences

Grant Date

Name & Address of the Party

Title of the Standard

IS No.

Part

Sec

Year

No. No.

720000407

02/02/2015

Hiral Enterprise

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

142/2, Kadi Chhatral Highway,

(other than packaged

Opp Tulsi Petrol Pump, Karannagar

natural mineral water)

Mahesana, Kadi-382715

720000428

02/02/2015

Tara Tradelink P Ltd.

Textiles-tarpaulins made

7903

2011

Plot No. 25, Soham Integrated Textile

from high density

Park, Mahijada & Timba, Daskroi

polyethylene woven fabric

Ahmedabad-382425

720000608

02/02/2015

Shree Sai A K Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Plot No. 40, AT & Post : Atali

(other than packaged

Near Primary School

natural mineral water)

Tal : Vagra, Bharuch-392130

720000438

06/02/2015

Priti Diamond and Gold Jewellery

Gold and gold alloyes,

1417

1999

B-44, Ramkrishna Society,

jewellery/artefacts-

Near Ramkrishna School

fineness and marking-

L.H. Road Varachha, Surat-395006

720000458

09/02/2015

Royal Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

SR No. 622/P1, AT & PO: Akrund

(other than packaged

TA: Dhansura, Sabarkantha-383260

natural mineral water)

720000468

09/02/2015

Laxmi Jewellers

Gold and gold alloyes,

1417

1999

Juna Bazar, Himatnagar

jewellery/artefacts-

Sabarkantha-383001

fineness and marking-

720000488

10/02/2015

Bhimjibhai Jewellers

Gold and gold alloyes,

1417

1999

2, Vasundhara Complex,

jewellery/artefacts-

Harni Varasia Ringh Road,

fineness and marking-

Vadodara-390022

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2527

720000478

12/02/2015

Niyur Plastic Industries

Conduits for electrical

9537

1983

806, Kothari Industrial Estate

installations

Kothari Char Rasta

Gandhinagar, Santej

720000498

13/02/2015

Shree Samor Gold

Gold and gold alloyes,

1417

1999

8, Vishwa Residency,

jewellery/artefacts-

Near Vishramnagar, Gurukal Road,

fineness and marking-

Ahmadabad-380052

10. 720000508

16/02/2015

Vimco Crop. Sciences

Cypermethrin ec

12016

1987

98/3, Limbadia Village

NH No. 08, Near Ranasan Power House,

Gandhinagar, Village Limbadia-382330

11. 720000518

16/02/2015

Ajanta Jewellers

Gold and gold alloyes,

1417

1999

Ward No. 4, House No. 916

jewellery/artefacts-

Navsari Trade Centre,

fineness and marking-

Navsari-396445

12. 720000528

20/02/2015

Pramukh Jewellers

Gold and gold alloyes,

1417

1999

11, Shrinathgi, near Bank of Baroda,

jewellery/artefacts-

Himatnagar, Sabarkantha-383001

fineness and marking-

13. 720000548

20/02/2015

Shubhagya Foods & Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Block No. 207/629, Petlad-Borsad Road

(other than packaged

AT : Rupiyapara, Tal: Petlad,

natural mineral water)

Anand-388450

14. 720000568

20/02/2015

TSK Enterprise

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Plot No. 122, Phase-2, GIDC Estate

(other than packaged

Rajpiple, Village: Rajpipla (Rulal)

natural mineral water)

(Kunvarpara), Nandod, Narmada

Rajpipla-393145

15. 720000558

23/02/2015

Kanaiya Art Jewellers

Gold and gold alloyes,

1417

1999

Choksi Bazar, Near Tower Bazar,

jewellery/artefacts-

Anand-388001

fineness and marking-

16. 720000538

23/02/2015

Gopi Jewellers

Gold and gold alloyes,

1417

1999

Shop No. 5/11, Shankheshwar Complex,

jewellery/artefacts-

Dhobiwad, V.P. Road Valsad

fineness and marking-

17. 720000578

26/02/2015

Nandkishor Champaklal Soni

Gold and gold alloyes,

1417

1999

G/79, Shivam Complex, Rajpuri

jewellery/artefacts-

Road, Balasinor-388255 Kheda-388255

fineness and marking-

18. 720000588

26/02/2015

Soni Harji and Sons Jewellers

Gold and gold alloyes,

1417

1999

Ward No. 4/2633, Shivam Complex,

jewellery/artefacts-

Central Bank Sayaji Road Navsari

fineness and marking-

19. 720000628

26/02/2015

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Survey No. 1, Block No. 31

(other than packaged

AT : Kotarpur, Tal : Ahmedabad-382475

natural mineral water)

20. 720000638

27/02/2015

Gautam Gold IS Jewellers

Gold and gold alloyes,

1417

1999

G-1, Omkar Plaza Bhatar Road,

jewellery/artefacts-

Opp Elbiee Cinema, Surat

fineness and marking-

21. 720000648

27/02/2015

M J Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

52, Nirmal Industrial Park, New GIDC,

(other than packaged

Gozaria, Mahesana-382825

natural mineral water)

2528

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

22. 720000658

27/02/2015

Mountain Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Shubh Labh Estate, Behind Rajesh

(other than packaged

Industries, Maheswari Mill Road,

natural mineral water)

Tavdipura, Sahibaug, Ahmedabad-380004

23. 720000668

27/02/2015

Aqurat Beverages,

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Bhalej Behind Railway Crossing

(other than packaged

Tal: Umreth, Anand-388205

natural mineral water)

24. 720000618

27/02/2015

Bil Tech Building Elements Limited

Concrete masonry units

2185

1984

Block No. 309, Opp. Patco Foods N.H.

No. 8, AT: Post Dhamdod Tal: Mangrol

Surat-394125

25. 720000598

27/02/2015

Vraj Raj Aqua

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

R S No. 295, Ratanpur, Dabhoi Road,

(other than packaged

Vadodara-390004

natural mineral water)

[No. CMD/13:11]

Dr. S.L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1185-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e ¼5½ ds mifofu;e ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZ;h xbZ rkjh[k ls jnn~@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gS%—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izde

jnn~ djus dh frfFk

la[;k

o irk

lEc) Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

lh,e@,y&

7857096

eSallZ T;ksfr ikoj Vªkalfe'ku izk fyfeVsM

,ywfefu;e daMDVj Qkj vksojgSM

04@02@2015

IykV uacj ,&9]@17@19 LVhy Vkmu] uksok isVªksfy;e]

Vªkalef'ku ijil

xkao EkksjS;k rk lkuan] fMfLVªDV vgenkckn

vkbZ ,l 398% ikVZ 4% 1994

7534173

eSllZ thySDl dscy baMLVªht

ih ch lh balwysfVM dscy

04@02@2015

48@lh@2] v'okes/k ,lVsV] uwru ukxfjd cSd ds ihNs]

vkbZ ,l 694% 1990

,e ,u nslkbZ isVªksy iEi ds lkeus] ,V xkao pkaxksnj]

rk lkuan] fMfLVªDV vgenkckn

7867810

eSllZ laxe bySfDVªdYl

LVkVjl Qkj QyksjlSaV ySEi

04@02@2015

bZ@9] fcjtw vikVZeSaV] vktkn lkslkbVh ds lkeus]

vkbZ ,l 2215% 2006

vackokMh] vgenkckn&380015

7447582

eSllZ ,e Mh ,aVjizkbZl

vksiuoSy lceflZcy iEilSV

12@02@2015

egk'kfDr baMfLVª;y ,lVsV] ikVZ 2] vjfoan ,lVsV

vkbZ ,l 14220% 1994

ds ikl] vfuy LVkpZ ds ihNs] ckiwuxj] vgenkckn

2929373

eSllZ panzk baMLVªht

ih oh lh balwysfVM dscy

28@02@2015

IykV uacj] 342] ckDlh Qkfy;k dklkuxj]

vkbZ ,l 694% 1990

njxkg ds lkeus] dVjxke rykc ds ikl] lwjr&395004

[lañ lh ,e Mh@13%13]

MkW- ,l- ,y- ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2529

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2015

S.O. 1185.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below

have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences No. Name & Address of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant Indian

Date of

No.

CM/L-

Standards covered by the licence

Cancellation

cancelled

7857096

M/s Jyoti Power Transmission Pvt Ltd

Aluminium conductors for overhead

04/02/2015

Plot No. A-9/17/19 Steel Town Opp. NOVA

Transmission purposes:

Petrolium Village Moraiya TA Sanand,

IS 398: Part 4: 1994

Moraiya Sanand, Distt: Ahmadabad

7534173

M/s Jeelex Cable Industries

PVC Insulated Cables

04/02/2015

48@C/2, Ashwamegh Estate, Behind Nutan

IS 694 : 1990

Nagrik Bank, Opp M.N. Desai Petrol Pump,

AT Village-Changodar Taluka-Sanand

Dist-Ahmadabad

7867810

M/s Sangam Electricals

Starters for fluorescent

04/02/2015

E/9, Birju Apartments, Opp. Azad Society,

lamps

Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380015

IS 2215: 2006

7447582

M/s MD Enterprise

Openwell Sumbersible Pumpsets

12/02/2015

Mahashakti Industrial Estate, Part 2,

IS 14220: 1994

Near Arvind Estate, Behind Anil Starch,

Bapunagar, Distt: Ahmadabad

2929373

M/s Chandra Industries

PVC Insulated Cables

28/02/2015

Plot No. 342, Baxi Falia Kasanagar

IS 694: 1990

Opp. Dargha Near Katagram Talao,

Distt: Surat-395004

[No. CMD/13:13]

DR. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1186-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fu;e 4 ds mifu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

Lohd`r djus

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

Hkk ek

Hkkx

vuq

o"kZ

la[;k la[;k

dh frfFk o"kZ@

la[;k

ekg

720000678 02@03@2015

vodkj toSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

42 euh"k ¶ySV] lqanj uxj pkj

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

jLrk] ukjk;.kiqjk]

,oa eqgjkadu

vgenkckn&380013

2530

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

720000728 03@03@2015

Js;k ,Dl VSd izk fyfeVsM

,DlIyksflo ,VeklfQ;lZ

60079

2007

Cykd uacj] 700] eatwlj lkoyh

ikVZ 1 bD;wieSaV izksVSD'ku

jksM] eatwlj VqaMo] rk lkoyh]

ck; ¶yseizqQ ,uDyksllZ

oMksnjk&391775

^^Mh**

720000718 04@03@2015

ukjk;.kh iksfyej daiksuSaVl

jcj flfyax fjax Qkj xSl

5382

1985

13] xtkuu ,LVsV] tkosjh ,LVsV

esu okVj esu rFkk lhoj

ds ikl] dkBokMk] th vkbZ Mh lh]

vgenkckn&382430

720000689 10@03@2015

'kqdu ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

bZ] 18 eugjuxj 'kkWfiax lSaVj]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

ikVZ 1] [kksfM;kjuxj Økl jksM ds

,oa eqgjkadu

lkeus] ckiwuxj]

vgenkckn&380024

720000699 10@03@2015

fuy;dqekj rFkk cznlZ ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

Lokfeukjk;.k eafnj ds ikl]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

okfu;kokM ldZy] dkyst

,oa eqgjkadu

jksM] ufM;kM] [ksMk&387001

720000708 11@03@2015

vkj ,l fcojsftl

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

losZ uacj 111] tkyksM jksM]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj

mlkjoku] iksLV [kkjksM]

rk rFkk fMfLVªDV nkgksn&389151

720000738 12@03@2015

,p ,u ch Qwbl rFkk fcojsftl

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

1999

,u ,p uacj 8] Cykd uacj 527]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

iSdh vkdZ fllksnjk ikfV;k ds

ikl] dsukl eksts oSlek ds ikl]

rk tkykiksj] uolkjh&396475

720000799 13@03@2015

xzhu iksfyelZ

dkaM;wVl Qkj bySfDVªdy

9537

1983

95] lksiku dslj baMljy gc]

baLVkys'ku

loksZn; gksVy ds ihNs] ,u ,p

uacj] 8 eksjS;k xke jksM] lj[kst

ckoyk gkbos] ,V eksjS;k]

vgenkckn&382110

720000789 16@03@2015

LVhygSDl baMLVªht

lksyj ¶ySV IysV dySDVj

12933

2003

IykV uacj 525]526 th vkbZ Mh

lh ,LVsV oYyHk fo|kuxj] rk

vkuan&388121

10-

720000758 17@03@2015

oSHko ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

'kkWi uacj 1] okfMyksuw ?kj]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

Hkk:p&392002

,oa eqgjkadu

11-

720000769 17@03@2015

izse ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

'kkWi uacj 4 Jhth nslkbZ ekdsZV]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

vksYM cl LVsaM ds ikl] ok;jk]

,oa eqgjkadu

rkih&394650

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2531

12-

720000779 17@03@2015

lksuh fufrudqekj HkkbZykyHkkbZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

th&47] ';kelqanj dkEiySDl]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

,V rFkk ih vks eksMklk] fMfLVªDV

,oa eqgjkadu

vjkoyh] lkcjdkaVk&383315

13-

720000808 17@03@2015

viksyk LØhul izk fyfeVsM

oSy LØhul rFkk lyksfVM

8110

2000

ch&8 rFkk ch&9] /kjrh viksyks

ikbZil

baMfLVª;y ikdZ] Nrjky] rk dyksy]

xka/khuxj&382729

14-

720000748 19@03@2015

jsulu ikbZi baMLVªht]

gkbZ MSaflVh ikyfFkyhu

4984

1995

,&20] ,Q ,Q@1] ljnkj iVsy

ikbZi Qkj iksVscy okVj

baMfLVª;y ,LVsV] ,u ,p uacj 8]

liykbZl

ukjksy] vgenkckn&382405

15-

720000879 20@03@2015

fouk;d xksYM iSysl

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

ch 34 fuye 'kkWfiax lSaVj]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

L;ke ikdZ lkslkbVh ds lkeus]

eqgjkadu

ljnkn pkSd] d`".kk uxj]

vgenkckn&380046

16-

720000859 23@03@2015

Jh czgE.kh xksYM iSysl]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

ch@37 ch@126] mn; VSukeSaV]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

'kkedqat ds lkeus] fudksy jksM]

,ao eqgjkadu

uok ujksMk] vgenkckn&380046

17-

720000869 23@03@2015

ijs'kdqekj T;Urhyky ikjs[k toSylZ Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

xzkmaM Qyksj cktkj]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

LVªhV 162] ,V iksLV vkVxke]

,ao eqgjkadu

uolkjh&396403

18-

720000818 23@03@2015

fudh balwys'ku izkñ fyfeVsM

ØklfyadM ikyfFkfyu

7098

1988

IykV uacj 843] jduiqj xkao]

balwysfVM ih oh lh 'khFkM

xkao ys[k ds lkeus] rk dyksy]

dscy

xka/khuxj&382721

19-

720000828 23@03@2015

fot; baMLVªht

lceflZcy iEilSV

8034

2002

ch&37] [kksfM;kj ,lVsV] lR;e

baMfLVª;y ,LVsV ds lkeus]

ujksMk eSedks ls ckiwuxj jksM

vgenckn&382345

20-

720000908 23@03@2015

n lqizhe baMLVªht fyfeVsM

eyVhys;jM Økl ysfeusfVM

14611

1998

losZ uacj 123@1] iSdh 2 rFkk

'khVl rFkk rkjiksfyul@dolZ

123@2 iSdh&1] xkao xSV eqokyk]

iapegy] gyksy

21-

720000889 24@03@2015

czsMh rFkk eksfjl baftfu;fjax dEiuh gSaM vksijsfVM psu iqyh

3832

2005

fyfeVsM 505] th vkbZ Mh lh

Cykdl

baMfLVª;y ,fj;k

Qsl 4] oVok] vgenkckn&382445

2532

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

22-

720000899 25@03@2015

Jhth ikbZi QSDVjh

izhdkLV dkaØhV ikbZi

458

2003

,V eksMklj] ih vks cksMsyh]

¼fon rFkk fonkmV

oMksnjk&391135

jsfuQkslZeSaV½

23-

720000838 25@03@2015

Js;k xksYM

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

18 Mh IykV uacj 4 'kkWi uacj 4@5] vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

vyh'k ikdZ] jkeuxj dks vkWi

,oa eqgjkadu

lkslkbVh , ds jksM] lwjr&395006

24-

720000849 25@03@2015

lqo.kZf'k'k[kk toSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

,Q ,Q 1] mfe;k dkEiySDl]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

izrkix<+ ds ikl] isVªksy iEi]

,oa eqgjkadu

xka/kh jksM] lkcjdkaBk] fgEeruxj

25-

720000918 30@03@2015

/kzqo tSEl izkñ fyfeVsM

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

'kkWi uacj 319] 26] 27] 28] 29]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

30] Vfu±x iokabV dkEiySDl]

,oa eqgjkadu

Qk;j LVs'ku ds ikl]

xksM MksM jksM+] lwjr&395007

26-

720000929 30@03@2015

o`ankou vksjukeSaVl izkñ fyfeVsM

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

esu cktkj FkkjkM]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

culdkaBk&385565

,oa eqgjkadu

27-

720000939 30@03@2015

gkfnZd ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

601] f'ko n'kZu viksVZeSaVl]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

mek Hkou ds ikl] Hkkrkj jksM]

,oa eqgjkadu

lwjr&395007

28-

720000979 30@03@2015

xtkuan bjhxs'ku baMLVªht

bZjhxs'ku bD;wieSaV&LVsuj

12785

1994

IykV] uacj 11] f=Hkqou ,lVsV]

VkbZi fQyVlZ

th vkbZ Mh lh] dkBokMk]

jksM uacj 8] dkBokM+k]

vgenkckn&382430

29-

720000969 30@03@2015

xtkuan bjhxs'ku baMLVªht

QfVZykbtj rFkk dSfedy

14483

1997

IykV uacj 11] f=Hkqou ,lVsV]

batSDVj flLVe

th vkbZ Mh lh] dkBokMk]

jksM uacj 8] dkBokMk]

vgenkckn&382430

30-

720000949 31@03@2015

Jh txnack iksfyelZ fyfeVsM

VSDlVkbZyl&gkbZ MSaflVh

14887

2014

IykV uacj 101] 703 ls 710]

ikWyhFkyhu ¼,p Mh ih bZ½@

th vkbZ Mh lh ,lVsV] rk <ksydk]

ikyhizkifyu ¼ih ih½ oksou

vgenkckn&382225

lSd Qkj iSfdax 50 fdyksxzke@

25 fdyksxzke QqMxszsu

31-

720001027 31@03@2015

lhek feujy

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

1999

CykWd uacj 335 iSdh] vks lSoy

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

LVkj Dyc ds lkeus xkao 'ksyk]

rk lkuan] vgenkckn&380058

32-

720001037 31@03@2015

ts ds o/kok rFkk dEiuh

lyQ;wfjd ,flaM

266

1993

IykV uacj 2920@,]

Qsl 1 th vkbZ Mh lh ,lVsV]

okih] oylkn&396195

[lañ lh ,e Mh@13%11]

MkWñ ,lñ ,yñ ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2533

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2015

S.O. 1186.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in

the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences

Grant date

Name & Address of the party

Title of the Standard

IS No.

Part

Sec

Year

No.

720000678

02/03/2015

Avkar Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

—

1999

42 Manish Flat, Sunder Nagar

Jewellery/artefacts-

Char Rasta, Naranpura

Fineness and marking

Ahmadabad 380013

720000728

03/03/2015

Shreya Ex-Tech Pvt. Ltd.

Explosive atmospheres

60079

—

2007

Block No. 700, Manjusar Savli

part 1 equipment

Road, Manjusar Tundav,

protection by flameproof

Taluka Savli Vododara,

enclosures "d"

Manjusar 391775

720000718

04/03/2015

Narayani Polymer Components

Rubber sealing rings for

5382

—

1985

13, Gajanan Estate, NR. Zaveri

gas mains, water mains

Estate Kathwada, GIDC,

and sewers

Ahmadabad 382430

720000689

10/03/2015

Shukan Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

—

1999

E, 18 Manharnagar Shopping

jewellery/artefacts-

Centre Part 1, Opp

fineness and marking

Khodiyarnagar Cross Road

Bapunagar,

Ahmedabad 380024

720000699

10/03/2015

Nilaykumar & Bros Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

—

1999

Near Swaminarayan Temple,

jewellery/artefacts-

Vaniyavad Circle, College

fineness and marking

Road, Nadiyad Kheda

387001

720000708

11/03/2015

R S Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

—

2004

Survey No. 111, Zalod Road

(other than packaged

Usarwan Post: Kharod, Tal &

natural mineral water)

Dist. Dahod

Dahod 389151

720000738

12/03/2015

HNB Foods & Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

—

1999

N H No. 8, Block No. 527,

(other than packaged

Paiki Near Arak Sisodra

natural mineral water)

Patia, Near Canal

Moje-Vesma, Tal: Jalapore

Navsari 396475

2534

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

720000799

13/03/2015

Green Polymers 95, Sopan

Conduits for electrical

9537

—

1983

Kesar Indusral HUB Behind

installations

Sarvoday Hotel NH No. 8,

Moreiya Gam Road

Sarkhej-Bavla Highway

AT: Moreiya, Ahmedabad

382110

720000789

16/03/2015

Steelhacks Industries

Solar flat plate collector

12933

—

2003

Plot No. 525, 526, Gidc Estate

Vallabh Vidyanagaar

Tal: Anand 388121

10.

720000758

17/03/2015

Vaibhav Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

—

1999

Shop No. 1, Vadilonu Ghar,

jewellery/artefacts

Bharuch 392002

fineness and marking

11.

720000769

17/03/2015

Prem Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

—

1999

Shop No. 4 Shreeji Desai

jewellery/artefacts

Market, Near Old Bus Stand

fineness and marking

Vyara, Tapi 394650

12.

720000779

17/03/2015

Soni Nitinkumar Bhailalbhai

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

—

1999

G-47, Shyamsunder Complex,

jewellery/artefacts

At PO Modasa, Dist Aravally

fineness and marking

Sabarkantha 383315

13.

720000808

17/03/2015

Apollo Screens Private Limited Well screens and slotted, 8110

—

2000

B-8 & B-9, Dharti Apollo

pipes

Industrial Park Chhatral,

Tal: Kalol, Gandhinagar 382729

14.

720000748

19/03/2015

Rainson Pipe Industries

High density polyethylene, 4985

—

1995

A-20, FF/1, Sardar Patel

Pipes for potable

Industrial Estate, N H No. 8,

water supplies

Narol, Ahmedabad 382405

15.

720000879

20/03/2015

Vinayak Gold Palace

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

—

1999

B 34 Nilam Shopping Center,

jewellery/artefacts

Opp Syam Park Society,

fineness and Marking

Sardar Chock Krishnanagar

Ahmadabad 380046

16.

720000859

23/03/2015

Shree Brahamani

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

—

1999

Gold Palace, B/37 B/126,

jewellery/artefacts

Uday Tenament,

fineness and marking

Opp Shamkunj, Nikol Road

Nava Naroda Ahamadabad

380046

17.

720000869

23/03/2015

Pareshkumar Jayantilal Parekh

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

—

1999

Jewellers, Ground Floor Bazar,

jewellery/artefacts

Street 162, At Post Aatgam,

fineness and marking

Navsari 396403

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2535

18.

720000818

23/03/2015

NIKI Insulation Pvt. Ltd.

Cross linked polyethylene, 7098

—

1988

Plot No. 843, Rakanpur Village

insulated pvc

Opp Village Lake, TA : Kalol

sheathed cables

Gandhinagari 382721

19.

720000828

23/03/2015

Vijay Industries, B-37,

Submersible pumpsets,

8034

—

2002

Khodiyar Estate, Opp.

Satyam Indl Estate,

Naroda-Memco to Bapunagar

Road Ahmedabad 382345

20.

720000908

23/03/2015

The Supreme Industries

Multilayered Cross

14611

—

1998

Limited Survey No. 123/1,

laminated sheets and

Paiky 2 & 123/2 Paiky-1,

tarpaulins/covers-

Village: Get Muvala,

Panchamahal Halol

21.

720000889

24/03/2015

Brady And Morris Engineering

Hand-operated chain,

3832

—

2005

Company Ltd., 505, Gidc

pulley blocks

Industrial Area, Phase IV,

Vatva, Ahmedabad 382445

22.

