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

¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1636-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu

vfèfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vfèfu;e lañ 25½ dh èkjk 6 ds lkFk

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

gfj;k.kk jkT; ljdkj] lrdZrk foHkkx] p.Mhx<+ dh lgefr ls p.Mhx<+]

fnukad 14 vxLr] 2015 dh vfèlwpuk lañ 66@70@215&3&lrdZrk II

}kjk fdlkuksa ds ykHk ds fy, gfj;k.kk jkT; esa izekf.kr xsgwa ds cht dh

fcØh ds fy, gfj;k.kk jkT; cht izek.ku ,tsalh ds izek.ku ls iwoZ gh

vDrwcj] 2010 esa xsgwa ds cht ds Mhyjksa@mRikndksa }kjk QQwanuk'kh

jsfDly 2 izfr'kr Mh,l dh [kjhn vkSj blds mi;ksx dk vfuok;Zr%

vfèns'k }kjk dsaUnzh; lfClMh lfgr ljdkjh lfClMh ds dfFkr

nqfoZfu;kstu ds vkjksiksa dk vUos"k.k djus blls lacafèr vijkèksa] nq"izsj.k

vkSj blls lacafèr "kM;a= vkSj mDr rF;ksa ds ifjpkyu ls mRiUu gksus

okys vU; vijkè ;k vijkèksa ds iz;kl] nq"izsj.k ds vUos"k.k ds fy,

fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj U;k;kfèdkj

{ks= dk foLrkj laiw.kZ gfj;k.kk jkT; ij djrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ 228@38@2015&,ohMh&II]

vthr dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2015

S.O. 1636.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section(1) of section 5 with section 6 of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946),

the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Haryana Government, Vigilance Department,

Chandigarh vide Notification No. 66/70/215-3 Vig. II dated

Chandigarh, the 14th August, 2015, hereby extends the

powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special

Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Haryana

for investigation into the allegations regarding the alleged

misappropriation of the Government subsidies, including

central subsidies, meant for the benefit of farmers, by

compulsorily mandating the purchase and use of the

fungicide Raxil 2% DS by wheat seed dealers/growers in

October, 2010 before their certification by Haryana State

Seed Certification Agency for sale of certified wheat seeds

in Haryana State and related offences, abetment and

conspiracies in relation thereto or in connection therewith

and any other offence or offences committed as part of the

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 34]

ubZ fnYyh] vxLr 16—vxLr 22] 2015] '[email protected] 25—Jko.k 31] 1937

No. 34]

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 16—AUGUST 22, 2015, SATURDAY/SRAVANA 25—SRAVANA 31, 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)

3395 GI/2015

(3439)

3440

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

same transaction or arising out of the same facts and

attempt abetment and conspiracy in relaltion to or in

connection with the above mentioned offences and any

other offence or offences committed in course of the same

transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F.No. 228/38/2015-AVD-II]

AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.

foÙk ea=ky;

¼jktLo foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1637-—rLdj ,oa fons'kh fofue; Nylkèd ¼lEifÙk

dk lEigj.k½ vfèfu;e] 1976 ¼1976 dk 13½ dh èkjk 12 dh

mièkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUnz ljdkj

,rn~}kjk Hkkjr ljdkj] foÙk ea=ky; ¼jktLo foHkkx½ dh vfèlwpuk

lañ lkñdkñfuñ 3¼v½] fnukad 3 tuojh] 1977 esa fuEufyf[kr la'kksèu

djrh gS] oLrqr%—

mDr vfèlwpuk esa] ^Jh dsñ dsñ >k* 'kCn vkSj v{kjksa ds fy,

^Jh dkS'ky JhokLro* 'kCn vkSj v{kj vUr% LFkkfir fd, tk,axsA

[la- 3@2015@Qkñ lañ ,&12026@2@2015&,l vks ¼lh ,½]

,lñ HkkSfed] voj lfpo

fVIi.k%µfnukad 3 tuojh] 1977 dh ewy vfèlwpuk lañ lkñdkñfuñ

3¼v½] dks lkñdkñfuñ 323¼v½] fnukad 17 twu] 1978 lkñdkñfuñ

528¼v½] 16 ebZ] 1984] lkñdkñfuñ 1039¼v½] fnukad 26 vxLr]

1986] lkñdkñfuñ 1214¼v½] fnukad 18 uoEcj] 1986] lkñdkñfuñ

89¼v½] fnukad 17 Qjojh] 1988] lkñdkñfuñ 11¼v½] fnukad 9

tuojh] 1989] lkñdkñfuñ 713¼v½] fnukad 16 vxLr] 1990]

lkñdkñfuñ 723¼v½] fnukad 24 vDVwcj] 1991] lkñdkñfuñ 160¼v½]

fnukad 10 Qjojh] 1994] lkñdkñfuñ 170¼v½] fnukad 21 ekpZ]

1997] lkñdkñfuñ 381¼v½] fnukad 21 ebZ] 1999] lkñdkñfuñ 97¼v½]

fnukad 15 Qjojh] 2001] lkñdkñfuñ 127¼v½] fnukad 25 Qjojh]

2003] lkñdkñfuñ 388¼v½] fnukad 8 ebZ] 2003] lkñdkñfuñ 433¼v½]

fnukad 30 twu] 2005] dkñvkñ 2094¼v½] fnukad 5 fnlEcj] 2007

vkSj dkñvkñ 968 fnukad 2 uoEcj] 2012 }kjk la'kksfèr fd;k x;kA

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2015

S.O. 1637.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Smugglers and Foreign

Excange Manipulators (Forfeiture of property) Act, 1976

(13 of 1976), the Central Government hereby makes the

following further amendment in the notification of the

Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department

of Revenue) No. G.S.R. 3 (E) dated the 3rd January, 1977,

namely:—

In the said notification, for the words and letters 'Shri

K.K. Jha', the words and letters 'Shri Kaushal Srivastava'

shall be substituted.

[No.3/2015/F.No. A. 12026/2/2015-SO(CA)]

S. BHOWMICK, Under Secy.

Note:-The Principal Notification No. G.S.R.3(E) dated the

3rd January, 1977 was amended by G.S.R. 323(E) dated the

17th June, 1978 G.S.R. 528(E) Dated the 16the May, 1984

G.S.R. 1039(E) dated the 26th August, 1986, G.S.R. 1214(E)

dated the 18th November, 1986, G.S.R. 89(E) dated the 17th

February, 1988, G.S.R. 11(E) dated the 9th January, 1989,

G.S.R. 713(E) dated the 16 August, 1990, G.S.R. 723(E) dated

the 24th October, 1991, G.S.R. 160(E) dated the 10th February,

1994, G.S.R. 170(E) dated 21st March, 1997, G.S.R. 381(E)

dated 21st May, 1999, G.S.R. 97(E) dated 15th February,

2001 G.S.R. 127(E) dated 25th February, 2003, G.S.R. 388(E)

dated 8th May, 2003, G.S.R. 433(E) dated 30th June, 2005,

S.O. 2094(E) dated 5th December, 2007 and S.O. 968 dated

2nd November, 2012.

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1638-—tcfd dsUnz ljdkj us ¼dk;kZy; vkns'k

lañ 147@2015½ tks fd Qkñlañ ,ñ 12026@01@2015&iz'kkñ I fnukad

30 twu] 2015 ds rgr tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk] }kjk Hkkjrh; jktLo lsok

ds vfèdkj Jh dkS'ky JhokLro ¼lhek 'kqYd ,oa dsUnzh; mRikn

'kqYd% 78½ dks lEig`r laifÙk vihy vfèdj.k ds lnL; ds :i esa

muds mDr in dk dk;ZizHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls fu;qDr fd;k

FkkA

vkSj tcfd] Jh dkS'ky JhokLro us fnukad 30 twu] 2015 ds

vijkg~u ls mDr vfèdj.k ds lnL; ds dk;kZy; dk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k

fd;k FkkA

blfy,] vc] lEig`r laifÙk vihy vfèdj.k ¼v/;{k ,oa lnL;

dh lsok 'krs±½ fu;ekoyh] 1978 ds fu;e 11 ds mifu;e ¼2½ ds

lkFk ifBr Lokid vkS"kfè vkSj eu%izHkkoh inkFkZ vfèfu;e] 1985

¼1985 dk 61½ dh èkjk 68< dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnz ljdkj ,r~n}kjk Jh dkS'ky JhokLro dks

;FkksDr vfèdj.k ds lnL; ds :i esa fu;qfDr vfèlwfpr djrh gSA

Jh dkS'ky JhokLro cklB o"kZ dh vk;q izkIr djus rd vFkok

vxys vkns'kksa rd] blesa tks Hkh igys gks] ;g in xzg.k djsaxsA

[lañ 6@2015@Qkñ lañ ,&12026@2@2015&,l vks ¼lh ,½]

,lñ HkkSfed] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2015

S.O. 1638.—Whereas Central Government by Office

Order No. 147/2015, bearing file No. A. 12026/1/2015-Ad. I

dated 30/6/2015, appointed Shri Kaushal Srivastava, an

officer of the Indian Revenue Service (C & CE:78) as

Member of the Appellate Tribunal for Forefeited Property

with effect from the date he takes over charge of the post.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3441

And whereas, Shri Kaushal Srivastava assumed charge

of the office of Member of the said Tribual in the Afternoon

of the 30th June, 2015.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the Powers conferred by

Sub-Section (1) of Section 68N of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), read with

sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 of the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited

Property (Conditions of service of Chairman and Members)

Rules, 1989, the Central Government hereby notifies the

appointment of Shri Kaushal Srivastava as a Member of the

aforesaid Tribunal.

Shri Kaushal Srivastava shall hold office till he attains

the age of sixty-two years or until further orders, whichever

is earlier.

[No. 6/2015/F.No. A-12026/2/2015-SO(CA)]

S. BHOWMICK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1639-—tcfd dsUnz ljdkj us ¼dk;kZy; vkns'k lañ

147@2015½ tksfd Qkñlañ,ñ 12026@01@2015&iz'kk I fnukad 30 twu]

2015 ds rgr tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk] }kjk Hkkjrh; jktLo lsok ds vfèdkjh

Jh dkS'ky JhokLro ¼lhek 'kqYd ,oa dsUnzh; mRikn 'kqYd% 78] dks

lEig`r laifÙk vihy vfèdj.k ds lnL; ds :i esa muds mDr in dk

dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls fu;qDr fd;k FkkA

vkSj tcfd] Jh dkS'ky JhokLro us fnukad 30 twu] 2015 ds

vijkg~u ls mDr vfèdj.k ds lnL; ds dk;kZy; dk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k

fd;k FkkA

blfy,] vc] lEiâr laifÙk vihy vfèdj.k ¼v/;{k ,oa lnL;

dh lsok 'krs±½ fu;ekoyh] 1978 ds fu;e 11 ds mifu;e ¼2½ ds lkFk

ifBr rLdj ,oa fons'kh eqnzk Nylkèd ¼laifÙk lEigj.k½ vfèfu;e]

1976 ¼1976 dk 13½ dh èkjk 12 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk Jh dkS'ky JhokLro

dks ;FkksDr vfèdj.k ds lnL; ds :i esa fu;qfDr vfèlwfpr djrh gSA

Jh dkS'ky JhokLro cklB o"kZ dh vk;q izkIr djus rd vFkok

vxys vkns'kksa rd] blesa tks Hkh igys gks] ;g in xzg.k djsaxsA

[lañ 5@2015@Qkñlañ,ñ 12026@2@2015&,lvks ¼lh,½]

,lñ HkkSfed] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2015

S.O. 1639.—Whereas Central Government by (Office

Order No. 147/2015) bearing file No. A. 12026/01/2015-AD. 1

dated the 30th June, 2015, appointed Shri Kaushal

Srivastava, an officer of the Indian Revenue Service (C&CE:

78) as Member of the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited

Property with effect from the date he takes over charge of

the post.

And Whereas, Shri Kaushal Srivastava assumed charge

of the Office of Member of the said Tribunal in the afternoon

of 30th June, 2015.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Smugglers and Foreign

Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976

(13 of 1976), read with sub-rule (2) of rule 11 of the Appellate

Tribunal for Forfeited Property (Conditions of Service of

Chairman and Member) Rules, 1978, the Central Government

hereby notifies the appointment of Shri Kaushal Srivastava

as a Member of the aforesaid Tribunal;

Shri Kaushal Srivastava shall hold office till he attains

the age of sixty-two years or until further orders whichever

is earlier.

[No. 5/2015/F.No. A.12026/2/2015-SO(CA)]

S. BHOWMICK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1640-—Lokid vkS"kfè vkSj eu%izHkkoh inkFkZ vfèfu;e]

1985 ¼1985 dk 61½ dh èkjk 68< dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk Hkkjr ljdkj] foÙk

ea=ky; ¼jktLo foHkkx½ dh vfèlwpuk lañdkñvkñ 967¼v½] fnukad

2 uoEcj] 2012 esa fuEufyf[kr vfrfjDr la'kksèu djrh gS] uker%µ

mDr vfèlwpuk esa] ^Jh dsñ dsñ >k* 'kCn vkSj v{kjksa ds fy,

^Jh dkS'ky JhokLro* 'kCn vkSj v{kj vUr% LFkkfir fd, tk,axsA

[lañ 4@2015@Qkñlañ,&12026@2@2015&,lvks ¼lh,½]

,lñ HkkSfed] voj lfpo

fVIi.k%µfnukad 29 ebZ] 1989 dh ewy vfèlwpuk lañ lkñdkñfuñ

385¼v½ dks lkñdkñfuñ 713¼v½] fnukad 16 vxLr] 1990 dkñvkñ

47 ¼v½] 22 tuojh] 1994] lkñdkñfuñ 723¼v½ fnukad 24 vDVwcj]

1991] dkñvkñ 191¼v½] fnukad 8 Qjojh] 1994] dkñvkñ 363¼v½]

fnukad 21 ebZ] 1999] dkñvkñ 137¼v½ fnukad 15 Qjojh] 2001]

dkñvkñ 229¼v½ fnukad 25 Qjojh] 2003] dkñvkñ 511¼v½ fnukad

8 ebZ] 2003] dkñvkñ 915¼v½ fnukad 30 twu] 2005 rFkk dkñvkñ

1849¼v½] fnukad 27 vDVwcj] 2006] dkñvkñ 2096¼v½] fnukad

5 fnlEcj] 2005 rFkk dkñvkñ 967¼v½ fnukad 2 uoEcj] 2012 }kjk

la'kksfèr fd;k x;kA

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2015

S.O. 1640.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of Section 68N of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) the Central

Government hereby makes the following further amendment

in the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry

of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. S.O. 967 dated

02/11/2012 namely:—

In the said notification, for the words and letters 'Shri

K.K. Jha', the words and letters 'Shri Kaushal Srivastava'

shall be substituted.

[No. 4/2015/F. No. A-12026/2/2015-SO(CA)]

S. BHOWMICK, Under Secy.

3442

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Note:—The Principal Notification No. S.O. 385(E), dated

the 29th May, 1989 was amended by G.S.R. 713(E), dated the

16th August, 1990, S.O. 47 (E), dated the 22nd January, 1994,

G.S.R. 723(E) dated the 24th October, 1991, S.O. 191(E) dated

8th February, 1994, S.O. 363 (E) dated 21st May, 1999, S.O.

137(E) dated 15th February, 2001, S.O. 229(E), dated 25th

February, 2003, S.O. 511 (E) dated 8th May, 2003, S.O. 915(E)

dated 30th June, 2005 and S.O. 1849(E) dated 27th October,

2006, S.O. 2096(E) dated 5th December, 2005 and S.O. 967

dated 2nd November, 2012.

¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1641-—#X.k vkS|ksfxd daiuh ¼fo'ks"k micaè½ vfèfu;e]

1985 dh èkjk 6 dh mi&èkjk ¼5½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] U;k;ewfrZ egkjkt flUgk]

v/;{k] vkS|ksfxd vkSj foÙkh; iqufuZekZ.k vihyh; izkfèdj.k

¼,,vkbZ,Qvkj½ ds dk;Zdky ds fnukad 15-08-2015 dks iwjk gksus ds

ifj.kkeLo:i] Jh vkjñ lhñ feJk dks vkS|ksfxd vkSj foÙkh; iqu£uekZ.k

vihyh; izkfèdj.k ¼,,vkbZ,Qvkj½ ds ofj"Bre lnL; gksus ds dkj.k

mUgsa inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls 65 o"kZ dh vk;q izkIr djus rd ;k

,,vkbZ,Qvkj ds lekiu rd ;k vxys vkns'kksa rd tks Hkh igys gks]

vkS|ksfxd vkSj foÙkh; iqu£uekZ.k vihyh; izkfèdj.k esa v/;{k ds :i

esa dk;Z djus ds fy, izkfèd`r djrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ 20@2@2012&vkbZ,Q&II]

vrh'k flag] funs'kd

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2015

S.O. 1641.—Consequent upon completion of tenure of

justice Maharaj Sinha, Chairman, Appellate Authority for

Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) on

15.08.2015, the Central Government, in exercise of the powers

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

Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, hereby authorise

Shri R.C. Mishra, being the senior most Member in AAIFR,

to act as Chairman, AAIFR with effect from the date of

assumption of the charge of the post till he attain the age of

65 years or till the abolition of AAIFR or until further orders,

whichever event takes place earliest.

[F. No. 20/2/2012-IF-II]

ATEESH SINGH, Director

ijek.kq ÅtkZ foHkkx

eqEcbZ] 13 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1642-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] ijek.kq ÅtkZ foHkkx ds varxZr

ijek.kq [kfut vUos"k.k ,oa vuqlaèku funs'kky;] gSnjkckn dh ,d

;wfuV ijek.kq [kfut vUos"k.k ,oa vuqlaèku funs'kky; ¼nf{k.kh {ks=½

csaxyq# dks] ftlds 80% ls vfèd deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlkèd

Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] 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

vfèlwfpr djrh gSA

[lañ 6@7@94&fgUnh]

latho lwn] la;qDr lfpo ¼m|ksx ,oa [kfut½

DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY

Mumbai, the 13th August, 2015

S.O. 1642.—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 notifies

the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration & Research,

(Southern Region) Bengaluru, a Unit of Atomic Minerals

Directorate for Exploration & Research, Hyderabad under

the Department of Automic Energy, where more than 80%

staff has acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. 6/7/94-Hindi]

SANJEEV SOOD, Jt. Secy. (I&M)

iksr ifjogu ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1643-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ¼;Fkk la'kksfèr 1987½ ds

fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e 4 ds vuqlj.k esa iksr ifjogu ea=ky;] ds

iz'kklfud fu;a=.k ds vèhu fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy; esa 80% ls vfèd

deZpkfj;ksa }kjk fganh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj ysus ij mls ,rn~}kjk

vfèlwfpr djrh gS%—

mi egkfuns'kd] nhiLraHk vkSj nhiiksr funs'kky;] oh Vh ,l]

xkaèhèke] daMyk] xqtjkr&370210 A

[Qkñ lañ bZ&11011@2@2015&fganh]

lhñchñ flag] lykgdkj

MINISTRY OF SHIPPING

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2015

S.O. 1643.—In pursuance of the sub rule (4) of the rule

10 the Official Language (use for the official purpose of

the Union) rules, 1976 (as amended), the Central

Government hereby notifies the following office under the

administrative control of the Ministry of Shipping, more

than 80% of the staff of which have acquired working

knowing of Hindi:—

Deputy Director General, Directorate of Lighthouse and

LightshipsVTS, Gandhidham, Kandla, Gujarat-370210.

[F. No. E-11011/2/2015-Hindi]

C.B. SINGH, Advisor

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3443

LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky;

¼LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1644-—Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn vfèfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh èkjk 11 dh mi&èkjk ¼2½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, dsanz ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ] ,rn~}kjk mDr vfèfu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa vkSj

fuEufyf[kr la'kksèu djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %

mDr vuqlwph esa—

¼d½ ^flfDde ef.kiky LokLF;] fpfdRlk vkSj rduhdh foKku fo'ofo|ky;* ds lkeus ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlkvgZrk* [vkxs dkWye

¼2½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZ ds varxZr] vafre izfof"V ds ckn vkSj ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* [vkxs dkWye ¼3½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr]

'kh"kZd ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼dE;qfuVh esfMflu½

¼dE;qfuVh esfMflu½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn flfDde ef.kiky vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] xaxVksd

esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa flfDde ef.kiky LokLF;] fpfdRlk

vkSj rduhdh foKku fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼QkekZdksyksth½

¼QkekZdksyksth½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn flfDde ef.kiky vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] xaxVksd

esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa flfDde ef.kiky LokLF;] fpfdRlk

vkSj rduhdh foKku fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼ck;ksdsesLVªh½

¼ck;ksdsesLVªh½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn flfDde ef.kiky vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] xaxVksd

esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa flfDde ef.kiky LokLF;] fpfdRlk

vkSj rduhdh foKku fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

¼[k½ ^f=iqjk fo'ofo|ky;] vxjryk] f=iqjk* ds lkeus ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vkxs dkWye ¼2½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZ

ds varxZr] vafre izfof"V ds ckn vkSj ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* [vkxs dkye ¼3½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZd ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr

dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼Qksjsafld esfMflu½

¼Qksjsafld esfMflu½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn vxjryk ljdkjh esfMdy dkWyst] vxjryk esa

izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa f=iqjk fo'ofo|ky;] vxjryk] f=iqjk

}kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼ekbØksck;ksyksth½

¼ekbØksck;ksyksth½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn vxjryk ljdkjh esfMdy dkWyst] vxjryk esa

izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa f=iqjk fo'ofo|ky;] vxjryk] f=iqjk

}kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼dE;qfuVh esfMflu½

3444

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

¼dE;qfuVh esfMflu½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn vxjryk ljdkjh esfMdy dkWyst] vxjryk esa

izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa f=iqjk fo'ofo|ky;] vxjryk] f=iqjk

}kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh ¼bZ,uVh½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn vxjryk ljdkjh esfMdy dkWyst] vxjryk esa

izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa f=iqjk fo'ofo|ky;] vxjryk] f=iqjk

}kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

¼x½ 'vk;q"k vkSj LokLF; fo'ofo|ky;] jk;iqj* ds lkeus ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vkxs dkWye ¼2½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZ

ds varxZr] vafre izfof"V ds ckn vkSj ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* [vkxs dkye ¼3½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZd ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr

dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼ck;ksdsesLVªh½

¼ck;ksdsesLVªh½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn iañ tsñ,uñ,eñ esfMdy dkWyst] jk;iqj esa

izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa vk;q"k vkSj LokLF; fo'ofo|ky;] jk;iqj

}kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

¼?k½ ^'ksj&,&d'ehj vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] Jhuxj ¼MhEM fo'ofo|ky;½* ds lkeu ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vkxs dkWye ¼2½ ds

rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZ ds varxZr] vafre izfof"V ds ckn vkSj ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* [vkxs dkye ¼3½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZd

ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼jsfM;ks Mk;xzksfll½

¼jsfM;ks Mk;xzksfll½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn 'ksj&,&d'ehj vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] lkSjk] Jhuxj

esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa 'ksj&,&d'ehj vk;qfoZKku laLFkku]