720000899

25/03/2015

Shreeji Pipe Factory

Precast concrete pipes,

458

—

2003

At Modasar PO Bodeli

(with and without

Vadodara 391135

reinforcement)

23.

720000838

25/03/2015

Shreya Gold, 18D Plot No. 4,

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

—

1999

Shop No. 4/5, Alish Park,

jewellery/artefacts

Ramnagar Co op Society

fineness and marking

AK Road Surat 395006

24.

720000849

25/03/2015

Suvarnshikha Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

—

1999

FF 1 Umiya Complex,

jewellery/artefacts

Near Pratapgadh Petrol Pump,

fineness and marking

Gandhi Road, Sabarkantha,

Himatnagar

25.

720000918

30/03/2015

Dhruv Gems Pvt. Ltd.

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

—

1999

Shop No. 319, 26, 27, 28, 29,

jewellery/artefacts

30 Turning Point Complex,

fineness and marking

Near Fire Station, Ghod Dod

Road, Surat 395007

26.

720000929

30/03/2015

Vrundavan Ornaments Pvt.Ltd. Gold and gold alloys,

1417

—

1999

Main Bazar Tharad Banas

jewellery/artefacts

Kantha 385565

fineness and marking

27.

720000939

30/03/2015

Hardik Jewels, 601, Shiv

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

—

1999

Darshan Appartments

jewellery/artefacts

Near Uma Bhavan, Bhatar Road

fineness and marking

Surat 395007

28.

720000979

30/03/2015

Gajanand Irrigation Industries

Irrigation equipment,

12785

—

1994

Plot No. 11, Tribhuban Estate

strainer-type filters

Gidc-Kathwada, Road No. 8

Kathwada, Ahmedabad 382430

2536

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1187-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e ¼5½ ds mifofu;e ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZ;h xbZ rkjh[k ls jnn~@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gS%&

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izde

jnn~ djus dh frfFk

la[;k

o irk

lEc) Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

lh,e@,y&

dksbZ ugha

[la ñ lh ,e Mh@13%13]

MkW- ,l- ,y- ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2015

S.O. 1187.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below

have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated aghainst each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences No. Name & Address of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant Indian

Date of

No.

CM/L-

Standards covered by the licence

Cancellation

cancelled

Nil

[No. CMD/13:13]

Dr. S.L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

29.

720000969

30/03/2015

Gajanand Irrigation Industries

Fertilizer and chemical,

14483

—

1997

Plot No. 11, Tribhuban Estate

injector system

Gidc-Kathwada, Road No. 8

Kathwada, Ahmedabad 382430

30.

720000949

31/03/2015

Shri Jagdamba Polymers Ltd.

Textiles-high density,

14887

—

2014

Plot No. 101, 703 to 710, Gidc

polyethylene (hdpe)/

Estate Tal: Dholka,

polypropylene (pp)

Ahmedabad 382225

woven sacks for packing

50 kg/25 kg foodgrains

31.

720001027

31/03/2015

Seema Minerals

Packaged drinking water,

14543

—

1999

Block No. 335 Paiki, Opp. 0-

(other than packaged

Seven Star Club, Village: Shela, natural mineral water)

Tal: Sanand,

Ahmedabad 380058

32.

720001037

31/03/2015

J K Wadhwa And Company

Sulphuric acid,

266

—

1993

Plot No. 2920/A, Phase 1

Gidc Estate, Vapi, Valsad

396195

[No. CMD/13:11]

Dr. S.L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2537

okf.kT; vkSj m|ksx ea=ky;

¼okf.kT; foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 8 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1188-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k vkSj

fujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1964 ds fu;e 12] ds mifu;e ¼2½ ds lkFk

ifBr fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k vkSj fujh{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1963

¼1963 dk 22½ dh /kkjk 7 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] eSllZ bUlisDVksjsV fxzfQFk bafM;k izkbosV fyfeVsM]

vkokl la[;k 341 ch] Mkd jsMh] rkyqdk oSax:yk] ftyk fla/kqnqxZ]

egkjk"Vª&416517 Hkkjr esa fLFkr gSa] dks bl vf/klwpuk] ds jkti=

esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, Hkkjr ljdkj

ds okf.kT; ea=ky;] dh vf/klwpuk lañ dkñvkñ 3975] rkjh[k 20

fnlEcj] 1965 dh v/klwpuk esa mikc) vuqlwfp;ksa esa fofufnZ"V

[kfut vkSj v;Ld ¼lewg&I½] vFkkZr~] ykSg v;Ld ds :i esa

Øe'k% dks fu;kZr ls iwoZ fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/khu jsMh] esa mDr

[kfut vkSj v;Ld ds fujh{k.k djus ds fy,] ,d vfHkdj.k ds

:i esa ekU;rk nsrh gS] vFkkZr~%

(i) eSllZ bUlisDVksjsV fxzfQFk bafM;k izkbosV fyfeVsM] vkokl

la[;k 341 ch] Mkd jsMh] rkyqdk oSax#yk] ftyk flaèqnqxZ]

egkjk"Vª&416517] [kfut vkSj v;Ld lewg&I dk fu;kZr

¼fujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1965 ds v/khu muds }kjk viukbZ

xbZ fujh{k.k dh i)fr dh tkap djus ds fy,] bl fufeÙk

fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn~ }kjk ukefufnZ"V vf/kdkfj;ksa dks

i;kZIr lqfo/kk,a nsxh(

(ii) eSllZ bUlisDVksjsV fxzfQFk bafM;k izkbosV fyfeVsM] vkokl

la[;k 341 ch] Mkd jsMh] rkyqdk oSax:yk] ftyk

fla/kqnqxZ] egkjk"Vª&416517] bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu

vius d`R;ksa ds ikyu esa funs'kd ¼fujh{k.k vkSj DokfyVh

fu;a=.k½] fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn~ }kjk le;≤ ij

fyf[kr esa fn, x, ,sls funsZ'kksa ls vkc) gkasxsA

[Qkñ lañ 4@1@2015&fu;kZr fujh{k.k]

larks"k dqekj lkjaxh] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 8th June, 2015

S.O. 1188.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

the sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Export (Quality

Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with

sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and

Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby

recognises M/s Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt. Ltd.,

House No. 341B, Post Redi, Taluka-Vengrula, District-

Sindhudurg, Maharashtra-416517, as an agency for a

period of one year from the date of publication of this

notification, for the inspection of Minerals and Ores

(Group-I) namely, Iron Ore as specified in the Schedule

annexed to the notification of the Government of India in

the Ministry of Commerce vide S.O. 3975 dated the

20 December 1965, prior to export of said Minerals and

Ores at Redi, subject to the following conditions, namely:—

(i) M/s Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt. Ltd., House

No. 341B, Post Redi, Taluka-Vengrula, District-

Sindhudurg, Maharashtra-416517, shall give

adequate facilities to the officers nominated by

the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to

examine the method of inspection followed by

them in carrying out the inspection under rule 4

of the Export of Minerals and Ores-Group I

(Inspection) Rules, 1965;

(ii) M/s Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt. Ltd., House

No. 341B, Post Redi, Taluka-Vengrula, District-

Sindhudurg, Maharashtra-416517, in the

performance of their function under this

notification shall be bound by such directions as

the Director (Inspection and Quality Control),

Export Inspection Council may give in writing

from time to time.

[F. No. 4/1/2015-Export Inspection]

SANTOSH KUMAR SARANGI, Jt. Secy.

fo|qr ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 4 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1189-—dsanzh; ljdkj jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

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

¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa fo|qr ea=ky; ds iz'kklfud fu;a=.kk/khu ikoj

fxzM dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k fyfeVsM ds iwohZ {ks= ikjs"k.k

iz.kkyh&II] ds v/khu ^^400@220 dsoh nqxkZiqj midsanz]

xzke&ik:fy;k] Mkd?kj&/kouh ¼nqxkZiqj½] ftyk&onZoku] if'pe

caxky&713205**] ftlds 80 izfr'kr deZpkjho`an us fganh dk

dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrh gSA

[lañ 11017@10@2013&fgUnh]

MkWñ vkjñ lhñ 'kekZ] la;qDr funs'kd ¼jkñHkkñ½

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2015

S.O. 1189.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify

"400/220 Kv Durgapur Sub-station, Vill-Parulia, PO-

Dhabani (Durgapur), Dist-Burdwan, West Bengal-713205"

under the Eastern Region Transmission System-II, of the

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. under the

administrative control of Ministry of Power, where 80%

of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. 11017/10/2013-Hindi]

Dr. R.C. SHARMA, Jt. Director (O.L.)

2538

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dks;yk ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 8 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1190-—dsUnzh; ljdkj us 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&èkjk ¼1½

ds v/khu Hkkjr ljdkj esa dks;yk ea=ky; ds }kjk tkjh dh xbZ

vf/klwpuk la[;k dkñvkñ 2122] rkjh[k 25 flrEcj] 2013 tks Hkkjr

ds jkti= ds Hkkx II, [kaM 3] mi&[kaM (ii) rkjh[k 5 vDrwcj] 2013

esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] ml vf/klwpuk es layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V

ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe esa ftldk eki 54-907 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 135-

68 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ gS] dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk'k;

dh lwpuk nh Fkh(

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd bl vf/klwpuk

ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V dh xbZ mDr Hkwfe ds Hkkx esa dks;yk

vfHkizkIr gSA

vr%] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk

¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, blls layXu vuqlwph

esa of.kZr 52-431 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 129-56 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki

dh mDr Hkwfe dk vtZu djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS(

fVIi.k 1% bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu vkus okys {ks= ds js[kkad

la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@thñ,eñ ¼ih,yth½@Hkwfe@458] rkjh[k 9

fnlEcj] 2014] dk fujh{k.k dyDVj] ftyk&vuqiiqj ¼e/; izns'k½

ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkml]

dksydkrk&700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l

fyfeVsM ¼jktLo vuqHkkx½] lhir jksM] fcykliqj&495006

¼NÙkhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gSA

fVIi.k 2% mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 8 ds mica/kksa dh vksj /;ku

vkd`"V fd;k tkrk gS ftlesa fuEufyf[kr mica/k gSA

vtZu ds ckcr~ vkifÙk;ka%

^^8- ¼1½ dksbZ O;fDr] tks fdlh Hkwfe esa] ftldh ckcr~ /kkjk 7

ds v/khu vf/klwpuk fudkyh xbZ gS] fgrc) gS] vf/klwpuk ds fudkys

tkus ls rhl fnu ds Hkhrj lEiw.kZ Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx ;k ,slh

Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds fdUgha vfèdkjksa dk vtZu fd, tkus ds ckjs

esa vkifÙk dj ldsxkA

Li"Vhdj.k&bl /kkjk ds vUrxZr ;g vkifÙk ugha ekuh tk,xh

fd dksbZ O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa dks;yk mRiknu ds fy, Lo;a [kuu

lafØ;k,a djuk pkgrk gS vkSj ,slh lafØ;k,a dsUæh; ljdkj ;k fdlh

vU; O;fDr dks ugha djuh pkfg,A

¼2½ mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu izR;sd l{ke vf/kdkjh dks fyf[kr

:i esa dh tk,xh vkSj l{ke vf/kdkjh] vkifÙkdrkZ dks Lo;a lqus

tkus] fof/k O;olk;h }kjk lquokbZ dk volj nsxk vkSj ,slh lHkh

vkifÙk;ksa dks lquus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ,slh vfrfjDr tkap] ;fn dksbZ

gks] djus ds i'pkr~] tks og vko';d le>rk gS] og ;k rks /kkjk

7 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu vf/klwfpr Hkwfe dk ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa

;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa ,d fjiksVZ ;k ,slh Hkwfe ds

fofHkUu VqdMs+ ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa

vkifÙk;ksa ij viuh flQkfj'kksa vkSj vius }kjk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ds

vfHkys[k lfgr fofHkUu fjiksVZ dsUnzh; ljdkj dks mlds fofu'p;

ds fy, nsxkA

¼3½ bl /kkjk ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, og O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa fgrc)

le>k tk,xk tks izfrdj esa fgr dk nkok djus dk gdnkj gksxk]

;fn Hkwfe ;k fdlh ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkj bl vfèfu;e

ds v/khu vftZr dj fy, tkrs gSA**

fVIi.k 3% dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkml

LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001 dks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vf/klwpuk

la[;k dkñvkñ 905] rkjh[k 20 ekpZ] 1987 }kjk l{ke izkf/kdkjh

fu;qDr fd;k gSA

vuqlwph

lkseuk Hkwfexr [kku] glnso {ks=

ftyk&vuqiiqj ¼e/; izns'k½

¼js[kkad la[;kad ,lbZlh,y@chñ,lñihñ@thñ,eñ ¼ih,yth½@Hkwfe@458] rkjh[k 9 fnlEcj] 2014½

Hkw&lrg vf/kdkj

Øe

xzke dk

iVokjh

cankscLr

rglhy

ftyk

{ks=

fVIif.k;ka

lañ

uke

gYdk

la[;k

gsDVj

la[;k

esa

yksgljk

929

dksrek

vuqiiqj

14-063

Hkkx

Hkxrk

769

dksrek

vuqiiqj

38-368

Hkkx

dqy% 52-431 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 129-56 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2539

1- xzke yksgljk ¼Hkkx½ eas vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;kadksa%

155¼Hkkx½] 199¼Hkkx½] 200¼Hkkx½] 202¼Hkkx½] 203 ls 205]

206¼Hkkx½] 207] 208 ls 215] 216¼Hkkx½] 222¼Hkkx½]

227¼Hkkx½] 228¼Hkkx½] 229] 230¼Hkkx½] 231¼Hkkx½] 232¼Hkkx½]

233¼Hkkx½] 234] 235¼Hkkx½] 246¼Hkkx½] 247¼Hkkx½]

248¼Hkkx½] 249¼Hkkx½] 250] 251¼Hkkx½] 252¼Hkkx½] 253¼Hkkx½A

2- xzke Hkxrk ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;kadksa%

358¼Hkkx½] 359¼Hkkx½] 361¼Hkkx½] 365¼Hkkx½] 366¼Hkkx½]

370] 371¼Hkkx½] 374¼Hkkx½] 375 ls 379] 380¼Hkkx½] 401¼Hkkx½]

407¼Hkkx½] 408] 409 ls 415] 416¼Hkkx½] 417¼Hkkx½]

422¼Hkkx½] 424¼Hkkx½] 425 ls 429] 430¼Hkkx½A

lhek o.kZu%

d&[k js[kk xzke Hkxrk esa fcUnq ^^d** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj IykV

la[;kadksa 365] 361] 359] 358 ds mÙkjh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ xzke

Hkxrk&yksgljk ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq ^^[k** ij feyrh gSA

[k&x js[kk fcUnq ^^[k** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke yksgljk ds

IykV la[;kadksa 251] 253] 249] 248] 247] 246] 235] 233] 232]

231] 230] 228] 227] 222] 216] 199] 200] 202] 155 ls xqtjrh

gqbZ xzke Hkxrk&yksgljk ds Hkkxr% lfEefyr lhek ls gksrh gqbZ xzke

Hkxrk&yksgljk ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq ^^x** ij feyrh gSA

x&?k js[kk fcUnq ^^x** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke yksgljk ds

IykV la[;kad 417 ds nf{k.kh lhek ds IykV la[;kadksa 422] 424]

430 ls gksdj] 409 ds nf{k.kh lhek] 407] 401] 380 ls gksrh gqbZ

fcUnq ^^?k** ij feyrh gSA

?k&d js[kk fcUnq ^^?k** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke Hkxrk ds IykV

la[;kadksa 380] 378 ds if'peh lhek ds IykV la[;kadksa 374] 371

ls gksdj IykV la[;kad 370 ds if'peh lhek] IykV la[;kadksa 366]

365 ls gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq ^^d** ij feyrh gSA

[Qkñlañ 43015@03@2013&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]

txnh'k dqekj] mi lfpo

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 8th June, 2015

S.O. 1190.—Whereas by the notification of the

Government of India in the Ministry of Coal, dated the

25th September, 2013 issued under 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) and published in the Gazette of India,

part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), vide number S.O. 2122,

dated the 5th October, 2013, the Central Government gave

notice of its intention to prospect for coal in 54.907

hectares (approximately) or 135.68 acres (approximately)

of the lands in the locality specified in the schedule

annexed to that notification;

And whereas the Central Government is satisfied that

coal is obtainable in a part of the said lands specified in

the Schedule appended to this notification.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of section 7 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire

the land measuring 52.431 hectares (approximately) or

129.56 acres (approximately) as surface rights in or over

the said land as specified in the Schedule appended

hereto;

Note 1: The plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/

LAND/458, dated the 9th December, 2014, of the area

covered by this notification may be inspected in the office

of the Collector, District Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh) or

in the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street,

Kolkata-700001 or in the office of the South Eastern

Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road,

Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh).

Note 2: Attention is hereby invited to the provisions

of section 8 of the said Act which provides as follows:—

Objection to acquisition.

"8. (1) Any person interested in any land in respect of

which a notification under section 7 has been issued, may,

within thirty days of the issue of the notification, object

to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or

any rights in or over such land.

Explanation.—It shall not be an objection within the

meaning of this section for any person to say that he

himself desires to undertake mining operations in the land

for the production of coal and that such operations should

not be undertaken by the Central Government or by any

other person.

(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made

to the competent authority in writing, and the competent

authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being

heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and shall,

after hearing all such objections and after making such

further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a

report in respect of the land which has been notified under

sub-section (1) of section 7 or of rights in or over such

land, or make different reports in respect of different parcels

of such land or of rights in or over such land, to the Central

Government, containing his recommendations on the

objections, together with the record of the proceedings

held by him, for the decision of the Government.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be

deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to

2540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

Somna U/G Mine, Hasdeo Area

District Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh)

(Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/LAND/458, dated the 9th December, 2014)

Surface Rights:

Sr.

Name of

Patwari

Settlement

Tahsil

District

Area (in

Remarks

No.

Village

Halka

number

hectares)

number

Lohsara

929

Kotma

Anuppur

14.063

Part

Bhagta

769

Kotma

Anuppur

38.368

Part

Total: 52.431 hectares (approximately) or 129.56 acres (approximately)

1. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Lohsara (Part):

155(P), 199(P), 200(P), 202(P), 203 to 205, 206(P), 207,

208 to 215, 216(P), 222(P), 227(P), 228(P), 229, 230(P),

231(P), 232(P), 233(P), 234, 235(P), 246(P), 247(P), 248(P),

249(P), 250, 251(P), 252(P), 253(P).

2. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Bhagta (Part):

358(P), 359(P), 361(P), 365(P), 366(P), 370, 371(P), 374(P),

375 to 379, 380(P), 401(P), 407(P), 408, 409 to 415, 416(P),

417(P), 422(P), 424(P), 425 to 429, 430(P).

Boundary description:

A-B Line starts from points 'A' in village Bhagta and

passes along northern boundary of plot number 365, 361,

359, 358 and meets at point 'B' on the common boundary

of villages Bhagta-Lohsara.

B-C

Line starts from point 'B' and passes in village

Lohsara through plot numbers 251, 253, 249, 248, 247, 246,

235, 233, 232, 231, 230, 228, 227, 222, 216, 199, 200, 202,

155, along partly common boundary of villages Bhagta-

Lohsara and meets at point 'C' on the common boundary

of villages Bhagta-Lohsara.

C-D

Line starts from point 'C' and passes in village

Lohsara along southern boundary of plot number 417,

through 422, 424, 430 along southern boundary of plot

number 409, through 407, 401, 380 and meets at point 'D'.

D-A Line starts from point 'D' and passes in village

Bhagta along western boundary of plot number 380, 378,

through 374, 371, along western boundary of plot number

370, through 366, 365 and meets at starting point 'A'.

[F.No. 43015/03/2013-PRIW-I)]

JAGDISH KUMAR, Dy. Secy.

;qok dk;ZØe vkSj [ksy ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 10 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1191-—dsanzh; ljdkj ,rn}kjk jktHkk"kk ¼la?k

ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½] fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10

ds mi fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa ;qok dk;ZØe vkSj [ksy ea=ky;

ds Lok;Ùk dk;kZy; Hkkjrh; [ksy izkf/kdj.k {ks=h; dsanz] gkdh

LVsfM;e] lsDVj&42] p.Mhx<+] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vfèd

deZpkjho`an us fganh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks

vf/klwfpr djrh gSA

[feñ lañ bZ&11011@2@2008&fgñ,ñ]

,lñ ,yñ ehuk] mi lfpo

MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS

New Delhi, the 10th June, 2015

S.O. 1191.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Languages (use for official purpose of the

Union) Rule, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies

Sports Authority of India Regional Centre, Hockey

Stadium, Sector-42, Chandigarh an Autonomous office of

Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, whereof more than

80% staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E-11011/2/2008-H.U.]

S. L. MEENA, Dy. Secy.

claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights

in or over such land were acquired under this Act."

Note 3: The Coal Controller, 1 Council House Street,

Kolkata, 700001, has been appointed by the Central

Government as the competent authority under section 3

of the said Act, vide notification number S.O. 905, dated

the 20th March, 1987, published in the Gazette of India,

Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 4th April, 1987.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2541

ubZ fnYyh] 10 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1192-—dsanzh; ljdkj ,rn}kjk jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds

'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds

mi&fu;e¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa ;qok dk;ZØe vkSj [ksy ea=ky; ds

Lok;Rr dk;kZy; Hkkjrh; [ksy izkfèdj.k m)onkl esgrk ¼HkkbZ th½]

dsUnzh; {ks=h; dsanz] Hkksiky ¼e/; izns'k½ ftlds 80- ls vfèd

deZpkjho`an us fganh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks

vfèlwfpr djrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ bZ&11011@2@2008&fgñ,ñ]

,lñ ,yñ ehuk] mi lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th June, 2015

S.O. 1192.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10

of Official Language (use for official purpose of the

Union) Rule 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies

Sports Authority of India Udhavdas mehta (Bhai Ji),

Central Regional Centre, Bhopal, an Autonomous office

of Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, whereof more than

80% staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

[F.No. E-11011/2/2008-H.U.]

S. L. MEENA, Dy. Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 5 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1193-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QñlhñvkbZñ

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

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;y;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 19@2014½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@06@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22011@3@2014&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2015

S.O. 1193.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar 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 05/06/2015.

[No. L-22011/3/2014-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri Pradeep Kumar,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 19/2014

L-22011/3/2014-IR(CM-II), dated 28.02.2014

Date of Passing Award -1st Day of January, 2015

Between:

The Area Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

District Officer, Surya Vihar

Link/Road,

... 1st Party-Management

Cuttack-753012

The General Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Regional Office, Satsang Vihar,

Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar-751007

(And)

The Vice-President,

FCI Handling Workers Union,

8651, Araksshna Road,

Paharganj, New Delhi-110055

...2nd Party Union

Appearances:

Shri R.C. Das

... For the 1st Party-

Manager (IR), FCI

Management

Shri N.K. Nayak,

Manager (IR), FCI

Shri Srinibash Sasmal,

... For the 2nd Party-

Organising Secretary

Union

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour &

Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between the employer in relation to the Management of

the Food Corporation of India, Odisha and their workmen

reprsented through the FCI (Handling) Workers Union,

New Delhi in exercise of the powers conferred under

2542

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of

section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act vide their Letter

No. L-22011/3/2014-IR(CM-II) dated 28.02.2014 to this

Tribunal for adjudication. The dispute as referred to has

been mentioned under the schedule of the order of

reference which is quoted below.

"Whether the Claim of Food Corporation of India

Handling Workers Union to get overtime wage

alongwith extra wages for being booked to workmen

of Gang No. 5 of FCI/FSD/Dhenkanal on 8.5.2011

and 14.4.2012 is legal and or justified? If not, to

what relief the union is entitled to?"

2. After the receipt of the order of reference, the matter

was registered and necessary judicial proceedings were

held in the matter. In the mean time, the 1st party

management. No. 1 and 2 appears to have resolved the

dispute with the 2nd Party union amicably out of the court

and filed their settlement in Form-H. Hence, there appears

no necessity for further proceedings in the matter and

accordingly the award is passed in terms of the settlement.

3. The reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated and corrected by me.

PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1194-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñlhñ,Ykñ 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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;y;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

02@2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@06@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@109@2000&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2015

S.O. 1194.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2001)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Parbelia Colliery of

ECL and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 05/06/2015.

[No. L-22012/109/2000-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. 02 OF 2001

PARTIES:

The management of Perbelia Colliery of M/s ECL

Vs.

Sri A. Rahim and Sri A. Haque

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management:

Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Adv. ECL

For the union (Workman):

None

INDUSTRIAL: COAL

STATE : WEST BENGAL

Dated 19.05.2015

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/

109/2000-IR(CM-II) has been pleased to refer the following

dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Parbelia

Colliery under ECL in denyaing the pay protection

in respect of Sh. A Rahim and A. Haque at the time

of conversion from P.R. to T.R. for Rs. 112.18 and

Rs. 126.88 w.e.f. November, 1993 is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?"

Having received the Order No. L-22012/109/2000-

IR(CM-II) of the above said reference from the Govt. of

India, Ministry of Labour New Delhi for adjudication of

the dispute, a referfence case No. 02 of 2001 was registered

on 12.02.2001/07.11.2001 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 withnesses 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, learned advocate of the

management is present but none appears on behalf of

the workmen/union.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2543

On perusal of case record I find that one of the workmen

named Sr. A. Rahim last appeared before the court on

01.06.2010. Thereafter none of the workmen or their

representative appeared before the court. Registered

notices were issued to the workmen on 12.01.2012 and

10.09.2014. So far 14 dates have been granted to the

workmen after 01.06.2010 but to no effect. It seems to me

that the workmen are not interested to proceed with the

case further. The case is also too old- in the year of 2001.

Hence the case is closed and 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] 5 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1195-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñlhñ,yñ 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 vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;y;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 100@2000½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@154@2000&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2015

S.O. 1195.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 100/

2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Bejdih

Colliery of ECL and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 05/06/2015.

[No. L-22012/154/2000-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. 100 OF 2000

PARTIES:

The management of Bejdih Colliery of M/s ECL

Vs.

Sri Moti Routh

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management : Sri P.K. Goswami, Ld. Adv. ECL

For the union

: Sri. R.K. Tripathi Chief Org.

(Workman)

Secy. (KMC)

INDUSTRY: COAL

STATE : WEST BENGAL

Dated 20.05.2015

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/

154/2000-IR(CM-II) dated 14/21.11.2000 has been pleased

to refer the following dispute for adjudication by the

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Bejdhi

Colliery under ECL by not accepting age of Sri Moti

Routh, Ex-Driller as 57 and half years as on

08.04.1997 under the midpoint formula of the existing

policy of the ECL is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled?"

Having received the Order No. L-22012/154/2000-

IR(CM-II) dated 14/21.11.2000 of the above said reference

from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, a referfence case No. 100 of

2000 was registered on 26.12.2000 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 witness 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; management as well as

union/workman are absent.

On perusal of case record I find that the union is not

taking any step since long. The case was fixed for filing

documents by the workman on 18.04.2013. Since then 12

dates have been granted Mr. P.K. Tripathi, Chief

Organizing Secretary of the union (Koyla Mazdoor

Congress) appeared on 17.07.2013 and signed on order

sheet after seefting the order but to no effect.

This is a case of correction of age and the workman

has already been retired from service.

2544

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Since the workman has already been retired from

service and not taking any interest even after service of

notice, 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] 5 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1196-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chñchñ,eñchñ

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

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;y; uañ 1] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

21@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@06@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&23012@3@2011&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2015

S.O. 1196.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2011)

of the Central. Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, No. 1 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 05/06/2015.

[No. L-23012/3/2011-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-1,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 21 of 2011

Reference No. 23012/3/2011-IR(CM-II)

dated 02.12.2011

The Presiding Struggle Committee of Daily Wages

Employees, BBMB, Talwara Township, 1141-42/T/1,

Sector-1, Talwara Township, Punjab-144216

...Workman

Versus

The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,

Madhya Marg, Sector-19, Chandigarh

...Respondent

APPEARANCE :

For the workman:

None.

For the management :

Ms. Dimple alongwith

Sh. Mandeep Singh, XEN,

AWARD

Passed on 19.05.2015

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification L.23012/3/2011-IR(CM-II) dated 02.12.2011 has

referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Management of

Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,

Madhya Marg, Sector-19, Chandigarh in adopting

different policies for providing work to daily rated

workers at Nangal and Talwara Township is just,

valid and legal? To what relief the concerned

workmen are entitled to?"

2. For the last serveal dates none is appearing for the

wokrmen/Union. The case was earlier fixed for evidence

of the workmen/union. Neither any evidence was filed on

behalf of the union nor any one appeared for the last

several dates for the union. The case was received in

Trinbunal on 02.01.2012 and pending for the last more

than three years. As none is appearing for the workmen/

union, no purpose would be served in keeping the case

pending before this Trinunal. In view of the above, the

present reference is returned to the Central Govt. for want

of prosecution. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as well

hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh

19-5-2015

S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1197-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñlhñ,yñ ds izcaèra=

ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;y;]

vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 20@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@372@1999&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2545

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2015

S.O. 1197.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2000)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Narsamunda Colliery

of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd., and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 05/06/2015.

[No. L-22012/372/1999-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 20 OF 2000

PARTIES:

The management of Narsarmunda Colliery of M/s ECL

Vs.

Sri Baidyanath Das

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management:

Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Adv. ECL

For the union (Workman): None

INDUSTRY : COAL

STATE : WEST BENGAL

Dated 18.05.2015

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/

372/99-IR(CM-II) dated 29.02.2000 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of

Narsamunda Colliery under ECL in dismissing as

denying reinstatement the services of Sh.

Baidyanath Das is justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled?"

Having received the Order No. L-22012/372/99-IR(CM-

II) dated 29.02.2000 of the above said reference from the

Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, a referfence case No. 20 of

2000 was registered on 13.03.2000 and accordinlgy 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; management as well as

union/workman are absent.

On perusal of case record I find that this is the reference

of year 2000. Union's representative, Sri S.K. Pandey on

behalf of the workman appeared on 12.11.2001. Since then

21 dates have been fixed. On 23.04.2009 again notices

were issued to the parties due to their disappearance. Since

15.07.2009 the reference was fixed for evidence of the

workman. After 15.07.2009, 26 dates, have been fixed but

evidence was not tendered by the workman. On 11.09.2014

against order for notice was passed and accordingly notice

was issued on 19.09.2014 fixing the date on 27.11.2014 for

evidence but the workman did not appear. Even today the

workman is absent. It seems that the workman is not at

all interested to proceed with the case further. Under the

circumstances explained above I think it just and proper

to close this old 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] 5 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1198-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w lh ,y

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

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 68@2002½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@06@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@253@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2015

S.O. 1198.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 68/2002)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

2546

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

between the management of Ballarpur Sub Area of

Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 05/06/2015.

[No. L-22012/253/2001-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/68/2002

Date: 19.01.2015

Party No.1 :

The Sub Area Manager,

Ballarpur Sub Are of

Western Coalfields Limited,

Post & Teh.-Ballarpur,

Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.)

Versus

Party No. 2 :

Shri Lomesh Khartad,

National Colliery Workers Congress,

Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Ballarpur,

Post-Ballarpur,

Distt.-Chandrapur (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated: 19th January, 2015)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Ballarpur Sub Area of Western Coalfields

Limited and their workmen, Shri Anand Madanaya and 14

others, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/253/2001-

IR (CM-II) dated 22.07.2002, with the following schedule:

"Whether the action of the management of Ballarpur

colliery 3 & 4 pits of Western Coalfields Limited in

not granting protection of basic pay upon

conversion of Shri Anand Madanaya and 14 others

as per list to time rate is legal and justified? If not,

to what relief the workmen are entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the Union, "National Colliery

Workers Congress, ("the union" in short) filed the

statement of claim on behalf of Shri Anand Madanaya and

14 other workmen ("the workmen" in short) and the

management of Ballarpur Sub Area of Western Coalfields

Ltd., ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.

The case of the workmen as presented by the union in

the statement of claim is that it is a registered trade union

under the Trade unions Act, 1926 and party No. 1 is a

Government company controlled by the Central

Government and is a "State" under Article 12 of the

Constitution of India and the workmen are in the

employment of the party No. 1 and they are permanent

employees and they were initially appointed as piece rated

loader in group V-A of National Coal Wage Agreement

("the NCWA" in short) and a memorandum of settlement

dated 02.11.1992 was arrived at under section 12(1) of the

Act, between the management of Party No. 1 and RKKMS

union before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

Nagpur and under the said settlement, the party No. 1

agreed to fully protect the group wages including the

SPRA where ever applicable, on conversion from piece

rate to time rate/monthly rate and the terms of the said

settlement have become the terms and conditions of

service of the workmen.

It is further pleaded by the union that the joint bipartite

Committee for the coal industry ("the JBCCI" in short)

consisting of all the employers and the five Central Trade

Unions jointly deliberate over the wage structure and

other conditions of service including fringe benefits of

the employees of the coal industry and the JBCCI has

several committees and sub committees for proper

implementation, monitoring, clarification etc. of the

agreements and the management of Coal Companies are

not competent to resort to change the service conditions

and wage structures etc. as laid down in the NCWAs

unilaterally and so far six NCWAs have been signed by

the parties and the same are known as NCWA-I to VI and

in terms of NCWA V, all the workmen were given minimum

benefit of Rs. 235/- per month inclusive of interim relief

over and above the wages prescribed under NCWA-IV

and the Loaders were placed in Group VA and revised

basic pay and work load were fixed per day from

01.07.1991 as per chapter III of NCWA V and the wage

for the work load of 100cft. And 118cft was fixed at

Rs. 88.93/- and Rs. 114.93 respectively and the basic group

VA wages was also fixed as Rs. 104.93/- per day and beside

such wages, the loaders were also entitled to special piece

rate allowance ("SPRA" in short) @ Rs. 2.12 per day and

the loaders who had completed 10 years of service or

more in the same group were provided with additional

SPRA w.e.f. 01.07.1994 and thereafter w.e.f. 01.07.1995.

The further case of the workmen a projected by the

union is that the workmen were transferred to other time

rated works on the exigencies of work and though they

were paid the basic wages, the SPRA was not paid to them

w.e.f. November, 1995 and with effect from 01.07.1999, their

basic wages were also not protected and their wages were

reduced and were fixed at midpoint of their respective

categories, in which they were working and the wages of

the workmen, Shri Anand Madanaya, Shri Shriniwas Sakal

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2547

Eram, Shri Sanjay M. Boinowar, Shri Balkishan Atmaram

and Shri Banshilal Lalli, who were working as Trammer

category III were fixed at Rs. 80.94/-, basic wages of

workmen, Shri Dharam Sailani, Shri Gurjalal Lingya, Shri

Bhanuda Daria Ashallu, Shri Aegeswar Saukhau and Shri

Prasna Kumar Narayan, who were working as H. Trammer

category v were fixed at Rs. 85.14/-, basic wages of

workmen, Shri Sunil Laxman, Shri Bhauji S. Caple and Shri

Kirti Kumar Muralidhar, who were working as Electrical

helper category II, Carpenter helper category II and

Explosive helper category II respectively were fixed at

Rs. 76.17/- and basic wages of the workmen, Shri Jugesh

Kumar Swamidin and Shri Ramesh Ramila Yankti, who were

working as general mazdoors were fixed at Rs. 72.96/- and

though the workmen made several individual and so also

joint representations, party No. 1 did not take any action

and the union also took up the case of the workmen with

the management, by submitting letters dated 27.06.1998,

05.07.1999, 14.09.1999, 04.10.1999 and 21.01.2002, but as

there was no response from the management, the union

took up the matter with the ALC(central), Chandrapur and

the conciliation filed, the reference has been made by the

Central Government to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The union has further pleaded that in the meeting held

between the RKKMS union, Nandgaon Incline branch and

the Sub Area Manager on 07.09.1998, it was decided that

the basic and SPRA of loaders whether option given or

not would be protected and the minutes of the meeting

was circulated vide order No. 517 dated 10.09.1998 of the

Personnel Manager, Hindustan Lalpeth underground Sub

Area and vide office order 2676 dated 10.02.2000, the

Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, WCL of Chandrapur

Area instructed all the Sub Area that basic wages should

be protected of all the employees of Chandrapur Area

irrespective of degradation/reduction in post and category

and the management of WCL, Chandrapur Area has been

protecting group wages and SPRA in case of loaders

similarly situated like the workmen including Shri Ramesh

Yadav and Mr. Riyaz and Tub Munshi, Sheikh Nabi

Sheikh Chand and there cannot be two type of system in

the same company and the workmen have been

discriminated and change of the service conditions cannot

be done arbitrarily and contrary to the settlement dated

02.11.1992, Standing Order and provisions of JBCCI/

NCWA and section 9 of the Act and the workmen are

entitled for protection of wages with SPRA.

3. The party No. 1 in the written statement, after

denying all the adverse allegations made in the statement

of claim, has pleaded inter-alia that the dispute has been

raised Shri Lomesh Khartad, General Secretary of the

union and to its best of knowledge, the said union does

not exist at Ballarpur and it is learnt that the union is

registered at Dhanbad in the State of Jharkhand and is

operating mainly in the state and the union is not the

union of the workman of Ballarpur colliery and therefore

is not competent to raise the dispute on behalf of the

workmen and the union does not have 25% of the workers

as its members and the union has very little or no following

at all and therefore, does not acquire a representative

character and the spousal of the cause of the workman

by the union is not valid and no industrial dispute exists.

It is further pleaded by party no. 1 that to its best

knowledge, the workmen were/are not the members of the

union and on this ground also, the union is not competent

to raise the dispute on their behalf.

The further case of the party no. 1 is that it had made

specific offer laying down the terms and conditions

through a departmental notice dated 11.09.1995, inviting

applications from the loaders of Ballarpur colliery for

opting time rated jobs and it was specifically mentioned

in the said notice that those who would opted for the time

rated post would be given the initial basic of the time rated

posts and in terms of the said notice, the workmen

submitted written options for time rated posts, accepting

the minimum basic pay of the time rated posts and their

options were unconditional and when the notice was

issued to the workers, no union protested against the

notice or challenged its validity or legality and it was

purely discretionary and optional on the part of the

workmen to accept the offer or not and the workmen, while

applying for the time rated job were fully aware of the

terms and conditions and the wages they were to get and

they also gave the options voluntarily and categorically

state that they would not raise any grievance/industrial

dispute with regard to their pay protection and therefore,

it acting in good faith and on the specific assurances that

they would not claim wage protections, put them on time

rate and subsequently, in compliance of office order of

the personnel Manager of Ballarpur Area, the wages of

the workmen were fixed at the midpoint of time rate and

when there was specific offer of terms and conditions and

specific acceptance thereof by the workmen, the same

became a contract between the management and the

workmen and ever since their deployment in the time rated

categories, they have been drawing wages in respective

time rated without any protest and therefore, the principles

of estoppels operates and the workmen are estopped from

raising the instant dispute even through the union.

It is further pleaded by party no. 1 that from the

respective dated that the deployment of the workmen in

time rated jobs, they were placed at the starting basic of

time rated jobs and the arrangement continued till July,

1999 and on receipt of the sanction and approval of the

Headquarters, the workmen were placed at the mid-point

of the time rated posts in which they had been working

and even at this stage, the workmen did not represent to

the management about their placement and the union,

which had very little following at Ballarpur raised an

industrial dispute concerning the workmen and on failure

2548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of the conciliation, the reference has been made and there

was an agreement between the RKKMS union and the

management at company level modifying the settlement

dated 02.11.1992, where by such piece rated employees

who came to the time rates after exercising options were

to be placed at the mid-point of the time rate and the

agreement has been implemented throughout the company

and the agreement dated 01.11.1995 was never challenged

by any union/workmen and the workmen are not entitled

to any relief.

4. In the rejoinder, the union has pleaded that the party

no. 1 has raised frivolous preliminary objections only to

delay the disposal of the reference and to defeat the

outcome of the dispute by exhausting the workmen and

there is no recognized union in WCL and as such, every

union enjoys the same status of raising an industrial

dispute and the doubt raised by party no.1 regarding its

existence at Ballarpur is based on surmises and

assumptions and the terms and conditions of the services

of the employees of WCL are governed by the provisions

of Standing Orders, NCWA and Settlement dated

02.11.1992 and party no. 1 arbitrarily and illegally violated

the same and there was exigencies of job of the

management and party no. 1 was in requirement of persons

on transfer to other post and as such, the workmen are

entitled for protection of group wages of loader and SPRA

as per S.O. 21 of the Standing Order and there was no

agreement between the RKKMS union and the

management on 01.11.1995 and there was only record note

of discussion between the said parties and subsequently

by letter dated 04.10.2001, the union had asked to cancel

the said record note of discussion and to give protection

of wages on the basis of the settlement dated 02.11.1992

and the workmen are entitled for the reliefs as claimed in

the statement of claim.

5. In support of its case, the union has examined three

of the workmen, namely, Shri Dharampal Sailani, Shri

Balkrishna Atmaram and Gurjala Lingaya and Shri Lomesh

Maroti Khartad, alleged to be the General Secretary of the

union, One, Shri Sambunath Sharma, the Manager

Personnel in Ballarpur colliery, 3 & 4 Pit has been

examined as the only witness by party no. 1.

Both the parties have relied on documentary evidence

besides the oral evidence adduced by them. The

respective examination-in-chief of the witnesses examined

by the parties is on affidavits.

6. The evidence of the four witnesses examined on

behalf of the union is more or less in the same line of the

stands taken in the statement of claim. In their cross-

examination, they have denied the suggestions that the

workmen not members of the union.

Workman Shri Balkrishan Atmaram in his cross-

examination has admitted that the union Koyla Shramik

Sabha has raised the dispute on their behalf and award

had been passed regarding the dispute raised by them in

case no. CGIT/NGP/26/2003 and the same dispute have

been referred by the Government in this reference.

The other three witnesses examined by the union have

denied the suggestions that the dispute raised by the

union had been raised by the union, "Koyla Shramik

Sabha" and the same was adjudicated in case no. CGIT/

NFP/68/2003 and award was passed against the workmen.

7. The only witness examined by the party no. 1 in has

examination-in-chief has reiterated the facts mentioned in

the written statement.

In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that

as management was in need of time rated category

workers, notice dated 11.09.1995 was given by the

management and there was a settlement on 02.11.1992

between RKKMS union and the management and in the

said settlement management had agreed to fill up 50%

vacancies arising out of natural wastage in time/monthly

rated category from amongst the piece rated workers, who

have completed at least 15 years of service and in

paragraph 1 of Ext. M-XXI, it has been mentioned that as

per the settlement dated 02.11.1992, it was decided that

management shall on conversion from PR to TR/MR will

fully protect the group wages including SPRA wherever

applicable and the application forms, Exts. M-III to M-XVII

were supplied to the workmen by the management and

the workmen have only signed the same and Ext. M-XIX

shows that till 01.07.1999, the designation of the workmen

was "Loader".

8. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the workmen that the conditions of

the workmen are governed by Certified Standing Orders

of party No. 1 and provisions of NCWA and the workmen

were working as loaders and as the party no. 1 was in

need of time/monthly rate workers and due to exigencies

of job, the workmen were transferred from piece rate to

time rate and as per clause S.O. 21 of the Certified

Standing Orders and the settlement dated 02.11.1992 and

the provisions of NCWA, they are entitled for protection

of their wages including SPRA.

In support of the contentions, the learned advocate

for the workmen place reliance on the decisions reported

in AIR 1973 SC-2650 (Western India Match Co. Ltd. Vs.

Workmen), 2007 (115) FLR-427 (Mohan Mahato Vs. M/s.

Central Coal Fields Ltd.). 2008 II CLR-147 (UP State

Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey), 1994 I CLR-

627 (Narendra Kumar Vs. State of Haryana) and 2000 (I)

LLN-216 (Capt. Subir Bhattacharya Vs. State of West

Bengal).

9. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate

for the party no. 1 that the dispute in regard to the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2549

workmen involved in this reference had been raised in

case no. CGIT/NGP/26/2003 by the Koyla Shramit Sabha

and in the said reference award had been passed against

the workmen and as such, the present reference is not

maintainable by the principles of res-judicata.

It was further submitted by the learned advocate for

the party no. 1 that otherwise also, the workmen are not

entitled to any relief as the workmen submitted their option

for their conversion from piece rated to time rated and they

also gave the undertaking to work in time rated with the

minimum basic pay of the time rated posts and there was

specific offer of the terms and conditions by the party

no. 1 and there was also specific acceptance thereof by

the workmen and the same became a contract between

the party no. 1 and the workmen and the workmen are

estopped from raising the dispute, in view of the principles

of estoppels, waivers and acquiescence and the workmen

are not entitled to any relief.

10. First of all, I will take up the submission made by

the learned advocate for the party no.1 that this reference

is not maintainable, the same being principles of res-

judicata; as the dispute raised on behalf of the workmen

in this reference had already been adjudicated and decided

in CGIT/NGP/26/2003 and the award was against the

workmen.

In reply, it was submitted by the learned advocate for

the workmen that case no. CGIT/NGP/26/2003 was

adjudicated on merit and as such, this reference is

maintainable and the same is to be adjudicated and

decided.

From the materials on record, it is found that in case

no. CGIT/NGP/26/2003 the dispute of the workmen

involved in this reference and some other employees of

WCL was raised by the union, Koyla Shramik Sabha and

by award dated 21.06.2012, the same was answered in the

negative and against the workmen. In case No. CGIT/NGP/

26/2003, after filling of the statement of claim by the union

and written statement by the management, the union was

directed to adduce evidence in support of the claim, but

no evidence was adduced by the union, the reference was

answered against the workman. In view of the adjudication

of the same dispute of the workmen in CGIT/NGP/26/2003,

the present reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata

and is not maintainable.

11. Moreover, for the sake of argument, if it is held that

this reference is maintainable, then it is to be considered

as to whether the workmen are entitled for the protection

of their wages of piece rate loader. Perused the materials

on record including the evidence adduced by the parties

and considered the submissions made by the learned

advocate for the parties and found that it is not the case

of the workmen that their conversion to time rate jobs from

piece rate loader was due to their physical weakness or

to fill up 50% vacancies arising out of natural wastage

after completion of 15 years of service as mentioned in

clauses 1.1 and 1.2 of the settlement dated 02.11.1992. So,

the terms of the settlement dated 02.11.1992 have no

application to the case of the workmen.

It is found from the documents on record that by notice

dated 11.09.1995, Ext. M-II, the party no. 1 called for

options from the loaders for their engagement in time rate

jobs, with the conditions that the loaders who would be

engaged in time rate would be paid minimum of the basic

pay of the time rate jobs and the workmen accepting the

conditions gave their options in writing, Exts. M-III to M-

XVII, with the undertaking to accept the minimum basic

pay of the time rate job given to them and that they would

not claim any wage protection. The case of the workmen

is not a case of transfer from piece rate loader to time rate

due to exigencies of work. This is also not the case that

the workmen were reduced in rank or category. It is found

from the record that specific offers were given by the party

no. 1 and the same were accepted by the workmen and

such acceptance can be held to be an agreement, as per

the provisions of section 18 of the Act and the same is

binding on both the parties. In view of the acceptance of

the conditions imposed by the party no. 1 by the workmen

and giving their consent for their engagement in time rate

jobs, they are precluded to raise the dispute, in view of

the provisions of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence,

which are applicable to industrial adjudication also. It is

not a pre-agreement of service inconsistent with the

provisions of Standing Order. The case of the workmen

is also not a case of their conversion from piece rated

loaders to time rate workers, due to any illness or injuries

received by them during the course of their employment.

So, the provisions of the Standing Order, NCWA and other

provisions cited by learned advocate for the workmen are

not applicable to their cases.

As the facts and circumstances of the case in hand

are quite different from the facts and circumstances of the

cases referred in the decisions cited by the learned

advocates for the workmen, with respect, I am of the view

that the said decisions have no clear application to this

case.