Jhuxj ¼MhEM fo'ofo|ky;½ }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxhA½

¼³½ ^bafnjk xkaèh vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] iVuk ¼MhEM fo'ofo|ky;½* ds lkeus ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vkxs dkWye ¼2½ ds rkSj

ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZ ds varxZr] vafre izfof"V ds ckn vkSj ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* [vkxs dkye ¼3½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZd

ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼ekbØksck;ksyksth½

¼ekbØksck;ksyksth½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn bafnjk xkaèh vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] 'ks[kiqjk] iVuk

esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa bafnjk xkaèh vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] iVuk

¼MhEM fo'ofo|ky;½ }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

gksxhA½

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼ck;ksdsesLVªh½

¼ck;ksdsesLVªh½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn ^bafnjk xkaèh vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] 'ks[kiqjk] iVuk

esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa bafnjk xkaèh vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] iVuk

¼MhEM fo'ofo|ky;½ }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

gksxhA½

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3445

¼p½ ^vk;ZHkê ukWyst fo'ofo|ky;] iVuk* ds lkeus ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vkxs dkWye ¼2½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZ ds

varxZr] vafre izfof"V ds ckn vkSj ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* [vkxs dkye ¼3½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZd ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr

dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼,ukVkseh½

¼,ukVkseh½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn ukyank esfMdy dkWyst] iVuk esa izf'kf{kr fd,

tk jgs Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa vk;ZHkê ukWyst fo'ofo|ky;] iVuk }kjk Lohd`r fd,

tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

¼N½ ^ckck Qjhn LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] QjhndksV* ds lkeus ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vkxs dkWye ¼2½ ds rkSj ij

mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZ ds varxZr] vafre izfof"V ds ckn vkSj ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* [vkxs dkye ¼3½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZd ds

varxZr fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼ck;ksdsesLVªh½

¼ck;ksdsesLVªh½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn xq# xksfoan flag esfMdy dkWyst] QjhndksV esa

izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa ckck Qjhn LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]

QjhndksV }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

ekLVj vkWQ ph:jth ¼dkfMZ;ks

,eñlhñ,pñ¼dkfMZ;ks Fkksjkfld ,aM oLdqyj ltZjh½

¼Fkksjkfld ,aM oLdqyj ltZjh½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn n;kuUn esfMdy dkWyst] yqfè;kuk esa izf'kf{kr

fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa ckck Qjhn LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] QjhndksV

}kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

ekLVj vkWQ ph:jth

,eñlhñ,pñ¼;wjksyksth@tsfuVks&;wjsujh ltZjh½

¼;wjksyksth@tsfuVks&;wjsujh ltZjh½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn n;kuUn esfMdy dkWyst] yqfè;kuk esa izf'kf{kr

fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa ckck Qjhn LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] QjhndksV

}kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

lHkh ds fy, fVIi.kh%&1- LukrdksÙkj ikB;Øe ds fy, Lohd`r ekU;rk 5 o"kZ dh vfèdre vofè ds fy, gksxh ftlds ckn bldk uohdj.k

fd;k tk,xkA

2- mi&èkjk 4 esa visf{kr vuqlkj ekU;rk dks le; ij uohdj.k ugha djkus ds QyLo:i lacafèr LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe

esa fujiokn :i ls nkf[kyk cUn gks tk,xkA

[lañ ;w&12012@474@2015&,ebZ¼ih&II½]

lqèhj dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2015

S.O. 1644.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council

Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following

further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:—

3446

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In the said Schedule:—

(a) against "Sikkim Manipal University of Health, Medical & Tech. Scs" under the heading 'Recognised Medical

Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

"Doctor of Medicine ((Community Medicine)"

MD (Community Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Sikkim Manipal University of Health, Medical & Tech. Scs in respect

of students being trained at Sikkim Manipal Institute of Medical

Sciences, Gangtok on or after 2014)

“Doctor of Medicine ((Pharmachology)”

MD (Pharmachology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Sikkim Manipal University of Health, Medical & Tech. Scs in respect

of students being trained at Sikkim Manipal Institute of Medical

Sciences, Gangtok on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Biochemistry)"

MD (Biochemistry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Sikkim Manipal University of Health, Medical & Tech. Scs in respect

of students being trained at Sikkim Manipal Institute of Medical

Sciences, Gangtok on or after 2014)

(b) against "Tripura University, Agartala, Tripura" under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter

referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration'

[hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

"Doctor of Medicine (Forensic Medicine)"

MD (Forensic Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted

byTripura University, Agartala, Tripura in respect of students being

trained at Agartala Government Medical College, Agartala on or

after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)"

MD (Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Tripura University, Agartala, Tripura in respect of students being

trained at Agartala Government Medical College, Agartala on or

after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Community Medicine)"

MD (Community Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Tripura University, Agartala, Tripura in respect of students being

trained at Agartala Government Medical College, Agartala on or

after 2014)

"Doctor of Surgery (ENT)"

Master of Surgery (ENT)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Tripura University, Agartala, Tripura in respect of students being

trained at Agartala Government Medical College, Agartala on or

after 2014)

referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration'

[hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3447

"Doctor of Medicine (Biochemistry)"

MD (Biochemistry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Ayush and Health University. Raipur in respect of the students

being trained at Pt. J.N.M. Medical College, Raipur on or after 2014)

(d) against "Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Srinagar (Deemed University)" under the heading

'Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto

under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted,

namely:—

"Doctor of Medicine (Radio Diagnosis)"

MD (Radio Diagnosis)

[This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Srinagar (Deemed

University) in respect of the students being trained at Sher-I-Kashmir

Institute of Medical Sciences, Soura, Srinagar on or after 2014]

(e) against "Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna (Deemed University)" "under the heading 'Recognised

Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

"Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)"

MD (Microbiology)

[This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna (Deemed

University) in respect of the students being trained at Indira Gandhi

Institute of Medical Sciences, Sheikhpura, Patna on or after 2014]

"Doctor of Medicine (Biochemistry)"

MD (Biochemistry)

[This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna (Deemed

University) in respect of the students being trained at Indira Gandhi

Institute of Medical Sciences, Sheikhpura, Patna on or after 2014]

(f) against Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter

referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration'

[hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

"Doctor of Medicine (Anatomy)"

MD (Anatomy)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna in respect of the students

being trained at Nalanda Medical College, Patna on or after 2014)

(g) against "Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot" under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification'

[hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for

Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

"Doctor of Medicine (Biochemistry)"

MD (Biochemistry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Baba Farid University of health Sciences, Faridkot in respect of the

students being trained Guru Gobind Singh Medical College, Faridkot

on or after 2014)

3448

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"Master of Chirurgie

"M.Ch (Cardio Thoracic and Vascular Surgery)"

(Cardio Thoracic and Vascular Surgery"

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot in respect of the

students being trained Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana on or

after 2014).

“Master of Chirurgie

M.Ch (Urology/Genito-Urinary Surgery)"

(Urology/Genito-Urinary Surgery)"

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot in respect of the

students being trained Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana on or

after 2014).

Note to all: 1. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon which it shall have

to be renewed.

2. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub-clause-4 shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions to the

concerned Postgraduate Course.

[No.U.12012/474/2015-ME(P-II)]

SUDHIR KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1645-—Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh /kkjk 11 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq, dsUnz ljdkj]Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ~ ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/kfu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa fuEufyf[kr vkSj

la'kks/ku djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %—

mDr vuqlwph esa%µ

¼d½ ^^,etsih jksfgy[kaM fo'ofo|ky;] cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k** ds lkeus ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [blds ckn dkye ¼2½ ds :i

esa lanfHkZr] 'kh"kZ ds varxZr vafre izfof"V rFkk mlls lacf/kr izfof"V ds ckn ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* [blds ckn dkye ¼3½ ds :i esa

lanfHkZr] 'kh"kZd ds rgr fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %µ

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼lkeqnkf;d fpfdRlk½

¼lkeqnkf;d fpfdRlk½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn Jh jke ewfrZ Lekjd vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] cjsyh]

mÙkj izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ,etsih jksfgy[kaM

fo'ofo|ky;] cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxhA½

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eñMhñ ¼lkekU; fpfdRlk½

¼lkekU; fpfdRlk½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn Jh jke ewfrZ Lekjd vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] cjsyh]

mÙkj izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ,etsih jksfgy[kaM

fo'ofo|ky;] cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxhA½

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼QkekZdksykWth½

¼QkekZdksykWth½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn Jh jke ewfrZ Lekjd vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] cjsyh]

mÙkj izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ,etsih jksfgy[kaM

fo'ofo|ky;] cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxhA½

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼us= jksx foKku½

¼us= jksx foKku½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn Jh jke ewfrZ Lekjd vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] cjsyh]

mÙkj izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ,etsih jksfgy[kaM

fo'ofo|ky;] cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxhA½

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3449

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼iSFkksyksth½

¼iSFkksyksth½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn Jh jke ewfrZ Lekjd vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] cjsyh]

mÙkj izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ,etsih jksfgy[kaM

fo'ofo|ky;] cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxhA½

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼laosnukgj.k½

¼laosnukgj.k½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn Jh jke ewfrZ Lekjd vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] cjsyh]

mÙkj izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ,etsih jksfgy[kaM

fo'ofo|ky;] cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxhA½

^^ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh

,e,l ¼lkekU; ltZjh½

¼lkekU; ltZjh½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn Jh jke ewfrZ Lekjd vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] cjsyh]

mÙkj izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ,etsih jksfgy[kaM

fo'ofo|ky;] cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxhA½

^^ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh

,e,l ¼,ukVkWeh½

¼,ukVkWeh½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn Jh jke ewfrZ Lekjd vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] cjsyh]

mÙkj izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ,etsih jksfgy[kaM

fo'ofo|ky;] cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxhA½

^^ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh

,e,l ¼bZ,uVh½

¼vkWVksjkbZuksykfjaxksyksth½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn Jh jke ewfrZ Lekjd vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] cjsyh]

mÙkj izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ,etsih jksfgy[kaM

fo'ofo|ky;] cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxhA½

^^ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh

,e,l ¼vksFkksZisfMDl½

¼vkFkksZisfMDl½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn Jh jke ewfrZ Lekjd vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] cjsyh]

mÙkj izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ,etsih jksfgy[kaM

fo'ofo|ky;] cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxhA½

^^MkDVj vkWQ esfMflu@

,eMh@,e,l ¼vkschth½

ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh ¼izlwfr ,oa L=h jksx½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn Jh jke ewfrZ Lekjd vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] cjsyh]

mÙkj izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ,etsih jksfgy[kaM

fo'ofo|ky;] cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxhA½

^^MkDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼,ukVkWeh½

¼,ukVkWeh½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn jksfgy[kaM esfMdy dkWyst ,oa vLirky]

cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ,etsih jksfgy[kaM

fo'ofo|ky;] cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxhA½

^^MkDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼lkeqnkf;d fpfdRlk½

¼lkeqnkf;d fpfdRlk½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn jksfgy[kaM esfMdy dkWyst ,oa vLirky]

cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ,etsih jksfgy[kaM

fo'ofo|ky;] cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxhA½

3450

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

^^MkDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼ekbØksck;ksykWth½

¼ekbØksck;ksykWth½

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn jksfgy[kaM esfMdy dkWyst ,oa vLirky]

cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ,etsih jksfgy[kaM

fo'ofo|ky;] cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxhA½

^^MkDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼fQft;ksyksth½

¼fQft;ksyksth½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn jksfgy[kaM esfMdy dkWyst ,oa vLirky]

cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ,etsih jksfgy[kaM

fo'ofo|ky;] cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxhA½

^^MkDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼QkekZdksykWth½

¼QkekZdksykWth½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn jksfgy[kaM esfMdy dkWyst ,oa vLirky]

cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ,etsih jksfgy[kaM

fo'ofo|ky;] cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxhA½

^^MkDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼tSo jlk;u½

¼tSo jlk;u½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn jksfgy[kaM esfMdy dkWyst ,oa vLirky]

cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ,etsih jksfgy[kaM

fo'ofo|ky;] cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxhA½

¼[k½ ^^MhEM fo'ofo|ky;] mÙkj izns'k** ds lkeus ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [blds ckn dkye ¼2½ ds :i esa lUnfHkZr] 'kh"kZ

ds varxZr vafre izfof"V rFkk mlls lEcfU/kr izfof"V ds ckn iathdj.k ds fy;s laf{kIr :i* [blds ckn dkye ¼3½ ds :i esa lanfHkZr] 'kh"kZd

ds rgr fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ ~%—

^^MkDVj vkWQ esfMflu

Mh,e ¼isfM;kfVªd xsLVªks,aVsjksykWth½

¼isfM;kfVªd xsLVªks,aVsjksykWth½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn lat; xka/kh LukrdksÙkj vk;qfoZKku laLFkku]

y[kuÅ es izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa MhEM fo'ofo|ky;] mÙkj

izns'k }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

¼x½ ^^pkS/kjh pj.k flag fo'ofo|ky;] esjB] mÙkj izns'k ds lkeus ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [blds ckn dkye ¼2½ ds :i esa

lUnfHkZr] 'kh"kZ ds varxZr vafre izfof"V rFkk mlls lacaf/kr izfof"V ds ckn ^iathdj.k ds fy;s laf{kIr :i* [blds ckn dkye ¼3½ ds :i esa

lan£Hkr] 'kh"kZd ds rgr fuEufyf[kr dks var£o"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—

^^MkDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼,ukVkWeh½

¼,ukVkWeh½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn eqTtQjuxj esfMdy dkWyst] eqTtQjuxj]

mÙkj izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa pkS/kjh pj.k flag fo'ofo|ky;]

esjB] mÙkj izns'k }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

¼?k½ ^^Lokeh foosdkuan lqHkkjrh fo'ofo|ky;] esjB] mÙkj izns'k** ds lkeus ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [blds ckn dkye ¼2½ ds

:i esa lan£Hkr] 'kh"kZ ds varxZr vafre izfof"V rFkk mlls lacaf/kr izfof"V ds ckn iathdj.k ds fy;s laf{kIr :i* [blds ckn dkye ¼3½ ds :i

esa lan£Hkr] 'kh"kZd ds rgr fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ ~%—

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3451

^^fMIyksek bu ,usfLFkfFk;k**

Mh,

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn lqHkkjrh esfMdy dkWyst] esjB] mÙkj izns'k esa

izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa Lokeh foosdkuan lqHkkjrh fo'ofo|ky;]

esjB] mÙkj izns'k }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

lHkh ds fy;s uksV%— 1% fdlh LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe dks bl izdkj iznÙk ekU;rk vf/kdre 05 o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, gksxh vkSj mlds ckn mldk uohdj.k djuk gksxkA

2% mi[kaM &4 ds ;Fkkisf{kr le; ij ekU;rk dk uohdj.k ugha djus ij lacaf/kr LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe esa nkf[kyk fujiokn :i ls can gks tk,xkA

[lañ ;wñ 12012@477@2015&,ebZ ¼ih&II]

lq/khj dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2015

S.O. 1645.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council

Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following

further amendments in the first Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule:—

(a) against "MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, UP" under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification'

[hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration'

[hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

"Doctor of Medicine (Community Medicine)"

MD (Community Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, UP in respect of students

being trained at Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences,

Bareilly, UP on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)"

MD (General Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, UP in respect of students

being trained at Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences,

Bareilly, UP on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)"

MD (Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, UP in respect of students

being trained at Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences,

Bareilly, UP on or after 2014)

"Master of Surgery (Ophthalmology)"

MS (Ophthalmology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, UP in respect of students

being trained at Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences,

Bareilly, UP on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Pathology)"

MD (Pathology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, UP in respect of students

being trained at Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences,

Bareilly, UP on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Anaesthesia)"

MD (Anaesthesia)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, UP in respect of students

being trained at Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences,

Bareilly, UP on or after 2014)

3452

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"Master of Surgery (General Surgery)"

MS (General Surgery)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, UP in respect of students

being trained at Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences,

Bareilly, UP on or after 2014)

"Master of Surgery (Anatomy)"

MS (Anatomy)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, UP in respect of students

being trained at Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences,

Bareilly, UP on or after 2014)

"Master of Surgery (Otorhinolaryngology)"

MS (ENT)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, UP in respect of students

being trained at Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences,

Bareilly, UP on or after 2014)

"Master of Surgery (Orthopaedics)"

MS (Orthopaedics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, UP in respect of students

being trained at Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences,

Bareilly, UP on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery

MD/MS (OBG)

(Obstetrics and Gynaecology)"

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted

by MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, UP in respect of students

being trained at Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences,

Bareilly, UP on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Anatomy)"

MD (Anatomy)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, UP in respect of students

being trained at Rohilkhand Medical College & Hospital, Bareilly,

UP on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Community Medicine)"

MD (Community Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, UP in respect of students

being trained at Rohilkhand Medical College & Hospital, Bareilly,

UP on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)"

MD (Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, UP in respect of students

being trained at Rohilkhand Medical College & Hospital, Bareilly,

UP on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Physiology)"

MD (Physiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, UP in respect of students

being trained at Rohilkhand Medical College & Hospital, Bareilly,

UP on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)"

MD (Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, UP in respect of students

being trained at Rohilkhand Medical College & Hospital, Bareilly,

UP on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Biochemistry)"

MD (Biochemistry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, UP in respect of students

being trained at Rohilkhand Medical College & Hospital, Bareilly,

UP on or after 2014)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3453

(b) against "Deemed University, Uttar Pradesh"under the heading ''Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter

referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration'

[hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

"Doctor of Medicine (Paediatric Gastroenterology)"

DM(Paediatric Gastroenterology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Deemed University, Uttar Pradesh in respect of students being

trained at Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences,

Lucknow on or after 2014)

Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

"Doctor of Medicine (Anatomy)"

MD (Anatomy)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh in

respect of students being trained at Muzaffarnagar Medical College,

Muzaffarnagar, U.P. on or after 2014)

(d) against "Swami Vivekanand Subharti University, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh" under the heading 'Recognised Medical

Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

"Diploma in Anesthesia"

(This shall be a recongised medical qualification when granted by

Swami Vivekanand Subharti University, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh in

respect of the students being trained at Subharti Medical College,

Meerut, U.P. on or after 2014)

Note to all: 1. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon which it shall have

to be renewed.

2. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub-clause-4 shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions to the

concerned Postgraduate Course.

[No. U. 12012/477/2015-ME(P-II)]

SUDHIR KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1646-—Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh /kkjk 11 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, dsanz ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/kfu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa vkSj

fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %

mDr vuqlwph esa—

¼d½ ^xq# xksfoan flag banzizLFk fo'ofo|ky;] ubZ fnYyh* ds lkeus ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vkxs dkWye ¼2½ ds rkSj ij

mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZ ds varxZr] vafre izfof"V ds ckn vkSj ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* [vkxs dkye ¼3½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZd ds

varxZr fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

Mh,e ¼iYeksujh ,aM fØfVdy ds;j esfMflu½

¼iYeksujh ,aM fØfVdy

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn o/kZeku egkohj esfMdy dkyst vkSj LukrdksÙkj

ds;j esfMflu½

laLFkku lQnjtax vLirky] ubZ fnYyh esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds

laca/k esa xq# xksfoan flag banzizLFk fo'ofo|ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk Lohd`r fd,

tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu@ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh ¼vksCLVsfVªDl

,eMh@,e,l ¼vkschth½

,aM xk;uksdksyksth½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn bZ,lvkbZ&ihthvkbZ,e,lvkj] bZ,lvkbZz

vLirky] clbZ nkjkiqj] ubZ fnYyh esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa xq#

xksfoan flag banzizLFk fo'ofo|ky;] fnYyh }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

3454

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼,usLFkhfl;ksyksth½

¼,usLFkhfl;ksyksth½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn bZ,evkbZ&ihthvkbZ,e,lvkj] bZ,lvkbZ

vLirky] clbZ nkjkiqn] ubZ fnYyh esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa

xq# xksfoan flag banzizLFk fo'fo|ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij

ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk gksxhA½

¼[k½ ^iañ chñMhñ 'kekZ LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] jksgrd] gfj;k.kk* ds lkeus ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vkxs dkWye ¼2½ ds rkSj

ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZ ds varxZr] vafre izfof"V ds ckn vkSj ^iathdj.k ds fy, lf{kIr :i* [vkxs dkWye ¼3½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZd ds

varxZr fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼tujy esfMflu½

¼tujy esfMflu½

¼;g 2013 esa vFkok mlds ckn dekaM vLirky] paMheafnj esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk

jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa iañchñMhñ 'kekZ LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] jksgrd]

gfj;k.kk }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr vgZrk gksxh½A

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

Mh,e ¼iYeksujh esfMflu½

¼iYeksujh esfMflu½

¼ ;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn iañchñMhñ 'kekZ LukrdksÙkj laLFkku] jksgrd esa

izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa iañ chñ Mhñ 'kekZ LokLF; foKku

fo'ofo|ky;] jksgrd] gfj;k.kk }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

¼x½ ^xhrkatyh fo'ofo|ky;] mn;iqj] jktLFkku* ds lekus ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vkxs dkWye ¼2½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZ

ds varxZr] vafre izfof"V ds ckn vkSj ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* [vkxs dkWye ¼3½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZd ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr

dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—

fMIyksek bu Dyhfudy

Mhlhih

iSFkksykWth

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn xhrkatyh esfMdy dkWyst vkSj vLirky]

mn;iqj esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa xhrkatyh fo'ofo|ky;]

mn;iqj] jktLFkku }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

¼?k½ ^jktLFkku LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|k;y] t;iqj* ds lkeus ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk [vkxs dkWye ¼2½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr]

'kh"kZ ds varxZr] vafre izfof"V ds ckn vkSj ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i*] [vkxs dkye ¼3½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZd ds varxZr

fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼lkbdsVªh½

¼lkbdsVªh½

¼ ;g 2013 esa vFkok mlds ckn vkjñ,uñVhñ esfMdy dkWyst] mn;iqj esa

izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa jktLFkku LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]

t;iqj }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu ¼U;wjksyhth½

Mh,e ¼U;wjksyksth½

¼ ;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn MkWñ ,lñ,uñ esfMdy dkWyst] tks/kiqj esa

izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa jktLFkku LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]

jt;iqj }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3455

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼Qksjsafld esfMflu½

¼Qksjsafld esfMflu½

¼ ;g 2013 esa vFkok mlds ckn MkWñ ,lñ,uñ esfMdy dkWyst] tks/kiqj esa

izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa jktLFkku LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]

t;iqj }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½

¼M-½ ^,uvkbZ,e,l fo'ofo|ky; ¼MhEM fo'ofo|ky;½] t;iqj] jktLFkku* ds lkeus ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk [vkxs dkWye ¼2½

ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZ ds varxZr] vafre izfof"V ds ckn vkSj ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* [vkxs dkye ¼3½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr]

'kh"kZd ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼V;wcjdqyksfll vkSj jsLihjsVjh fMftt+@iYeksujh esfMflu½