From the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned

above, it is found that the workmen are not entitled for

protection of their wages. Hence, it is ordered:—

ORDER

The action of the management of Ballarpur colliery 3

& 4 pits of Western Coalfields Limited in not granting

protection of basic pay upon conversion of Shri Anand

2550

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Madanaya and 14 others as per list to time rate is legal

and justified. The workmen are not entitled to any relief.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

L-22012/253/2001-IR(C-II)

NAME

No.

DESIGNATION

Sh. Anand Madanaya

Loader

Sh. Sunil Laxman Induri

Loader

Sh. Bhauji S. Chaple

Loader

Sh. Dharampal Sailani

Loader

Sh. Srinivas Sakal Iram

Loader

Sh. Sanjay M. Boiniwar

Loader

Sh. Gurjala Lingaya

Loader

Sh. Bhanudas Darala Ashalu

Loader

Sh. Balkisan Atmaram

Loader

10.

Sh. Kirtikumar Murlidhar

Loader

11.

Sh. Aageshwar Sukhaoo

Loader

12.

Sh. Bansilal Lalli

Loader

13.

Sh. Prasanna Kumar Narayan

Loader

14.

Sh. Jugeshkumar Swamidin

Loader

15.

Sh. Ramesh Ramilla Yenkati

Loader

ubZ fnYyh] 5 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1199-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QñlhñvkbZñ ds

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

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

U;k;y;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 168@2002½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@272@2001&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2015

S.O. 1199.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 168/

2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of FCI and

their workman, received by the Central Government on

05/06/2015.

[No. L-22012/272/2001-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT: Rakesh Kumar, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 168/2002

Ref. No. L-22012/272/2001-IR(CM-II)

Dated 28.11.2002

BETWEEN

The State Secretary

Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh

TC/3B, Vibhuti Khand,

Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.)

AND

The Zonal Manager

Food Corporation of India

Ansal Bhawan, K.G. Marg

New Delhi-110001

The Sr. Regional Manager

Food Corporation of India

TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand,

Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.)

AWARD

1. By order No. L-22012/272/2001-IR(CM-II) dated

28.11.2002 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)

referred this industrial dispute between the State Secretary,

Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh, Lucknow

(Espousing cause of Sri Vishesh Chand) and the Zonal

Manager, Food Corporation of India, New Delhi and the

Sr. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India,

Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the action of the management of Food

Corporation of India in imposing penalty upon Sri

Visheh Chand vide order dated 30.09.1997 and

rejecting appeal vide order dated 15/19.12.2000 and

not granting selection grade from 1996 were legal

and Justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to?"

3. As per the claim statement filed before this Tribunal

the workman Sri Vishesh Chand completed 12 years of

service in 1996 as AG-II (D), but the management illegally

did not provide selection grade to him, while the selection

grade was granted to other junior workmen, although there

is rule in FCI to grant selection grade after completion of

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2551

12 years of service in the same grade. It has been pleaded

that there was no reason for not granting selection grade

to the workman. The workman through union has

requested for direction to the Food Corporation of India

to grant selection grade in the scale of AG-II (D) from 1996

to the workman.

4. The management has filed written statement wherein

it has been asserted that the selection grade scheme in

respect of category of 3 & 4 employee was started vide

circular dated 30.12.1992 but effective from 1.12.1987 as

per the conditions prescribed in circular no. 22/1992. The

relevant provision of the said circular has been produced

in the written statement. It has also been pleaded by the

opposite party that the instructions in connection with

reservation of SC & ST etc. issued by the Govt. of India

from time to time have to be followed by the appointing

authority while making selection in the grade. Provision

for vigilance procedure has also been mentioned therein.

The opposite party has stated that as per the charge sheet

dated 16.09.1996 issued to Mr. Vishesh Chand, penalty

was subsequently imposed for reversion from AG-II(D)/

PP to AG-III(D)/PP for a period of 5 years vide the order

dated 30.09.1997 against appeal was preferred which was

also rejected by the Zonal Manager; It reads as under:

''Accordingly the selection grade case of Sri Vishesh

Chand AG-II(D)/PPDOB 15.7.48 ZS No. 3148 UP

Region DOJ 31.12.84 as AG-II(D)PP was considered

w.e.f. 01.12.1997 in the ZPC meeting held on 09.10/

6-2000 as per instructions stated above and on the

basis of availability of vacancies and declared

UNFIT due to reservation from AG-II(D) to AG-

III(D) due to vigilance/undergoing penalty."

5. The opposite party has emphasized that as per the

instructions and relevant provisions the selection grade

case of the workman was not required to be considered

w.e.f. 01.12.1996 but to be considered w.e.f. 11.02.1997, for

which action has already been taken.

6. Rejoinder A1-12 was filed on behalf of the workman

wherein the facts mentioned in written statement were said

to be false and baseless and contentions of the claim

statement were reiterated.

7. Circular dated 30.12.1992 was filed by the opposite

party vide application dated 17.03.2004. Amendment

application A1-21 was moved by the applicant. Objection

D-20 was filed by the opposite party. During the pendency

of the case before this Tribunal the workman expired on

15.03.2006 his wife Smt. Madhu Saxena moved an

amendment application to this effect. List C-33 dated

02.01.2007 alongwith documents mentioned therein was

filed by the workman, containing therein the enquiry report

and representation of the workman, and the penalty

imposed etc.

8. Arguments of Learned AR of the opposite party

have been heard at length. None appeared for the

workman although notice through Registered post was

issued and sufficient opportunity was also provided

thereafter. Record has been perused thoroughly.

9. The learned AR for the workman has relied upon the

following rulings;

(2010) 1 SCC (L&S), 129, Union of India vs. Gyan

Chandra Chattar.

(2009) 1 SCC (L&S), 398 Roop Singh Negi vs. PNB.

1998 SCC (L&S), 1783 PNB vs. Kunj Behari Misra.

1986 SCC (L&S), 383 Ram Chandra vs. Union of India.

1985 SCC (L&S), 672 Tulsi Ram Patil case.

FLR 1995 (70), 858 UPSRTC vs. Sarfaraz Hussain

Hon'ble Allahabad High Court.

AIR, 1972, SC, M/s Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd.

vs. The Workmen, page 330.

The learned authorized representative for opposite

party emphasizes that above rulings to not apply in the

present case.

10. Despite the fact that sufficient opportunity was

provided by the court to the workman to adduce evidence

in support of the claim statement, it was all in-vain. The

workman did not adduce any oral evidence before the

court, although written argument has been filed on behalf

of the workman before my learned predecessor. Further

several dates were given, but none turned up before the

court on behalf of the workman.

11. Regarding imputation of alleged mis-conduct of the

workman the enquiry officer has conducted

comprehensive enquiry, after giving sufficient opportunity

to the workman. The representation of workman was also

disposed off by the competent authority. FCI (Staff)

Regulations were followed by the management while

conducting disciplinary proceeding against the workman.

The matter of selection grade and its admissibility in the

case of the workman was duly considered with reasoned

findings, by the FCI.

12. After having gone through the entire record

available before the court, and giving due consideration

to the arguments advanced before me, it is inferred that

the management was fully justified in not granting

selection grade to workman Sri Vishesh Chand w.e.f. 1996.

The workman concerned is not entitled to any other relief.

13. Award accordingly.

Lucknow

28.05.2015

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

2552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 5 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1200-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,eñlhñ,yñ 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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 38@2011½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@06@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@111@2011&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&II½]

eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2015

S.O. 1200.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/2011)

of the Central. Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Bharatpur

Area of MCL and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 05/06/2015.

[No. L-22012/111/2011-IR(CM-II)]

Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT:

SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

Industrial Dispute Case No. 38/2011

L-22012/111/2011-IR(CM-II), dated 02.08.2011

Date of Passing Award-11th Day of December, 2014

BETWEEN:

The Chief General Manager,

Bharatpur Area of MCL

At-Mahendrapur, Bharatpur Colliery,

Angul, Odisha

...1st Party-Management

The Chief General Manager,

Hingula Area of MCL,

At-Mahendrapur, Bharatpur Colliery,

Angul, Odisha

(And)

The General Secretary,

Talcher Coal Mines Employees Union,

At-Qr, No. IB-103, PO-South Balanda,

Angul, Odisha

...2nd Party-Union

APPEARANCES :

None

...

For the 1st Party-Managements

None

...

For the 2nd Party-Union

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour &

Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between the employers in relation to the Management of

Bharatpur Colliery of MCL and Hingula Area of MCL,

Odisha, and their workmen represented through the

General Secretary, Talcher Coal Mines Employees Union,

Angul, Odisha in exercise of the powers conferred under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of

section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act vide their Letter

No. L-22012/111/2011-IR(CM-II), dated 02.08.2011 to this

Tribunal for adjudication. The dispute as referred to has

been mentioned under the scheduled of the letter of

reference which is quoted below.

"Whether the action of the management of Chief

General Managers of both Bharatpur area and

Hingula area of MCL in not sorting out the Anomaly

arising out of fixation of basic pay on promotion in

Clerk Grade-III Cadre to Clerk Grade-I and Sr. Clerk

and existing as on date amongst the 1st set of

workers Shri Dukhabandhu Biswal & 7 others, 2nd

set of workers Shri Naresh Chandra Sahoo &

8 others and 3rd set of workers Shri Md. Sahoo &

4 others is appropriate and justified? To what relief

the concerned workmen are entitled to"?

2. The 2nd party union (herein after referred to as "the

2nd party") has filed his Statement of Claim detailing

therewith the anomaly arisen in the fixation of pay of the

three sets of a total number of 22 (Twenty Two) workmen

on their promotions to higher posts. The setwise list of

workers is mentioned below.

1st set

Shri Dukhabandhu Biswal, Sr. Clerk, Bharatpur

Colliery.

Shri P.N. Kar, Sr. Clerk, Bharatpur Colliery.

Shri N.K. Pradhan, Sr. Clerk, Bharatpur Colliery.

Shri N.C. Sahoo, Sr. Clerk, Bharatpur Colliery.

Shri Pitabasa Pani, Sr. Clerk, CGM's Office.

Shri Golekha Bihari Behera, Sr. Clerk, Bharatpur

Colliery.

Shri Sambhunath Dehury, Sr. Clerk, Bharatpur Colliery.

Shri Bhaskar Chandra Bhutia, Sr. Clerk, Bharatpur

Colliery.

2nd set

Shri Naresh Chandra Sahoo, Sr. Clerk, Bharatpur

Colliery.

Shri Bhudhadev Naik, Sr. Clerk, Bharatpur Colliery.

Shri Bijaya Kumar Pradhan, Sr. Clerk, CGM's Office.

Shri Jagatananda Sahoo, Sr. Clerk, Bharatpur Colliery.

Shri Gobardhan Barik, Sr. Clerk, Bharatpur Colliery.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2553

Shri Balakrishna Pradhan, Sr. Clerk, Bharatpur

Colliery.

Smt. Panchali Sahoo, Sr. Clerk, CGM's Office.

Shri Maheswar Behera, Sr. Clerk, Bharatpur Colliery.

Shri Raj Kishore Sahoo, Sr. Clerk, Bharatpur Colliery.

3rd set

Shri M.D. Sahoo, Sr. Clerk, Bharatpur Colliery.

Shri Dhaneswar Prasad, Sr. Clerk, Bharatpur Colliery.

Shri P.K. Nayak, Sr. Clerk, Bharatpur Colliery.

Smt. Laxmirani Baral, Sr. Clerk, Bharatpur Colliery.

Shri Prabina Gochhayat, Sr. Clerk, Bharatpur Colliery.

3. As pleaded by the 2nd party, the 1st set of workmen

are the senior most employees than the 2nd & 3rd set of

workers. The 2nd set of workmen are senior to the 3rd set

of workers. But, while fixing the pay on promotion of the

above employees, the senior employees are getting lesser

pay as compared to their juniors. On noticing the anomaly,

the affected workmen raised their grievances for several

times before the 1st party managements (herein after

referred to as the "1st party"). Due to non-redressal of

their grievances by the 1st paty, the affected workmen

took the shelter of the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Cental), Bhubaneswar [in short ALC (C)] for the redressal

of their grievances on pay anomaly. Both the 2nd party

and the 1st paty appeared before the ALC(C) on different

dates and took part in the conciliation proceedings for an

amicable settlement of the matter. But on failure of the

same, the matter was referred to the appropriate

government and hence this reference.

4. The 2nd party on last several occasions remained

absent from the proceedings of this case inspite of a notice

issued to him 14.08.2014 for submission of his exparte

arguments. But, he did not appear and also no further

steps were taken by him.

5. The 1st Party Management No. 1 and 2 (herein after

referred to as "the 1st party") though appeared before this

Tribunals and took adjournments seeking time for filing

of their written statements, yet they did not file any written

statement. No step also taken by them on subsequent

dates. Accordingly, the 1st party were set exparte on

08.08.2012. However, in order to give a further opportunity

to the 1st party, a notice was isued to them. But, they did

not turn up.

6. On the above grounds the case was reserved for

passing of award basing upon the documents available

in the record.

FINDINGS

7. Since, the 1st party did not file any counter/written

statement against the statement of claim filed by the 2nd

party to justify their action taken against the disputant

workmen, it is held that the claim of the 2nd party is

genuine and the action of the 1st party on fixation of pay

of the disputant workmen is not appropriate and justified.

The 1st party is therefore, directed to rectify the pay

anomaly of the disputant workers since the date of their

entitlements and pay them their consequential benefits

immediately. The 1st party is further directed to carry out

this order within a period of three months from the date

of publication of award in the Gazette of India failing which

action as deemed fit will be taken against the 1st party

and the 1st party shall pay interest @ 12 percent per

annum simple interest on the consequential benefits to

the disputant workers computed in terms of money. The

reference is answered in light of the above terms.

8. Accordingly, this award is passed exparte against

the 1st party management No. 1 and 2.

Dictated and corrected by me.

PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1201-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,e@,l Li"V

lqjf{kr lfoZl izkñ fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ lañ 16@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

08@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@69@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th June, 2015

S.O. 1201.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2015)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of M/s Clear Secured

Service (P) Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 08/06/2015.

[No. L-12012/69/2014-IR(B-II]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 15th April, 2015

Present: K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 16/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947),

between the Management of Clear Secured Service India

Pvt. Ltd. and their workman).

2554

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

BETWEEN

Sri A. RAVI

Ist Party/Petitioner

AND

M/s. Clear Secured Service India Pvt. Ltd.

Regd. Office, 501, Rajgir Sadan,

Laxmi Baugh, Opp. To Sion Station

(West) Mumbai-22

2nd Party/Ist Respondent

M/s. Clear Secured Service India Pvt. Ltd.

Sri Ram Prasad, Manager,

Corporate

Office-Tamil Nadu

No. 133, S.M. Narayan Nagar

Anna Nagar West Extn., Mogappair,

Near MMM Hospital,

Chennai-600101

2nd Party/2nd Respondent

Sri N. Shahul Hameed, MA., BL

36/42, New Bangaru Colony

West KK Nagar, Chennai

2nd Party/3rd Respondent

The Chairman

M/s. Bank of India,

Star House, C-5

G-Block,

Bandra Kurla Complex

Bandra (East)

Mumbai-400051

2nd Party/4th Respondent

The Chairman & Managing Director

Central Bank of India,

Chandermukhi,

Nariman Point

Mumbai-400021

2nd Party/5th Respondent

The Chairman

HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg

Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013

2nd Party/6th Respondent

The Chief Managing Director

IDBI Bank Ltd., IDBI Tower,

WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Colaba

Mumbai-400005

2nd Party/7th Respondent

The Chairman & Managing Director

Union Bank of India,

239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg

Mumbai-400021

2nd Party/8th Respondent

The Chairman & Managing Director

Vijaya Bank

41/2, Trinity Circle, M.G. Road.

Bangalore-560001

2nd Party/9th Respondent

APPEARANCE:

For the 1st party/Petitioner

Absent

For the 2nd Party/1st and

Sri N. Shahul Hameed,

2nd Respondent

Advocate

For the 2nd Party/

Sri N. Shahul Hameed,

3rd Respondent

Advocate

For the 2nd Party/

M/s. Pais, Lobo,

4th Respondent

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/

M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

5th and 8th Respondent

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/

Absent

6th Respondent

For the 2nd Party/

Smt. S. Saranya,

7th Respondent

Authorized

Representative

For the 2nd Party/

Absent

9th Respondent

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/69/2014-IR (B.II)

dated 05.01.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s.

Clear Secured Services (P) Ltd., Chennai regarding

termination of the service of the petitioner, Sri A.

Ravi is justifiable or not? What relief the petitioner

is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has

numbered it as ID 16/2015 and issued notices to both

sides. On receipt of notice First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and

Eighth Respondents have appeared through their counsel

and the Seventh Respondent through the Authorized

Representative. No vakalat was filed for other

Respondents.

3. Though the petitioner received notice he was absent

continuously. He seems to be not interested in proceeding

with the matter. In the absence of any material the

adjudication of the matter on merits is not possible. The

reference is answered against the petitioner.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on

this day the 15th April, 2015)

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2555

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2nd Party/Managements

None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

N/A

On the Management's side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

N/A

ubZ fnYyh] 8 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1202-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fot; cSad ds izcaèra=

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;]

psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 26@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 08-06-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@92@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th June, 2015

S.O. 1202.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2015)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Vijay Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

08/06/2015.

[No. L-12011/92/2014-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CHENNAI

Thursday, the 28th May, 2015

Present: K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 26/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947),

between the Management of Indian Bank and their

workman)

BETWEEN

The President

Vijaya Bank Workers Organization

60/2, Big Street, Triplicane

Chennai-600005

...Ist Party/Petitioner Union

AND

The General Manager (Personnel)

Vijaya Bank, Head Office, M.G. Road

Bangalore

...2nd Party/1st Respondent

The Dy. General Manager

Vijaya Bank, Regional Office

No. 123, Marshalls Road, Egmore

Chennai-600008

...2nd Party/2nd Respondent

APPEARANCE:

For the 1st Party/

Sri S.D. Srinivasan,

Petitioner Union

Authorized

Representative

For the 2nd Party/

Nil

1st Respondent

For the 2nd Party/

Absent

2nd Respondent

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/92/2014-IR (B-II)

dated 17.02.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the Management of Vijaya

Bank, Chennai regarding engagement of contract

labourers in its establishment which are perennial

and permanent nature is justified or not? What relief

the representative of the petitioner union is entitled

for?"

2. On receipt of notice the petitioner has appeared

through the Authorized Representative.

3. The petitioner has filed a memo stating that it is not

pressing the dispute. Therefore the reference is answered

against the petitioner.

An award is passing accordingly,

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on

this day the 28th May, 2015)

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union

None

For the 2nd Party/1st Management

None

For the 2nd Party/2nd Management

None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

N/A

2556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On the Management's side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

N/A

ubZ fnYyh] 8 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1203-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad 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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼34@2015½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@02@2015&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th June, 2015

S.O. 1203.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2015)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of Indian Bank and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 08/06/2015.

[No. L-12012/02/2015-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Thesday, the 26th May, 2015

Present: K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 34/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947),

between the Management of Indian Bank and their

workman)

BETWEEN

Sri M. Sivaprakasam

...1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Branch Manager

Indian Bank, Reddiarpalayam Branch,

43GF, Pondi-Villiyanur Main Road,

Reddiarpalayam,

Puducherry-605010

...2nd Party/1st Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

Absent

For the 2nd Party/Respondent

M/s. Aiyar & Dolia,

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/2/2015-IR (B-II)

dated 09.03.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the Management of Indian

Bank, Reddiarpalayam Branch, Puducherry in

terminating the services of Sri M. Sivaprakasam as

Jewel Appraiser and removing his name from panel

is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled?"

2. On receipt of notice the Respondent has appeared

through counsel. The petitioner has been present on the

first hearing date and the matter has been posted for filling

Claim Statement by the petitioner. But the petitioner has

absented himself thereafter. In spite of that the case has

been reposted for Claim Statement of the petitioner. He

was absent on this reposted date also. He seems to be

not interested in pursuing the case. In the absence of the

Claim Statement or any other material the reference is

answered against the petitioner. An award is passed

accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on

this day the 26th May, 2015)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union

None

For the 2nd Party/Management

None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

N/A

On the Management's side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

N/A

ubZ fnYyh] 8 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1204-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad ds

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2557

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 53@2014½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-06-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@40@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th June, 2015

S.O. 1204.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/2014)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Indian Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

08/06/2015.

[No. L-12011/40/2014-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Friday, the 15th May, 2015

Present: K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 53/2014

(In the matter of the dispute the adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947),

between the Management of Indian Bank and their

workman)

BETWEEN

The General Secretary

Indian Bank Employees Union

No. 6 Moore Street, Mannady Corner

Chennai-600001

1st Party/Petitioner Union

AND

The General Manager (HRM)

Indian Bank, Avvai Shanmugam Salai

Chennai-6000014

2nd Party/Respondent

APPEARANCE:

For the 1st Party/

M/s. J. Thomas Jeyaprabharan,

Petitioner Union

Authorized Representative

For the 2nd Party/

M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

Respondent

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/40/2014-IR (B.II)

dated 30.06.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the Management of Indian

Bank in denying permanent benefits to Sri M.

Jayabalan, Clerk/Shroff of Vennaiyur Branch, Vellore

Zone is legal and justified? What relief the

concerned employee is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has

numbered it as ID 53/2014 and issued notices to both

sides. The petitioner has entered appearance through

Authorized Representative and the Respondent through

counsel and have filed their claim and counter statement

respectively. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder and the

Respondent an additional Counter Statement.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these:

The Petitioner Union has raised the dispute against

termination of service of Jayabalan as "Separated" instead

of relieving him on superannuation on 30.04.2012 on

attaining the age of 60 years and refusing to pay terminal

benefits except Provdent Fund. Jayabalan was appointed

in the Respondent Bank in the year 1983 under Scheduled

Tribe category based on the Community Certificate issued

by the competent authority. He was confirmed in the

service of the Bank on completion of the period of

probation. A Show Cause Notice dated 19.12.1990 was

issued to jayabalan to explain why discipliniary action

should not be initiated against him for securing

employment in the Bank declaring that he belongs to

Kattunayakan Community. It was stated that on

investigation by the Bank Jayabalan was found to belong

to Hindu Vadagan Caste which is not a Scheduled Tribe.

The High Court of Madras had passed an order of

injuction restraining the Respondent from conducting any

enquiry regarding the status of the community of

Jayabalan pending disposal of the Second Appeal

preferred by him. The genuiness of the certificate is yet

to be considered by the State Level Scrutinizing

Committee. The certificate has not been cancelled by any

competent authority. It is only on concellation of the

certificate the employer gets right to initiate disciplinary

action on the ground theat the certificate is not valid. As

per the service conditions governing the Award Staff

employees working in the Banks are to be relieved from

service on attaining the age of superannuation. The act

of the Respondent in dispensing with the service of the

Jayabalan by means of an non- existing provision i.e.

"Separation" in denying terminal benefits to him is illegal

and unjustified. An order may be passed to this effect.

2558

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as below:

M. Jayabalan on whose behalf the dispute has been

raised was appointed as Clerk/Shroff w.e.f. 23.06.1983

under Scheduled Tribe category subject to the verification

of the Community Certificate. On such verification it was

found that the employee did not belong to Kattunayakan

Community. A Show Cause Notice was issued to him

seeking explanation from him as to why disciplinary action

should not be initiated against him. The employee filed

Writ Petition before the High Court of Madras and

obtained an order of injunction. After this the matter was

referred to a three member committee. The matter is not

pending with State Level Scrutiny Committee for enquiry

as per the revised order of State Government of Tamil

Nadu. In the meantime the employee reached the age of

superannuation. In view of the fact that final report on

verification of the Community Certificate by the State

Level Scrutiny Committee is awaited the employee was

not allowed to retire on superannuation but was separated

from the service of the Bank as on the date of attaining

the age of 60 years i.e. 30.04.2012 withholding his terminal

benefits of Gratuity and pension. The petitioner is not

entitled to any relief.

5. The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the case

in the counter statement and reiterating his case in the

Claim Statement.

6. The Respondent has filed additional Counter

Statement after this.

7. The evidence in the case consists of exhibits marked

as Exts. W1 to Exts. W8 and Exts. M1 to Exts. M7. No

oral evidence was adduced by the parties.

8. The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the action of the management in

denying terminal benefits to Sri M. Jayabalan,

Clerk/Shroff is legal and justified?

(ii) What if any is the relief to which the he is

entitled?

The Points

9. The workman on whose behalf the dispute is raised

had joined the service of the Respondent Bank in the year

1983 under Scheduled Tribe category on the basis of the

community certificate that was submitted by him. He was

confirmed in the service of the Bank on completion of the

period of probation. It seems, a show Cause Notice dated

09.12.1990 was issued to Jayabalan asking him to show

cause why disciplinary action shall not be initiated against

him as it was revealed on enquiry by the Bank that he is

not a member of Kattunayakan Community and thereby

not a member of Scheduled Tribe at all but is a member of

Hindu Vadagan Caste which is not a Scheduled Tribe. A

genuineness of the certificate on the basis of which

Jayabalan had obtained job is now pending for

consideration before the State Level Scrutiny Committee.

Jayabalan had attained the age of Superannuation on

30.04.2012. Since the genuineness of the Community

Certificate by which he obtained job was still to be

scrutinized by the State Level Scrutiny Committee the

Respondent, rather than relieving Jayabalan as retired on

superannuation, passed an order stating that he is

separated from the service. Though he was paid the PF

amount due to him, other terminal benefits due to him were

with held by the Respondent. The dispute is raised on

account of this.

10. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the

Respondent has no authority to relieve the concerned

employee under a name which is not known to law rather

than allowing him to retire on superannuation. It is argued

on behalf of the petitioner that when there is no provision

for such "separation" the Respondent is not justified in

making such an order and denying terminal benefits to

the employee. It is pointed out by the Authorized

Representative that gratuity can be forfeited only under

Section-6A of the Gratuity Acts and so far as there is no

case for the Respondent that the gratuity is forfeited under

this Section there is no justification for such forfeiture.

The Authorized Representative has also referred to

Caluses-42 to 46 of Pension Regulations of the bank and

pointed out that the method adopted by the Rspondent

is not legal and proper.

11. The Authorized Representative has referred to the

decision in State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Jitendra

Kumar Srivastava and others (Civil Appeal No. 6770/2013

decided on 14.08.2013) in support of his argument that

the order of separation is only an executive instruction

which is not having statutory character and this cannot

be implemented. In the above case the question

considered was whether the State Government is entitled

to withhold a part of pension or gratuity during the

pendency of departmental/criminal proceedings in the

absence of any provision in the Pension Rules. The Apex

Court has held that a person cannot be deprived of his

pension without authority of law which is the

constitutional mandate enshrined in Article-300A of the

Constitution. It was further held that executive

instructions are not having statutory character and

therefore cannot be termed as law. It was found that the

State Government cannot withhold even a part of pension

or gratuity on the basis of a circular. The Authorized

Representative has referred to the decision of the Apex

Court in Kandasamy Vs. Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust

decided on 22.08.1997 also in this respect. Here it was

observed that Community Certificate issued to Scheduled

Tribe candidate prior to 11.11.1989 is good and valid if

not cancelled.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2559

12. It has been pointed out on behalf of the Respondent

that the genuineness of the certificate on the basis of

which the concerned employee obtained employment was

under consideration. It has also been pointed out that it

was on account of delaying tactics on the part of

employee only that the matter is still pending with the

State Level Securitining Committee. It is also pointed out

that the Respondent has not forfeited the claim of the

employee but has only withheld the claim pending

decision regarding the genuineness of the certificate.

13. It could be seen that the Bank had been trying to

verify the genuineness of the Community Certificate in

question long ago. When the certificate was sent for

verification, the community certificate had filed a suit

before Sub-Court Pudukkottai as OS 82/1988 seeking a

declaration that the Respondent has no authority to

enquire about the genuineness of the Certificate and to

restrain them for making any such enquiry. By Ext. M1

judgement the suit was dismissed. The appeal filed against

the said judgement also was dismissed. The concerned

employee filed SA 1097/96 before the High Court of

Madras as seen from the grounds of appeal marked as

Ext. M2. It is seen from the Claim Statement itself that the

employee had filed WP before the High Court for an

injunction restraining the Respondent from conducting

any enquiry regarding the status of the community of the

employee pending disposal of the second appeal preferred

by him.

13. The documents produced by the Respondent would

show that there was no latches on the part of the

Respondent Ext. M3 is a letter by the Respondent Bank

to the District Collector requesting to send files relating

to verification of community certificates of employees

including the concerned employee to the State Level

Scrutinizing Committee. Ext. M4 is a letter written by the

Respondent to the secretary to the Government of Tamil

Nadu to furnish the position of the pending cases. Ext.

M7 is another letter by the Respondent to the Principal

Secretary to Govt., Adi Dravidan Tribal Welfare

Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu to give

direction to the authorities concerned to dispose off the

long pending cases. In Ext. M7 it is also stated that

payment of terminal benefits to the employees against

whom verification of community certificate is withheld for

want of verification report from the authorities.

14. The counsel for the Respondent has pointed out

that if a person gets appointment on the basis of a

fraudulent certificate his appointment is no appointment

at all in the eye of law. The counsel for the Respondent

has referred to the decision in Vishwanath Pillai Vs. State

of Kerala reported in AIR 2004 SC 1469(1) in this respect.

The Apex Court has held in this that a person who has

obtained appointment based on a false certificate cannot

claim a right to the post as he had usured a post meant

for a reserved candidate by playing fraud and producing

false certificate. Unless the person can lay a claim to the

post on the basis of his appointment he cannot claim the

constitutional guarantee given under Article-311 of the

constitution. As he had obtained appointment on the

basis of a false caste certificate he cannot be considered

to be a person who holds a post within the meaning of

Article-311 of Constitution of India, it was further held.

The counsel has also referred to the decision of the Apex

Court in Bank of India and another Vs. Avinash and others

reported in 2005 7 SCC 690. Here it was held that the caste

certificate having been obtained fraudulently the very

foundation of the appointment collapses and the same is

no appointment in the eye of law. Of course in the above

two cases referred to by the Respondent the Scrutinizing

Committee has already found that the certificates in

question were fraudulently obtained. In the present case

the scrutiny of the certificate is yet to be done. However,

the observation of the Apex Court would show that

obtaining appointment on the basis of a false certificate

is no appointment at all and the concerned person cannot

claim any right of benefits from the appointment.

15. The counsel for the Respondent has referred to the

decisions of the Madras High Court where the Hon'ble

Court has refused to order payment of terminal benefits

pending decision by the State Level Scrutiny Committee

on the genuineness of the Community Certificates. In the

decision in Balasubramanian Vs. Asstt. General Manager

and others in WP No. 17184/2011 the Madras High Court

has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in

Vishwanath Pillai's case referred to earlier. In the above

case the High Court has only given a direction that

payment of terminal benefits to the concerned employee

would depend upon the order that may be passed by the

State Level Scrutiny Committee. In other cases regarding

employees of Indian Bank also the Madras High Court

has taken the same view. In the case of A.G Rose in WP

11286/12 decided on 02.07.2014 also the High Court has

directed that the Bank need disburse the retirement

benefits to the Writ petitioner based on the findings of

the State Level Scrutiny Committee. This is the direction

given in the case of Sundar in WP 19006/2013 and

Ayyappan in WP 21396/2013 decided on 04.07.2004 also.

16. It is not a case where the Bank had forfeited the

retirement benefits to the concerned workman. The Bank

has only withheld the benefits pending the report of the

Scrutiny Committee regarding the certificate of the

concerned employee. The delay in taking a decision

regarding the genuineness of the certificate seems to be

mainly on account of the various litigations entered into

by the concerned employee. Disbursement of the amount

should depend upon the decision taken by the Scrutiny

Committee on the genuineness of the Certificate. I find

the concerned employee is not entitled to any relief at this

stage.

2560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The reference is answered against the petitioner. An

award is passed accrodingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on

this day the 15th May, 2015)

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union

None

For the 2nd Party/Management

None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

25.10.2012

Letter reference IBEU/261/2012 to the

Assistant

Labour

Commissioner,

Chennai by the Union

Ex.W2

19.03.2012

Counter submitted by the administration

to the Asstt. Labour Commissioner

Ex.W3

19.07.2013

Rejoinder submitted by the Union to the

Assisstant Labour Commissioner

Ex.W4

19.12.1990

Show Cause Notice issued by the Zonal

Manager/Disciplinary Authority, Zonal

Officer, Trichy

Ex.W5

26.04.2012

Letter from the administration to M.

Jayabalan intimating "separation" from

the services.

Ex.W6

30.04.2012

Letter from the Indian Bank, Vennaiyur

Branch to M. Jayabalan

Ex.W7

08.09.2012

Representation from M. Jayabalan to the

General Manager (HRM) requesting

sanction of termination Benefits

Ex.W8

14.09.2012

Lettter from CO:HRM to M. Jayabalan

on with holding terminal benefits

On the Managements's side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

29.10.1983

Judgement of Sub-Court, Pudukottai in

Os No. 82/88

Ex.W2

06.08.1996

Grounds of Appeal in S.A. No. 1097 of

1996 before High Court, Madras

Ex.M3

25.04.2008

Letter from Respondent of District

Collector, Pudukottai

Ex.M4

28.07.2011

Letter

from

Respondent

the

Secretary, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare

Department, Govt. of Tamil Nadu

Ex.M5

13.09.2011

Letter from the Dy. Secretary to the

District Collector, Pudukottai

Ex.M6

09.12.2011

Letter from Respondent to District

Collector, Pudukottai

Ex.M7

04.01.2013

Letter from Respondent to the Principal

Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu.

ubZ fnYyh] 8 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1205-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj psUubZ iru U;kl

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

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 12@2015½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@06@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&33011@05@2014&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th June, 2015

S.O. 1205.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 12/2015)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of the Chennai Port

Trust and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 08/06/2015.

[No. L-33011/05/2014-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 23rd April, 2015

Present: K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 12/2015

In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947),

between the Management of Chennai Port Trust and their

workman.

BETWEEN

The General Secretary

Transport and Dock Workers Union No. 32

Perumal Mudali Street

Kondithope

Channai-600079

...1st Party/Petitioner Union

AND

The Chairman

Channai Port Trust

Rajaji Salai

Chennai-600001

...2nd Party/Respondent

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2561

APPEARANCE:

For the 1st Party/

M/s. R. Prathapan & D.

Petitioner Union

Venkatesan, Advocate

For the 2nd Party/

M/s. M.R. Dharanichander,

Respondent

Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-33011/05/2014-IR (B.II)

dated 07.01.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The Schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management of Chennai

Port Trust regarding non-extension of revision of

other allowances in Clause-23 as per the Wage

Settlement dated 19.01.2010. is justifiable or not?

What relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has

numbered it as ID 12/2015 and notice was issued to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their

counsel.

3. Though the petitioner has entered appearance

through a counsel he was consistently negligent in

proceeding with the case. He was absent on the first

hearing date even though he has received notice. It was

only after issuing notice again he appeared through

Counsel. Thereafter, also the matter was posted for filing

Claim Statement by the petitioner. But in spite of repeated

postings, the petitioner and his counsel were absent. The

petitioner seems to be not interested in proceeding with

the matter. There is no material available to support the

issue under reference.

In the above circumstance, the reference is answered

against the petitioner.

An award is passed accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., Transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on

this day the 23rd April, 2015)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2nd Party/Management

None

Deocument Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No. Date

Description

Nil

On the management's side

Ex. No. Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 8 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1206-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj ,e@,l Li"V

lqjf{kr lfoZl ¼izñ½ fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

lañ 17@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks

08@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@68@2014&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th June, 2015

S.O. 1206.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/2015)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of M/s. Clear Secured

Service (P) Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 08.06.2015.

[No. L-12012/68/2014-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 15th April, 2015

Present: K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 17/2015

In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947),

between the Management of Clear Secured Service India

Pvt. Ltd. and their workman.

BETWEEN

Sri N.M. Yuvaraj

..1st Party/Petitioner

AND

M/s. Clear Secured Service India Pvt. Ltd.

Regd. Office, 501, Rajgir Sadan, Laxmi Baugh,

Opp. To Sion Station (West), Mumbai-22

...2nd Party/1st Respondent

M/s. Clear Secured Service India Pvt. Ltd.

Sri Ram Prasad, Manager, Corporate

Office-Tamil Nadu

2562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

No. 133, S.M. Narayan Nagar

Anna Nagar West Extn., Mogappair,

Near MMM Hospital

Chennai-600 101

...2nd Party/2nd Respondent

Sri N. Shahul Hameed, MA., BL

36/42, New Bangaru Colony

West K.K. Nagar, Chennai

...2nd Party/3rd Respondent

The Chairman

M/s. Bank of India, Star House, C-5

G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex

Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051

...2nd Party/4th Respondent

The Chairman & Managing Director

Central Bank of India, Chandermukhi

Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021

...2nd Party/5th Respondent

The Chairman

HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg

Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013

...2nd Party/6th Respondent

The Chief Managing Director

IDBI Bank Ltd., IDBI Tower, WTC

Complex, Cuffe Parade, Colaba

Mumbai-400 005

...2nd Party/7th Respondent

The Chairman & Managing Director

Union Bank of India

239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg

Mumbai-400 021

...2nd Party/8th Respondent

The Chairman & Managing Director

Vijaya Bank

41/2, Trinity Circule, M.G. Road

Bangalore-560 001

...2nd Party/9th Respondent

APPEARANCE:

For the 1st Party/

Absent

Pettioner

For the 2nd Party/

Sri N. Shahul Hameed,

1st and 2nd Respondent

Advocate

For the 2nd Party/

Sri N. Shahul Hameed,

3rd Respondent

Advocate

For the 2nd Party/

M/s. Pais, Lobo, Advocates

4th Respondent

For the 2nd Party/

M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

5th and 8th Respondent

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/

Absent

6th Respondent

For the 2nd Party/

Smt. S. Saranya,

7th Respondent

Authorized Representative

For the 2nd Party/

Absent

9th Respondent

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/68/2014-IR(B.II)

dated 05.01.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The Schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s.

Clear Secured Services (P) Ltd., Chennai regarding

termination of the service of the petitioner, Sri N.M.

Yuvaraj is justifiable or not? What relief the

petitioner is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industial Dispute this Tribunal has

numbered it as ID 17/2015 and issued notices to both

sides. On receipt of notice First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and

Eighth Respondents have appeared through their counsel

and the Seventh Respondent through the Authorized

Representative. No Vakalat was filed for other

Respondents.

3. Though the petitioner received notice he was absent

continuously. He seems to be not interested in proceeding

with the matter. In the absence of any material the

adjudication of the matter on merits is not possible. The

reference is answered against the petitioner.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on

this day the 15th April, 2015)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2nd Party/Management

None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No. Date

Description

N/A

On the Management's side

Ex. No. Date

Description

N/A

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2563

ubZ fnYyh] 9 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1207-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj bafnjk xka/kh

us'kuy vksiu ;wfuoflZVh] jhtuy lsaVj] iVuk ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2]

/kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 44@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUæh; ljdkj dks 08@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@134@2012&vkbZvkj ¼Mh ;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th June, 2015

S.O. 1207.—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. 44 of 2013) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad now as shown

in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Indira

Gandhi National Open University, Regional Centre, Patna

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 08.06.2015.

[No. L-42012/134/2012-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

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

REFERENCE No. 44 OF 2013

PARTIES

Smt. Bindiya Devi,

C/o Sri Upendra Ram,

Moh-Ambedkar Bhawan,

Flat No. 203-B,

Nala Road, Kadam Kuan, Patna

Vs.

The Regional Director,

Indira Gandhi National Open University,

Regional Centre, Patna, IInd Floor,

Biscoman Tower, West Gandhi Maidan,

Patna 01.

Order No. L-42012/134/2012-IR (DU)

dt. 20.02.2013

On behalf of the workman/Union :

Mr. D. Mukherjee

Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the Management

Mr. Zaki Azam

Ld. Advocate

State : Bihar

Industy : Deptt. of Education

Dated, Dhanbad, the 11th May, 2015

AWARD

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-42012/134/2012-IR (DU) dt. 20.02.2013.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management by illegal

termination of services of Smt. Bindiya Devi w.e.f.

04.05.2012 is justified or not? If not, what relief she

is entitled to?"

On receipt of the Order No. L-42012/134/2012-IR(DU),

dt. 20.02.2013 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi, for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 44 of 2013 was registered on 11.03.2013 and

accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue

notices through the Registered Posts 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. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their apperances and filed their

pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Workman and the O.P./Management through their Ld.

Advocates appeared respectively, and contested the case.

2. The case of Smt. Bindiya Devi as stated in her wirtten

statement is that she had been working as a permanent

Sweeper against the job of permanent nature since Sept.,

2005 continuously within the premises of the Establishmet

under the direct control and supervision of the

Management of Indira Gandhi National Open University.

Though he had been working till then Management

calling her Part-Time employee and paying her the wages

of a Part-time employee in the name of alleged

intermediaries. She also represented before the

Management several times for the payment of wages of a

permanent workman but the Management got annoyed

and terminated her service by stopping her from duty

since 04.05.2012, though she had reported for her duty

on that day. The Management disallowed her to resume

her duty without any reason even on her representation

several times for it, Finding no alterative, the petitioner

raised this Industrial Dispute for the ALC (C), Patna.

2564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Despite the direction of the Conciliation Officer to produce

the statutory documents such as registered of attendance,

payment of bonus etc. the anti-labour Management failed

to produce it. The conciliation proceedings lastly failed

and resulted in the reference for adjudication, so the

action of the Management in terminating the service of

petitioner w.e.f. 04.05.2012 is illegal, unjustified as well as

void for non-compliance of provision u/s 25 F of the

I.D. Act in view of his continuous service for more than

240 days in attendances in a calendar year.

Further she alleged that she was appointed by the

Management in the year 2005, she had been working six days

in a week from 7 a.m. to 12 p.m. and getting Rs. 1500/- per

month on voucher. She got monthly payment by cheque

from 03.05.2012 to March, 2012. Her monthly salary was

reduced by the Management from Rs. 1500 to 750

arbitrarily and illegally. The Management began to pay

her Rs. 1000/- per month from Nov. 2007 to Dec., 2009

Dr. A.N. Tripthy the Management Official, increased her

monthly wages from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 4,650/- from Jan.,

2010 by changing the working hours from 08 a.m. to

05 p.m. She was working even on holidays and rest days,

getting her wages for the holidays as well. Dr. Haider,

Management Official began to pay Rs. 205/- daily. As such

the Management had exploited the poor downtrodden

petitioner in an illegal manner. Hence, the petitioner is

entitled to reinstatement with her full back wages and full

benefits.

3. The petitioner in her rejoinder had denied all the

allegation of the OP/Management as false, misleading and

vague further stating that the OP/Management changed

her status from direct employee to alleged intermediary

employee without her consent and contrary to the

mandatory provision of Sec. 9 A of the I.D. Act.

4. Whereas the case of the OP/Management is that the

Management have already represented before the ALC (C),

Maurya Lok Complex, Patna that the no relationship of

the employer and employee exists between the OP/

Management and the Lady petitioner. The petitioner was

engaged by the Management as a Part-Time Sweeper only

for 2 hours 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. in Sept., 2005 till Dec. 2009

and accordingly she was paid her wages. Her duty of

work was increased from Jan, to March, 2010 and her

wages was accordingly paid. Further it is alleged that

From April, 2010 onwards the petitioner joined M/s.

Popular Sainik Security Agency, the Agency providing

manpower to regional Centre, Indira Gandhi National Open

University, 2nd Floor, Biscoman Tower, Patna. Thus she

became the employee of M/s. Popular Sainik Security

Agency, resulting in Stopping her engagement by the

IGNOU. The aforesaid Security Agency assigned their

employees including petitioner with their duties,

instructing them to perform their duties under the

Supervision of their staff at the specified places. When

aforesaid Field worker does not attend her duty of the

Security Agency. The Agency alternatively arranges for

getting the office premises cleaned properly on time. The

aforesaid popular Sainik Security Agency raises bills time

to time for different dates and the same after scrutiny is

paid by the Management. As such the allegation of the

petitioner for her termination by the Management is

absolutely false, as she is the employee of the aforesaid

Security Agency, so the question of termination does not

arise. Hence the Industrial Dispute is not maintainable on

that score.

The OP/Management in their simultaneous rejoinder

has categorically denied all the allegations of the petitioner

as totally vague and wrong and baseless. Under such

circumstances, there is no violation of Sec 25 of the I.D.

Act. Further alleged on behalf of the OP/Management is

that the engagement of the petitioner by Indira Gandhi

National Open University in Sept., 2005 was a Part-Time

Sweeper on daily wages only in exigencies for two hours

only. Hence the petitioner is not entitled and remuneration

from IGNOU.

FINDING WITH THE REASONS

5. In the instant reference Case WW1 Bindiya Devi,

the petitioner herself for her sake, WW2 Upendra Ram,

the husband of the petitioner, and MW1 Rajesh Kumar

Sharma, the Asstt. Registrar for the OP/Management of

Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) have

been respectively examined.

Mr. D. Mukherjee, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has

argued that the Lady petitioner had been continuously

working at (IGNOU), Regional Centre, Patna, and being

said since Sept., 2005 (Ext. W.1 with objection) as a Part-

Time Sweeper, though lastly being engaged by the

Management as permanent full time employee with full

wages from 2010, yet suddenly without any mandatory

notice of change under Sec. 9A of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, the OP/Management began to call her an

employee of alleged contractor agency M/s. Popular Sainik

Samity from April, 2010 by changing her service against

which she had seriously protested. Further the plea of

Mr. Mukherjee is that in similar issue of the F.C.I.

Employees who were appointed by the F.C.I. but suddenly

Management started to treat them as employee of

Contractor without giving any notice u/s 9A of the I.D.

Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold in the

case of workmen of the F.C.I. Vs. M/s. FCI of India

reported in I.F.L.R. May, 1995 at page 442 that when

employees working under the employer are told they have

ceased to be the workmen of the employer, and have

become workmen of another employer in legal parlance

such an act of the first employer constitutes discharge,

termination of service or retrenchment and fresh

employment by another employer. No employer can

dispense with the services of any workman contrary to

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Certified (Standing

Order) Act, 1946.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2565

Any such termination contrary to the provisions of

Industrial Dispute Act would be void (Paras 12 & 17).

Lastly, Mr. Mukherjee, Ld. Counsel for the Lady petitioner

has to submit that the petitioner as per her petition dt.

30.05.2014 has called for the document of Attendance

filed Xerox copies of 10 documents as per the list dt.

26.03.2014 other than the Attendance Register, though the

workman had filed the original Statement of her account

in Xerox-6 sheets (Ext. W.2 series) apart from her original

Certificate dt. May 24, 2006 issued by the I.G.N.O.U. about

her working as per Part Time Sweeper since Sept., 2005

(Ext. W.1). As such her illegal termination by the

Management is unjustified, so she is entitled to her

reinstatement in her service with full back wages.

In the instant case, the OP/Management as per its

petition dt. 07.07.2014 appears to have specified

responded that calling for the Attendance Register for the

period of 2005 to 2012 is quite irrelevant, as it is annually

maintained for only the regular and permanent employees

of the Management. Mr. Zaki Azam, Ld. Advocate for the

OP/Management has contended that there is no issue

under IV Schedule (in reference to Sec. 9A of the I.D. Act)

which is related to wages including the period mode for

payment etc. so the aforesaid ruling is inapplicable;

moreover, the lady petitioner was a partly worker of the

M/s Popular Agency, so there is no case of her

termination, because of the fact that she was never an

employee of the Management; thus, she is not entitled to

any relief under the law.

6. On perusal and consideration of the materials

available on the case record, it appears incontroversial

that petitioner Bindiya Devi had undoubtedly not got any

appointment letter either from the OP/Management even

for post of Sweeper against permanent or temporary post,

rather the Certificate dt. 24.05.2005 issued by K.V.D.

Prakash Roy, the Asstt. Registrar of the OP/Management,

Regional Centre, Patna in favour of lady petitioner Bindiya

Devi appears to be totally a false and concocted document

for her working as a Part Time Sweeper in the Regional

Centre since Sept. 2005, as her Certificate was issued to

her as a Part Time Sweeper on 24.05.2005 prior to her

alleged working to be continued as a Part Time Sweeper.