¼V;~wcjdqyksfll vkSj jsLihjsVjh fMftt+@iYeksujh esfMflu½

¼ ;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn jk"Vªh; vk;qfoZKku vkSj vuqla/kku laLFkku]

t;iqj esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ,uvkbZ,e,l fo'ofo|ky;

¼MhEM fo'ofo|ky;½] t;iqj] jktLFkku }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½

lHkh ds fy, fVIi.kh% 1- LukrdksÙkj ikB;Øe ds fy, Lohd`r ekU;rk 5 o"kZ dh vf/kdre vof/k ds fy, gksxh ftlds ckn bldk uohdj.k fd;k tk,xkA

2- mi&/kkjk 4 ds visf{kr vuqlkj ekU;rk dks le; ij uohdj.k ugha djkus ds QyLo:i lacaf/kr LukrdksÙkj ikB;Øe esa fujiokn :i ls nkf[kyk cUn gks tk,xkA

[lañ ;wñ-12012@473@2015-,ebZ ¼ih-II½]

lq/khj dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 27th July, 2015

S.O. 1646.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council

Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following

further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:—

In the said Schdule:—

(a) against "Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi" under the heading 'Recognised Medical

Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

"Doctor of Medicine (Pulmonary & Critical

DM (Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine) (This shall be a recognised

Care Medicine)"

Medical qualification when granted by Guru Gobind Singh

Indraprastha University, New Delhi in respect of students being

trained at Vardhman Mahavir Medical College & Postgraduate

Institute Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery

MD/MS (OBG)S

(Obstetrics & Gynecology)"

(This shall be a recognised Medical qualification when granted by

Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi in respect of

students being trained at ESI-PGIMSR, ESI Hospital, Basaidarapur,

New Delhi on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Anesthesiology)"

MD (Anesthesiology)

(This shall be a recognised Medical qualification when granted by

Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi in respect of

students being trained at ESI-PGIMSR, ESI Hospital, Basaidarapur,

New Delhi on or after 2014)

(b) against "Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak, Haryana" under the heading 'Recognised Medical

Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)] after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

3456

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)"

MD (General Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised Medical qualification when granted by

Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak, Haryana in

respect of students being trained at Command Hospital,

Chandimandir on or after 2013)

"Doctor of Medicine (Pulmonary Medicine)"

DM(Pulmonary Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised Medical qualification when granted by

Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak, Haryana in

respect of Students being trained at Pt. B. D. Sharma Postgraduate

Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak on or after 2014)

[hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for

Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

"Diploma in clinical Pathology"

DCP

(This shall be a recognised Medical qualification when granted by

Geetanjali University, Udaipur, Rajasthan in respect of the students

being trained at Geetanjali Medical College & Hospital, Udaipur on

or after 2014)

(d) against "Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur" under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification'

[hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for

Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

"Doctor of Medicine (Psychiatry)"

MD (Psychiatry)

(This shall be a recognised Medical qualification when granted by

Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur in respect of the

students being trained at R.N.T. Medical College, Udaipur on or

after 2013)

"Doctor of Medicine (Neurology)"

DM (Neurology)

(This shall be a recognised Medical qualification when granted by

Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur in respect of the

students being trained at Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur on or

after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Forensic Medicine)"

MD (Forensic Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised Medical qualification when granted by

Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur in respect of

students being trained at Dr. S. N. Medical College, Jodhpur on or

after 2013)

(e) against "NIMS University (Deemed University), Jaipur Rajasthan" under the heading 'Recognised Medical

Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)] after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

"Doctor of Medicine (Tuberculosis &

MD (Tuberculosis & Respiratory Disease/Pulmonary Medicine)

Respiratory Disease/Pulmonary Medicine)"

(This shall be a recognised Medical qualification when granted by

NIMS University (Deemed Unversity), Jaipur, Rajasthan in respect

of the students being trained at National Institute of Medical Science

& Research, Jaipur on or after 2014)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3457

Note to all: 1. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon which it shall have

to be renewed.

2. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub-clause-4 shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions to the

concerned Postgraduate Course.

[No. U. 12012/473/2015-ME(P-II)]

SUDHIR KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1647-—Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh /kkjk 11 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUnz ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ~] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/kfu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa vkSj

fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku djrh gS] vFkkZr~ % —

mDr vuqlwph esa—

¼d½ ^dqekÅa fo'ofo|ky;]uSuhrky] mÙkjk[kaM* ds lkeus ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vkxs dkWye ¼2½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZ

ds varxZr] vafre izfof"V ds ckn vkSj ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* [vkxs dkWye ¼3½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZd ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr

dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu ¼lkeqnkf;d esfMflu½

,eMh ¼lkeqnkf;d esfMflu½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn jktdh; esfMdy dkWyst ¼iwoZ esa mÙkjk[kaM ou

vLirky VªLV esfMdy dkWyst ½] gYnokuh] mÙkjk[kaM esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs

Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa dqekÅa fo'ofo|ky;] uSuhrky] mÙkjk[kaM }kjk Lohd`r fd,

tkus ij ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu ¼iSFkksykWth½

,eMh ¼iSFkksykWth½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn jktdh; esfMdy dkWyst ¼iwoZ esa mÙkjk[kaM ou

vLirky VªLV esfMdy dkWyst ½] gYnokuh] mÙkjk[kaM esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs

Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa dqekÅa fo'ofo|ky;] uSuhrky] mÙkjk[kaM }kjk Lohd`r fd,

tkus ij ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu ¼,ukVkseh½

,eMh ¼,ukVkseh½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn jktdh; esfMdy dkWyst ¼iwoZ esa mÙkjk[kaM ou

vLirky VªLV esfMdy dkWyst ½] gYnokuh] mÙkjk[kaM esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs

Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa dqekÅa fo'ofo|ky;] uSuhrky] mÙkjk[kaM }kjk Lohd`r fd,

tkus ij ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

¼[k½ ^,pñ,uñchñ x<+oky fo'ofo|ky;] mÙkjk[kaM* ds lkeus ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vkxs dkWye ¼2½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr]

'kh"kZ ds varxZr] vafre izfof"V ds ckn vkSj ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* [vkxs dkWye ¼3½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZd ds varxZr

fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu ¼fQft;ksykWth½

,eMh ¼fQft;ksykWth½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh xq# jke jk; vk;qfoZKku ,oa LokLF; foKku

laLFkku] nsgjknwu esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ,pñ,uñchñ x<+oky

fo'ofo|ky;] mÙkjk[kaM }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij —kU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk*

gksxhA½

3458

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu ¼ekbØksck;ksykWth½

,eMh ¼ekbØksck;ksykWth½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh xq: jke jk; vk;qfoZKku ,oa LokLF; foKku

laLFkku] nsgjknwu esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ,pñ,uñchñ x<+oky

fo'ofo|ky;] mÙkjk[kaM }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

gksxhA½

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu ¼lkeqnkf;d esfMflu½

,eMh ¼lkeqnkf;d esfMflu½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh xq# jke jk; vk;qfoZKku ,oa LokLF; foKku

laLFkku] nsgjknwu esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ,pñ,uñchñ x<+oky

fo'ofo|ky;] mÙkjk[kaM }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

gksxhA½

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu ¼iSFkksykWth½

,eMh ¼iSFkksykWth½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh xq# jke jk; vk;qfoZKku ,oa LokLF; foKku

laLFkku] nsgjknwu esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ,pñ,uñchñ x<+oky

fo'ofo|ky;] mÙkjk[kaM }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

gksxhA½

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMfdlu ¼,ukVkseh½

,eMh ¼,ukVkseh½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh xq# jke jk; vk;qfoZKku ,oa LokLF; foKku

laLFkku] nsgjknwu esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ,pñ,uñchñ x<+oky

fo'ofo|ky;] mÙkjk[kaM }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

gksxhA½

¼x½ ^fgekpy izns'k fo'ofo|ky;] f'keyk] fgekpy izns'k* ds lkeus ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vkxs dkWye ¼2½ ds rkSj ij

mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZ ds varxZr] vafre izfof"V ds ckn vkSj ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* vkxs dkWye ¼3½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZd ds varxZr

fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu ¼cky jksx½

,eMh ¼cky jksx½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh MkWñ jktsUnz izlkn jktdh; esfMdy dkWyst]

VkaMk] fgekpy izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa fgekpy izns'k

fo'ofo|ky;] f'keyk] fgekpy izns'k }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh ¼lkekU; ltZjh½

,e,l ¼lkekU; ltZjh½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn MkWñ jktsUnz izlkn jktdh; esfMdy dkWyst]

VkaMk] fgekpy izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa fgekpy izns'k

fo'ofo|ky;] f'keyk] fgekpy izns'k }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

MkWDVj vkWQ ltZjh ¼vfLFk jksx½

,eMh ¼vkFkks±½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn MkWñ jktsUnz izlkn jktdh; esfMdy dkWyst]

VkaMk] fgekpy izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa fgekpy izns'k

fo'ofo|ky;] f'keyk] fgekpy izns'k }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3459

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu ¼ekbØksck;ksykWth½

,eMh ¼ekbØksck;ksykWth½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn MkWñ jktsUnz izlkn jktdh; esfMdy dkWyst]

VkaMk] fgekpy izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa fgekpy izns'k

fo'ofo|ky;] f'keyk] fgekpy izns'k }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh ¼vksVks&jkbuks&yS¯jxksykWth½

,e,l ¼bZ,uVh½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn MkWñ jktsUnz izlkn jktdh; esfMdy dkWyst]

VkaMk] fgekpy izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa fgekpy izns'k

fo'ofo|ky;] f'keyk] fgekpy izns'k }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼,lih,e@lkeqnkf;d esfMflu½

¼,lih,e@lkeqnkf;d esfMflu½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn MkWñ jktsUnz izlkn jktdh; esfMdy dkWyst]

VkaMk] fgekpy izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa fgekpy izns'k

fo'ofo|ky;] f'keyk] fgekpy izns'k }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu ¼dkfMZ;ksykWth½

Mh,e ¼dkfMZ;ksykWth½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn bfUnjk xka/kh esfMdy dkWyst] f'keyk] fgekpy

izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa fgekpy izns'k fo'ofo|ky;]

f'keyk] fgekpy izns'k }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

gksxhA½

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu ¼euf'pfdRlk½

Mh,e ¼euf'pfdRlk½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn bfUnjk xka/kh esfMdy dkWyst] f'keyk] fgekpy

izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa fgekpy izns'k fo'ofo|ky;]

f'keyk] fgekpy izns'k }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

gksxhA½

ekWLVj vkWQ fp:thZ ¼dkfMZ;ksFkksjsfld ,oa

,elh,p ¼lhVhoh,l½

oSLdqyj ltZjh½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn bafUnjk xka/kh esfMdy dkWyst] f'keyk] fgekpy

izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa fgekpy izns'k fo'ofo|ky;]

f'keyk] fgekpy izns'k }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

gksxhA½

lHkh ds fy, uksV%

1- fdlh LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe dks bl izdkj iznÙk ekU;rk vf/kdre 5 o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, gksxh vkSj mlds ckn mldk uohdj.k djuk gksxkA

2- mi&[kaM&4 esa ;Fkkisf{kr le; ij ekU;rk dk uohdj.k u gksus ij lacaf/kr LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe esa nkf[kyk #d tk,xkA

[lañ ;w&12012@476@2015&,ebZ ¼ih&II½]

lq/khj dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 27th July, 2015

S.O. 1647.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council

Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following

further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:—

3460

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In the said Schedule—

(a) against "Kumaon University, Nainital, Uttarakhand" under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification'

[hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for

Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

"Doctor of Medicine (Community Medicine)"

MD (Community Medicine) (This shall be a recognised medical

qualification when granted by Kumaon University, Nainital,

Uttarakhand in respect of students being trained at Government

Medical College (Previously Uttarakhand Forest Hospital Trust

Medical College), Haldwani, Uttarakhand on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Pathology)"

MD (Pathology) (This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kumaon University, Nainital, Uttarakhand in respect

of students being trained at Government Medical College (Previously

Uttarakhand Forest Hospital Trust Medical College), Haldwani,

Uttarakhand on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Anatomy)"

MD (Anatomy) (This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kumaon University, Nainital, Uttarakhand in respect

of students being trained at Government Medical College (Previously

Uttarakhand Forest Hospital Trust Medical College), Haldwani,

Uttarakhand on or after 2014)

(b) against "H.N.B Garhwal University, Uttarakhand" under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter

referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration'

[hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

"Doctor of Medicine (Physiology)"

MD (Physiology) (This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by H.N.B. Garhwal University, Uttarakhand in respect

of students being trained at Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute Medical &

Health Sciences, Dehradun on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)"

MD (Microbiology) (This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by H.N.B. Garhwal University, Uttarakhand in respect

of students being trained at Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical

& Health Sciences, Dehradun on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Community Medicine)"

MD (Community Medicine) (This shall be a recognised medical

qualification when granted by H.N.B. Garhwal University,

Uttarakhand in respect of students being trained at Shri Guru Ram

Rai Institute of Medical & Health Sciences, Dehradun on or after

2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Pathology)"

MD (Pathology) (This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by H.N.B. Garhwal University, Uttarakhand in respect

of students being trained at Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical

& Health Sciences, Dehradun on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Anatomy)"

MD (Anatomy) (This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by H.N.B. Garhwal University, Uttarakhand in respect

of students being trained at Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical

& Health Sciences, Dehradun on or after 2014)

Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3461

"Doctor of Medicine (Paediatrics)"

MD (Paediatrics) (This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla, Himachal

Pradesh in respect of the students being trained at Dr. Rajendra

Prasad Government Medical College, Tanda, H.P. on or after 2014)

"Master of Surgery (General Surgery)"

MS (General Surgery) (This shall be a recognised medical

qualification when granted by Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla,

Himachal Pradesh in respect of students being trained at Dr. Rajendra

Prasad Government Medical College, Tanda, H.P. on or after 2014)

"Master of Surgery (Orthopaedics)"

MS (Orthopaedics) (This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla, Himachal

Pradesh in respect of students being trained at Dr. Rajendra Prasad

Government Medical College, Tanda, H.P. on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)"

MD (Microbiology) (This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla, Himachal

Pradesh in respect of students being trained at Dr. Rajendra Prasad

Government Medical College, Tanda, H.P. on or after 2014)

"Master of Surgery (Oto-Rhino-Laryngology)"

MS (ENT) This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh

in respect of students being trained at Dr. Rajendra Prasad

Government Medical College, Tanda, H.P. on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (SPM/Community Medicine)"

MD (SPM/Community Medicine) (This shall be a recognised medical

qualification when granted by Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla,

Himachal Pradesh in respect of the students being trained at

Dr. Rajendra Prasad Government Medical College, Tanda, H.P. on or

after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Cardiology)"

DM (Cardiology) (This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla, Himachal

Pradesh in respect of students being trained at Dr. Rajendra Prasad

Government Medical College, Tanda, H.P. on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Psychiatry)"

MD (Psychiatry) (This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla, Himachal

Pradesh in respect of students being trained at Indira Gandhi Medical

College, Shimla, H.P. on or after 2014)

"Master of Chirurgie

M.Ch (CTVS) (This shall be a recognised medical qualification

(Cardio Thoracic and Vascular Surgery)"

when granted by Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla, Himachal

Pradesh in respect of the students being trained at Indira Gandhi

Medical College, Shimla, H.P. on or after 2014)

Note to all:

The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon which it

shall have to be renewed.

Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub-clause-4 shall invariably result in stoppage of

admissions to the concerned Postgraduate Course.

[No. U. 12012/476/2015-ME(P-II)]

SUDHIR KUMAR, Under Secy.

3462

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYYkh] 27 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1648-—Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh /kkjk 11 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq, dsanz ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ,rn~ }kjk mDr vf/kfu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa fuEufyf[kr vkSj

la'kks/ku djrh gS] vFkkZr~%—

mDr vuqlwph esa%—

¼d½ ^^mRdy fo'ofo|ky;] Hkqous'oj] vksfM'kk** ds lkeus ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [blds ckn dkye ¼2½ ds :i esa lUnfHkZr]

'kh"kZ ds varxZr vafre izfof"V rFkk mls lEcaf/kr izfof"V ds ckn ^iathdj.k ds fy;s laf{kIr :i* [blds ckn dkye ¼3½ ds :i esa lanfHkZr]

'kh"kZd ds rgr fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%—

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu@

,eMh@,e ,l ¼,ukVkWeh½

ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh ¼,ukVkWeh½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn gkbZ Vsd esfMdy dkWyst ,aM gkWfLiVy] Hkqous'oj

esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa MkWñ mRdy fo'ofo|ky;] Hkqous'oj]

vksfM'kk }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu**

,eMh ¼QkekZdksykWth½

¼QkekZdksykWth½

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn gkbZ Vsd esfMdy dkWyst ,aM gkWfLiVy] Hkqous'oj

esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa MkWñ mRdy fo'ofo|ky;] Hkqous'oj]

vksfM'kk }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼tSo jlk;u½

¼tSo jlk;u½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn gkbZ Vsd esfMdy dkWyst ,aM gkWfLiVy] Hkqous'oj

esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa MkWñ mRdy fo'ofo|ky;] Hkqous'oj]

vksfM'kk }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½

¼[k½ ^^f'k{kk vkSj vuqla/kku fo'ofo|ky;] Hkqous'oj] vksfM'kk** ds lkeus ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk** [blds ckn dkye ¼2½ ds

:i esa lUnfHkZr] 'kh"kZ ds varxZr vafre izfof"V rFkk blls lEcaf/kr izfof"V ds ckn ^iathdj.k ds fy;s laf{kIr :i* [blds ckn dkye ¼3½ ds

:i esa lanfHkZr] 'kh"kZd ds rgr fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%—

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼QkekZdksykWth½

¼QkekZdksykWth½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn vk;qfoZKku laLFkku ,oa ,l;q,e vLirky]

Hkqous'oj esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa f'k{kk vkSj vuqla/kku

fo'ofo|ky;] Hkqous'oj] vksfM'kk }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼ekbZØksck;ksykWth½

¼ekbZØksck;ksykWth½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn vk;qfoZKku laLFkku ,oa ,l;q,e vLirky]

Hkqous'oj esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa f'k{kk vkSj vuqla/kku

fo'ofo|ky;] Hkqous'oj] vksfM'kk }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼iSFkksyksth½

¼iSFkksyksth½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn vk;qfoZKku laLFkku ,oa ,l;q,e vLirky]

Hkqous'oj esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa f'k{kk vkSj vuqla/kku

fo'ofo|ky;] Hkqous'oj] vksfM'kk }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼tSo jlk;u½

¼tSo jlk;u½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn vk;qfoZKku laLFkku ,oa ,l;q,e vLirky]

Hkqous'oj esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa f'k{kk vkSj vuqla/kku

fo'ofo|ky;] Hkqous'oj] vksfM'kk }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3463

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼fQft;ksykWth½

¼fQft;ksykWth½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn vk;qfoZKku laLFkku ,oa ,l;q,e vLirky]

Hkqous'oj esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa f'k{kk vkSj

vuqla/kku fo'ofo|ky;] Hkqous'oj] vksfM'kk }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½A

¼x½ ^^if'pe caxky LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] dksydkrk] if'pe caxky** ds lkeus ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [blds ckn

dkye ¼2½ ds :i esa lUnfHkZr] 'kh"kZ ds varxZr vafre izfof"V rFkk mlls lEcaf/kr izfof"V ds ckn ^iathdj.k ds fy;s laf{kIr :i* [blds ckn

dkye ¼3½ ds :i esa lanfHkZr] 'kh"kZd ds rgr fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%—

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼QkekZdksykWth½

¼QkekZdksykWth½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn Ldwy vkWQ Vªksfidy esfMflu] dksydkrk]

if'pe caxky esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa if'pe caxky LokLF;

foKku fo'ofo|ky;] dksydkrk] if'pe caxky }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½A

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

Mh,e ¼dkfMZ;d ,usLFkhfl;ksykWth½

¼dkfMZ;d ,usLFkhfl;ksykWth½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn LukrdksÙkj fpfdRlk f'k{kk ,oa vuqla/kku

laLFkku] dksydkrk] if'pe caxky esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa

if'pe caxky LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] dksydkrk] if'pe caxky }kjk

iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½A

^^ekLVj vkWQ fp:jxbZ

,elh,p ¼;qjksykWth@tsfuVks&;qjhujh ltZjh½

¼;qjksykWth@tsfuVks&;qjhujh ltZjh½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn uhyjru ljdkj esfMdy dkWyst] dksydkrk]

if'pe caxky esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa if'pe caxky LokLF;

foKku fo'ofo|ky;] dksydkrk] if'pe caxky }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½A

^^ekLVj vkWQ fp:jxbZ

,elh,p ¼U;wjks ltZjh½

¼U;wjks ltZjh½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn uhyjru ljdkj esfMdy dkWyst] dksydkrk]

if'pe caxky esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa if'pe caxky LokLF;

foKku fo'ofo|ky;] dksydkrk] if'pe caxky }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½A

^^ekLVj vkWQ fp:jxbZ

,elh,p ¼lhVhoh,l½

¼dkfMZ;ks Fkksjkfll ,aM oLdqyj ltZjh½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn uhyjru ljdkj esfMdy dkWyst] dksydkrk]

if'pe caxky esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa if'pe caxky LokLF;

foKku fo'ofo|ky;] dksydkrk] if'pe caxky }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½A

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼isfM;kfVªDl½

¼isfM;kfVªDl½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn fprjatu lsok lnu vLirky] dksydkrk]

if'pe caxky esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa if'pe caxky LokLF;

foKku fo'ofo|ky;] dksydkrk] if'pe caxky }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½A

^^ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh

,e,l ¼vkschth½

¼izlwfr ,oa L=h jksx½**

¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn fprjatu lsok lnu vLirky] dksydkrk]

if'pe caxky esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa if'pe caxky LokLF;

foKku fo'ofo|ky;] dksydkrk] if'pe caxky }kjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½A

3464

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

lHkh ds fy;s uksV%— 1- fdlh LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe dks bl izdkj iznÙk ekU;rk vf/kdre 05 o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, gksxh vkSj mlds ckn mldk

uohdj.k djuk gksxkA

2- mi&[k.M&4 esa ;Fkkisf{kr le; ij ekU;rk dk uohdj.k ugha djus ij lacaf/kr LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe esa nkf[kyk

fujiokn :i ls can gks tk,xkA

[lañ ;wñ&12012@475@2015&,ebZ ¼ih&II½]

lq/khj dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 27th July, 2015

S.O. 1648.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council

Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following

further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:—

In the said Schedule—

(a) against "Utkal University, Bhubaneshwar, Odisha" under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter

referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating to thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration'

[hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

"Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery (Anatomy)" MD/MS (Anatomy)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Utkal University, Bhubaneshwar, Odisha in respect of students being

trained at Hi-Tech Medical College & Hospital, Bhubaneshwar on

or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)"

MD (Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Utkal University, Bhubaneshwar, Odisha in respect of students being

trained at Hi-Tech Medical College & Hospital, Bhubaneshwar on

or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Bio Chemistry)"

MD (Bio Chemistry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Utkal University, Bhubaneshwar, Odisha in respect of students being

trained at Hi-Tech Medical College & Hospital, Bhubaneshwar on

or after 2014)

(b) against "Siksha O Anusandhan University, Bhubaneshwar, Odisha" under the heading 'Recognised Medical

Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating to thereto under the heading

'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

"Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)"

MD (Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Siksha O Anusandhan University, Bhubaneshwar, Odisha in respect

of students being trained at Institute of Medical Sciences & SUM

Hospital, Bhubaneshwar on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)"

MD (Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Siksha O Anusandhan University, Bhubaneshwar, Odisha in respect

of students being trained at Institute of Medical Sciences & SUM

Hospital, Bhubaneshwar on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Pathology)"

MD (Pathology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Siksha O Anusandhan University, Bhubaneshwar, Odisha in respect

of students being trained at Institute of Medical Sciences & SUM

Hospital, Bhubaneswar on or after 2014)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3465

"Doctor of Medicine (Bio Chemistry)"

MD (Bio Chemistry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Siksha O Anusandhan University, Bhubaneshwar, Odisha in respect

of students being trained at Institute of Medical Sciences & SUM

Hospital, Bhubaneshwar on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Physiology)"

MD (Physiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Siksha O Anusandhan University, Bhubaneshwar, Odisha in respect

of students being trained at Institute of Medical Sciences & SUM

Hospital, Bhubaneshwar on or after 2014)

Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

"Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)"

MD (Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata, West Bengal

in respect of students being trained at School of Tropical Medicine,

Kolkata, West Bengal on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Cardiac Anesthesiology)"

MD (Cardiac Anesthesiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata, West Bengal in

respect of students being trained at Institute of Postgraduate Medical

Education & Research, Kolkata, West Bengal on or after 2014)

"Master of Chirurgie

M.Ch. (Urology/Genito-Urinary Surgery)

(Urology/Genito-Urinary Surgery)"

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata, West Bengal

in respect of students being trained at Nilratan Sircar Medical College,

Kolkata, West Bengal on or after 2014)

"Master of Chirurgie (Neuro Surgery)"

M.Ch. (Neuro Surgery)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata, West Bengal

in respect of students being trained at Nilratan Sircar Medical College,

Kolkata, West Bengal on or after 2014)

"Master of Chirurgie

M.Ch. (CTVS)

(Cardio Thoracic and Vascular Surgery)"

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata, West Bengal

in respect of students being trained at Nilratan Sircar Medical College,

Kolkata, West Bengal on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Paediatrics)"

MD (Paediatrics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata, West Bengal

in respect of students being trained at Chittaranjan Seva Sadan

Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal on or after 2014)

"Masters of Surgery (Obstetrics & Gynecology)"

MS (OBG)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata, West Bengal

in respect of students being trained at Chittaranjan Seva Sadan

Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal on or after 2014)

Note to all:— 1. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon which it shall have to

be renewed.

2. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub-clause-4 shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions to

the concerned Postgraduate Course.

[No. U. 12012/475/2015-ME(P-II)]

SUDHIR KUMAR, Under Secy.

3466

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tqykbZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1649-—Hkkjrh; ifj"kn~ fpfdRlk vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh /kkjk 11 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, dsanz ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rí~okjk mDr vf/kfu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa vkSj fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/ku djrh gS] vFkkZr~%

mDr vuqlwph esa—

¼d½ ^^nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky; bankSj] e/; izns'k** ds lkeus ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk [vkxs dkWye ¼2½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr]

'kh"kZ ds varxZr] vafre izfof"V ds ckn vkSj ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* [vkxs dkWye ¼3½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZd ds varxZr

fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%—

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼cky jksx½

¼cky jksx½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh vjfcanks fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa LukRdksÙkj

laLFkku esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;]

bankSj] e/; izns'k fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh ¼tujy ltZjh½

,e,l ¼tujy ltZjh½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh vjfcanks fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa LukRdksÙkj

laLFkku esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;]

bankSj] e/; izns'k fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼lkeqnkf;d esfMflu½

¼lkeqnkf;d esfMflu½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh vjfcanks fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa LukRdksÙkj

laLFkku esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;]

bankSj] e/; izns'k* fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh ¼vksVks&jkbuks&ySfjaxksykWth½

¼,e,l bZ,uVh½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh vjfcanks fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa LukRdksÙkj

laLFkku esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;]

bankSj] e/; izns'k* fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼jsfM;ksFkSjih½

¼jsfM;ksFksjsih½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh vjfcanks fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa LukRdksÙkj

laLFkku esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;]

bankSj] e/; izns'k* fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼Qksjsafld esfMlu½

¼Qksjsafld esfMlu½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh vjfcanks fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa LukRdksÙkj

laLFkku esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;]

bankSj] e/; izns'k* fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3467

ekLVj vkWQ ph:jth ¼U;wjks ltZjh½

,eñ lh,pñ ¼U;wjks ltZjh½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh vjfcanks fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa LukRdksÙkj

laLFkku esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;]

bankSj] e/; izns'k* fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼jsfM;ks MkbXuksfll½

¼jsfM;ks MkbXuksfll½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh vjfcanks fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa LukRdksÙkj

laLFkku esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;]

bankSj] e/; izns'k* fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh ¼vksFkksZikfMDl½

,e,l ¼vksFkksZikfMDl½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh vjfcanks fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa LukRdksÙkj

laLFkku esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;]

bankSj] e/; izns'k* fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu ¼{k;jksx ,oa 'olu jksx@iYeujh esfMlu½

¼{k;jksx ,oa 'olu jksx@iYeujh esfMlu½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh vjfcanks fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa LukRdksÙkj

laLFkku esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;]

bankSj] e/; izns'k* fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu*

,eMh@,e,l ¼vkschth½

ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh vjfcanks fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa LukRdksÙkj

¼izlwfr vkSj L=h jksx½

laLFkku esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;]

bankSj] e/; izns'k* fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

,eMh ¼tujy esfMflu½

¼tujy esfMlu½

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh vjfcanks fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa LukRdksÙkj

laLFkku esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;]

bankSj] e/; izns'k* fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu*

,eMh@,e,l ¼us= jksx foKku½

ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh vjfcanks fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa LukRdksÙkj

¼us= jksx foKku½

laLFkku esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;]

bankSj] e/; izns'k* fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu

,eMh ¼Mhoh,y½

¼peZ jksx] ;kSu jksx ,oa

¼;g 2014 esas vFkok mlds ckn Jh vjfcanks fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa LukRdksÙkj

dq"B jksx½

laLFkku esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;]

bankSj] e/; izns'k* fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

3468

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu

,eMh ¼ekbØksck;ksyksth½

¼ekbØksck;ksyksth½**

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh vjfcanks fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa LukRdksÙkj

laLFkku esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;]

bankSj] e/; izns'k* fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu

,eMh ¼euf'pfdRlk½

¼euf'pfdRlk½**

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh vjfcanks fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa LukRdksÙkj

laLFkku esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;]

bankSj] e/; izns'k* fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu

,eMh ¼iSFkksykWth½

¼iSFkksykWth½**

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh vjfcanks fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa LukRdksÙkj

laLFkku esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;]

bankSj] e/; izns'k* fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu

,eMh ¼tSo jlk;u½

¼tSo jlk;u½**

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh vjfcanks fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa LukRdksÙkj

laLFkku esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;]

bankSj] e/; izns'k* fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu

,eMh@,e,l ¼,ukVkseh½

@ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh vjfcanks fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa LukRdksÙkj

¼,ukVkseh½**

laLFkku esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;]

bankSj] e/; izns'k* fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu

,eMh ¼,usLFkhfl;ksykWth½

¼,usLFkhfl;ksykWth½**

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh vjfcanks fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa LukRdksÙkj

laLFkku esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;]

bankSj] e/; izns'k* fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu

,eMh ¼Qhft;ksyksth½

¼fQft;ksyksth½**

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh vjfcanks fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa LukRdksÙkj

laLFkku esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;]

bankSj] e/; izns'k* fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu

,eMh ¼QkekZdksyksth½

¼QkekZdksyksth½**

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Jh vjfcanks fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa LukRdksÙkj

laLFkku esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;]

bankSj] e/; izns'k* fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu

,eMh ¼fQft;ksykWth½

¼fQft;ksykWth½**

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn baMsDl fpfdRlk dkWyst vLirky ,oa vuqla/kku

dsUnz] bankSj esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;]

bankSj] e/; izns'k* fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxhA

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3469

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu

,eMh ¼QkekZdksykWth½

¼QkekZdksykWth½**

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn baMsDl fpfdRlk dkWyst vLirky ,oa vuqla/kku

dsUnz] bankSj esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;]

bankSj] e/; izns'k* fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu

,eMh ¼iSFkksykWth½

¼iSFkksykWth½**

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn baMsDl fpfdRlk dkWyst vLirky ,oa vuqla/kku

dsUnz] bankSj esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;]

bankSj] e/; izns'k* fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk gksxh½A

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu

,eMh ¼lkeqnkf;d esfMlu½

¼lkeqnkf;d esfMlu½**

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn baMsDl fpfdRlk dkWyst vLirky ,oa

vuqla/kku dsUnz] bankSj esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^nsoh vfgY;k

fo'ofo|ky;] bankSj] e/; izns'k* fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij

ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½A

¼[k½ ^foØe fo'ofo|ky;] mTtSu] e/; izns'k ds lkeus ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk [vkxs dkWye ¼2½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZ ds

varxZr] vafre izfof"V ds ckn vkSj ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* [vkxs dkye ¼3½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZd ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr dks

varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr%—

^^MkWDVj vkWQ ltZjh

,eMh ¼vksFkksZiSfMDl½

¼vksFkksZiSfMDl½**

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn :Def.kcsu nhipUn xnhZ fpfdRlk dkWyst]

mTtSu esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa foØe fo'ofo|ky;] mTtSu]

e/; izns'k* }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½A

¼x½^cjdrqYyk fo'ofo|ky;] Hkksiky] e/; izns'k ds lkeus ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk [vkxs dkWye ¼2½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZ

ds varxZr] vafre izfof"V ds ckn vkSj ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* [vkxs dkye ¼3½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZd ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr

dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr%µ

^^ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh

,e,l ¼tujy ltZjh½

¼tujy ltZjh½**

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn ihiYl fpfdRlk foKku dkWyst ,oa vuqla/kku

dsUnz] Hkkuiqj] Hkksiky esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^cjdrqYyk

fo'ofo|ky;] Hkksiky] e/; izns'k* fo'ofo|ky; }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij

ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½A

^^ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh

,e,l ¼bZ,uVh½

¼vksVks&jkbuks&ySfjaxksykWth½**

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn ihiYl fpfdRlk foKku dkWyst ,oa vuqla/kku

dsUnz] Hkkuiqj] Hkksiky esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^cjdrqYyk

fo'ofo|ky;] Hkksiky] e/; izns'k* }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½A

3470

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

^^ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh

,e,l ¼,ukVkseh½

¼,ukVkseh½**

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn ihiYl fpfdRlk foKku dkWyst ,oa vuqla/kku

dsUnz] Hkkuiqj] Hkksiky esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^cjdrqYyk

fo'ofo|ky;] Hkksiky] e/; izns'k* }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½A

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu

,eMh ¼QekZdksykWth½

¼QkekZdksykWth½**

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn ihiYl fpfdRlk foKku dkWyst ,oa vuqla/kku

dsUnz] Hkkuiqj] Hkksiky esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^cjdrqYyk

fo'ofo|ky;] Hkksiky] e/; izns'k* }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½A

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu

,eMh ¼fQft;ksykWth½

¼fQft;ksykWth½**

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn ihiYl fpfdRlk foKku dkWyst ,oa vuqla/kku

dsUnz] Hkkuiqj] Hkksiky esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^cjdrqYyk

fo'ofo|ky;] Hkkuiqj] Hkksiky] e/; izns'k* }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½A

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu

,eMh ¼ekbØksck;ksykWth½

¼ekbØksck;ksykWth½**

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn ihiYl fpfdRlk foKku dkWyst ,oa vuqla/kku

dsUnz] Hkkuiqj] Hkksiky esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^cjdrqYyk

fo'ofo|ky;] Hkkuiqj] Hkksiky] e/; izns'k* }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½A

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu

,eMh ¼tSo jlk;u½

¼tSo jlk;u½**

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn ihiYl fpfdRlk foKku dkWyst ,oa vuqla/kku

dsUnz] Hkkuiqj] Hkksiky esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^cjdrqYyk

fo'ofo|ky;] Hkkuiqj] Hkksiky] e/; izns'k* }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½A

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu

,eMh ¼lkekftd vkSj fuokjd esfMlu@lkeqnkf;d esfMlu½

¼lkekftd vkSj fuokjd esfMlu@

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn ihiYl fpfdRlk foKku dkWyst ,oa vuqla/kku

lkeqnkf;d esfMlu½**

dsUnz] Hkkuiqj] Hkksiky esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^cjdrqYyk

fo'ofo|ky;] Hkkuiqj] Hkksiky] e/; izns'k* }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½A

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu

,eMh ¼euf'pfdRlk½**

¼euf'pfdRlk½**

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn ihiYl fpfdRlk foKku dkWyst ,oa vuqla/kku

dsUnz] Hkkuiqj] Hkksiky esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^cjdrqYyk

fo'ofo|ky;] Hkkuiqj] Hkksiky] e/; izns'k* }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½A

^^ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh

ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh ¼vksFkksZikfMDl½

¼vksFkksZikfMDl½**

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn ihiYl fpfdRlk foKku dkWyst ,oa vuqla/kku

dsUnz] Hkkuiqj] Hkksiky esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^cjdrqYyk

fo'ofo|ky;] Hkkuiqj] Hkksiky] e/; izns'k* }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½A

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3471

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu

,eMh ¼,usLFkhfl;ksykWth½

¼,usLFkhfl;ksykWth½**

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn ihiYl fpfdRlk foKku dkWyst ,oa vuqla/kku

dsUnz] Hkkuiqj] Hkksiky esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^cjdrqYyk

fo'ofo|ky;] Hkkuiqj] Hkksiky] e/; izns'k* }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½A

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu

,eMh ¼{k;jksx ,oa 'olu jksx@iYeujh esfMlu½

¼{k;jksx ,oa 'olu

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn ihiYl fpfdRlk foKku dkWyst ,oa vuqla/kku

jksx@iYeujh esfMlu½**

dsUnz] Hkkuiqj] Hkksiky esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^cjdrqYyk

fo'ofo|ky;] Hkkuiqj] Hkksiky] e/; izns'k* }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½A

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu

,eMh ¼Mhoh,y½

¼peZ jksx] ;ksu jksx ,oa dq"B jksx½**

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn ihiYl fpfdRlk foKku dkWyst ,oa vuqla/kku

dsUnz] Hkkuiqj] Hkksiky esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^cjdrqYyk

fo'ofo|ky;] Hkkuiqj] Hkksiky] e/; izns'k* }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½A

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu

,eMh ¼iSFkksykWth½

¼iSFkksykWth½**

¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn ihiYl fpfdRlk foKku dkWyst ,oa vuqla/kku

dsUnz] Hkkuiqj] Hkksiky esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa ^cjdrqYyk

fo'ofo|ky; Hkkuiqj] Hkksiky] e/; izns'k* }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½A

lHkh ds fy, fVIi.kh%—1- LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe ds fy, Lohd`r ekU;rk 5 o"kZ dh vf/kdre vof/k ds fy, gksxh ftlds ckn bldk uohdj.k fd;k tk,xkA

2- mi&/kkjk 4 esa visf{kr vuqlkj ekU;rk dks le; ij uohdj.k ugha djkus ds QyLo:i lacaf/kr LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe esa fujiokn :i ls nkf[kyk

cUn gks tk,xkA

[lañ ;wñ 12012@472@2015&,ebZ¼ih&II½]

lq/khj dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 27th July, 2015

S.O. 1649.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council

Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following

further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:—

In the said Schedule—

(a) against "Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore Madhya Pradesh" under the heading 'Recognised Medical

Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)] the following shall be inserted, namely:—

"Doctor of Medicine (Paediatrics)"

MD(Paediatrics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect

of students being trained at Sri Aurobindo Medical College and

Post Graduate Institute, Indore on or after 2014)

"Master of Surgery (General Surgery)"

MS (General Surgery)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect

of students being trained at Sri Aurobindo Medical College and

Post Graduate Institute, Indore on or after 2014)

3472

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"Doctor of Medicine(Community Medicine)"

MD(Community Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect

of students being trained at Sri Aurobindo Medical College and

Post Graduate Institute, Indore on or after 2014)

"Master of Surgery (Otorhinolaryngology)"

MS (ENT)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect

of students being trained at Sri Aurobindo Medical College and

Post Graduate Institute, Indore on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Radiotherapy)"

MD (Radiotherapy)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect

of students being trained at Sri Aurobindo Medical College and

Post Graduate Institute, Indore on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Forensic Medicine)"

MD (Forensic Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect

of students being trained at Sri Aurobindo Medical College and

Post Graduate Institute, Indore on or after 2014)

"Master of Chirurgie (Neurosurgery)"

M.Ch (Neurosurgery)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect

of students being trained at Sri Aurobindo Medical College and

Post Graduate Institute, Indore on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Radio Diagnosis)"

MD (Radio Diagnosis)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect

of students being trained at Sri Aurobindo Medical College and

Post Graduate Institute, Indore on or after 2014)

"Master of Surgery (Orthopaedics)"

MS (Orthopaedics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect

of students being trained at Sri Aurobindo Medical College and

Post Graduate Institute, Indore on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Tuberculosis & Respiratory

MD(Tuberculosis & Respiratory Diseases/Pulmonary Medicine)

Diseases/Pulmonary Medicine)"

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect

of students being trained at Sri Aurobindo Medical College and

Post Graduate Institute, Indore on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery (Obstetrics

MD/MS (OBG)

& Gynecology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect

of students being trained at Sri Aurobindo Medical College and

Post Graduate Institute, Indore on or after 2014)

Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)"

MD (General Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect

of students being trained at Sri Aurobindo Medical College and

Post Graduate Institute, Indore on or after 2014)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3473

"Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery

MD/MS (Ophthalmology)

(Ophthalmology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect

of students being trained at Sri Aurobindo Medical College and

Post Graduate Institute, Indore on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Dermatology, Venerlogy

MD (DVL)

and Leprosy)"

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect

of students being trained at Sri Aurobindo Medical College and

Post Graduate Institute, Indore on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)"

MD (Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect

of students being trained at Sri Aurobindo Medical College and

Post Graduate Institute, Indore on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Psychiatry)"

MD (Psychiatry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect

of students being trained at Sri Aurobindo Medical College and

Post Graduate Institute, Indore on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Pathology)"

MD (Pathology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect

of students being trained at Sri Aurobindo Medical College and

Post Graduate Institute, Indore on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Bio Chemistry)"

MD (Bio Chemistry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect

of students being trained at Sri Aurobindo Medical College and

Post Graduate Institute, Indore on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery (Anatomy)" MD/MS (Anatomy)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect

of students being trained at Sri Aurobindo Medical College and

Post Graduate Institute, Indore on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Anaesthesiology)"

MD (Anaesthesiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect

of students being trained at Sri Aurobindo Medical College and

Post Graduate Institute, Indore on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Physiology)"

MD (Physiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect

of students being trained at Sri Aurobindo Medical College and

Post Graduate Institute, Indore on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)"

MD (Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect

of students being trained at Sri Aurobindo Medical College and

Post Graduate Institute, Indore on or after 2014)

3474

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"Doctor of Medicine (Physiology)"

MD (Physiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect

of students being trained at Index Medical College Hospital &

Research Centre, Indore on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)"

MD (Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect

of students being trained at Index Medical College Hospital &

Research Centre, Indore on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Pathology)"

MD(Pathology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect

of students being trained at Index Medical College Hospital &

Research Centre, Indore on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Community Medicine)"

MD (Community Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect

of students being trained at Index Medical College Hospital &

Research Centre, Indore on or after 2014)

(b) against "Vikram University, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh" under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification'

[hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for

Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

"Master of Surgery (Orthopaedics)"

MS (Orthopaedics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Vikram University, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect of students

being trained at Rukmaniben Deepchand Gardi Medical College

Ujjain on or after 2014)

[hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for

Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

"Master of Surgery (General Surgery)"

MD (General Surgery)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Barkatulla University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect of

students being trained at People's College of Medical Sciences &

Research Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after2014)

"Master of Surgery (Otorhinolaryngology)"

MS (ENT)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Barkatulla University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect of

students being trained at People's College of Medical Sciences &

Research Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after 2014)

"Master of Surgery (Anatomy)"

MS (Anatomy)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Barkatulla University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect of

students being trained at People's College of Medical Sciences &

Research Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)"

MD (Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Barkatulla University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect of

students being trained at People's College of Medical Sciences &

Research Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after 2014)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3475

"Doctor of Medicine (Physiology)"

MD (Physiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Barkatulla University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect of

students being trained at People's College of Medical Sciences &

Research Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)"

MD (Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Barkatulla University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect of the

students being trained at People's College of Medical Sciences &

Research Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Biochemistry)"

MD (Biochemistry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Barkatulla University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect of the

students being trained at People's College of Medical Sciences &

Research Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Social & Preventive

MD (Social & Preventive Medicine/) Community Medicine)

Medicine/Community Medicine)"

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Barkatulla University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect of the

students being trained at People's College of Medical Sciences &

Research Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Psychiatry)"

MD (Psychiatry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Barkatulla University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect of

students being trained at People's College of Medical Sciences &

Research Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after 2014)

"Master of Surgery (Orthopaedics)"

MS (Orthopaedics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Barkatulla University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect of

students being trained at People's College of Medical Sciences &

Research Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Anaesthesiology)"

MD (Anaesthesiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Barkatulla University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect of the

students being trained at People's College of Medical Sciences &

Research Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Tuberculosis &

MD (Tuberculosis & Respiratory Disease/Pulmonary Medicine)

Respiratory Disease/Pulmonary Medicine)"

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Barkatulla University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect of

students being trained at People's College of Medical Sciences &

Research Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Dermatology, Venerology

MD (DVL)

& Leprosy"

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Barkatulla University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect of the

students being trained at People's College of Medical Sciences &

Research Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after 2014)

"Doctor of Medicine (Pathology)"

MD (Pathology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

‘Barkatulla University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh’ in respect of the

students being trained at People's College of Medical Sciences &

Research Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after 2014)

Note to all:—

1. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon which it shall have

to be renewed.

2. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub-clause-4 shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions

to the concerned Postgraduate Course.

[No. U. 12012/472/2015-ME(P-II)]

SUDHIR KUMAR, Under Secy.