It is a clear indication hat she was never a regular Sweeper

of the Management. Further it stands clear from the case

of the petitioner that she had never been in continuous

service for 240 days in any period of 12 calendar months

preceding the date with the reference to which calculation

is to be made as a pre-requisite under Sec. 25-B(2)(a)(ii)

of the I.D. Act., 1947. The instant Reference which mainly

related to her alleged illegal termination by the

Management w.e.f. 04.05.2012 does not fall under any of

the eleven items/conditions of the IV Schedule as required

for a notice of change under Sec. 9A of the I.D. Act

Hence, the aforesaid ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court does

not hold good with the factum of the case.

In result, in view of the out and out purely temporary

status of the lady petitioner as Part-Lime sweeper, she can

neither have any status of a regular Sweeper nor claim

her status accordingly. Under such circumstances there

is no question of her termination by the OP/Management,

as she was not the employee of the OP/Management. As

such it is hereby, in the terms of the Reference, responded

and accordingly awarded that in view of the palpably

false case of the petitioner about her employment by the

Management, no question for the action of the

Management for her illegal termination of service of

petitioner Bindiya Devi w.e.f. 04.05.2012 arises as justified

or not? Hence she is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1208-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj phQ ,XthD;wfVo

vQlj] dSaVksuesaV cksMZ ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] /kuckn ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ lañ 27@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks

08@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&13011@03@2011&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th June, 2015

S.O. 1208.—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. 27/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

Cum Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Chief Executive

Officer, Cantonment Board and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 08.06.2015.

[No. L-13011/03/2011-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

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

REFERENCE NO. 27 OF 2011.

PARTIES

The President,

Chawani Parishad Karamchari Sangh,

2566

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Chawani Parishad, Danapur Cantt.,

Patna (Bihar)

Vs.

The Chief Executive Officer,

O/o the Cantonment Board

Danapur Cantt., Patna (Bihar),

Order No. L-13011/3/2011-IR (DU) dt.

03.10.2011

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman/Union :

Mr. D.K. Verma,

Ld. Advocate,

On behalf of the Management

Mr. R.R. Prasad,

Ld. Advocate

State : Bihar

Industry : Defence

Dated, Dhanbad, the 20th May, 2015

AWARD

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-13011/3/2011-IR (DU) dt. 03.10.2011.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Danapur

Chawani Parishad, Danapur Cantt., by terminating

the service of Shri Brahmadeo Yadav and Shri Rajan

Kumar without observing the local provisions u/s

25-F laid down is proper and justified? Whether the

workers are entitled for reinstatement with full back

wages? What relief they are entitled to?"

On receipt of the Order No. L-13011/3/2011-IR (DU) dt.

03.10.2011 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 27 of 2011 was registered on 18.10.2011 and

accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue

notices through the Registered Posts 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. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed their

pleadings and photocopies of their documennts. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their Ld.

Advocates respectively contested the case.

2. The case of workmen S/Shri Brahmdeo Yadav and

Rajan Kumar in their written statement as represented by

the Union Representative concerned is that on their

applications for recruitment against vacancy as advertised

by the Danapur Cantonment, the workmen after their due

interview were found suitable by the OP/Management, so

they were appointed as permanent employee of the OP/

Management. Since then, they had been rendering their

services to the Management by completing more than 240

days attendance every year. The workmen were though

entitled to their wages according to the 6th Pay

Commission, yet being paid their wages lesser than that

by the Management. When the Union Chawani Parishad

Karmchari Sangh put a demand before the Management

for payment of wages to the workmen concerned

according to the 6th Pay Commission, the OP/

Management got angry and illegally terminated their

services w.e.f. 23.02.2010 for their union activities in utter

violation of mandatory provision u/s 25-F of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947, and even without getting any prior

permission from the Government under Sec. 25-N of the

said Act. The Management appointed another persons in

their places after their retrenchment, in violation of Sec.

25-H of the Act. Then the I.D, raised by the Union before

the ALC(c) Patna turned out its failure in its conciliation

due to non appearance and adament attitude of the

OP/Management, resulting in the instant Reference for an

adjudication. The retrenchment of the workmen is ab initio

void, so the workmen are entitled to reinstatement with

full back wages.

Both the workmen in their rejoinder have also

specifically denied all the allegations of the

OP/Management as incorrect, further stating their

appointments in the year 2002 and their continuous

working till their termination. They have also justified for

the maintainability of the Industrial dispute in law.

3. Whereas the contra pleaded case of the

OP/Management is that the Union concerned is neither a

registered Trade Union nor afflicted to the All India

Cantonment Boards Employees Federation under Sec. 36

of the I.D. Act 1947 to raise the I.D. for the workmen. Non-

furnishing of an information by the Union regarding its

registration etc. even after lapse of more than 26 months

denotes its non-existence under the Rule 42(2) of the

Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules 1947. The fact that the

Management as per direction of the Directorate Defence

Estates, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, has

to hold JCM meeting regularly with the registered Union

affiliated to the All India Cantonment Board Employees

Federation only was also represented before the ALC (C),

Patna. The Union concerned has not filed a statement of

claim with complete relevant documents etc as required

under the Rule 10B of the aforesaid I.D. Rules. Factual

case of both the workmen Rajan Kumar and Brahmdeo

Yadav is that they had been engaged on daily wages for

89 (eighty nine) days only as per the Danapur Chhawani

Sankalp Sankhya 1 dt. 22.01.2010, but they accordingly

served the cantonment Board only for 19 (nineteen) days

from Feb. 1 to 22, 2010, but since thereafter, they remained

absent without any information. So there is neither any

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2567

retrenchment of them under Sec. 2 (00) of the Act, nor

any applicability of provisions u/s 25 F of the Act to their

case.

The OP/Management in their simulteneous rejoinder

have categorically denied all the allegations of the Union/

workmen concerned, further alleging non-application of

the provisions u/s 25 N, 25 F and 25 H to the case of the

causal workmen, as the Cantonment Board had taken the

services of Labour Contractor in exigency. So both the

workmen are not entitled to any relief.

FINDING WITH REASONS

4. In the instant case WW1 Brahmdeo Yadav, the

workman and WW2 Devnandan Ram, the Secretary for

INTUC for the Union concerned, And MW1 Md. Firoz,

the Store Keeper cum In charge Sanitary Inspector as well

as the Law Assistant for the OP/Management have been

respectively examined.

Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate for the Union/both

workmen concerned has to submit that both workmen,

namely Brahmdeo Yadav and Ranjan Kumar after their due

interview as per their interview letters (Extt. W2 & 2/1

respectively) were appointed as Safaiwala against

permanent vacancies as advertised by the Management

of Danapur Cantt. in the daily Hindustan dt. 28.09.2004

(Ext. W.1). Since then they had been continuously

rendering heir services to the Management having

completed 240 days attendances each and every year. But

on their demand from the Management for their wages

according to VI Pay Commission, they were illegally

terminated in violation of mandatory provision of Sec. 25-F,

25-H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Underlying the

verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Robert D'

Souza Vs. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and

others reported in 1982 SSC (L & S), 24, Mr. Verma has

submitted, as held therein, that even a Casual and Seasonal

Worker who rendered continuous service for one year or

more can not be retrenched on same ground without

complying with the requisite of Sec. 25 F Mr. Verma has

also cited the same view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as

held in the Civil Appeal No. 2417-2418 (arising out of SLP

(Civil) No. 29634-29635/2008 Hari Nandan Pd. & Anors Vs.

E. Engineer (I/R) to the Management of FCI & another as

held therein, that the termination of services without

following the Sec. 25 F is illegal and unjustified; therefore,

the workmen are entitled for reinstatement with 50% back

wages. As such it has been urged for the reinstatement

of workmen with full back wages.

4. Whereas the contention of Mr. R.R. Prasad, Ld.

Advocate for the OP/Management is that in fact the

advertisement was published on 23.09.2004 (Ext. W.1) and

the interview letters (Ext. W. 2 & 2/1) were issued to the

both the workmen for their interview on Feb. 25 & 26, 2005

respectively for the post of Safaiwala but they were not

selected for the post; hence they were not given any

appointment letter for the post as also admitted by the

workmen Brahmdeo Yadav (Ext. WW 1). Such plea of the

workmen for their appointment against the permanent post

of clearner is untenable, because both the workmen have

put their claim against the permanent post of clearners

with the help of their alleged attendances as a Daily Wager

for the period of March, 2008 to Jan, 2010 (Ext. W.3 series)

(22 Sheets), but it does not show the names of these two

workmen Brahmdeo Yadav and Ranjan Kumar.

Drawing my attention, Mr. Hari Prasad has further

submitted that one sheet of Extt. W.3 series, the alleged

Attendance Sheet, is alleged for Jan., 2010. It shows the

name of Brahmdeo Yadav and one Rajan Ram (Not Rajan

Kumar) along with Rajoo Ram. They put their own

signatures of attendance against their "Dainik Betan

Bhogi" before their names but without an official

authentication. Whereas the statement of WW2

Devnandan Ram, the Union Representative corroborated

the engagement of both the workmen as daily Wage

Mazdoors in exigencies in Feb., 2010 with their

authorization letters for 89 days but they worked only for

19 days up to 22.02.2010 and then they left the job.

Acknowledged fact of the Union and the workmen is that

the Danapur Cantt. Board is a Government Organization

and its work is done as per the Rules and regulations of

the Board. He has also faied to prove the registration of

the Union and its affiliation with INTUC, so the Union

has no locus standi to raise the Industrial Dispute despite

a recognized Union is already in existence. It is also

argues on behalf of the OP/Management that in absence

of appointment letter, there can not be legitimate

expectation of reinstatement as held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in case of B. T. Krishna Murthy Vs.

Basveswara Education Society and others reported in 2013

(137) FLR 689.

5. On perusal of the materials, I also find that the Pay

& Acquaintance Rolls of Permanent/Temporary Entire

Establishment of Danapur Cantt. Board for the month of

March, June, Sept., Dec., 2007, March, June, Sept., Dec.,

2008, Jan., Feb., 2009 (Extt. M-1-1/9 series), and those for

Mar., June, Aug., Sept., Dec., 2010 prove that both the

daily wagers Brahmdeo Yadav and Ranjan Kumar were

never an employee of the OP/Management. The official

letters and Notes (Extt. M.2 series) conclusively prove the

fact that the instant Chawani Parishad Karamchari Sangh

is not a recognized Union and nor affiliated to All India

Cantonment Board Employees Federation (AICBEF). The

two copies of the statement of Account of the

Management for Oct. & Aug., 2011 (Ext. M.3 series) prove

the payment of Rs. 1,900/- through their cheques each to

both the instant workmen for their casual work. In view

of the aforesaid facts & findings, it stands quite clear that

both the workmen were out and out irregular Daily

Wagers for a few days only and an unengagement of any

of both the workers as a Daily Wagers by the Management

does not mean in any way retrenchment or termination of

2568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

them by the Management under the provisions of I. D.

Act., 1947. On the consideration of the factum and legum

status of the instant case, I am of the view that the

arguments of Mr. R. R. Prasad, Ld. Counsel for the

OP/Management outweights that of Mr. D. D. Verma, Ld.

Advocate, for the Union/workmen. Besides the instant

Union being an unrecognized one has no locus standi to

raise this reference.

In result, it is hereby, in the terms of the Reference

responded and accordingly awarded that since both the

alleged workmen Brahmdeo Yadav and Ranjan Kumar

being irregular Daily Wagers for a few days had no service

as the employees of the Management of Danapur Cantt.

so no question arises about the action of the Management

for terminating their services nor the compliance of the

provisions u/s 25F of the I. D. Act, 1947 holds good with

the instant Reference. Hence, the workers who were

irregular Casual Daily Wagers for a few days are not

entitled for reinstatement with full back wages, nor to any

relief whatsoever.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1209-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj Vsdfudk

bathfu;fjax m|e ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ lañ 65@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks

08@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42011@75@2014&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 9th June, 2015

S.O. 1209.—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. 65/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

Cum Labour Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the M/s Tekanika Engineering

Enterprise and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 08.06.2015.

[No. L-42011/75/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 65 of 2014

Parties

Employers in relation to the management of

M/s. Tekanika Engineering Enterprise

AND

Their workmen

Present :

Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the

Mr. Uttam Kumar Mondal, Ld.

Management

Counsel for NTPC

None for M/s. Tekanika

Engineering Enterprise

On behalf of the

None.

Workmen

State: West Bengal

Industry: Thermal Power.

Dated: 1st June, 2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-42011/75/2014-IR(DU) dated 30.09.2014

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:

"(1) Whether the action of the management is

justified by not covering 21 no. of workmen under

the agreement of 26.11.2009 and paying them less

wages is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief

the workmen are entitled to? (2) Whether the action

of the management is justified by adopting two

types of wages namely 'norms' and 'non-norms' for

performing same type of nature of work? If not,

whether they are eligible for differential wages with

retrospective date is legal and/or justified? If not,

what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

2. When the case is taken up today for hearing, none

appears either on behalf of the President, NTPC

Contractors Labour Union or on behalf of the Proprietor,

M/s. Tekanika Engineering Enterprise inspite of service

of notice, though NTPC is represented by its Ld. Counsel.

It apears from the record that the union at whose instance

the present reference has been initiated is absent for three

consecutive dates.

3. Considering the above facts and circumstances, it

may reasonably be presumed that the union is not

interested to proceed with the case further. So, no fruitful

purpose will be seved 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] 11 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1210-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj iwoZ jsyos

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2569

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

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

vfèdj.k@Je u;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 62@2014½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@06@2015 izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41011@75@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2015

S.O. 1210.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 62/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of North

Eastern Railway and their workmen, which was received

by the Central Government on 11/06/2015.

[No. L-41011/75/2014-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 62/2014

Ref. No. L-41011/75/2014-IR(B-I) dated: 09.10.2014

BETWEEN

Anchal Sangthan Secretary

Rail Sevak Sangh

C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi

49, Tilak Nagar Lucknow.

(Espousing cause of Sri Bhai Lal)

AND

1. Sr. Dvisional Personnel Officer

North Eastern Railway

DRM Office, Ashok Marg,

Lucknow.

2. The Chief Medical Superintendent

North Eastern Railway

Gonda (UP)

AWARD

1. By Order No. L-41011/75/2014-IR(B-I) dated:

09.10.2014 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)

referred this industrial dispute between Anchal Sangthan

Secretary, Rail Sevak Sangh, C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi, 49,

Tilak Nagar, Lucknow and Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer,

North Eastern Railway, DRM Office, Ashok Marg,

Lucknow & the Chief Medical Superintendent, North

Eastern Railway, Gonda (UP) for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

^^D;k iwoksZÙkj jsy iz'kklu] y[kuÅ o xksaMk }kjk Jh HkkbZ yky]

lQkbZokyk dks iqjkuh isa'ku u nsdj ubZ isa'ku fn;k tkuk

U;k;ksfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha rks dkexkj fdl jkgr dks

ikus dk gdnkj gS\**

3. On receipt of the reference order the workman's

union was issued registered notice to file his statement

of claim complete with relevant documents, list of reliance

and witnesses before Tribunal on 26.12.2014 with an

advance copy to the opposite party. The Secretary of the

workman's union appeared before this Tribunal and

requested for a date for filing of statement of claim.

4. On successive dates the management also turned

up. Since the case was related to grant of old pension

scheme instead of new pension scheme, the parties were

advised to settle the dispute amicably through Lok Adalat.

Accordingly, the case was taken up at Lok Adalat on

08.05.2015.

5. On 08.05.2015, Shri D.P. Awasthi, Secretary of the

workman's union was present whereas the opposite

parties were represented by Shri Upendra Kumar Sharma,

Chief Welfare officer.

6. The opposite party filed M-5, letter signed by

Sri P.B. Prasad, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North

Eastern Railway, Lucknow, enclosing circular No. 2012/

F(E)III/I(i)/2 dated 29.10.2014 of the Railway Board. The

management in letter M-5, referring circular dated

29.10.2014 has stated that the Railway Board, New Delhi

vide their circular dated 29.10.2014 has directed to cover

the employees who got temporary status prior to

01.01.2004 may be covered under Old Pension Scheme.

7. A copy of the M-5 was furnished to the workman's

union. Shri D.P. Awasthi after going through the contents

of letter, M-5 and circular dated 29.10.2014 showed

willingness to withdraw the present industrial dispute

being claim settled; and made an endorsement thereupon

as under:

"Since the relief claimed by the Union is accepted

by the Rly. management. Proceeding of case may

kindly be dropped."

8. In view of the submission/endorsement of the

workman's union for dropping of the proceedings, there

is no grievance left with the workman's union as the

present industrial dispute pertains to non-grant of old

pension to the workman by the railway management and

the management of the railway has granted the same vide

2570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

circular 2012/F(E)III/I(I)/2 dated 29.10.2014 of the Railway

Board. Resultantly, the industrial dispute stands settled;

and no relief is required to be given to the workman

concerned. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

9. Award as above.

LUCKNOW.

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

27th May, 2014.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1211-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj iwoZ jsyos

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

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

vfèdj.k@Je u;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 61@2014½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@06@2015 izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41011@74@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2015

S.O. 1211.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 61/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of North

Eastern Railway and their workmen, which was received

by the Central Government on 11/06/2015.

[No. L-41011/74/2014-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 61/2014

Ref. No. L-41011/74/2014-IR(B-I) dated: 09.10.2014

BETWEEN

Anchal Sangthan Secretary

Rail Sevak Sangh

C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi

49, Tilak Nagar

Lucknow.

(Espousing cause of Sri Devanand)

AND

1. Sr. Dvisional personnel Officer

North Eastern Railway

DRM Office, Ashok Marg,

Lucknow.

2. The Chief Medical Superintendent

North Eastern Railway

Gonda (UP)

AWARD

1. By Order No. L-41011/74/2014-IR(B-I) dated:

09.10.2014 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)

referred this industrial dispute between Anchal Sangthan

Secretary, Rail Sevak Sangh, C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi, 49,

Tilak Nagar, Lucknow and Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer,

North Eastern Railway, DRM Office, Ashok Marg,

Lucknow & the Chief Medical Superintendent, North

Eastern Railway, Gonda (UP) for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

^^D;k iwoksZÙkj jsy iz'kklu] y[kuÅ o xksaMk }kjk Jh nsokuan]

lQ+ kbZokyk dks iqjkuh isa'ku u nsdj ubZ isa'ku fn;k tkuk

U;k;ksfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha rks dkexkj fdl jkgr dks

ikus dk gdnkj gS\**

3. On receipt of the reference order the workman's

union was issued registered notice to file his statement

of claim complete with relevant documents, list of reliance

and witnesses before Tribunal on 26.12.2014 with an

advance copy to the opposite party. The Secretary of the

workman's union appeared before this Tribunal and

requested for a date for filing of statement of claim.

4. On successive dates the management also turned

up. Since the case was related to grant of old pension

scheme instead of new pension scheme, the parties were

advised to settle the dispute amicably through Lok Sadalat.

Accordingly, the case was taken up at Lok Adalat on

08.05.2015.

5. On 08.05.2015, Shri D.P. Awasthi, Secretary of the

workman's union was present whereas the opposite

parties were represented by Shri Upendra Kumar Sharma,

Chief Welfare Officer.

6. The opposite party filed M-5, letter signed by Sri

P.B. Prasad, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North

Eastern Railway, Lucknow, enclosing circular No. 2012/

F(E)III/I(I)/2 dated 29.10.2014 of the Railway Board. The

management in letter M-3, referring circular dated

29.10.2014 has stated that the Railway Board, New Delhi

vide their circular dated 29.10.2014 has directed to cover

the employees who got temporary status prior to

01.01.2004 may be covered under Old Pension Scheme.

7. A copy of the M-3 was furnished to the workman's

union. Shri D.P. Awasthi after going through the contents

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2571

of letter, M-3 and circular dated 29.10.2014 showed

willingness to withdraw the present industrial dispute

being claim settled; and made an endorsement thereupon

as under:

"Since the relief claimed by the Union is accepted

by the Rly. management. The further proceeding of

case may kindly be dropped."

8. In view of the submission/endorsement of the

workman's union for dropping of the proceedings, there

is no grievance left with the workman's union as the

present industrial dispute pertains to non-grant of old

pension to the workman by the railway management and

the management of the railway has granted the same vide

circular 2012/F(E)III/I(I)/2 dated 29.10.2014 of the Railway

Board. Resultantly, the industrial dispute stands settled;

and no relief is required to be given to the workman

concerned. the reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

9. Award as above.

LUCKNOW.

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

18th May, 2015.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1212-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ehFkyk {ks=h;

xzkeh.k cSad 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;&1] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

6@1993½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@06@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@41@1992&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2015

S.O. 1212.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 6/1993)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of Mithila

Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 11/06/2015.

[No. L-12011/41/1992-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, 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. 06/1993

Employer in relation to the management of Mithila

Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Darbhanga

AND

Their Workmen.

Present

Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employees

None

For the workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Bank

Dated: 12/5/2015

AWARD

By order No. L-12011/41/1992-IR (B-3) dated 23/12/1992,

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 Mithila

Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Darbhanga in reducing the

Cashier In charge Allowance from Rs. 488 Rs. 316

per month to Rs. 189 per month with effect from

01/01/1991 was justified? If not, to what relief(s), the

workmen are entitled to?"

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] 11 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1213-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

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

vf/kdj.k@Je u;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

229@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

11@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41012@97@92&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2015

S.O. 1213.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

2572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 229/

93) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in

the industrial dispute between the management of S.E.

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 11/06/2015.

[No. L-41012/97/92-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

IDNUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/229/93

Late Shri Sant Ram,

Ex-Pointman, SE Railway Colony,

PO Gevra, Distt, Bilaspur

LR-

Shri Debi Ram Kashyap, S/o Late Santram,

Porter, Railway Station Naila,

Distt. Janjgir Champa

...Workman

Versus

Divisional Railway Manager,

SE Railway,

Bilaspur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 13th day of May, 2015

1. As per letter dated 20-22/10/93 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-

41012/97-92-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates

to:

"Whether the action of the DRM, SE Railway,

Bilaspur is justified in removing from service of Shri

Sant Ram, Ex Pointman vide order No. ESE/OPTG/

37 dated May, 1977? If not, to what relief the

workman concerned is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

parties. Ist party workman submitted of claim at Page 3/1

to 3/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was employed

by Non-applicant appointing him as porter from 14-9-48.

He was retired on 30-9-89. At the time of his retirement,

he was working as pointsman at Kothari Road Station in

Bilaspur. He further submits that while he was in service

of IInd party, he was falsely implicated for theft of coal in

the year 1970. He was placed under suspension. In

criminal Case No. 1989/70, ADM(J) Bilaspur found him not

guilty. Workman was discharged on 10-11-1972. The state

filed a criminal revision in the case before the District and

Session Judge, Bilaspur. The revision was dismissed on

12-2-1973. That workman was not taken on duty from

1-4-1970. Despite he handed over copies of the

judgements to IInd party No. 3, that he was available and

willing to perform his duties. He was kept away from duty

without any reasons. IInd party No. 3, issued chargesheet

of major penalty dated 31-8-77. Enquiry was held to the

charges against him. Charges were not proved. IInd party

No. 3 did not take action on the enquiry report. He himself

held that charges were proved. There was no material fact

before IInd party No. 3 Disciplinary authority to hold that

charges are proved. No reasons were given for reaching

such decision. IInd party issued showcause notice dated

20-9-77. Reply given by workman was not considered.

Without any material on record, IInd party No. 3 issued

notice for removal from service dated 8-11-77. Workman

was removed from service from 28-11-77 from post of

pointsman.

3. Ist party workman reiterates that his removal is

illegal. Workman was allowed to join duty from 28-12-77.