3476

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1650-—Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn vf/kfu;e] 1956

¼1956 dk 102½ dh /kkjk 32 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,]

dsanz ljdkj ,rn}kjk fuEufyf[kr fu;e cukrh gS uker%&

1- ¼i½ bu fu;eksa dk Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ¼LukrdksÙkj

fpfdRlk f'k{kk lfefr½ fu;e] 1961 dgk tk,xkA

¼ii½ ;s ljdkjh jkti= esa muds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls izo`Ùk

gksaxsA

2- ^^Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ¼LukrdksÙkj½ fpfdRlk f'k{kk lfefr

fu;e] 1961**] ftlesa vkxs 27-10-2000 rd la'kks/ku fd;k x;k

Fkk] esa fuEufyf[kr ifjo/kZu@vk'kks/ku@foyksiu@izfrLFkkiu dks n'kkZ;k

tk,xk%&

3- ^^ifj"kn dh cSBd** 'kh"kZd ds varxZr [k.M 6 ¼2½ esa

fuEufyf[kr izfrLFkkfir fd;k tk,xk%

^^lfefr dh cSBd ds xBu ds dksje esa pkj lnL; mifLFkr

gksus pkfg,A**

[lañ ohñ 11012@3@2015&,ebZih&I]

vfer fcLokl] voj lfpo

ikn fVIi.kh% ewy vf/klwpuk Hkkjr ds jkti= easa fnukad 14 tqykbZ]

1961 dh vf/klwpuk lañlkñvkñ 1699 }kjk izdkf'kr

gqbZ FkhA

¼1½ LokLF; vkSj ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky; }kjk fnukad

29 fnlacj] 1981 dh vf/klwpuk lañohñ 11019@2@81&

,ebZ ¼uhfr½ }kjk la'kksf/krA

¼2½ LokLF; vkSj ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj

dh fnukad 27 vDVwcj] 2000 dh vf/klwpuk ohñ

1012@2@98&,ebZ ¼;wth½ }kjk vkxs la'kks/ku fd;k

tk,xkA

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2015

S.O. 1650.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 32 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of

1956) the Central Government hereby makes the following

rules namely:—

1. (i)

These rules may be called the Indian Medical

Council (Post-graduate) Medical Education

Committee Rules, 1961.

(ii)

They shall come into force from the date of their

publication in the Official Gazette.

2. In the "Indian Medical Council (Post Graduate)

Medical Education Committee Rules, 1961", further

amended till 27.10.2000, the following additions/

modifications/deletions/substitutions, shall be as indicated

therein:—

3. In Clause 6(2) under the heading "Meeting of the

Council", the following shall substitute:—

"The quorum to constitute the meeting of the

committee shall be presence of four members."

[No. V. 11012/3/2015-MEP-I]

AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.

Foot note : The Principal, Notification was published in

the Gazette of India vide notification No. S.O.

1699 dated the 14th July, 1961".

(1)

Amended by Ministry of Health & Family

Welfare, Notification No. V.11019/2/81-

ME(Policy), dated the 29th December, 1981.

(2)

Further amended by Ministry of Health &

Family Welfare, Govt. of India Notification V.

1012/2/98-ME(UG), dated 27th October, 2000.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 17 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1651-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fjyk;al dE;qfuds'kal

fyfeVsM ds izc/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp

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

kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

lañ 76@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

14@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42025@03@2015&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 17th August, 2015

S.O. 1651.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 76/2014) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Reliance Communications Ltd. and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 14/08/2015.

[No. L-42025/03/2015-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3477

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

RAKESH KUMAR,

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 76/2014

BETWEEN

Shri Arif Nabi Khan S/o Shri Nabi Ullah Khan

R/o House No. 512/245, A

5th Lane, Nishatganj, Lucknow -226007.

AND

1. Chairman

M/s Reliance Communications Ltd.

H Block, 02nd Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani

Knowledge City (DAKC)

Navi Mumbai-400710.

2. Circle Business Head — UP

M/s Reliance Communications Ltd.

2nd Floor, Magnum Plaza, Eldeco Greens

Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226 010

3. HR Head, RCOM Business

M/s Reliance Communications Ltd.

2nd Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowlege City

(DAKC) Navi Mumbai-400710.

4. Sri Ajay Duggal, Circle Business Head-UP

M/s Reliance Communications Ltd.

2nd Floor, Magnum Plaza, Eldeco Greens

Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010

5. Shri Amit Das, HR Head, RCOM Business

H Block, 02nd Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani

Knowledge City (DAKC)

Navi Mumbai-400710.

6. Shri Bharat Rastogi Circle Commercial Head—UP

M/s Reliance Communications Ltd.

2nd Floor, Magnum Plaza, Eldeco Greens

Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226 010

7. Ms Shashi Rani Singh, HR Managar —UP

M/s Reliance Communications Ltd.

2nd Floor, Magnum Plaza, Eldeco Greens

Gomit Nagar, Lucknow-226010

AWARD

1. The present industrial dispute has been filed by the

workman, Arif Nabi Khan under provision contained in the

Section 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of

1947) against alleged termination of his services by the

management of Reliance Communications Limited for

adjudication before this CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow.

2. The workman by the way of present industrial dispute

had challenged the validity of termination of his service by

the opposite parties w.e.f 01.08.2014 and prayed this

Tribunal to declare the same as illegal improper and

unjustified and direct the opposite parties to reinstate him

with consequential benefits. The opposite parties were

served upon a copy of the statement of claim by the

workman in advance, and the opposite parties were issued

notice by this Tribunal to file their written statement along

with relevant documents and list of witness. The opposite

parties filed their authority in favour of Sharad Kumar

Shukla, who filed preliminary objection regarding

maintainability of the preset industrial dispute. The

objections of the workman thereon were called after

furnishing him a copy of the same.

3. During the course of the proceedings, the parties

were pursued to settle the dispute between them amicably

through Lok Adalat. Accordingly, the case was taken up at

Lok Adalat on 24.07.2015.

5. On 24.07.2015 the workman, Arif Nabi Khan was

present in person whereas the opposite parties were

represented by Shri Sharad Kumar Shukla. After prolong

discussions and persuasion at Lok Adalat the parties arrived

upon a settlement and filed a memorandum of settlement,

Paper No. C-7 with following memorandum of settlement:

(i)

That the employee was appointed and has been

discharging the duties on managerial nature in

the employment of the management.

(ii)

That the employee has instituted following

proceedings against the management and/or its

officers (employees):—

a. Dispute before Hon'ble CGIT, Lucknow - ID

Case No 76/2014, Arif Nabi Khan vs M/s Reliance

Communication.

(iii)

That the employee agree and has withdrawn all

the above proceedings and has undertaken to

withdraw any other proceeding instituted by him

against the management or its officers

(employees immediately and for this purpose to

take all steps which may be necessary.

(iv)

That it is now agreed that the employee will

submit his resignation to the organization on

his own will and mutually part ways.

(v)

That it is now agreed that the employee will be

paid a sum of Rs. 75000 (Rupees Seventy Five

Thousand only) as a one time settlement amount

to be paid along with F&F dues.

(vi)

That subject to clause 4 & 5 herein before, the

employee shall have no claim, whatsoever

3478

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

including but not limited to damages etc, against

the management and/or its officers (employees)

stand settled and satisfied.

(vii)

That the employee herewith withdraws all the

allegations made against the management and/

or its employees.

(viii)

That the settlement was reached between the

parties of their own free will and without any

misrepresentation, force, coercion or undue

pressure being exercised by any party on the other.

The terms of settlement were read over to the parties;

who put their signatures after understanding the same;

and accordingly, settled the industrial dispute between

them, amicably.

7. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties,

there is no grievance lift with the workman. Resultantly, the

industrial dispute stands settled; and no relief is required to

be given to the workman concerned. The industrial dispute

under adjudication is adjudicated upon accordingly

8. Award as above.

Lucknow

03rd August, 2015

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1652-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj [kuu ,oa b±èu

vuqlaèku ds dsUnzh; laLFkku ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkj ds chp vuqcaè eas fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2] èuckn ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ lañ 02 dk 2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

14@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42011@23@2010&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th August, 2015

S.O. 1652.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D Ref No. 02 of 2010) 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 Central Institute of Mining and Fuel

Research and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 14/08/2015.

[No. L-42011/23/2010-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. 02 OF 2010

PARTIES

General Secretary,

Bhartiya Audyogik Anusandhan

Shramik Sangh,

At: Vishwakarma, Bhawan, PB No.

68, Dhanbad (Jharkhand),

Vs.

The Director,

Central Instt. of Mining and Fuel

Research, PO: FRI, Dhanbad.

Order No. L-42011/23/2010-

IR(DU) dt. 31.05.2010.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman/Union :

Mr. Dilip Kr. Shah Ld.

Rep. of the Workmen

On behalf of the Management :

Mr. D.K. Verma Ld

Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Scientific and Research Institute

Dated, Dhandbad, the 17th July, 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-42011/23/

2010-IR(DU) dt. 31.05.2010.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of Bhartiya Audhyogic

Anusandhan Shramik Sangh for regularization of

services of Shri Madhu Saudan Mahto and 13 others,

as per Annexure, by the Management of Central

Institute of Mining and Fuel Research is legal and

justified? If yes, what relief the workmen are entitled

to?"

On receipt of the Order No. L-42011/23/2010-IR(DU) dt.

31.05.2010 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3479

Case No. 02 of 2010 was registered on 15.06.2010 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 documents. The Union

and the O.P./Management through their own

Representative and Ld. Counsel, respective, appeared in,

and contested the case.

2. The case of workmen Madhusudan Mahato (wrongly

written as Madhu Saudan in the Reference) and 13 others

as per Annexure as represented in their written statement

by the Union concerned is that the workmen have been

though continuously working jobs of permanent and

perennial nature as assigned under the Management for

the last 5—24 years as specified in its para 4 specifically,

yet not being treated as permanent workmen of the

Management. All the jobs of Lab Helper & others in

Electronic works to the Scientist are being performed by

the permanent staff in addition to the workmen. The work

being performed by the workmen includes all the activities

which are inseparable from the Colliery/vocation of the

Management as integral part of the whole system

uninterruptedly running for ages/a very long time. The

work job beg along by the workmen is the base for the

gigantic structure of various departments of the

Management which would be idle in lack of it. It is also

further stated that the conduct and duties of the workmen

are controlled by the Management as they had to discharge

their duties under the strict supervision and control of the

Management. Even the categorization of the Labourers of

alleged contractor are decided by the Management as

evident from the Management office memo dt. Aug.,

10/11.2009 (Annexure-A). The Muster roll contractors, if

any, have no sanctity in such situation, as the allegation of

the Management about the workmen as the contractor's

employees is ill-motived and illegal in order to deprive them

of their right to life as guaranteed under Article 21 of

Constitution of India, and to defeat the object of

employment policy as well as that of the I.D. Act. They are

working on regular post. They were appointed through the

rigorous interview and process of appointment. They have

been issued gate pass/Entrance pass by the Management.

The absorption of the workmen in the Management in view

of the inevitable work of it would be as per the mandate

and requirement under Sec. 10 of the Contract Labour

(Regulation & Abolition Act, 1970).

3. Further case of the workmen is that double standard

pleas of the Management adherence to all the industrial

law including registration of the Management under the

Contract Labour (R&A) Act and non existence of 'Industry'

about the Management are unacceptable in view of the

reference for adjudication u/s 10 of the I.D. Act. It is also

alleged by the Union concerned that the Management in

order to make a services of contract-labour effective has

decided as per the Notice dt. 20/2/2007 (Annexure-B) to

grant co-employees status to the contractual labourers. In

response to the notice, the different departmental Heads

of the Management submitted a list of labourers of alleged

contractor including the names of present workmen with

their respective Biodates & photographs submitted to the

Management (Annexure-C series). But the Management in

collusion with the one Union of political Association/Party

unconsidered the case of workmen by excluding their names

from the list. Then the ten workmen out of aforesaid 14

ones had represented on 27.10.08 before the Director as

per their Representation (Annexure-D). At their

representation, the workmen apprehended of deprivation

of their livelihood at the hands of the Management. Though

the Management granted the status of core-employees to

165 labourers of alleged contractor, the workmen were left

discriminately which amounted to violation of provision of

equal remuneration at the principle of natural justice as

well. It is also alleged that after absorbing the foresaid 165

Labourers as per Meno dt. 15.10.2008 (Annex-L), the

Management directed to abolish the contract system,

denying the workmen their due reliefs discriminately. Under

such circumstances, the workmen deserve their relief for

declaring them as permanent/core employees of the

Management w.e.f. 15.10.2008, the date of other similarly

situated contractual Labourers were absorbed as core

employees.

4. Whereas the contra case of the OP/Management is

that the Central Mining Research, Dhanbad, is an institute

of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research known as

C.S.I.R. It is an autonomous body and a society registered

under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It was

constituted as per the Resolution dt.26.09.1942 of the

Department of Commerce of Government of India, following

the constitution of the Board of Scientific and Industrial

Research and an Industrial Research Utilization Committee

as per the resolutions of the said Department of India

Government dt. 27.4.1940 and 01.02.1941 respectively. The

functions of the Council were to implement the Resolution

passed by the Legislative Assembly on 14.11.1941

recommending the Governor General in Council for creation

of the Industrial Research Fund in order to foster Industrial

Development in this country and also for grant of Ten Lac

rupees annually in the Budget for period of five years. The

promotion, guidance and co-ordination of the Scientific

and Industrial Research, financing of scientific researches,

establishment, development, and assistance to special

institutions or existing ones for scientific study of problems

affecting particular industries and trade, the establishments

and award of research studentship and fellowships the

utilization of the results of the researches in developing

the Industries in the country and the payment to a share of

royalties from developments of research results to the

3480

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

researchers contributing towards the pursuit of such

researches are the main other objects of the Council. The

establishment, maintenance and Management of

Laboratories, workshops, Institutes and organization for

further scientific and Industrial researches as well as for

utilization of it in its experiment or otherwise discovery or

invention likely to be useful for Indian Industries, the

collection and dissemination to information, publication of

scientific papers and journal of Industrial Research,

development and others activities are generally to promote

the objects of the regular scientific and industrial researches

in the Company.

5. Further is alleged that the CSIR sets up a chain of

National Laboratices and Research Institutes with a Frame

work in various parts of the country in its further substantial

pursuit to make the nation self sufficient in scientific and

industrial sphere. The Institutions with other research

agencies anti with firm support of pilot plants in order to

shape the Policy decision of the National Level into

practical Results. It provides a solid infrastructure for a

Corps of over 25,000 highly qualified Scientists and

Technologist. Apart from the undertakings of prolonged

investigation based on the fundamental problems, it also

tackles specific time bound targeted projects lying in more

than one discipline. It along with other Scientific,

Technological and Engineering inputs to harmonize the

industry and economy with the national concert of self

reliance. All these activities Institutes and Laboratories are

controlled by it under its Director General and the Council

helps its Governing Body with the Prime Minister as its

President. The Scientific and Technological Research has

developed tremendously since independence by covering

a large number of areas of scientific and technology. Out of

the six types of Institutions undertaking research in the

fields namely, the Autonomous Organization (the instant

respondent) the Specific Department /Commission is headed

by the eminent Scientists institutes under Minister

including Department of Science and Technology

Industries' R & D Establishment the Cooperative Research

Association and the Private Institutes at the incentive of

the Government to the people for their investment research

at. the Tax Exemption for educational and research purposes,

The Respondent is a registered Society under the

Registration of Societies Act, 1860.

6. It is also alleged that Planning Commission as per its

policy and objective for research has set up various groups

of experts in different fields to formulate the plan for relevant

section in collaboration with Central Minister and State

Governments. Likewise the Planning commission has

set-up independent Committee working Groups, the Penal

of experts anti Scientists to suggest plan for various sectors

of Scientific Research. As such the CSIR/CIMFR can not

termed as an industry within the meaning of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947, as its entire activity is of research and

development in nature for a national cause but not for any

commercial and trade purpose. The Central Institute of

Mining and Fuel Research (being a Constituent Unit of the

Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is

governed by the rules and byelaws of the CSIR and as per

the laws of the Society. The services and financial rules

and such other rules and orders framed and issued by the

Government of India are applicable mutatis mujondis to

the employees of the society concerning their service,

conditions and various central rules such as Central Civil

Services (Classification, Control and Appeals Rules). The

Central Civil Services Conduct rules of the Central

Government is also applicable to the employees of the

Institute, as the appointment in the research institutes is

regulated statutory Rules of the Central Government

beyond the purview of an Industry It is also alleged that

the alleged workmen in the instant case were never engaged

against any post except in exigency through the contractor

over the availability of work. The respondent namely, CIMFR

is merely a Research Institute discharging its function with a

domestic Enterprises. but not for any commercial Enterprises.

Further it is also alleged that the instant workmen were the

workers of the contractors, so no employer-employee

relationship ever existed nor exists between the Management

and workmen. The contractual workers have no right for

any post, because they were engaged by their Contractor

under whose direct control and supervision, they are working

and getting their payment from their contractors for their

works following the payment of their bills by the

Management to the contractors. Thus the Contractual

workers are not entitled for regularization.

7. The OP/Management in its simultaneous rejoinder

has categorically denied the allegations of the workmen as

irrelevant, incorrect and baseless, further stating that the

notice dt.20.02.2007 being related to the petition filed by

Sri Mantu Kant Mandal and 169 others before the

Committee on petitions to the Lok Sabha is entirely

unconnected with these present workmen. Their Reference

Case No. 89/2006 is pending before the CGT No.1, Dhanbad

for adjudication. Moreover, the workmen are getting their

wages as per Minimum wages Act. It is also alleged that

during the pendency of the aforesaid Reference of Sri

Mantu Kant Mandal & Others on its representation by the

Hon'ble Member of Parliament. Sri Basudev Acharya before

the Lok Sabha Committee on whose recommendation, the

Management drafted a Scheme titled as "Casual Workers,

Absorption Scheme" as referred to the Government for

their examination and concurrence over the matter under

the consideration of the Government.

FINDING WITH REASONS

8. In the instant Reference, at the point of preliminary

issue as raised by the O.P./Management as per its petition

dt. 22.07.2011 in relation to the maintainability of the

Reference and its rejoinder dt. 14.10.2011 filed by the Union

concerned, the Tribunal as per order No. 12 dt. 10.04.2012

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3481

has decided to decide the preliminary issue with its final

adjudication in the terms of the Reference after hearing

both the parties over it.

In the instant reference, WW1 Shivtosh and WW2

Shyamal Kumar Mandal, on their affidavited chief for all

the workmen on behalf of the Union concerned and MW1

Jay Shankar Saran, Section Officer for the OP/Management

have been respectively examined.

Heard both the Learned Union Representative and Mr.

D.K.Verma, Learned Counsel for the respective parties.

Mr.Dilip Kr.Saha, the Union Representing as the General

Secretary of the Sangh concerned has earnestly submitted

that the OP/Management has not revealed nor proved the

name of the specific contractors as licensee even in its

Annexure- A as required under Sec.13 of the Contract

Labour (R & A) Act. 1970, for the work being done by the

workmen, so these workmen were not the contractor's

employees, rather they are the employees/workmen of the

OP/Management who have uninterruptedly been

performing the same and similar duties the permanent staff

of the Management performing. To him, the Management

has failed to certify the amounts paid as wages to the

contract Labours as prescribed under the mandatory

provision under Section 21(1) of the said Act. He has to

argue that the alleged muster rolls of existing contractor is

a self creation of the management, just as their allegation

about the workmen as the employees of the contract is a

legal colourful camouflage purported to deprive the

workmen of the their fundamental right as guaranteed under

Article 21 of the constitution of India. The further argument

of the Learned Union Representative is that the

Management had decided to grant core employee status

to the alleged contractor's employees as per Notice

dt.20.02.2007 (Annexure-B) for the interest of all Labourers

and workmen but the discrimination has been dealt with

these workmen contrary to the rule of law at the hands of

the OP/Management. Lastly emphatic argument of Mr. Saha

is that "Management" is "Industry" as held in cantena of

the Judgments; as such the workmen are entitled to the

regularization in view of their continuous working since

their respective years 1997,1988, 2000 to 2006 by performing

their job of since permanent and perennial in nature.

9. Just contrary to it, the contention ot Mr.D.K.Verma,

Ld Counsel for the OP/Management is that the instant

Reference relates to the claim of the Union concerned for

regularization of workmen Shri Madu Sudan Mahato & 13

others by the Management of Central Institute of Mining

and Fuel Research (CIMFR); at the very initial stage of the

preliminary issue, the OP/Management had challenged it

its maintainability on the ground that the CIMFR / the

CSIR (Council of Scientific and Industrial Research) is a

research Institute for the scientific advancement of

knowledge for the interest of the Country as a whole, but

not for any commercial business or trade: is such the OP/

Management is not an industry as defined us 2(j) of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.It was also upheld by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Physical Research

Laboratory Vs. K.G. Sharma reported in SCLJ 1997 (2) at

page 54. So the instant alleged Industrial Dispute is not

maintainable. According to Mr. Verma, so far as the merit of

the case as concerned, admittedly the workmen are daily

wagers who were never engaged by the Management as

per the due process of law. So they are not entitled to their

regularization as upheld in several leading cases such as in

Uma Devi's case, (2006) (3)SSC LAB(L.S.) 7534. Liquidator

Case, (2009)(1)SCC(L & S), 943 and the case of Pinaki

Chatteriee,(2009)(2)(LS)259, holding the same and similar

view the recruitment to a daily wager contrary to the rules

against the Constitution of India is not justified. Further

contention of Mr. Verma, Ld Counsel for the OP/

Management is that so tar as the scheme for absorption is

concerned, the CIMFR was directed to submit a list of

casual workers at the behest of rivalry Unions, but their

names were not revealed; and the CIMFR has not submitted

the list of the casual workers, as the Scheme for absorption

is still pending; and thus riot any question of their

regularization arose or rises.

10. On perusal and consideration of the mostly oral

evidences of the both the parties as available on the case

record, I find that the entire case of the Union concerned

for the workmen appears to be based on the notice

dt. 20.02.2007 (Annexure- B to the written statement of the

workmen) and the photocopy of the Identify card of Subas

Singh (one of the 14 applicants) allegedly issued by

Controller of Admn. (CSIR) (Ext.W.1). But it was not issued

by the CIMFR. (The Respondent); besides, it nowhere

specifies the particulars of Subas as to the nature and time

of his work etc. So it appears to be ambiguous; hence not

pertinent to the matter of his alleged engagement for a

work under the Respondent. It appears to be beyond doubt

that none of 14 applicants has any proof of his regular

engagement/appointment for any work of specific nature

or any specific period of years in accordance with the law

of the Land. Moreover, the aforesaid Notice dt 20.02.2007

(Annexure-B) relates to the production of documents/

records concerning a petition filed by Shri Mantu Kumar

Mandal and 169 others before the Committee on petitions

before the Lok Sabha requesting for grant of Temporary

Status to daily wagers working in the Central Mining

Research Institute, Dhanbad. It can never be treated as a

base for regularization of these instant alleged 14 workers.

11. There is no doubt that the ClMFR is a registered

society under the Registration Act affiliated the CSIR, New

Delhi. It is an autonomous body under the Ministry of

Science and Technology. It had its own Rule and

Regulations i.e, CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 and the CCS conduct

Rules 1964 related to the service condition of its own

employees. The CIMFR simply holds research or scientific

investigations nor over all development of India. It owns

3482

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

no work for manufacture of any product nor any profit for

any commercial purpose, so it is not an "industry" as

defined in Sec.2 (j) of the I.D.Act, 1947. If there is an

employment of daily wagers in exigency, it is usually

effected through the contractors such the instant one ISO

(International Service Organization), Kolkata. These instant

persons casually employed through the contractors have

worked in the CIMFR as per their contracts, and

accordingly, the Management makes payment of the bills

as submitted by the contrctor. In such situations, these

petitioners can not be the employees of the OP/Employees,

as no jural relationship even in a bit exited or exits between

the workmen and the Respondent for a single moment in

view of their exigent employment. Even the Learned

Representative for the workmen has submitted that the job

of the workers was assisting to the Scientists in the

Electronics of the respondent. But the versions of the both

the witnesses (WW I & II) do not specify the nature of

their assistance in the Electronics of the Respondent.

Moreover none of the workmen has any proof of their

continuous working for any calendar year as required Sec.25 B

(2)(a)(ii) of the Industrial Dispute Act.,1942.

12. The materials made available in disorder and scantry

manner prima facie but undoubtedly reveal the fact that

the engagement of the petitioners was on daily wages or

casual basis which comes to an end when it is discontinued

as it has been held in the case of Secy. State of Karnataka

Vs. Uma Devi (3) reported in 2006 SCC (L&S)7539CB) (Paras

3,4,12 and 43) wherein further upheld by the Hon'ble Apex

Court that when regular vacancies in posts are to be filled

up a regular process of recruitment or appointment it has

to be resorted to as per the constitutional scheme, but can

not be done in a haphazard manner based on patronage or

other consideration in respect of casual or Temporary

Employee. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased

to endorse the aforesaid view in the case of Pinaki Chatterjee

Vs. Union of India reported in (2009)2SCC (L &S)(DB)

(Para 14) as such: "It has also to be clarified that merely

because a temporary employee or as a causal wage worker

is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment

(here engagement), he would not be entitled to be absorbed

in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength

of such continuous, if the original appointment was not

made by following a due process of selection as envisaged

by the relevant rules."

13. At the point of maintainability of the Reference on

law and facts, Mr. Verma, Ld.Counsel for the Respondent

has to submit that the Respondent, the Central Institute of

Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFER), registered under the

Society Registration Act is affiliated to the Central Council

of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi, so

it is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Science &

Technology but it is not a Public Undertaking of the

Government .The CIMFR has its own Rules and

Regulations related to the service conditions of its

employees, and if any dispute between the Management

of the CIMFR and its employees, it is referred to the CAT

for an adjudication. Further submission of Mr. Verma is

that it is not any manufacture of any products; rather it

simply holds researches or investigation scientifically. So

the CIMFR is not an industry under the I.D.Act, as it has

no earnings from any project nor any business trade etc.

as defined under Sec. 2(j) of the I.D.Act, as such the instant

Reference as Industrial Dispute is not maintainable in any

way under the Law .

14. Whereas Mr. Shah, the Union Representative for

the alleged workmen in reference to para 15 of the statement

of the claim has contended that the Respondent can not

blow hot and cold at the same time—their adherence to All

Industrial Laws including its registration under the Contract

Labour ( R & A) the one side and their allegations not as

the Industry; the pleas of the Management are

unacceptable, as the Instant Reference after consideration

of all facts including their participation in the conciliation

proceedings before the ALC(C) concerned was referred for

an adjudication under I.D. Act. Further submission of Mr.

Saha in reference to para 19 of the Written Counter

Statement of the Management is that at this point the plea

of the Management is that CSIR has filed Civil Appeal

No.1342 of 2004 (CSIR & another Vs. Kishor Singh) before

the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue that CSIR is not an

industry. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

as per the interim order dt.26.10.2005 has been pleased to

direct the matter to be placed on Board after in the case of

State of U.P. Vs. Jaibir Singh wherein the judgment in

Bangalore Water Supply & Sewage Board's case ( reported

in AIR 1979 SC) has been referred to a larger Bench.

15. At the point of the word "Industry' as defined u/s

2(j) of the I.D.Act,194 [(though as per the I.D.Act

(Amendment Act 1982) yet not notified], in its interpretation,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Double Bench through Sujata

Vs. Manohar in the case of Coir Board Vs Indira

Devi,1998(78)FLR 847 = 1998(1) LLJ 937 has been pleased

to survey all previous decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court

including the seven Judges Bench decision in the leading

case of Bangalore Water, 1978 (36) FLR 266 = AIR 1978 SC

598, and passed an order of reference to the Chief Justice

for constituting a larger Bench of more than seven judges

if necessary, ohserving, in course of dealing with the

aforesaid Coir Board Case, as such:

" Since the difficulty has arisen because of the judicial

interpretation given to the definition of 'Industry' in

the Industrial Dispute Act; there is no reason why

the matter should not be judicially re-examined. In

the present case, the function of the coir Board is to

promote Coir Industry, open markets for it and

provide facilities to make the Coir Industry's products

more marketable. It is not set up to run any industry

itself. Looking to the predominant purpose for which

it is set up we would not call it an industry. However,

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3483

if one were to apply the test laid down by Bangalore

Water Supply and Sewerage Board Case, it is an

organization where there are employers and

employee. The Organization does some useful work

for the benefits of others. Therefore, it will have to

be called an industry under the Industrial Dispute

Act.

We do not think that such a sweeping test was

contemplated by the Industrial Dispute Act; nor do

we think that every organization which does useful

service and employs people can be labelled as

industry. We, therefore, direct that the matter be

placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India to

consider whether a larger Bench should be

constituted to reconsider the decision of this Court

in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board."

Later on, consequent upon declination of the three

Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the reference

sought by the two Judges Bench to a larger Bench of more

than seven Judges, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Central Board of Dawoods Bohra Community Vs. State of

Maharastra, 2005(2)SCC 673 has been pleased to hold that

it was open to the Chief Justice on a reference made by the

two Hon'ble Judges of this Court to constitute a Bench of

more than seven Judges for reconsideration of the decision

in the Bangalore Water Case. Thereafter the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of Five Judges (3 for 2) has been pleased to

state that the decision of Banaglore is not a unanimous

decision. In such a situation, it is difficult to as certain

whether the opinion of Hon'ble Justice Krishna Iyer given

on his own behalf and on behalf of Hon'ble Justices Bagawati

and Desai can be held an authoritative precedent which

would require no recommendation though the Judges

themselves expressed the view that the exercise of

interpretation done by each one of them was tentative and

was only a temporary exercise till the Legislature stepped in.

The Legislature subsequently amended the definition

of the word 'industry' but due to the lack of will of both the

Legislative and the Executive, the amended definition for a

long period of 23 years has remained doramant. Due to the

stand of the Union of India that for the category of the

industries excluded in the amended definition, no alternative

Industrial Dispute Resolution Forum could be created, so

the Central Government did not enforce the provisions of

the said Amendment Act providing for a new and restrictive

definition of 'industry'. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

State of U.P. Vs. Jai Bir Singh reported in 2005 (106) FIR 190

(SC) has been pleased to observe over the interpresentation

of the definition of 'industry' a legal premise as premised in

the judgment of aforesaid Bangalore Water Case by the

Hon'ble Apex Court as such:

'A worker-oriented statute must receive a

construction where conceptual keynote though must

be the worker and the community, as the constitution

has shown concern for them inter alia in Articles

38,39 and 43'.

16. The entire discussions over the interpretation of

definition of the term 'industry' u/s 2(j) of the I.D.Act, 1947

seems to revolve around the two factors;

"What law is and what law ought to be at the point."

Being devoid of the jurisdiction to brood over the latter,

I would like to consider the nature of the work of the

Respondent CIM FR, a Registered Organization affiliated to

the CSIR of the Central Government of India, for

determination of the issue whether the Respondent is an

'industry' in its existing terms (devoid of the Amendment still

unenforced by the Central Government of India). Since the

Respondent does not carry on any business, trade,

manufacture for any profit nor does anything analogous to

trade etc, so its claim is that the Respondent is not an industry

in the aforesaid terms. But the "industry" as defined u/s 2(j)

of the l.D. Act also includes these two items as well related

to the employer in the first part of its definition:

(I)

Undertaking means a task or project, especially,

one that is important and or difficult, SYN,

Venture, and

(II)

"Calling", a strong desire or feeling of duty to

do a particular job, especially one in which you

help other people SYN vocation, a type of work

(as simply meant in the Oxford Advanced

Learner's Dictionary of Current English: A.S.

Hornbly (Eighth Edition), OXFORD

UNIVERSITY PRESS).

It is an acknowledged act that the Respondent (CIMER)

does scientific research for advancement of scientific

knowledge through scientific magazine etc. for other

industries all over India. Though the nature of the job of

the CIMFR Respondent appears to be regal one for the

CSIR/the Govt. of India, yet separable, so the "Respondent'

appears to be indubitably 'an industry' existently as defined

u/s 2(j) of the I.D. Act,1947. Hence the preliminary issue as

to the maintainability of this Industrial Dispute is decided

as maintainable, as the Respondent CIMFR stands as an

Industry under the I.D.Act.

17. Considering over all the materials available on the

case record, it is hereby, in the terms of the reference

responded and accordingly awarded that the demand of

Bhartiya Audhyogic Annusandhan Shramik Sangh for

regularization of services of Shri Madhu Sudan (Saudan

wrongly written) Singh and 13 others as per the Annexure

from the Management of Central Institute of Mining and

Fuel Research (CIMFR) is not only illegal and unjustified

but also baseless. Hence the workmen alleged are not

entitled to any relief whatsoever.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

3484

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 18 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1653-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dNkj isij fey]

H.P.C. fyfeVsM] vle ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

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

¼lanHkZ lañ 40/2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

14@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,yµ42012@33@2013&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th August, 2015

S.O. 1653.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Diputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (I.D. Ref Case No. 40 of 2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Cachar Paper Mill, H.P.L. Ltd., Assam

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 14/08/2015.

[No. L-42012/33/2013-IR (DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

Present:

Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., L.L.B.,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

Ref. Case No. 40 of 2013

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

Sri Abu Bakkar, Panchgram, Hailakandi, Assam.

—Vrs.—

The Management of Cachar Paper Mill, (CPM), H.P.C Ltd.,

Hailakandi, Assam.

Annexure containing names of the workmen

SI. No.

Name of Applicants

Father's Name

Date of Joining

Nature of job being done

Madhu Sudan Mahato

Late Sonaram

1997 Years

Lab Helper

Mahato

Shivtosh Sutradhar

Sri A.N.Sutradhar

2002 Years

Assisting in Electronics

and Electrical works to the Scientist

Subas Singh

Sri Brahma Deyal Singh

2003 Years

Assisting in Testing work

Shyamal Kumar Mandal

Late Sahadeo Mandal

2003 Years

Computer work and Typing Test Report

Shankar Koranga

Sri Sripati Kornaga

2003Years

Loading, unloading Equiptment

Darik Koranga

Late Ranglal Koranga

2003 Years

Loading, unloading Equipment

Prakash Kumar Mandal

Sri Madan Mandal

2001 Years

Plant operation and maintenance

of AC Plant

Kamal Gope

Late Rabilal Gope

2005 Years

Instrument Cleaning and

Maintenance

Nurul Hasan Hindvi

Sultan Ali

2005 Years

Assisting in Testing Fitter Type self

Rescures/Chemical and

Typing of Report

10.

Kapura Devi

W/o Late Kuila Das

2006 Years

Canteen Mazdoor/Kamin

11.

Jay Kumar Singh

Late Jagabandhu Singh

2004 Years

Typing of Date entry on Computer

12.

Kartik Mandal

Late Govind Mandal

1988 Years

Gardener (Mali)

13.

Ashoka Nanad Mishra

Sri Achala Nand Mishra

2000 Years

Receptionist in Guest house (CIMFR)

14.

Raju Koranga

Sri Bijay Koranga

2003 Years

Helper in maintenance

and operation Audio

Visual System

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3485

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman.:

Mr. N. Dhar, Learned Advocate

Mr. B. Malakar, Learned

Advocate.

Mr. T.U. Laskar, Learned

Advocate.

For the Management :

Mr. J. Roy, Learned Advocate.

Mr. C. Chakrabarty, Learned

Advocate.

Mr. S. Sarma, Learned

Advocate.

AWARD

Date of Award : 31.07.2015

1. This Reference is arising out of an Industrial Dispute

raised by the workman Sri Abu Bakkar, for terminating him

by the Management of Cachar Paper Mills Ltd. w.e.f.

18.04.1990.

2. On receipt of the order No. L-42012/33/2013-IR(DU)

dated 19.07.2013 from the Ministry of Labour &

Employment, Government of India, New Delhi, this

reference has been registered and notices were issued upon

both the parties. The schedule of this Reference is as under:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Cachar

Paper Mills, Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd.

(represented through the Chief Executive) in

terminating the service of Shri Abu Bakkar, S/o Haji

Nimar, Ali, P.O. & Vill. Panchgram, Dist. Hailakandi,

Assam w.e.f. 18.04.1990 in pursuance of the certified

Standing Order of the Company without causing

service of any notice/letter of allegation and without

holding departmental enquiry in the prescribed

manner is justified?"

2. The brief fact of the present dispute is that the

workman Sri Abu Bakkar being one of the members of the

family of the land looser in the establishment of Cachar

Paper Mills, Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. at

Panchgram in the District of Hailakandi, Assam.

Accordingly the workman was entitled for appointment

under the establishment of Hindustan Papers Corporation

Ltd. as per the Scheme of the Hindustan Paper Corporation

Ltd. The workman was called for interview vide the call

letter dated 3.11.86 issued by the Sr. Manager, Cachar Paper

Project, Panchgram. Ultimately the workman was appointed

as skilled worker in the Cacher Paper Project under

Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd., Panchgram vide CPP/

PER/REC-6/1288 dated 10.04.87. Thereafter the Dy. Manager

(P & A), Cachar Paper Mill, Hindustan Paper Corporation,

Panchgram issued show-cause notice dated 1.3.89 against

the workman asking for explanation as to why disciplinary

action should not be taken against the workman for his

alleged unauthorized absence from the duty for a couple of

days with interpolation in the said proposed notice.

Subsequently the management as per their order dated

18.4.90 informed the workman that the alleged absence of

the claimant can not be regularized even by granting extra-

ordinary leave and accordingly the workman alleged to

have lost his lien for his appointment in the Hindustan

Paper Corporation Limited, Cachar Paper Mill. Ultimately

the workman was dismissed from his service by Sr. Manager

(P & A), Cachar Paper Mill, HPC, Panchgram without any

enquiry and by an authority who is subordinate of the

appointing authority of the workman, in violation of Article

311 of the Constitution of India. The workman submitted a

representation dated 11.4.1990 before the Management

stating that the father of the petitioner is an old aged man

and lost his land for construction of the Cachar Paper Mill

and the service of the workman in the said Corporation is

only livelihood; and hence the workman prayed for treating

the absence as leave without pay and to allow the workman

to join the duty instead of terminating him from the service.

Thereafter the workman submitted representation dated

4.1.2000 before the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry

of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi to dispose of the

representation dated 4.1.2000 filed by the workman for

referring the dispute regarding dismissal of the workman

from service of the Cachar Paper Mill, Panchgram to the

Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court for adjudication.

Thereafter the workman preferred a Writ Petition before

the Hon'ble High Court, Guwahati. The Hon'ble High Court,

as per order dated 14.2.2011 passed in the W.P. (C)

No. 6151 of 2002 directed the Secretary to the Govt. of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi to dispose of the

representation submitted by the workman before the

authority concerned in accordance with the law. In

pursuance of the order dated 14.2.2011 passed by the

Hon'ble Gauhati High Court dated 14.2.2011 passed in W.P.

India, New Delhi referred the dispute before this Tribunal

for adjudication. Hence, the workman prayed for setting

aside the order dated 18.4.90 passed by the Management

of Cachar Paper Mills, Hindustan Paper Corporation,

Panchgram, Hadilakandi District, terminating the service

of the workman with direction to the Management of Cachar

Paper Mill, Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd., Panchgram,

Hailakandi to reinstate the workman in his service with full

back wages and other service benefit available to the

claimant in accordance with the law.

3. The Management contested the proceeding taking

their defence in their W.S., inter-alia, that the workman

Abu Bakkar was offered appointment in the Hindustran

Paper Corporation (here in after call HPC), Cachar Paper

Mill, Panchgram and accordingly the workman joined as

unskilled worker on 02.06.1987 and he was allotted Code

3486

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

No. 1162. But the workman Abu Bakkar was a habitual

absentee from the date of his joining with effect from

02.06.1987 till December 1989 (i.e. during the period of 2

½ years approx.) the workman remained absent for 356

days on different occasions. While the management had

not taken any stern action against the workman at that

time in spite of his aforesaid act of misconduct, rather the

Management took a very lenient view with an intention

to improve his habit of remaining unauthorized habitual

absence from duty and thus granted him even extra

ordinary leave which is generally granted to an employee

as per Certified Standing Order on special circumstances.

The Management has shown the leave granted showing

the breakup of dates/period of 189 days leave at the first

instance as under:

Nature of leave

Period

Days

Occasion

Earned Leave

01-05-88 to 05-05-88

23 days

11-05-88 to 12-05-88

05-07-88 to 08-07-88

06-01-89 to 20-01-89

Sick leave

09-11-87 to 14-11-87 to

20 days

14-11-87, 01-07-88 to

04-07-88, 16-10-88 to

25-10-88

EOL

15-11-87 to 25-11-87,

146 days

12-12-87, 09-07-88 to

20-07-88, 26-10-88 to

29-11-88, 01-12-88 to

28-12-88, 21-01-89 to

04-03-89, 18-03-89 to

02-04-89

Total

189 days

1 4

But the workman, in spite of getting ample opportunities

for clarification/improvement of his attendance failed. He

was also in the habit of leaving the working place without

permission/leave after reporting for duty for which he was

asked for explanation vide letter No. CPP/M(R)/Conf/88/

dated 01.04.88 issued by the then Manager (Recovery) of

Cachar Paper Mill, but no explanation was submitted by

him. The workman was again asked for explanation for his

unauthorized absence from duty vide letter No. CPP/PER/

E-IV/415/5993 dated 31-05-88 issued by the then manager

(P&A) showing the details of absence of 59 days with

effect from 26.11.87 to 15.5.88 as under:

Period of absence

No. of days

Occasion

26.11.87, 29.11.87 to 30.11.87,

59 days

03.12.87 to 04.12.87, 22.12.87 to

23.12.87, 28.12.87 to 30.12.87,

05.01.88 to 10.01.88, 13.01.88 to

15.01.88, 17.01.88, 27.01.88,

29.01.88, 04,02.88, 13.02.88,

15.02.88, 15.03.88 to 16.03.88,

23.03.88 to 24.03.88, 26.03.88,

29.03.88 to 06.04.88, 12.04.88 to

30.04.88, 15.05.88.

But the workman did not care to reply and continued to

remain unauthorized absence from the duty. The

Management has given below the details of absence of the

workman from duty. The workman was once again asked

for explanation for his authorized absence from duty vide

their letter dated 1.3.89 issued by the then Dy. Manager

(P&A), Cachar Paper Mill showing the details of absence

of 117 days. The details of absence of 117 days is given

below:

Period of absence

No. of days

Occasion

09.01.88, 17.01.88, 27.01.88,

117 days

2 6

29.01.88, 04.02.88, 13.02.88,

15.02.88, 23.02.88, 28.02.88,

05.03.88, 16.04.88 to 30.04.88

09.05.88 to 30.05.88, 22.06.88

to 30.06.88, 27.07.88 to 02.08.88,

08.08.88 to 15.08.88, 19.08.88

(1/2 day), 20.08.88 to 22.08.88,

24.08.88 to 19.09.88, 21.09.88 to

30.09.88, 05.10.88 to 06.10.88,

08.10.88 to 09.10.88, 12.10.88

to 13.10.88, 31.10.88(1/2 day),

30.11.88 and 29.12.88 to 31.12.88.

At that time the workman submitted his reply vide his

letter dated 25.03.1989 and assured the management that

he would not remain unauthorized absence from duty in

future but the workman did not keep his assurance and he

repeated the same habit and continued to remain absence

unauthorisedly and that too for prolong period at different

occasions as mentioned below:

Period of absence

No. of days

Occasion

06.04.89 to 09.04.89

11.04.89 to 05.06.89

10.06.89 to 11.06.89

16.06.89 to 31.08.89

16.09.89 to 20.09.89

23.09.89 to 07.10.89

11.10.89 to 15.12.89

Total

255 days

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3487

Thus during the period 2 ½ years of his service the

workman remained unauthorized absent from duty for 581

days in 53 different occasions. Therefore, the workman

was given sufficient opportunities to improve his habit of

remaining unauthorized absence from duty but he did not

care to avail this apportunity. As such, the management

under compulsion had to issue a letter dated 18.04.90 to

the workman informing him loss of his lien from service

and his name was struck off from the Role of HPC, Cachar

Paper Mill with effect from 18.04.90 as per privosion of

Certified Standing Order of the company. It is further

mentioned that the workman did not obtain the sanction of

leave and he continued to remain absence from duty and

the prolong period of his absence could not be regularized

as no leave was due at his credit as provided under

Clause(d) of 20 and Clause 21 (ii) of the Certified Standing

Order. Thus it is clear that the workman has abandoned his

service and the HPC being the Public Sector Enterprises

the welfare of the employee was taken care of adequately,

but if the case of incorrigible indiscipline is allowed to be

repeated without any limitation, the other dedicated

employees of the Mill will be demoralized and as a result

the Mill is bound to suffer causing great loss to all the

employee in particular and is general. Management

reiterated that the termination the service of the workman

was made for the sake of the discipline in the Industry and

in pursuance of the Standing Order of the Mill. The

management further stated that the conduct of the workman

was absolutely not in the interest of the Corporation which

is evidently clear from his attendance register and for which

the management was compelled to take action. Therefore,

the termination of the workman is valid and no interference

is called for since the workman deliberately remained

absence and irresponsible for which the management had

left with no alternative but to terminate the service of the

workman as per the Standing Order. Therefore the

management prayed to decide the issue in favour of the

management of Cachar Paper Mill under the HPC. Ltd.

4. Both the parties in support of their respective plea

adduced evidence. The workman examined two witnesses

including himself while the management examined one

witness namely Ravi Sankar Bhattacharjee, Manager, HR

& ES, HPC Ltd., Cachar Paper Mill, Panchgram .