He was retired from 11-10-89. He was not allowed actual

benefits for the period 14-9-48 to 27-12-77 in violation of

principles of natural justice. On such ground, workman

prays that order of his removal be quashed. IInd party be

directed to settle the retiral dues considering his service

from 14-9-48 to 30-9-89. That IInd party be directed to pay

wages for the period 1-9-70 to 27-12-77.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of

the workman at Page 4/1 to 4/8. Case of IInd party is that

workman was initially appointed on 21-1-1957. His

appointment on 14-9-48 is denied. Workman was removed

from service as per order dated 8-11-77 imposing

punishment for unauthorized absence. After appeal

preferred by workman, he was re-appointed as fresh

candidate from 28-12-77. The retirement of workman from

30-9-89 is not disputed. The averments of workman w.r.t.

his involvement in theft case was not brought to the

notice of IInd party. Police Authority or workman himself

did not disclose this fact to the management. The material

facts were suppressed about alleged incident of theft. IInd

party claims ignorance about prosecution of workman in

criminal case before AGM(J) Bilaspur. It is reiterated that

chargesheet was issued to workman for unauthorized

absence for the period 1-4-70 to 22-4-70. The Discipline

and Appeal proceeding started in 1976 for charges of

unuahtorized absence. Rest of the allegations of workman

are denied. W.r.t. revision filed by State dismissed on

12-2-73, IInd party contents the documents in that regard

are not available. IInd party reiterates that in enquiry

conducted against workman for unauthorized absence

Enquiry Officer submitted report that charges are not

proved. The authority not agree with the findings of

Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority held that

charges of unauthorised absence against workman are

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2573

proved after issuing showcause notice. Punishment of

removal was imposed against workman. In appeal, the

workman was re-appointed. The order of removal was not

set-aside. There was not question of giving retiral benefit

to the workman from 14-9-48 to 30-9-89. It is submitted

that workman was not appointed in the year 1948 rather

he was appointed on 21-1-1957. As punishment of removal

was imposed against workman, he is not entitled to

retirement benefits prior to his period of his re-

appointment. On such ground, IInd party prays for

rejection of claim.

5. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 5/1 to 5/2.

Workman submits that he was prosecuted by Railway

Protection Force Department, copy of judgement was

received by IInd party on 29-3-76. He was unauthorisely

absent from 22-3-1970 to 28-12-77. Enquiry Report itself

support his contentions. The Disciplinary Authority has

disagreed with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority

that the charges are not proved against workman.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of the

DRM, SE Railway, Bilaspur is

In Negative

justified in removing from service

of Shri Sant Ram, Ex Pointman

is legal and proper?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

As per final

workman is entitled to?"

order

REASONS

7. The term of reference relates to legality of removal

from service of Ist party workman. As per Para-6, 7 in

statement of claim, chargesheet was issued to workman

on 31-8-77. That charges were found not proved. The

Disciplinary Authority not agreed with the findings of

Enquiry Officer and held that the charges are proved, the

punishment of removal from service was imposed. Case

was not fixed for evidence of workman. The ordersheet

shows that the case was fixed for argument since 2-6-2003.

Workman died during pendency and his LRs are brought

on record around 20-4-06. The case was repeatedly

adjourned for many years for argument. The record shows

issues were framed on 23-8-95. (1) Whether enquiry was

just and proper, (2) whether management is entitled to lead

evidence, (3) whether the charges of misconduct are

proved on facts of the case, (4) whether the punishment

awarded is proper and legal & (5) Relief and costs. As

discussed above, the issue about legality of enquiry was

not decided. Workman died during pendency. His LRs are

brought on record. Evidence of parties is not recorded.

However documents are produced by IInd party.

Note Page 6/2 reads "I have gone through the

explanation to the showcause notice. There is no new

point raised by the party which merits consideration. He

has not made any attempt to advise the Railway

Administration of the facts, neither met any officer nor

made direct representation nor has any documentary proof

of having communicated with the Railway Administration.

He had evidently no intention of resuming duty. Under

the circumstances, I hold that the proposed penalty of

removal from service should hold good.

Document at Page 6/3 is copy of letter given by

workman to Divisional Operating Suptd., SE Railway,

Bilaspur dated 10-10-77. The poor worker who were

unnecessarily put to harassment by court case but I have

been finally exonerated from the charges. Out of my

ignorance, I did not keep any record of any

correspondence witgh the administration. I had complete

confidence on the Station Master and I was in fact, guided

by him and since I was not taken back on duty by Station

Master, I did not deam it necessary to approach the

administration in any other matter, since to my eyes,

station master was the representative of the administration.

As a matter of fact, I was waiting for communication from

Station Master which was not forthcoming. It is only when

I was exonerated by the Court that-I approached DOS/

Bilaspur with the copy of the Court's judgment requesting

him to take me back on duty.

If I have remained absenting from duty, it is only

because of my ignorance and complete confidence on the

station master who failed to intimate me the true position

nor did he give me correct guidance.

Document P-6/4 is note dated 26-9-77 submitted by

Divisional Operating Supdt. Se Railway, Bilaspur. This

starts with I do not agree with the findings of the Enquiry

Officer. The delinquent is clearly in the habit of absonding

from duty from time to time. After his arrest and release

on bail, delinquent had worked for some days. At a certain

point of time thereafter the delinquent was not taken on

duty by the Station Master who referred his case to the

Divisional Office for decision. Prima facie it would appear

that the delinquent could have been on duty but for the

refusal of the station master to take him back and or the

negligence of the Divisional office in communicating

decision to the station master. However further analysis

of the case will reveal that the delinquent has actually

preferred to remain absent. For all these days till he turned

up with a copy of the court's judgment there was no trace

of him. There is no evidence on record nor any

communication which would show that the delinquent had

made any attempt to advise the Railway Administration

of the facts, except that on a very distant past, he had

met the Station Master and might have been made

enquiries about his case, after which he disappeared from

the scene. He has never met any Officer nor made any

direct representation nor has any documentary proof of

2574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

having communicated with the Railway Administration to

finalise his case of not being taken back on duty. Clearly

he had no intention of resuming duty. Now that the court

has exonerated him the delinquent has sought to put the

blame of his absence on the so called negligence of the

Railway Administration and its agents.

I therefore held that his absence was willful and

therefore wholly unauthorized and that the charges have

been proved.

Document at Page 6/5 is copy of letter sent by

workman to Divisional Supdt. S.E Railway, Bilaspur. Para-2

of the letter states that workman has written that he was

appointed in 1957. He completed 20 years service with the

administration. He was removed from service for

unauthorized absence, he was helpless. He has requested

to consider his case and given him chance to work as

leverman as a fresh appointment when he would be eke

out his livelihood and maintain his family.

Document at Page 6/6 is office note by Sr. Divisional

Optd. Supdt. The notes that I have been gone through

the mercy appeal of Sri Santram for re-appointment. He

appears to have been reported longback to the station

master for taking him back on duty but the Station Master

had then made a reference to the Sr. DPO for orders to take

him back. This unfortunately was not replied. Shri Santram

thinking that he would have to report on duty subsequently

when called by the office waited for a very long period. In the

meantime he got acquittal in the court case and then reported

to the Divisional Office with the judgment of the Court.

While removal from service was in order, keeping in

view the unauthorized absence for a period of about 7

years, I feel that in view of his satisfactory service, and

acquittal in the court case, he may be re-appointed as a

pointsman.

8. Document 7/2 is copy of document 6/4 discussed

supra holding workman's absence was wholly

unauthorizede.

9. Document 7/3 is copy of report of Enquiry Officer.

Enquiry Officer held unauthorized absence of worker from

August 1970 to April 76 was not proved. Document 7/4

to 7/6 is copy of the judgment in criminal case by Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. Workman was accused

No. 15. All accused were acquitted.

10. Counsel for workman submitted written notes at

Page 8 that enquiry was initiated. The record of Enquiry

Proceedings is not produced. Therefore legality of enquiry

could not be decided separately. However documents

discussed above shows that Ist party workman had

approached Station Master. As workman was prosecuted

in criminal case, he attended duty for period. The station

master had not allowed him on duty. Those aspects were

not considered by the Disciplinary Authority while

imposing punishment of removal from service. Documents

6/4 produced on record by IInd party itself shows the

delinquent could have been on duty but for refusal of

Station Master and referred his case to the Divisional

Office, punishment of removal from service is not justified.

The past service of workman from 1957 to 8-11-77 was

also overlooked by the authority while imposing

punishment of removal. The circumstances discussed

above points out that the punishment of removal imposed

against workman is excessive and disproportionate to the

charges of unauthorized absence. I the circumstances,

punishment of removal from service deserves to be

modified to punishment of compulsory retirement.

Consequently workman deserves to be allowed retiral

benefits from date of initial appointment to his date of

order of removal 8.11.77. The claim for wages from 1970

to 1977 by workman cannot be allowed as per statement

of workman himself that he was not working during the

above period. On principles of no work no pay, claim of

workman for the wages cannot be upheld. For above

reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.

11. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the management is not legal and

proper.

(2) Punishment of removal from service is modified to

punishment of compulsory retirement IInd party

is directed to consider service period of Ist party

workman form 1957 to 8.11.77 for the purpose of

retiral benefits and fix his retiral benefits. The

amount of retiral benefits as per above order be

paid to LRs of deceased workman within 2 months

from date of award.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1214-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj oS'kkyh {ks=h;

xzkeh.k cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vf/kdj.k] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 66@1993½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@198@1992&vkbZvkj¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2015

S.O. 1214.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/1993)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Vailshali

Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their workman, received by

the Central Government on 11/06/2015.

[No. L-12012/198/1992-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2575

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

No.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/s 10(1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act 1947

Reference No. 66/1993

Employer in relation to the management of Vaishali

Kshetriya Gramin Bank

AND

Their workmen

Present

Sri R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Sri R.R. Prasad Advocated

For the workman

None

State: Jharkhand

Industry : Bank

Dated 11/5/2015

AWARD

By order No. L-12012/198/1992-IR(B-3) dated 12/02/1993,

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 Vailshali

Kshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating the service of

Shri Anand Bihari w.e.f 10.03.1992 is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled

to and from what date?"

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] 11 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1215-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad 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]

v:ukdqye ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 7@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12025@01@2015&vkbZvkj¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2015

S.O. 1215.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 7/2012) of

the Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of State Bank of India

and their workman, received by the Central Government

on 11/06/2015.

[No. L-12025/01/2015-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., L.L.B.

Presiding Officer

(Friday the 15th day of May, 2015/25th Vaisakha, 1937)

ID 7/2012

Petitioner

Smt. Prabha Rajan

W/o Shri Rajan

Veluthedath House

Old St. Augustine Road

Kochi-682018

By M/s. HB Shenoy Associates

Respondent :

The General Manager

State Bank of India

Local Head Officer

S S Kovil Road, Thampanoor

Thiruvananthapuram-695001

By M/s George Thomas Mevada &

Associates

This case coming up for final hearing on 30.04.2015 and

this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 15.05.2015 passed the

following:

AWARD

As the concillation proceeding in respect of the

industrial dispute raised by the petitioner claiming to be

the workman of the management bank ended in failure and

without reference she filed this petition under Section 2A

(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. The allegations in the petition, in breif, are that the

workman was employed in the subourdinate cadre in the

services of the management bank as a Peon at its Lissie

Hospital Branch at Ernakulam in the year 1993. Ever since

she had been employed continuously and regularly

against the regular and permanent vacancy unit the

termination of her service on 01.01.2011 orally by the

Branch Manager. Agrieved by the termination of her

service she had raised an industrial dispute by submitting

2576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

an application to the Assistantg Labour Commissioner

(Central), Kochi on 14.02.2011. Pursuant to the filing of

that application the Regional Labour Commissioner

(Central), Kochi, who is also the Conciliation Officer,

convened conciliation proceedings in the dispute. But it

ended in failure on 23.12.2011. Hence she filed this petition

before this Tribunal challenging the leglity and

justifiability of the action of the management in termiating

her services w.e.f. 01.01.2011. The termination of her

service amount to retrenchment and the same was effected

in violation of Section. 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial

Disputes Act, paragraphs 493, 507, 522, 523 and 524 of

the Sastry Award. Management was in the continuous

habit of employing workmen as temporaries against

permanent vacancy one after another and retrenching

them by employing new hands in the same way violating

the statutory provisions in Awards and Bipartite

Settlements. It amounts to unfair labour practice

prohibited under Section 25T of the Industrial Disputes

Act and violative of paragraphs 20.7 and 20.8 of First

Bipartite Settlement and also paragraphs 495 and 522 of

Sastry Award. The termination is illegal, unjust and void

and hence she is to be reinstated in service with full back

wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.

3. Management filed written statement denying the

allegations as to her employment in the management bank

and the termination of her service on 01.01.2011. It is

further contended that she was never been an employee

of the management bank and there was no master and

servant relationship between her and the management.

She was not in the pay roll of the management. The

recruitment and employment of subordinate cadre

employees is done strictly in accordance with the

procedure laid out by the management from time to time.

She was never employed or engaged as a subordinate

staff of the management. As she was never in the service

the question of termination or retrenchment does not arise

at all. She had raised an industrial dispute against the

management by submitting conciliation application on

14.02.2011 to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),

Kochi. The conciliation proceedings ended in failure as

she was not an employee in the Lissie Hospital Branch

of the management at any point of time. There was no

question of any termination by complying with the

procedure provided under Section 25F of the Industrial

Disputes Act. There is no question of payment of

compensation to her. Since she was not at all a workman

the issue of violation of the provisions of Sastry Award

does not arise. She used to supply tea to the members of

the staff. The supply of tea, maintenance of library etc.

are monitored and controlled by the Local Implementation

Committee constituted by the staff of the Lisie Hospital

Branch. It is an independent private body formed in the

branch and it has nothing to do with the management. It

is not an industry. It has got the freedom to engage any

person to execute their works. The management has no

responsibility or say in the matter. Management is not

conducting any statutory canteen in that branch and there

is no such requirement under any status. The persons so

engaged are not entitled to claim regularisation as an

employee in the services of the management bank. The

workman is one such person and hence she cannot claim

absorption as an employees of the management or claim

any right or privilege as a workman. The discondinuation

of her temporary service by the Local Implemenation

Committee shall have no bearing at all on the management.

The provisions of clause 20.12 of the First Bipartile

Settlement dated 19.10.1966 have no relevance in the

matter. The claim made by her is legally and factually

unsustainable and hence she is not entitled to any relief.

4. Workman filed replication denying the contentions

in the written statement and reiterating the allegations in

the petition.

5. For the purpose of deciding this ID the workman

was got herself examined as WWI. No documentary

evidence was adduced from her side. On the side of the

management one witness was examined as MWI and Exts.

M1 to M30 were marked. After closing the evidence

arguments for both sides were heard.

6. The points for determination are :

(i) Whether the workman was employed at any time

against any regular and permanent vacancy in the

Lissie Hospital Branch of the management bank?

(ii) Whether she was illegally terminated on 01.01.2011

by the Management in voilation of Section 25F of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as alleged in the

claim statement?

(iii) To what relief, if any, the workman is entitled to?

7. Point No. (i): It is the case of the workman that she

was employed as a peon in the subordinate cadre in the

Lissie Hospital Branch of the management bank in the year

1993 and ever since she had been employed continously

and regularly against the regular and permanent vacancy.

Since the management would deny her employment as

such the burden is on her to prove that she was employed

by the management as alleged by her.

8. At the very outset it is to be pointed out that there

is absolutely no reliable evidence in this case to prove

her engagement as a peon in the services of the

management bank. There is no order of appointment or

any other document to prove the same. The workman

during her cross examination when examined as WWI has

stated that there is no document in her possession to

prove that she was employed in the Lissie Hospital branch

of the management bank. The version given by her during

her cross examination that she had worked there only in

leave vacancy of peon would also disprove the case put

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2577

forward by her that she was continuously engaged against

a regular and permanent vacancy.

9. There is a prescribed procedure for appointment in

a permanent vacancy. Workman has no case that she was

employed after observing any such procedure. Exts. M1

to M30 will also go to show that she was not employed

as a permanent/temporary subordinate staff in the

management bank. Regarding the payment of wages

contradictory version was given by her during her

examination. In para 5 of the proof affidavit it is averred

that she was paid wages regularly on weekly basis on

Saturdays. During her cross examination it was stated by

her that the wages was paid on montly basis and payment

of weekly wages was made only at times.

10. According to the management she was engaged by

the Local Implementation Committee in the canteen in the

Lissie Hospital branch. During her cross examination

WWI also would admit that she was preparing tea and

hot water for drinking in the canteen. During the cross

examination of MWI there was an attempt to bring out

that the canteen was run by the management bank. No

such case was put forward by the workman in her

pleadings. The management has got a specific case that

the canteen run by the Local Implementation Committee

is an independent private body formed in the branch and

it is having no connection with the management bank.

There is no case for the workman that it is a statutory

canteen run by the management. The engagement in the

canteen by the Local Implementation Committee cannot

be said to be on behalf of the management.

11. There is no reliable evidence in this case to prove

that she was continuosly employed in the services of the

management bank against a regular and permanent

vacancy to do regular and permanent nature of duties from

the year 1993 as alleged in the claim statement. Hence it

cannot be held that she was employed in the service of

the management at any point of time.

12. Point No. (ii):—It is the case of the workman that

she was illegally terminated on 01.01.2011 by the

management in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial

Disputes Act. It has come out in evidence that she was

engaged in the canteen by the Local Implementation

Committee of the management bank. She has no case

either in the pleadings or during the course of her

examination that she was engaged as a casual labour by

the management bank. Even if she was engaged as a

casual labour at any time in the services of the

management bank that will not enable her to claim that

she is liable to be terminated without complying with the

procedure under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes

Act in the absence of any proof as to her engagement

continuously for a period of one year or for 240 days in

the year preceding the date of termination. There is

absolutely no evidence in this case to prove the same.

The burden to prove the same is on the workman and the

same was not discharged by adducing any convincing

evidence. The documents sought to be produced will also

not help her to prove that there was continuous

engagement for 240 days in the year preceeding the date

of termination. Workman has failed to prove that she was

employed in the services of the management bank as

alleged by her and that she was illegally terminated by

the management without complying with the procedure

under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

13. Point No. (iii):—In the result an award is passed

holding that the workman was not employed by the

management bank in the Lisie Hospital Branch and was

not illegally terminated and hence she is not entitled to

any relief.

The Award will come into force one month after it

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and

typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the

15th day of May, 2015.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the workman

WW1

23.12.2014

Smt. Prabha Rajan

Witness for the management

MW1

03.03.2015

Shri C.J. Roy

Exhibits for the workman

NIL

Exhibits for the management

—

Copy of the relevant pages in the ledger

for Establishment Charges of the Lisie

Hospital Branch of the management bank

as to the month of January, 1993

—

Copy of the relevant pages in the ledger

for Establishment Charges of the Lisie

Hospital Branch of the management bank

as to the month of February, 1993

—

Copy of the relevant pages in the ledger

for Establishment Charges of the Lisie

Hospital Branch of the management bank

as to the month of January, 1994

—

Copy of the relevant pages in the ledger

for Establishment Charges of the Lisie

Hospital Branch of the management bank

as to the month of February, 1994

—

Copy of the relevant pages in the ledger

for Establishment Charges of the Lisie

Hospital Branch of the management bank

as to the month of January, 1995

2578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

—

Copy of the relevant pages in the ledger

for Establishment Charges of the Lisie

Hospital Branch of the management bank

as to the month of February, 1995

—

Copy of the relevant pages in the ledger

for Establishment Charges of the Lisie

Hospital Branch of the management bank

as to the month of January, 1996

—

Copy of the relevant pages in the ledger

for Establishment Charges of the Lisie

Hospital Branch of the management bank

as to the month of February, 1996

—

Copy of the relevant pages in the ledger

for Establishment Charges of the Lisie

Hospital Branch of the management bank

as to the month of January, 1997

M10

—

Copy of the relevant pages in the ledger

for Establishment Charges of the Lisie

Hospital Branch of the management bank

as to the month of February, 1997

M11

—

Copy of the relevant pages in the ledger

for Establishment Charges of the Lisie

Hospital Branch of the management bank

as to the month of January, 1998

M12

—

Copy of the relevant pages in the ledger

for Establishment Charges of the Lisie

Hospital Branch of the management bank

as to the month of February, 1998

M13

—

Copy of the relevant pages in the ledger

for Establishment Charges of the Lisie

Hospital Branch of the management bank

as to the month of January, 1999

M14

—

Copy of the relevant pages in the ledger

for Establishment Charges of the Lisie

Hospital Branch of the management bank

as to the month of February, 1999

M15

—

Copy of the relevant pages in the ledger

for Establishment Charges of the Lisie

Hospital Branch of the management bank

as to the month of January, 2000

M16

—

Copy of the relevant pages in the ledger

for Establishment Charges of the Lisie

Hospital Branch of the management bank

as to the month of February, 2000

M17

—

Copy of the relevant pages in the ledger

for Establishment Charges of the Lisie

Hospital Branch of the management bank

as to the month of January, 2001

M18

—

Copy of the relevant pages in the ledger

for Establishment Charges of the Lisie

Hospital Branch of the management bank

as to the month of February, 2001

M19

—

Copy of the relevant pages with the entries

as to the subscriptions to the State Bank

Employees' Provident Fund & Pension

Fund for the month of January, 2002

M20

—

Copy of the relevant pages with the entries

as to the subscriptions to the State Bank

Employees' Provident Fund & Pension

Fund for the month of September, 2003

M21

—

Copy of the relevant pages with the entries

as to the subscriptions to the State Bank

Employees' Provident Fund & Pension

Fund for the month of February, 2004

M22

—

Copy of Memorandum dated 23.03.2005

issued by the State Bank of India, Lisie

Hospital Branch to Personnel Section,

State Bank of India, Zonal Office,

Ernakulam as to Imperial Bank of India

Employees Provident & Guarantee Funds

for the month of March, 2005.

M23

—

Copy of the relevant pages with the entries

as to the subscriptions to the State Bank

Employees' Provident Fund & Interest for

the month of August, 2006

M24

—

Copy of the pay sheet of salaries and

allowances for the month of July, 2005

M25

—

Copy of the relevant pages of the Salary

Hospital Branch for the month of

January, 2002

M26

—

Copy of the relevant pages of the Salary

Hospital Branch for the month of

February, 2007

M27

—

Copy of the relevant pages of the Salary

Hospital Branch for the month of

August, 2007

M28

—

Copy of the relevant pages of the Salary

Hospital Branch for the month of

June, 2008

M29

—

Copy of the computer printout of salary

Hospital Branch for the month of

August, 2009

M30

—

Copy of the computer printout of salary

Hospital Branch for the month of

December, 2010

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2579

ubZ fnYyh] 11 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1216-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ =koudksj

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

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

v:ukdqye ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 3@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@61@2014&vkbZvkj¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2015

S.O. 1216.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/2015)

of the Central. Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank

of Travancore and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 11/06/2015.

[No. L-12012/61/2014-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

Present :

Shri D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B, Presiding Officer

(Thursday, the 21st day of May, 2015/31st

Vaisakha, 1937)

ID 3/2015

Workman

Smt. Sheeba Glory

Chandanavila

Velimon PO

Kundara

Kollam (Kerala)-691511

By Adv. Shri R. Lekshmana Iyer

Management

The Deputy General Manager

State Bank of Travancore

Zonal Office, Poojappura

Trivandrum

This case coming up for final hearing on 21.05.2015 and

this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the same day passed

the following:

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government

of India/Ministry of Labour vide Order No.-L-12012/61/

2014-IR(B-I) dated 31.12.2014 referred the industrial

dispute scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this

tribunal.

2. The dispute is:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s.

State Bank of Travancore in removing Smt. Sheeba

Glory from its services before she attained the age

of superannuations is fair and justifiable. If not,

what relief she is entitled to?"

3. After receipt of summons workman entered

appearance but did not file any claim statement in spite

of granting adjournments. Afterwards the workman

remained absent. Management also remained absent.

Hence it can be treated that there exists no dispute and

so a 'no dispute award' is passed in this case.

4. Reference is answered accordingly.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and

typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the

21st day of May, 2015.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1217-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

cSad 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] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 50@2007½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@115@2007&vkbZvkj¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, 11th June, 2015

S.O. 1217.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/2007)

of the Central. Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank

of India and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 11/06/2015.

[No. L-12012/115/2007-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

2580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2 MUMBAI

Present

K.B. Katake

Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT-2/50 of 2007

Employers in relation to the management of State

Bank of India

The Chief General Manager

State Bank of India, Local Head Office

Synergy, Plot No. C-6, G Block

Bandra Kurla Complex (PB No. 8123)

Bandra (E)

Mumbai-400051.