According to the workman Md. Abu Bakkar (W.W.I), in

1993 his land situated at village Panchgram was

acquisitioned by the Government for establishment of

Paper Mill named Hindustan Paper Corporation, Panchgram

( Cachar Paper Mill), and on the basis of his right as land

loser he was called for an interview on 18.3.85 for

employment of land loser along with his document relating

to his land and other testimonials vide Exhibit-1. He

appeared before the Selection Committee on 18.3.85 and he

was again called for an interview before the HPC, Cachar

project for appointment to the post of unskilled worker on

10.11.86 at 10 A.M vide Exhibit-2. Subsequently he was

appointed as unskilled worker vide the letter dated 10.4.87

(Exhibit-3) issued by the HPC, Cachar Project. His Pay scale

was fixed at Rs.400-530/ - with effect from 2.6.87 vide letter

No. Cpp/Per/E..IV/415/20766 dated 3.6.87 vide Exhibit-4. In

the mean time he felt ill due to some mental disease for

which he remained absent for 117 days with effect from

9.1.88 to 31.12.88, for which show-cause notice was issued

by the management vide their letter No. Cpp/per/E-IV/ 415/

63 dated 1.3.89 asking for explanation within 7 days vide

Exhibit-5. But due to his illness he could not attend his

duty and there was no willful negligence on his part and he

did not submit any explanation in reply to the said show

cause notice. Thereafter the management vide their

reference No. CPM/PER/EIV/415/3857 dated 18.4.1990

(Exhibit-6) informed him that his lien for the appointment in

the Corporation had been lost . Then he submitted a

representation on 26.5.90 before the management with

prayer for consideration of his case sympathetically as a

son of land loser treating his absence from duty as leave

without pay and to allow him to join duty instead of

termination vide Exhibit-7. But the management did not

consider his representation. Thereafter he approached the

Hon'ble Gauhati High Court by filing a Writ being W.P.(C)

No.6151/02 and the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court directing

the management to dispose of his representation if it is still

pending within a period of 12 months from the date of

order, and in any case, on or before 31.12.2011 vide Exhibit-

8. The workman informed the Ministry of Labour, of the Writ

Petition forwarding a copy of the order dated 14.2.2011

passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.6151/02 but

no action taken by the Ministry while he issued a reminder

to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi.

Finding no reply from the Ministry the workman filed an

application before the ALC (C), Silchar raising the dispute

vide Exhibit-9. Accordingly conciliation was done at the

instance of the ALC (C), Silchar and on failure of conciliation

FOC report was submitted. As a result this reference has

been made by the Ministry. The workman further mentioned

that the management discharged him without following the

any enquiry and he prayed for reinstatement along with

backwages with effect from 18.4.1990.

During his cross-examination the W.W.1 said that he

can not read and write English and the terms and condition

of his appointment letter has been read over to him of his

relatives; and as per the terms of appointment he was

instructed to work regularly and to perform duty with

dedication maintaining discipline and decorum. He also

mentioned that his condition of service is regulated by the

Standing Order of HPC and that he knew that due to

continuous absence without authority his misconduct

which is liable to be dismissed. However he denied the

3488

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

suggestion advanced by the management that he was

absent without authority for 581 days from 2.6.87 to

December,1989; and that he used to leave from days

regularly without obtaining permission from the authority.

He admitted that he was absence for 117 days for which he

submitted application before the HPC but he was not

served with any show cause notice from the management

due to his unauthorized absence. The workman mentioned

that in the year 1990 the management issued a show cause

notice against him whereupon he submitted his reply in

the year 1990. He again said that in his evidence in chief he

has mentioned that he has not submitted any reply to the

said show cause (Exhibit-5) and also he did not submit any

application as he was not mentally sound at that time.

Lateron the workman said that he submitted reply to the

show cause marked as (Exhibit-5) vide Exhibit-A wherein

he admitted his misconduct and that he was absence without

any authority. But he did not enclose any medical certificate

along with his reply to the show cause (Exhibit-A) to the

effect that he along with his family members have been

suffering from various diseases. He again mentioned that

subsequently he filed representation vide Exhibit-7 wherein

he also mentioned that he was absent without any authority

and in Exhibit-A he promised before the authority not to

remain absent in future without any authority. He

mentioned that due to his unauthorized absence from duty

he was removed from service and inspite of his commitment

before the management; subsequently, he remained

absence for which he was removed from service. The W.W.1

further said that he remained absence due to his mental

illness but he has not produced any document in respect

of his mental illness. He again said in his claim statement

he did not make any averment regarding his mental illness,

and that although he narrated the fact to his learned

Advocate and he did not know the content of his claim

statement in details. He denied the suggestion put forward

by the management that since he admitted his guilt vide

Exhibit-A, and hence for his removal from service the

question of not giving any opportunity to be heard by

holding any enquiry by the management does not arise.

The workman also said that due to non receipt of any reply

to his representation (Exhibit-7) he approached the Hon'ble

Gauhati High Court by filing a Writ petition and his removal

from serviced he worked as casual labourer. He also denied

the suggestion advanced by the management that he was

absent for 581 days without any authority for which he

was removed from service, but he could not recollect if any

letter dated 1.4.88 was issued by the management of HPC,

cachar asking him to show cause on the allegation that he

was habitual, absconder from the place of working after

reporting the duty and that on 1.4.98 he had left the plant at

7.30 A.M. without any authority of Supervisor/ASS; and

that he was a habitual absentee and irregular in discharging

his duties knowing the same, for which he was removed

from service; and that he was not suffering from any disease

and that he had taken the false plea of absence from duty

on medical ground. The workman also denied that he is not

entitled to any relief as claimed. He again said that he does

not know if the management granted 189 days against his

absent of 581 days.

The Workman witness No.2, Md. Abdul Mannan, one

of the neighbouring man of the workman stated that the

workman joined as unskilled labourer in HPC in the year

1987 and in the year 1986 he also joined in the HPC

Panchgram as unskilled labourer. The W.W.2 mentioned

that in the year 1988 the workman remained absent for a

petty long time from duty while he would meet him on the

way sometimes and on asking the workman as to why he

remained absent, the workman told him that he had been

suffering from some illness i.e. whirling of his head. Then

the W. W. 2 assumed that the workman had been suffering

from some mental disease. In course of his cross-

examination the W.W.2 stated that the workman was absent

from duty for about 90 days and on his asking as to why

the workman did not attend the duty the workman replied

to him that he was not feeling well and the workman did not

like to work. The W.W.2 again mentioned that on seeing

the workman roaming hither and thither and sometimes

lying on road he presumed that the workman was suffering

from mental disease but he never took the workman to any

Medical Officer for treatment.

5. The Management witness No.1. Sri Rabi Sankar

Bhattacharjee, the Manager, HR & ES, HPC Ltd., Panchgram

stated that the workman joined the Cachar Paper Mill as

unskilled worker on 2.6.87 and since his joining the

workman has become irregular, he would remain absence

regularly. In the appointment letter (Exhibit-3) the terms

and conditions of engagement of the workman given in

details wherein specifically mentioned that the service

condition of the workman would be governed by the

Certified Standing Order of HPC and that he would be under

obligation to abide by the rules and regulation of the

Corporation as amended from time to time. The workman

was made understand as to the terms and conditions of his

appointment as well as condition of service after his joining.

The workman was absent for 581 days since June, 1987,

December,1989 and out of the total absence of 581 days,

189 days have been regularized by granting extra ordinary

leave, EL and sick leave to the workman. The MW.1 has

proved the extract from the attendance register in respect

of the workman vide Exhibit-B wherein Exhibit-B(1) and B

(2) are the signatures of PA to DGM, HR & ES of HPC. He

further stated that the show cause notice was issued on

1.4.88 against the workman regarding his unauthorized

absence from the place of work vide Exhibit-D, & show

cause notice was issued against the workman on 31.5.1988

also, for his unauthorized absence for 61 days vide Exhibit-E

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3489

whereupon Exhibit-E(1) is the signature of the Manager,

Recovery of HPC, which he knows. The MW.1 again said

that another show cause notice was issued against the

workman on 1.3.89 regarding his unauthorized absence for

117 days vide Exhibit-F whereupon Exhibit-F(1) is the

signature of Dy. Manager, P & A, which he knows. He

further mentioned that the workman submitted his reply to

the show cause for 117 days absenceas asked for vide

Exhibit-F, the workman submitted his reply vide Exhibit-A;

in Exhibit-A the workman admitted that he committed

misconduct and also prayed for regularization of his leave

by granting EOL or any other kind of leave. The MW.1

mentioned that after submission of his reply (Exhibit-A)

the workman against started absenting himself from his

duty for which the management issued an order

vide No.CPM/PER/E-IV/415/3857 dated 18.4.1990 vide

Exhibit-G informing the workman that his lien on

appointment in the HPC had been lost as per Clause-

21(ii) of the Certified Standing Order at page 21, whereupon

Exhibit-G(1) is the signature of Sr. Manager, P & A, HPC.

He further stated that unauthorized absence is treated as

misconduct vide Clause-28.22 ( in Exhibit-H, the Certified

Standing Order ). The workman also submitted an

explanation (vide Exhibit-7) dated 26.5.90 which was received

by the management on 26.5.90 but the workman remained

silent since then. Thereafter in the year 2002 the workman

submitted Writ Petition being W.P (C) 6151/02 vide

Exhibit-H.

During his cross-examination the MW.1 mentioned that

the appointment letter (Exhibit-3) was issued by the Dy.

General Manager, P & A, HPC, Cachar Project, Panchgram

and the appointing authority of the workman was the Chief

Executive Officer of HPC, Cachar Project who is higher in

rank than the Dy. Manager, P & A; and the workman was

removed from the service by the Sr. Manager, P & A who is

junior to the Dy. General Manager, P & A. He denied the

suggestion advanced by the workman that removal order

in respect of the workman was not issued according to the

provision of Clause30 (G) of the Certified Standing Order

of HPC Ltd. The MW.1 again mentioned that the workman

was removed from service by the Sr. Manager P & A and

the workman was appointed by Dy. General Manager, P &

A as per the authority delegated to them by the Chief

Executive by a Notification but he has not submitted the

said Notification before the Court. He also said that he

could not say whether Notice under Section 9A of the

I.D.Act was issued against the workman before delegating

power of authority for appointment/removal to the Dy. G.M/

Sr. Manager, P & A. He mentioned that F.R. & S.R. are

applicable in certain cases but not in all cases; and the

workman was appointed against the substantive post and

as such he acquire the right of lien in HPC, Cachar Project.

The management witness clarified that the Clause 21(ii)

marked as Exhibit-10 was deleted as per Notification order

dated 25.9.91 while the workman was discharged in the

year 1990. He further stated that.in Exhibit-6 the workman

was shown to have been absent without any authority for

392 days whith could not be regularized and hence the

workman was removed from service; and as per the letter

dated 1.3.89 marked as Exhibit-F the total period of absence

without authority in respect of the workman was 117 days

while Exhibit-E shows that the workman was absent without

authority for 61 days during the period with effect from

26.11.87 to 15.5.89; and that vide order dated 4.4.89 on the

body of the application marked as Exhibit-A the

unauthorized absence period in respect of the workman

was regularized in extra ordinary leave. The management

has admitted that no enquiry was held before discharging

the workman from the service and that he did not know if

the F.R. & S.R. is applicable in case of the workman ' and

that the Manager (Recovery), who signed the Exhibit- D,

was neither Appointing Authority nor Disciplinary

Authority. He also denied the suggestion that the dates of

unauthorized absence in respect of the workman as shown

in Exhibit-B, Exhibit-E & Exhibit-F are contradictory and

that the workman was suffering from depression and some

mental disease for which he could not attend his duty

regularly; and as such, the workman is entitled to the

protection granted u/s 47 of the Persons with Disabilities

(Equal Opportunity, Protection of Right and Full

Participation) Act, 1995. The said witness for the

management again stated that the Workman prayed for

pardoning his misconduct and assured the management

that he would not take leave without authority in future

and also to regularize his unauthorized absence, but the

management did not grant leave of any kind of 392 days

absence, and hence, the workman was discharged from his

job. He further mentioned that the representation submitted

by the workman vide Exhibit-7 after his removal and this

representation marked as Exhibit-7 was n not considered

by the management.

6. On scrutiny of the evidence adduced by both the

sides as discussed above, it is found well established that

the workman Abu Bakker being a land loser for acquistion

of his land for establishment of the Cachar Paper Mill under

HPC, as unskilled worker on the pay scale or Rs. 400-530/-

along with other allowances on certain terms and conditions

as decribed in his appointment letter proved as Exhibit-3,

on probation initially for a period of one year from the date

of appointment which may be further extended at the

discretion of the appointing authority and the probation

period of the workman shall not be deemed have been

completed unless the workman is informed of it is writing.

The workman in his evidence admitted that due to some

mental disease he remained absent from duty for 117 days

with effect from 9.1.88 to 31.12.88 for which show cause

3490

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

notice was issued agains thim vide Exhibit-5 but he did not

submit any explanation in reply to the said show cause

notice. Thereafter the management vide their reference

dated 18.4.90 makred as Exhibit-6 informed the workman

that his line for the appointment in the Corporation have

been lost. In the said reference dated 18.4.90 (Exhibit-6) it

was mentioned that the workman was found absence from

duty for 581 days in total on different occasion from 2.6.87

i.e. from the day of his joining till December, 1989 and out

of the said 581 days only 189 days absence have been

regularized and the balance 392 days could not be

regularized as yet no leave is due at the credit of the workman

for which the absence of the workman could not be

regularized even by granting extraordinary leave. While

the workman submitted representation before the

management with prayer for consideration of his case

sympathetically treating his absence from duty as leave

without pay and allow him the duty instead of termination.

In para-4 of his representation marked as Exhibit-7 the work

man admitted that he used to remain absent earlier as often

his old father remained ill. It is also found that his

unauthorised absence of 392 days could not be regularized,

and hence, he prayed for considering his case granting

leave without pay. The workman undertook that no further

leave with out permission would be taken by him and in

case he was found remaining absent without permission

he should not approach the management with any further

prayer.There is nothing on record to show that the workman

did submit any medical certificate to the effect that he along

with his family member had been suffering from various

diseases and more particularly he was suffering from mental

disease also there is not mention in his representation dated

25.3.89 vide Exhibit-A that the workman had been suffering

from mental disease. The workman in his evidence

mentioned that he was not served with any show cause

notice from the management due to his unauthorized

absence, while the management witness No.1 has been

able to prove that show cause notice dated 1.4.88 vide

Exhibit-D was issued against the workman asking the

workman as to why he had reported for duty in "A" shift

duty on 1.4.88 and left the Plant at 7-30 A.M. without

permission from the Supervisor and that on earlier occasions

the workman absconded from the place of work after

reported in duty. The workman was also served with the

otices vide Exhibit-E & Exhibit-F asking explanation from

the workman for his unauthorized bsence from duty with

effect from 26.11.87 to 15.8.88 and 9.1.88 to 31.12.88 totaling

61 days + 117 days respectively. The workman in his reply

to the show cause notice dt. 1.3.89 admitted his unauthorized

absence and prayed for pardon for his misconduct with

assurance to the management that he would not take any

leave without application for leave in future. Thus the

statement of the workman that he did not receive any show

cause notice regarding his unauthorise absence is found

not believable. The evidence on record shows that out of

the total absene of 581 days, 189 days have been

regularized by granting extraordinary leave, EL and Sick

leave as mentioned in the reference No. CPM/PER/E-IV/

415/3857 dated 18.4.90 proved as Exhibit-6. The MW.1 has

categorically mentioned that after submission of his reply

(vide Exhibit-A) the workman again started absenting from

his duty for which the management issued an order vide

Exhibit-G stating the allegation of remaining absent from

duty without authority and also the habit of leaving the

place of work without permission from the competent

authority; and that explanation was called for on 1.4.88,

31.5.88 and 1.3.89 by the management but the workman did

not care to reply to the notice dated 1.4.88 and in spite of

replying to the show cause notice dated 1.3.89 with prayer

for pardon and assurance that the workman would not take

any leave without prior permission in future, the workman

had continued to remain absent unauthorisedly; and

thereby the lien on the appointment of the workman in the

management Corporation lost. Thus it is clear that the

allegation of the management against the workman

regarding his unauthorized absence from duty is proved

The management witness No.1, in support of his contention

has relied upon the provision of Clause 21(ii) of marked as

Exhibit-H(1) wherein it has been mentioned that the absence

without permission for more than 8 days will be treated as

voluntary abandonment of service without formal notice;

and the names of such workers would be removed from the

roll of the Company. He also referred the Clause-28.22 the

amendment of the term "misconduct" as under:

" 28—Acts and Misconduct :—

Without prejudice to the general amendment of the term

misconduct the following acts and omission on the part of

a workman shall be treated as misconduct.

****

28.22 Unauthorised absence from place of work after

reporting for work or leaving work without permission or

loitering during or after working hours."

7. The management justified their action to discharge

the workman from service relying upon the provision of

Certified Standing Order of HPC Ltd. on the ground of

misconduct committed by the workman.

In Clause 21(1) of the Certified Standing Order proved

in original vide Exhibit- 10 it is provided that workman shall

not absent himself without prior permission/leave, if any

workman remains absent without prior permission, will be

marked absent in the Attendance Register/Punch Card/

and it will render him liable to disciplinary action .

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3491

In course of argument Mr. B. Malakar, learned Advocate

for the workman submitted that the decision of striking off

the name of the workman from the roll of the Corporation in

pursuance of Clause 21(ii) of the Certified Standing Order

was approved by the then Dy. Manager and the then

Sr. Manager had just communicated the decision of the

management to the workman regarding loss of his lien of

his appointment in the HPC, but such an action of the

management is against the provision of 21(1) of the Certified

Standing Order as well as the violative of Articles 14, 21

and 311 of the Constitution of India as well as the principle

of natural justice. Mr. Malakar argued that the workman

was removed from the roll of the Corporation without

holding any domestic enquiry and such action of the

management is illegal against the principle of natural justice.

In support of his contention Mr. Malakar, Learned Advocate

relied upon Sri Purnendu Chakraborty —Vrs—Hindustan

Paper Corporation Ltd. and others, reported in 1995 (1)

GLT 60, wherein it was held that automatic termination under

Certified Standing Order for absence without or beyond

the period of sanctioned leave as provided under Clause

21(ii) of the said Certified Standing Order is illegal in as

much as, the principle of natural justice must be read into

the Certified Standing Order of the said Corporation; and

that the termination under Certified Standing Order without

holding any domestic enquiry is of violative of Articles 14,

21 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Malakar, also pointed

out that the workman both in his claim statement as well as

in his evidence stated that due to his mental illness he

could not attend his duty and there was no intention to

remain absence from duty on the part of the workman and

as such, the lien of the workman to the appointment to the

post of unskilled labourer in the management Corporation

was withdrawn by the management illegally. He also

mentioned that u/s 47 of The Persons with Disabilities

(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full

Participation) Act, 1995 provided that no establishment

shall dispense with, or reduce any rank, an employee who

acquires a disability during his service, provided that, if an

employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the

post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post

with the same pay scale and service benefits; provided

further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee

against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post

until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of

superannuation, whichever is earlier. In this connection

Mr. Malakar also referred the case of Krushnakanta B.

Parmar-Vrs-Union of India and others reported in (2012) 3

SCC 178 and Reena Rai—Vrs—State of Haryana and others,

wherein it was held that if the absence is due to compelling

circumstances under which it is not possible to report for or

perform duty, such absence can not be held to be willful;

absence from duty without any application or prior permission

may amount to unauthorized absence but it does not always

mean willful; there may be different eventualities due to which

an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling

circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident,

hospitalization, etc. but in such case the employee can not

be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behavior

unbecoming of a government servant.

In Reena Rai case as mentioned above it was held that

the Appellant's dismissal from service without assigning

any reason in the dismissal order as to why it was not

reasonably practicable to hold regular departmental enquiry

was ultra vires to the provision of Article 311.

Mr. Shibanu Sharma, learned Advocate for the

management vehemently objecting the submission of his

learned counter part submitted that the workman specifically

admitted his misconduct in Exhibit-A with promise not to

remain absent in future without authority, yet he remained

absent in spite of his commitment before the management.

He also added that the workman did not care to the show

cause notices issued by the management on repeated

occasions vide Exhibit-D, Exhibit-E and Exhibit-F and lastly

the lien of the workman to the appointment as unskilled

labourer was lost as per the provision of Certified Standing

Order [Clause 21(ii)]. Mr. Sarma further submitted that the

workman himself admitted his misconduct and in such

circumstances no domestic enquiry is necessary as such,

the action of the management in terminating the service of

the workman is not illegal. In this connection Mr. Sarma

relied upon Gujrat Mineral Development Corporation-Vs-

P.H. Brahmbhatt published in (1974) 3 SCC 601, wherein it

was decided that when an employee remained absent

without getting his leave sanctioned previously and did

not care for the rules and was insolent in correspondence

then termination of his service was justified. In justifying

his plea domestic enquiry in the present case is not

necessary, Mr. Sarma, learned Advocate, again, referred

the decision in Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya

Sangathan and Another —Vs—Girdharilal Yadav published

in (2004) 6 SCC 325 (para-11), wherein it has been clearly

observed that facts admitted need not be proved.

8. From my above discussion it is found that the evidence

on record clearly established the allegations of

unauthorized absence against the workman raised by the

management. The act of Misconduct committed by the

workman is found admitted by the workman who remained

absent without any authority for 581 days on different

occasions and out of the said period of absence only 189

days have been regularized and the balance 392 days could

not be regularized due to non-availability of any kind of

leave at the credit of the workman. The workman in his

evidence in chief categorically mentioned that he was in

receipt of the show cause notice dated 1.3.89 (Exhihbit-5)

but he did not submit any explanation in reply to the said

show cause notice.

3492

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.K.Yadav—Vrs—J.M.A.

Industries Ltd. reported in 1993 (3) SCC 259 held that the

employer has a right to terminate the service of employees

under him, and the Certified Standing Orders have statutory

force, and therefore, the same must be in consonance with

the principle of natural justice and mandate of Article 14

&21 of the Constitution of India. It is also observed by

their Lordships that automatic termination under Certified

Standing Order on any absence without or beyond the

period of sanctioned leave for more than 8 days, the

principle of natural justice and duty to act in just, fair and

reasonable manner must be read into the Standing Orders;

and the termination under Standing Orders without holding

any domestic enquiry or offering any opportunity to the

workman was held to be violative of principle of natural

justice and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

In DTC—Vrs—DTC Mazdoor Congress reported in 1991

(Suppl.)(1) SCC 600 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Constitution Bench, per majority, held that termination of

the service of a workman giving one months notice or pay

in lieu thereof without enquiry offended Article 14; the

order terminating the service of the employees was set

aside. It is thus well settled law that the right to life enshrined

Article 21 of the Constitution would include right to

livelihood. The order of termination of service of an

employee/workman vitiates with civil consequences of

jeopardizing not only his/her livelihood but also career

and livelihood of dependents. Therefore, before taking any

action putting an end to the tenure of an employee/workman

fair play requires that a reasonable opportunity to put forth

his case is given and domestic inquiry conducted complying

with the principles of natural justice.

The management witness No.1 although in his evidence

categorically mentioned that the workman was a habitual

absentee and the workman would leave the place of work

without any authority and since his joining on 2.6.87 the

workman became irregular. The MW.1 mentioned that the

workman was absent for 581 days from June, 1987 till

December,1989 and altogether 189 days absence has been

regularized by granting Extraordinary leave, EL, Sick leave.