AND

Their Workmen

The Dy. General Secretary

State Bank of India Staff Union (Mumbai Circle)

Synergy, Plot No. C-6, G Block

Bandra Kurla Complex PB No. 8123

Bandra (E)

Mumbai-400051.

Appearances:

For the Employer

Mr. M.G. Nadkarni,

Advocate.

For the Workmen

Mr. Abhay Kulkarni

Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 8th April 2015.

AWARD PART-II

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No. L-12012/115/2007-IR(B-I),

dated 10.10.2007 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 have

referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India in dismissing Shri P.K. Prasad,

Assistant (Cash/Accounts) from the service vide

order dated 24/06/2006 is legal, proper, justified and

in proportionate to the magnitude of misconduct?

If not, to what relief the concerned workman is

entitled?"

2. The second party workman was the employee of the

first party Bank. It was alleged that the second party

workman had made flase and fraudulent credit entry of

Rs. 93,313/- in the account of one of the customer of the

Bank. It is also alleged that the workman has withdrawn

an amount of Rs. 50,000 from the said account on

5/8/2003. When inquiry was started by the official of the

Bank, the workman confessed that he had fraudulently

credited the amount in the S.B. A/C of Mr. Gama Bind and

had withdrawn Rs. 50,000 from the said account. He has

given letter to that effect to the Branch Manager. For the

said fraud and misappropriation the workman was

suspended. Domestic inquiry was held against him. He

was held guilty and on the basis of report of I.O. the

disciplinary authority terminated the services of the

workman. The workman raised industrial dispute. As

Ministry sent the reference to this Tribunal. In Award

Part-I, the inquiry was held fair and proper and the findings

of the Inquiry Officer are declared not perverse and the

parties were directed to argue or lead evidence on the point

of quantum of punishment.

3. In this Part-II Award following are the remaining

issues for my determination. I record my fingings thereon

for the reasons to follow:

Sl. No.

Issues

Findings

Whether the punishment of

Yes.

dismissal is shockingly

disproportionate to the

proved misconduct?

Whether the workman is

No.

entitled to be reinstated in

the service with full back-

wages as prayed for?

What order?

As per final

order.

REASONS

Issues No. 3:

4. According to the workman his confessional

statement was written under the direction official

Mr. Phansekar. It is further submitted that the workman

has sent letter of retracting his alleged confessional

statement and the witness of the Bank has admitted the

same. In the circumstances the workman submits that the

punishment of termination is shockingly disproportionate.

It is further submitted on behalf of the workman that as

his services were terminated, he and his family member

suffered grave hardship and financial losses. He could not

get any other service due to the stigma on his career.

Currently workman is residing at Patna with his brother.

His annual income is merely 96,000/-. He is in dire need of

the job to support himself and his family. Therefore he

prays that Bank be directed to reinstate him with full back

wages.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2581

5. As against this it was submitted on behalf of the

first party that the workman is found guilty by the Inquiry

Officer for the alleged charges of fraud. The inquiry was

held fair and proper and findings of the I.O. were also

declared not perverse. In the circumstances it was

submitted on behalf of the first party that the point of

retracted confession needs no consideration. According

to him confession was by free will and voluntary.

Furthermore it was consistent to the entries in the account

books and the circumstances on record. Therefore the

Inquiry Officer rightly relied thereon and held the workman

guilty. Therefore this Tribunal also in Part-I Award

declared that the findings of the I.O. as not perverse.

6. In this respect Ld. Adv. for the first party submitted

that the workman was the employee of a Bank and

supposed to work honestly with due diligence and

integrity and dishonest person should not be allowed to

work in the Banking field. In support of his argument the

Ld. Adv. resorted to Apex Court ruling in Union Bank of

India V/s Vishwamohan (1998) 4 SCC 310 wherein on

the point Hon'ble Court observed that;

"It needs to be emphasized that in the banking

business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and

honesty need to be preserved by every bank

employee and in particular the bank Officer. If this

is not observed, the confidence of the public

depositors would be impaired."

7. The Ld. Adv. further submitted that, no leniency

can be shown in such type of fraud, misappropriation and

corruption. In support of his argument Ld. Adv. relied

upon Apex Court ruling in Municipal Corporation

Bharadurgarh V/s. Krishnan Bihari and Ors. AIR 1996

SC 1249 wherein on the point in para 4 of the judgment

the Hon'ble Court observed that;

"... in case involving corruption there cannot be

any other punishment than dismissal. Any

sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled

for and opposed to public interest. The amount

misappropriated may be small or large, it is an act

misappropriation that is relevant."

8. On the point Ld. Adv. for the first party also cited

another Apex Court ruling in Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur

V/s. State Bank of India & Anr. AIR 2005 SC 314. In

para 33 of the judgment Hon'ble Court referred its earlier

judgement 2003 (3) SCC 605 and reiterated the

observations;

"If the charged employee holds a position of trust

where honesty and integrity are inbuilt

requirements of functioning, it would not be proper

to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in

such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where

the person deals with public money or is engaged

in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary

capacity, the highest degree of integrity and

trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable."

9. The Ld. Adv. for the first party further submitted

that once Bank lost confidence for serious misconduct

such employees should not be continued in the service.

In support of his argument Ld. Adv. resorted to Apex

Court ruling in Janatha Bazaar South Canara Central Co-

operative Wholesale Stores Ltd. & Ors. V/s. Secretary,

Sahakari Noukarana Sangh & Ors. 2000 IILLJ 1395

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated its earlier view

taken in Punjab Dairy Development case (1997) 6 SCC

159. Wherein the Hon'ble Court has observed that;

"In view of proof of misconduct a necessary

consequence will be that management has lost

confidence that the workman would truthfully and

faithfully carry out his duties and consequently the

Labour Court rightly declined to exercise the

power under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act to grant

relief with minor penalty."

10. The Ld. Adv. also cited following rulings on the

point of punishment. They are:

(1) Suresh Pathrella V/s. Oriental Bank of Commerce

(2006) 10 SCC 572.

(2) State Bank of India V/s. Bela Bagchi & Ors. (2005)

7 SCC 435.

(3) Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road

Transport Corporation V/s. Sohanlal (2004) 4 SCC

218.

(4) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation V/s. Vinod

Kumar 2008 (2) Mh. L.J. 161

(5) State Bank of Mysore & Ors. V/s. M.C. Krishnappa

(2011) 7 SCC 325.

11. In all these judgments the Hon'ble Court has held

that the Bank employee should discharge his duties with

utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to

do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank official. In

respect of dishonest employee the Hon'ble Court also held

that, to continue such an employee in the employment of

Corporation by virtue of judicial verdict would be an act

of misplaced sympathy which can find no foundation in

law of equity.

12. In the light of above cited rulings the Ld. Adv. for

the first party further submitted that the disciplinary

authority has rightly imposed the punishment of dismissal.

He further submitted that, in the light of these rulings,

the request of the workman to take lenient view and to

reinstate him in service does not stand to reasons. As

against this the Ld. Adv. for the second party brought to

my notice that it has come on record that the second party

workman has confessed that, he had fraudulently made

the false credit entry and had withdrawn the amount of

2582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Rs. 50,000/-. The Ld. Adv. for the second party also

pointed out that it is the first act of misconduct on the

part of the workman. He further submitted that, the

workman has not only confessed his guilt but has also

deposited the amount of Rs. 50,000/- which alleged to

have been withdrawn fraudulently. In the circumstances

he submitted that due to dismissal from service his entire

family is being ruined and lenient view needs to be taken.

I take into account all these facts. I have also given due

consideration that it is first incident of misconduct of the

workman. He has not only confessed but also deposited

the amount alleged to have withdrawn fraudulently. In the

circumstances as per present trend in criminal

jurisprudence reformative theory of punishment is being

adopted. Not only the workman but his entire family is

being ruined as the workman falls prey to his lust of

money. All these circumstances no doubt lead this

Tribunal to take lenient view. At the same time the ratio

laid down in the above referred rulings cannot be lost

sight of. Where in it is observed that, such employee

should not be reinstated or continued in service of a Bank.

Reinstatement would amount to sympathy uncalled for as

has been observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in one of the

above referred rulings.

13. In this respect in the light of ratio laid down in the

above ruling the workman cannot be reinstated in service.

At the same time, I take into consideration that there was

no loss to the Bank and the workman has fairly confessed

the act of misconduct. It was his first misconduct and

poverty of workman seems the reason behind the act of

misconduct. In this back drop instead of dismissal to meet

the end of justice, I think it proper to award the punishment

of compulsory retirement with all pensionary benefits as

per rules so that workman would not be in service of the

Bank at the same time his family would not be ruined and

he would get some financial assistance in support of his

family. Thus I decide the issue no. 3 partly in the

affirmative and issue no. 4 in the negative and proceed to

pass the following order:

ORDER

I. The reference is partly allowed with no order as

to cost.

II. The punishment of dismissal from service is

substituted by punishment of compulsory

retirement with all pensionary benefits.

Date: 08 04.2015

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1218-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj {ks=h; xzkeh.k

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

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

vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 22@07½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@81@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2015

S.O. 1218.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 22/07) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Kshetriya Gramin

Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 11/06/2015.

[No. L-12012/81/2006-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/L/R/27/07

Shri Dilip Garhwal,

S/o Shri J.L. Garhwal,

R/o Kilapura Ward,

Sohagpur,

Distt. Hoshangabad

...Workman

Versus

The Chairman,

Kshetriya Gramin Bank,

Head Office, Mangalwara,

Hoshangabad

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 13th day of May 2015

1. As per letter dated 6-2-07 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/

81/2006-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of

Chairman, Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad in

terminating the services of Shri Dilip Garhwal, S/o

J.L. Garhwal as Authorised Collection Agent w.e.f.

14-2-2004 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the concerned workman is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party workman despite of repeated notices

failed to participate in reference proceeding. He is

proceeded exparte on 9-9-2011.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2583

3. IInd party management filed exparte Written

Statement. Case of IInd party is that it is merged in Central

MP Gramin Bank having its head office at Chhindwara.

The management Kshetriya Gramin Bank started Gramin

Nidhi Deposit Scheme. Ist party workman was engaged

on temporary basis as an agent under the scheme. He was

entitled to 2% of total collection made by him each month.

The commission was paid in Ist week of the month. The

scheme was introduced during the period 1986 to 2000 in

15 branches of the Bank. The interest in the scheme was

revised 13% of term deposit. On the saving Bank Deposit,

the rate of interest was 5%. New review of the scheme

was taken, the cost was found 6.3% for implementation

of the scheme. The Bank was constrained to close down

the scheme w.e.f 14-2-04. The decision was published in

the newspaper. The agreement were entered between

agents and the management. The agents were terminated.

It is reiterated that the workman was engaged on

temporary basis. He was paid commission. Ist party is not

covered as workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act. His

discontinuation is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID

Act. IInd party referred to ratio held in various cases. IInd

party submits that there was delay in raising dispute, no

dispute award be passed.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Chairman,

Kshetriya

Gramin

Bank,

Hoshangabad in terminating the

services of Shri Dilip Garhwal,

S/o J.L. Garhwal as Authorised

Collection Agent w.e.f. 14.2.2004

is legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

Workman is

is entitled to?"

not entitled

to any relief.

REASONS

5. Though termination of service of Ist party workman

is challenged, as per the terms of reference, Ist party

workman failed to file statement of claim. It is proceeded

exparte on 9-9-2011. IInd party filed Written Statement

contending that Ist party workman was temporarily

engaged as per the deposit scheme. The cost of the

scheme was high therefore management decided to close

the scheme.

6. Management's witness Shri Rajesh Kumar Agrawal

filed affidavit of evidence covering above contentions in

Written Statement. As workman is proceeded exparte, he

has not participated in reference proceeding, I accept

evidence of the witness of IInd party. The workman has

failed to establish that termination of his service suffers

from illegality. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.

1 in Affirmative.

7. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the management of Chairman,

Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad in

terminating the services of Shri Dilip Garhwal, S/o

J.L. Garhwal as Authorised Collection Agent w.e.f.

14-2-2004 is legal and proper.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1219-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mhñvkjñ,eñbZñ

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

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

vf/kdj.k] /kuckn ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼48@2001½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41012@241@2000&vkbZvkj¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2015

S.O. 1219.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 48/2001)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of D.R.M.E.

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 11/06/2015.

[No. L-41012/241/2000-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, 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. 48/2001

Employer in relation to the management of Eastern

Railway Dhanbad,

AND

Their workmen.

Present

Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

2584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances:

For the Employers

Shri Sanjay Kumar Advocate

For the workman

Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Railway

Dated: 20/05/2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-41012/241/2000-IR(B-I) dated

15/02/2001, 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 D.R.M.E. Rly, Dhanbad in

not regularizing the services of Workmen, S/Shri

Ramnath Yadav, Gorakh Yadav and 19 others

working as Parcel Porters under contract in Parcel

office at Dhanbad Railway Station, Dhanbad, in

view of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India in writ petititon (civil) No. 90/91, is justified,

legal and proper?' If not to what relief the workmen

are entitled to?"

List of workmen

1. Ayodhya Chaudhi 2. Sugriv Yadav 3. Gorakh Yadav

4. Ramnath Yadav 5. Shri Bhagwan Paswan 6. Dayasagar

Yadav 7. Bhola Yadav 8. Basist Yadav 9. Sumer Yadav

10. Ram Surat Yadav 11. Rama Shankar Yadav

12. Harendra Yadav 13. Rajendra Yadav-I 14. Kundan

Yadav 15. Rajendra Yadav-II.

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are

noticed. But appearing for certain dates, Ld. Counsel for

the workman sumbits that workman is not interested to

contest the case. 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] 11 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1220-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj iwoZ jsyos

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

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

y[kuÅ ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼63@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41011@77@2014&vkbZvkj¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2015

S.O. 1220.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 63/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of North

Eastern Railway and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 11/06/2015.

[No. L-41011/77/2014-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

Rakesh Kumar, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 63/2014

Ref. No. L-41011/77/2014-IR(B-1) dated: 14.10.2014

BETWEEN

Anchal Sangthan, Secretary

Rail Sevak Sangh

C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi

49, Tilak Nagar,

Lucknow.

(Espousing cause of Shri Rakesh Chandra)

AND

Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer

North Eastern Railway

DRM Office, Ashok Marg,

Lucknow.

The Chief Medical Superintendent

North Eastern Railway

Gonda (UP)

AWARD

1. By Order No. L-41011/77/2014-IR(B-I) dated:

14.10.2014 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)

referred this industrial dispute between Anchal Sangthan,

Secretary, Rail Sevak Sangh, C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi, 49,

Tilak Nagar, Lucknow and Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer,

North Eastern Railway, DRM Office, Ashok Marg,

Lucknow & the Chief Medical Superintendent, North

Eastern Railway, Gonda (UP) for adjudication.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2585

2. The reference under adjudication is:

^^D;k iwoksZÙkj jsy iz'kklu] y[kuÅ o xksaMk }kjk Jh jes'k

pUnz iq= eFkqjk izlkn] lQ+kbZokyk dks iqjkuh isa'ku u nsdj

ubZ isa'ku fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha rks dkexkj

fdl jkgr dks ikus dk gdnkj gS\**

3. On receipt of the reference order the workman's

union was issued registered notice to file his statement

of claim complete with relevant documents, list of reliance

and witnesses before Tribunal on 26.12.2014 with an

advance copy to the opposite party. The Secretary of the

workman's union appeared before this Tribunal and

requested for a date for filing of statement of claim.

4. On successive dates the management also turned

up. Since the case was related to grant of old pension

scheme instead of new pension scheme, the parties were

advised to settle the dispute amicably through Lok Adalat.

Accordingly, the case was taken up at Lok Adalat on

08.05.2015.

5. On 08.05.2015, Shri D.P. Awasthi, Secretary of the

workman's union was present whereas the opposite

parties were represented by Shri Upendera Kumar Sharma,

Chief Welfare Officer.

6. The opposite party filed M-5, letter signed by

Shri P.B. Prasad, Senior Divisional Pesonnel Officer, North

Eastern Railway, Lucknow, enclosing circular No. 2012/F/

(E) III/I(1)/2 dated 29.10.2014 of the Railway Board. The

management in letter M-3, referring circular dated

29.10.2014 has stated that the Railway Board, New Delhi

vide their circular dated 29.10.2014 has directed to cover

the employees who got temporary status prior to

01.10.2004 may be covered under Old Pension Scheme.

7. A copy of the M-3 was furnished to the workman's

union. Shri D.P. Awasthi after going through the contents

of letter, M-3 and circular dated 29.10.2014 showed

willingness to withdraw the present industrial dispute

being claim settled; and made an endorsement thereupon

as under:

"Since the relief claimed by the Union has been

accepted by the opposite parties, the further

proceedings of this case may kindly be dropped."

8. In view of the submission/endorsement of the

workman's union for dropping of the proceedings, there

is no grievance left with the workman's union as the

present industrial dispute pertains to non-grant of old

pension to the workman by the railway management and

the management of the railway has granted the same vide

circular 2012/F(E)III/I(I)/2 dated 29.10.2014 of the Railway

Board. Resultantly, the industrial dispute stands settled;

and no relief is required to be given to the workman

concerned. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

9. Award as above.

Lucknow

27th May, 2014.

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1221-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj iwoZ jsyos

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

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

y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 29@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41011@29@2014&vkbZvkj¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2015

S.O. 1221.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 29/2014)

of the Central. Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of North

Eastern Railway and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 11/06/2015.

[No. L-41011/29/2014-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 29/2014

Ref. No. L-41011/29/2014-IR(B-1) dated: 09.04.2014

BETWEEN

Anchal Sangthan Secretary

Rail Sevak Sangh

C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi

49, Tilak Nagar

Lucknow.

(Espousing cause of Sri Akhilesh)

AND

Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer

North Eastern Railway

DRM Office, Ashok Marg,

Lucknow.

The Chief Medical Superintendent

North Eastern Railway

Gonda (UP)

2586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 13, 2015/JYAISTHA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

1. By order No. L-41011/29/2014-IR(B-I) dated:

09.04.2014 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)

referred this industrial dispute between Anchal Sangthan

Secretary, Rail Sevak Sangh, C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi, 49,

Tilak Nagar, Lucknow and Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer,

North Eastern Railway, DRM Office, Ashok Marg,

Lucknow & the Chief Medical Superintendent, North

Eastern Railway, Gonda (UP) for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

^^D;k iwoksZÙkj jsy iz'kklu] y[kuÅ o xksaMk }kjk Jh vf[kys'k

iq= Jh t;Jh jke mxzg frokjh] lQ+kbZokyk dks iqjkuh isa'ku

u nsdj ubZ isa'ku fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha

rks dkexkj fdl jkgr dks ikus dk gdnkj gS\**

3. On receipt of the reference order the workman's

union was issued registered notice to file his statement

of claim complete with relevant documents, list of reliance

and witnesses before Tribunal on 25.06.2014 with an

advance copy to the opposite party. The Secretary of the

workman's union appeared before this Tribunal and

requested for a date for filing of statement of claim.

4. On successive dates the management also turned

up. Since the case was related to grant of old pension

scheme instead of new pension scheme, the parties were

advised to settle the dispute amicably through Lok Adalat.

Accordingly, the case was taken up at Lok Adalat on

08.05.2015.

5. On 08.05.2015, Shri D.P. Awasthi, Secretary of the

workman's union was present whereas the opposite

parties were represented by Shri Upendera Kumar Sharma,

Chief Welfare Officer.

6. The opposite party filed M-3, letter signed by Shri

P.B. Prasad, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North

Eastern Railway, Lucknow, enclosing circular No. 2012/F/

(E)III/I(1)/2 dated 29.10.2014 of the Railway Board. The

management in letter M-3, referring circular dated

29.10.2014 has stated that the Railway Board, New Delhi

vide their circular dated 29.10.2014 has directed to cover

the employees who got temporary status prior to

01.10.2004 may be covered under Old Pension Scheme.

7. A copy of the M-3 was furnished to the workman's

union. Shri D.P. Awasthi after going through the contents

of letter, M-3 and circular dated 29.10.2014 showed

willingness to withdraw the present industrial dispute

being claim settled; and made an endorsement thereupon

as under:

"Since the relief claimed by the Union is accepted

by the rail management. The further proceedings

of case may kindly be dropped."

8. In view of the submission/endorsement of the

workman's union for dropping of the proceedings, there

is no grievance left with the workman's union as the

present industrial dispute pertains to non-grant of old

pension to the workman by the railway management and

the management of the railway has granted the same vide

circular 2012/F(E)III/I(I)/2 dated 29.10.2014 of the Railway

Board. Resultantly, the industrial dispute stands settled;

and no relief is required to be given to the workman

concerned. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

9. Award as above.

Lucknow

18th May, 2015

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 twu] 2015

dk-vk- 1222-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj iwoZ jsyos

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

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

y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 28@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@06@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41011@28@2014&vkbZvkj¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2015

S.O. 1222.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 28/2014)

of the Central. Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of North

Eastern Railway and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 11/06/2015.

[No. L-41011/28/2014-IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 28/2014

Ref. No. L-41011/28/2014-IR(B-1) dated: 09.04.2014

BETWEEN

Anchal Sangthan Secretary

Rail Sevak Sangh

C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi

49, Tilak Nagar

Lucknow.

(Espousing cause of Sri Shikari)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 13] 2015@T;s"B 23] 1937

2587

AND

Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer

North Eastern Railway

DRM Office, Ashok Marg,

Lucknow.

The Chief Medical Superintendent

North Eastern Railway

Gonda (UP)

AWARD

1. By order No. L-41011/28/2014-IR(B-I) dated:

09.04.2014 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)

referred this industrial dispute between Anchal Sangthan

Secretary, Rail Sevak Sangh, C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi, 49,

Tilak Nagar, Lucknow and Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer,

North Eastern Railway, DRM Office, Ashok Marg,

Lucknow & the Chief Medical Superintendent, North

Eastern Railway, Gonda (UP) for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

^^D;k iwoksZÙkj jsy iz'kklu] y[kuÅ o xksaMk }kjk Jh f'kdkjh

iq= Jh tqEeu] lQ+kbZokyk dks iqjkuh isa'ku u nsdj ubZ isa'ku

fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha rks dkexkj fdl

jkgr dks ikus dk gdnkj gS\**

3. On receipt of the reference order the workman's

union was issued registered notice to file his statement

of claim complete with relevant documents, list of reliance

and witnesses before Tribunal on 25.06.2014 with an

advance copy to the opposite party. The Secretary of the

workman's union appeared before this Tribunal and

requested for a date for filing of statement of claim.

4. On successive dates the management also turned

up. Since the case was related to grant of old pension

scheme instead of new pension scheme, the parties were

advised to settle the dispute amicably through Lok Adalat.

Accordingly, the case was taken up at Lok Adalat on

08.05.2015.

5. On 08.05.2015, Shri D.P. Awasthi, Secretary of the

workman's union was present whereas the opposite

parties were represented by Shri Upendera Kumar Sharma,

Chief Welfare Officer.

6. The opposite party filed M-5, letter signed by Shri

P.B. Prasad, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North

Eastern Railway, Lucknow, enclosing circular No. 2012/F(E)

III/I(1)/2 dated 29.10.2014 of the Railway Board. The

management in letter M-3, referring circular dated

29.10.2014 has stated that the Railway Board, New Delhi

vide their circular dated 29.10.2014 has directed to cover

the employees who got temporary status prior to

01.10.2004 may be covered under Old Pension Scheme.

7. A copy of the M-3 was furnished to the workman's

union. Shri D.P. Awasthi after going through the contents

of letter, M-3 and circular dated 29.10.2014 showed

willingness to withdraw the present industrial dispute

being claim settled; and made an endorsement thereupon

as under:

"Since the relief claimed by the Union is accepted

by the Railway Management. The further

proceedings of this case may kindly be dropped."

8. In view of the submission/endorsement of the

workman's union for dropping of the proceedings, there

is no grievance left with the workman's union as the

present industrial dispute pertains to non-grant of old

pension to the workman by the railway management and

the management of the railway has granted the same vide

circular 2012/F(E)III/I(I)/2 dated 29.10.2014 of the Railway

Board. Resultantly, the industrial dispute stands settled;

and no relief is required to be given to the workman

concerned. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

9. Award as above.

Lucknow

18th May, 2014

RAKESH KUMAR, 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.