The evidence also shows that the workman was issued

show cause notice on different occasions and lastly in his

reply the workman admitted his misconduct due to his

absence from duty without any authority for such a long

period. From the appointment letter marked as Exhibit-3

shows that the workman was appointed as unskilled worker

on the basic pay of Rs. 400 to 530 on some terms and

conditions vide Exhibit-3. The evidence of management

witness No.1 and the document proved by the management

vide Exhibit-A, Exhibit-B, Exhibit-C Exhibit-E & Exhibit-F

find supports the contention of the management as to the

habit of regular absentee and absconding from the place of

duty without authority.

Further the plea of the workman that due to his mental

illness he could not perform his duty regularly, is also found

no support by any evidence on record although the

workman witness No.2 mentioned that he sometimes found

the workman on the way while he asked the workman as to

why he remained absent, then the workman told him that

he had been suffering from some illness & the workman

was not willing to work, & from this version of the workman

the WW.2 assumed that the workman had been suffering

from some mental disease. This testimony also found not

at all reliable to arrive at a conclusion that the workman

was suffering from any mental disease as such, the

argument raised by the learned Advocate for the workman

that the workman is entitled to the protection provided

u/s 47 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal

Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)

Act, 1995 is not found relevant.

9. From my above discussion and the findings arrived

at as above, it is crystal clear that the workman since after

his joining in service as unskilled worker on 2.6.87, remained

absence regularly for a 581 days upto December,1989. It is

also found well established that the workman was in the

habit of leaving place of work without any authority on

several occasions; and that the workman inspite of receiving

notice and after regularization of his unauthorized absence

granting EOL, etc. by the management the workman

remained absent. According to the management the lien of

appointment of the workman in the Cachar Paper Mill

Project, Panchgram under HPC has been lost in terms of

the Certified Standing Order of the HPC. However the

management failed to take necessary action against the

workman in terms of Clause 22(i) of the Certified Standing

Order wherein it has been clearly mentioned that if any

workman remain absence without any permission will be

marked as absence in the Attendance Register/Punch and

is liable to disciplinary action. The Management also have

violated the principle of natural justice as well as the

provision of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of

India. Although the management in their W.S. took the

plea that the workman inspite of getting sufficient

opportunities to improve his habit of remaining

unauthorized absence from duty he did not care to avail

this opportunity, and hence, the management under

compulsion treating the absence of the workman as

voluntary abandonment of service, the name of the

workman was removed from the roll of the Company; this

plea can not be entertained since no action of the

management which offended the basic principle of the

fundamental Rights granted by the Constitution of India as

well as the principle of natural justice can not be entertained.

Under the circumstances stated as above it can safely be

held that the action of the management in terminating the

service of the workman Sri Abu Bakkar is illegal.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3493

10. In the result, this reference is decided in negative

against the management. Accordingly the workman is

allowed to be reinstated with a view to afford him an

opportunity to rectify himself in future. Considering the

conduct of the workman as to his regular absence from

duty as well as leaving of the place of work without prior

authority and the opportunities given by the management

to rectify his acts of misconduct in different manner on

different occasions as mentioned in my foregoing

discussions; and also his prolong absence after filing his

representation and regularization of a portion of his

unauthorized absence by the management granting EL,

EOL, Sick leave, etc., I find no ground to consider to allow

the workman any back wages as prayed for, since it is

found well established that he has committed gross

misconduct. Accordingly this reference is disposed of on

contest without any cost.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this 31st

day of July, 2015 at Guwahati.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1654-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV c®d

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

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

U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 02@03½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@8@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@195@2002&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th August, 2015

S.O. 1654.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/03) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur 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 18.08.2015.

[No. L-12012/195/2002-IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 02/03

Between-

Sri Shyam Karan Ananad,

Son of Sri Sheo Ram,

58Z/5-B Ganga Nagar,

Circular Road,

Allahabad.

And

The Deputy General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office,

Allahabad.

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide notification

No. L-12012/195/2002-IR(B-1) dated 27.01.03, has referred

the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of management of State Bank of

India, in awarding punishment of dismissal from

service of Sri Shyam Karan Anand, w.e.f.10.11.99, is

legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman is

entitled to?

The.case of the workman in short is that he joined the

bank at the post of clerk-cum-cashier on 11.10.83.

During the course of his employment the work and

conduct of the workman ever remained commendable.

The workman was placed under suspension by the

opposite party bank on some extraneous

considerations with effect from 30.05.94 and the

opposite party also lodged a FIR with the police under

section 406, 419 and 420 IPC on 03.07.96. The bank

also took up the workman under disciplinary action

by issuing charge sheet dated 08.08.96, which

proceeded exparte and ultimately culminated into the

dismissal from the service of the bank by order dated

10.11.99, issued by the disciplinary authority and

against this the workman also preferred an appeal

before the appellate authority which also culminated

into rejection by order dated 29.03.2000 passed by the

appellate authority. It has been claimed by the

workman that prior to issue of charge sheet the bank

did not conduct any preliminary inquiry, no complaint

was given by the customer of the bank againt him,

mere using doubtful integrity in the suspension order

is not sufficient to place an employee under suspension

and at least he must know the reasons for placing him

under suspension so as to challenge the suspension

order before the appropriate authority designated

under service rules and as such the workman has been

prevented from challenging the legality of suspension

order as such the same is illegal and not tenable. On

the basis of errors quoted above in the suspension

order, the workman would be deemed to be in regular

service entitling him to his full pay and allowance for

the period of his suspension.

The workman by referring relevant provisions of

service rules has pleaded that the bank should have

3494

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

waited for one year and in case the workman has not

been put on trial within a year from the date of lodging

FIR it is only after that the bank was competent to deal

the workman according to the provisions of

disciplinary rules, but in the case the bank lodged FIR

against the workman on 06.07.96 and issued charge

sheet to him on 08.08.96 and started inquiry

proceedings against the workman. This process

adopted against the workman is wholly dehoring the

rules of disciplinary action and on the sole ground the

whole action of the bank against the workman in

dismissing him from the service is illegal and cannot

be sustained in the eye of law inasmuch it is premature.

At least bank should have waited for one year

according to disciplinary rules and it only when the

workman is not put on trial before criminal court within

such period it was certainly open to the bank to deal

the workman under disciplinary action without waiting

the final outcome of the criminal trial. In this regard the

workman has referred para 19.4 of 1st Bipartite

Settlement in his claim petition.

The workman has also challenged the action of the

bank with regard to the procedural aspect of the matter

which at present is not necessary to be detailed in

view of the order dated 04.04.2014 passed in petition

No. 8145 of 07 by Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad.

Lastly it is alleged by the claimant that the action of

the bank whereby he was dismissed from the service

of the bank be set aside and he be reinstated in the

service of the bank with full back wages, continuity of

service and with all consequential benefits.

The bank filed its reply against the claim statement

filed by the workman in which the entire allegations of

the workman been denied by the bank by alleging that

the inquiry conducted against the workman was

according to the principle of natural justice, the

workman was given ample opportunity to attend the

inquiry but he deliberately failed to avail such

opportunity, therefore, the inquiry officer was having

no option but to conclude the inquiry against the

workman and findings were recorded against the

workman by the inquiry officer and the workman has

rightly been awarded punishment of dismissal from

service by the disciplinary authority. Lastly it is pleaded

that the claim of the workman is devoid of merit and is

liable to he rejected.

That after exchange of pleadings between the parties

both contesting parties have adduced oral as well as

documentary evidence in support of their respective

cases. Whereas workman has examined himself

as W.W.1, bank has examined Sri S. K. Srivastava, as

M.W. 1 who has been the presenting officer and the

enquiry officer Sri R. N. Sarabhai, enquiry officer as

M.W.2.

My learned predecessor, after hearing argument of

both the parties, had rendered his award on 26.10.06 in

favor of the workman and against the bank.

10. The bank being aggrieved by the award of this

tribunal challenged the legality and proprietary of

the award by filing a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.8145

of 2007 before the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad,

which was finally decided by order dated 02.04.2014

in which the award of the tribunal was set aside

partially to the extent that when the tribunal had held

that inquiry was vitiated it was incumbent upon the

tribunal to have granted opportunity to the bank to

prove the charges. With the above observations the

matter was remitted back to this tribunal to decide

the matter afresh.

11. On the application of the workman moved on 25.04.14,

the tribunal issued notice to the bank fixing 9th July,

2014 for the hearing of the case and the management

was given opportunity to prove the charges as set up

against the workman.

12. Bank has examined Sri Hari Shanker Lal Srivastava,

M.W.1, Sri Rama Kant Mishra, M.W.2, Sri Jamuna

Prasad, M.W.3 who is account holder of saving bank

account and Sri Siddhesh Kumar Srivastava as M.W.4

to prove the charges before this tribunal.

13. It is pertinent to mention here that the evidence of

M.W.4 was recorded on 06.02.15, but as none was present

from the side of the workman to cross the witness

therefore, opportunity was closed by the tribunal.

14. It may be pointed out here that that the workman

stopped attending the proceedings of the case after

15.01.15, for the reasons best known to him.

15. The bank during the course of evidence of the

management witnesses have also filed original records

connected with the charge sheet and have tried to

prove the charges with the help of the original

documents.

16. As none appeared for workman to argue the case,

arguments of the management were heard.

17. Perusal of record reveals that the charge sheet was

given to the workman with regard to 21 counts. It is

clear from the record that the disciplinary authority

concurred with the report of the enquiry officer and he

found that the enquiry officer in his finding has held

that charge No. 6, 8, 12 and 14 are proved whereas

charge No. 1 to 5, 10, 13, 15 to 17, and 21 are partly

proved and charge No. 7, 9, 11 and 18 to 20 are not

proved. It has also been found that the bank has

suffered a loss of Rs.453227/- due to the fraudulent

transaction perpetrated by the workman for deriving

personal gain and misappropriation of banks fund in

such a way which amounts to moral turpitude and

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3495

decided to dismiss the workman without notice in terms

of para 521(5) of the Shastri Award and para 18.28 of

Desai award and also ordered that the period spent by

the workman as suspended will be treated a such and

no salary and allowances except the subsistence

allowance already paid will be payable and further

decided to forfeit the gratuity payable to the worker

for the loss suffered by the bank.

18. Workman filed an appeal before the appellate authority

which was also rejected.

19. The representative for the bank during the course of

argument has conceded that the bank has only lead

evidence before the tribunal to prove charge No.6, 8,

12 and 14 which were found proved by the enquiry

officer and has also conceded that no evidence shall

be adduced for remaining charges which were found

partly proved or not proved by the enquiry officer.

20. Charge No.8 against the worker read as under—

Account No. 48468 of Sri Jamuna Prasad.

You fraudulently obtained payments through above

account by means of undernoted forged withdrawals—

Date

Amount

15.06.93

1, 200.00

24.06.93

800.00

28.10.93

2, 000.00

Further you provided unauthorized credit of

Rs. 3000/- on 15.04.91 by forged debit raised in the

account of another depositor viz., Sri Chandra Prasad

SB A/c No.47029.

21. Management on this charge has examined Sri Jamuna

Prasad, M.W.3, who was the account holder of

A/c 48468 who has also stated on oath that he has his

account in Personnel Banking Division, at main branch

of the bank at Allahabad, which is still in operation. He

used to go to the bank for making deposits and

withdrawals personally. After perusing paper No. 1/3

and 1/4 he stated that these papers do not bear his

signatures and he did not go to bank on the dates

15.06.93 and 28.10.93. He used to submit his pass book

along with withdrawal form in the bank. He has also

filed his pass book through list 2/1 and it is paper

No.2/2. There is no entry of Rs.1200/- in the pass book

on 15.06.93 and also there is no entry of withdrawal of

Rs.2000/- on 28.10.93. He has also no acquaintance

with any Chandra Prakash. He has never given Rs.3000/-

to Chandra Prakash for depositing in his account. He

visited the branch on 15.04.91 for withdrawal of

Rs.3000/- and in his pass book balance was shown

Rs.3132.75, but there is no entry made in his pass book

for withdrawal of Rs.3000/-. In his pass book an entry

of withdrawal was being done by Sri S K Anand. When

witness went to bank on 15.04.91, for withdrawing an

amount of Rs.3000/- it came to his notice through the

bank that no sufficient balance is lying in his account

despite the fact that Rs.3000/- was entered in his pass

book, then he met branch manager and informed

everything. Total amount of Rs.8000/- was withdrawn

wrongly from his account which was given to him by

the bank and thus the account was adjusted. He has

also proved his affidavit paper No.1/39, which was

filed by him in the court.

22. In his cross examination he has proved his identity by

showing his driving license to the representative for

the worker. He has further deposed that he has only

one account in the bank and his account No.48468.

He has stated that he only recognizes the worker. For

wrong withdrawal of Rs.8000/- from his account he

has made oral complaint to the branch manager. He

has further deposed that paper No.1/39 was prepared

by the bank and he has only signed it.

23. In support of charge No.8 M.W.1 Sri Hari Shanker Lal

Srivastava, Dy. Manager, PB Division, at Main branch

of the bank has stated that account No.48468 relates

to Sri Jamuna Prasad. He has examined withdrawal

form dated 15.06.93 and 8.10.93 relating to account

holder Sri Jamuna Prasad and stated that Sri S. K.

Anand has made posting and received amount

mentioned in the withdrawals forms. He has further

stated paper No.3 of the list is the original of debit

voucher and on it Sri S. K. Anand has made his initials

and transferred the amount in account No.48468

relating to Sri Jamuna Prasad. These documents are

paper No. 1/3 to 1/6. He has also stated that original

ledger sheet is paper No. 1/7-1/8.

24. Therefore, from the evidence adduced by management

as above it is very much clear that on 15.06.93 and

28.10.93 worker has fraudulently withdrawn an amount

of Rs.1200 and Rs.2000/- by filling forged payment

vouchers and by making fake signatures of Sri Jamuna

Prasad for himself and has also made unauthorized

credit of Rs.3000/- on 15.04.91 by raising forged debit

entry in the account of another depositor.

25. Therefore, from the above it is clear that charge No.8

is found proved against the worker.

26. Now before proceeding further to see other charges it

is pertinent to mention that no other account holder

was produced by management and M.W.4 Sri

Siddhesh Kumar Srivastava, Chief Manager, Main

Branch has been produced who has stated that account

holder Sri R N Dohrey was sent a notice by the bank

which was returned back with the endorsement that

he had left the house. He has further stated that Sri

Mahananad Messey was also called upon for his

3496

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

evidence and his son had informed that Sri Messey

had expired. Further he stated that account holder Smt.

Shyama Devi was also sent a letter and bank officials

also sent at her residence, but her family member has

shown her inability for attending the court at Kanpur

due to her illness. He has also filed papers in support

of his statement which are paper no.3/2-3/6.

27. Management representative has contended that

although bank could not produce other account

holders but fraudulent act of worker in making false

entry in ledger book and withdrawing the amount un-

authorizedly from the account of account holders is

proved by Sri Hari Shanker Lal Srivastava M.W.1 and

by Sri Rama Kant Mishra, M.W.2.

28. As the management has adduced evidence of its two

officers M.W.1 and M.W.2 to prove charge No. 6,12

and 14 leveled against the workman, therefore, it would

be proper to scrutinize the evidence collectively for

these charges.

29. Charge No. 6, 12 and 14 reads as follows—

30. Charge No. 6- Account No.48899 of Sri R N Dohrey

The above account holder who used to deposit his

pension bills to you across the counter for credit of

his account gave you under noted bills for credit to

his S/B Accounts but these were not credited to his

account. However, credit entries to this effect were

made by you in his saving bank pass book with a view

to covering up the misappropriation of the amount.

Date

Cr.

23.01.91

520.00

04.05.91

1373.00

06.06.91

1373.00

05.03.93

1593.00

26.03.92

1593.00

03.06.92

1693.00

23.11.92

1736.00

08.01.93

1736.00

14.01.93

1736.00

15.02.93

1892.00

04.10.93

1135.00

08.03.94

2126.00

Further you have made the following fictitious credit

entries into the account of Sri Dohrey.

Date

Amount

22.01.93

936.00

09.02.93

1100.00

16.02.93

1000.00

11.03.93

1500.00

03.04.93

200.00

22.07.92

5000.00

Thus the bank is required to pay a hefty amount to the

account holder due to your fraudulent action.

31. Charge No. 12 Account No. 49208 of Smt. Shyama

Devi.

You have fraudulently raised undernoted debit in the

account and transferred the amount to other saving bank

accounts wherefrom fraudulent withdrawals were made by

you to make good the amount of withdrawals tendered by

the account holders.

Date

Amount

Amount transferred

Amount Transferred to

From a/c No.

A/c No.

24.03.92 Rs.10000/-

49092

49208

23.10.91 Rs. 5000/-

49208

47029

The following fictitious debit has been raised by you in

the above S/B account (49208) in an unauthorized manner

with a view to cheating the bank and the account holder.

Date

Amount

08.08.91

2800.00

13.08.91

1500.00

19.08.91.

1400.00

27.08.91

2000.00

04.09.91

2500.00

09.09.91

2000.00

16.09.91

800.00

16.10.91

2400.00

22.11.91

2000.00

16.12.91

1000.00

30.12.91

2000.00

25.01.92

2500.00

You also withdraw fraudulently Rs.3000/- on 19.12.89

from this account forging the signature of the depositor

on withdrawal form.

32. Charge No. 14 - S/B Account No. 47976 of Sri

Mahanand Messey.

On the 4th Feb, 91 a sum of Rs. 3000/- was debited to

the above referred account and credited to the saving

bank account No. 48047 in the name of Smt. Gayatri

Devi. Both debit and credit vouchers were prepared

and posted by you by forging the signatures on the

debit voucher.

33. As discussed above the management could not

produce account holder due to non availability of

R. N. Dohrey, due to death of Mahanand Messey

and due to un-ability and sickness of Smt. Shyama

Devi.

34. In this regard the management has adduced evidence

of M.W.1 Sri Hari Shanker Lal Srivastava who was

posted as Deputy Manager at bank's main branch

during the period April 91 to December 1996. He has

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3497

deposed that worker was working as clerk cum cashier

in the bank. He was summoned in the inquiry then he

came to know about the fraud done by the worker. He

has deposed that charge No.12 relates to the account

No. 49208 of Smt. Shyama Devi. Paper No.1/10 to 1/20

are withdrawal forms of this account and amount

mentioned in withdrawal forms are in the hand writing

of worker in the ledger sheets who has also put his

initials and on all the withdrawal forms. Sri S K Ananad

has made the signatures on the reverse side for

receiving payments. Paper No.1/21 is the original debit

voucher dated 23.10.91 which was debited in the hand

writing of Sri S K Anand for the amount of Rs.5000/-

who has also put his initials. Paper No.1/22 is original

transfer voucher dated 23.10.91 by which Rs.5000/-

was credited in the account by Sri Anand. It was done

in the light of paper No. 1/21 debit voucher. Paper

No. 1/23 is the original debit voucher dated 24.03.92

through which Rs.10000/- was debited to account No.

49092 and posting was done by Sri Anand. Paper

No.1/24 is original transfer voucher dated 24.03.92

through which Rs.12000/- was credited in the account

No. 49208. This credit entry is in the light of paper

No.1/24 is done on paper No.1/26 and this is the original

sheet of account No.49092.

35. He has also stated that he is aware of full and initial

signatures of the entire clerk working in the branch as

he used to check the day book and various entries

made in the ledger sheet and vouchers. He has also

proved attendance register of staff for the period from

June 91 to May 92 to prove the presence of the worker

which is paper No. 1/27.

36. In his cross examination he has also supported the

case of the bank and nothing has come to create doubt

on his evidence.

37. Besides this management has examined M.W.2 Sri

Rama Kant Mishra who was also posted a Deputy

Manager in P B Division from 01.9.90 to 1997. He also

deposed that in paper No. 1/21 is the ledger sheet and

Sri Anand has made his initials and also on paper No.1/

22 which is credit voucher in which entries were made

by Sri Anand and he has also stated that on paper

No.1/23 ledger sheet and paper No.1/26, entries of debit

for Rs.1000/- is made by Sri Anand on the ledger sheet.

The amount which was drawn from the account of

Smt. Shyama Devi was paid by the bank.

38. Regarding charge No. 6 he has stated that all the

entries mention in charge No.6 are not made in ledger

sheet paper No.1/34 to 1/37 and it was the duty of Sri

Anand. Paper No.1/37dated 09.02.93, paper No.1/32

dated 16.02.93, paper No.1/33 dated 03.04.93 are deposit

slip which was signed by Sri Anand and he has no

right to receive the cash for depositing it in bank and

they are also not signed by cash officer, through

vouchers 1/31-33 forged credit entries are made in

paper 1/34 to 1/37. Sri Anand has signed credit

vouchers paper No.1/31 to 1/37. Sri Anand has signed

credit vouchers 1/31 to 1/37 as depositor. For this

wrongful act of Sri Anand bank had to compensate Sri

R N Dohrey who has given affidavit in the bank. Paper

No. 1/29 related to Gayatri Dubey and paper No.1/30

regarding Mahanand Messey entries of debit in the

ledger sheet is done by Sri Anand and also on paper

No.1/29 Sri Anand has signed as depositor on credit

slip. For this illegal act of Sri S K Anand bank had to

compensate Sri Mahanand who had also filed affidavit.

39. This witness has been cross examined by authorized

representative for the worker who has supported the

case of the bank and nothing has come out in his

testimony to create any doubt.

40. Although account holder Sri R N Dohrey, Sri Mahanad

Messey and Smt. Shyama Devi could not be produced

before this tribunal for recording their evidence and

reasons for their non production has been explained

by M.W./4 Sri Sidhesh Kumar Srivastava, which

appears to be sufficient, but M.W.1 and M.W.2 in their

evidence has proved that Sri S K Anand has withdrawn

the money from the account of above account holders

by forged and fake, withdrawal forms and has received

the money himself by making his signature on the

withdrawal forms. It is further proved that after debiting

the amount in the account of account holders, he has

given credit entries from the accounts of other account

holders and has made false credit and debit entries in

the respective ledgers. It appears that he has started

business of withdrawing the amount from one account

and to make good of this debit he credited the amount

of other account holders.

41. Therefore, charge No. 6, 12 and 14 leveled against him

stands fully proved.

42. Although none appeared on behalf of worker to make

any submission at the time of arguments, but

considering the gravity of charge proved against Sri

Anand, I do not find any reason to interfere in the

punishment of dismissal from service awarded to him

by the disciplinary authority and upheld by the

appellate authority and the punishment given to the

worker appears to be legal and justified.

43. Having concluded that charge No.8, 6, 12 and 14 have

been found to be proved against the workman Sri S K

Anand, therefore, it is held that the action of the

management of State Bank of India in awarding

punishment of dismissal from service of Sri Shyam

Karan Anand, w.e.f. 10.11.99, is legal and justified and

he is not entitled for any relief.

3498

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

44. Reference is answered accordingly.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1655-—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;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k

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

dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 58@13½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@88@2012&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th August, 2015

S.O. 1655.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 58/13) of the Central

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur 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 18/08/2015.

[No. L-12012/88/2012-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 58 of 13

Between

Sri Rakesh Kumar Tiwari,

Son of Sri Jagat Narain Tiwari,

C/o Sri O. P. Mathur,

117/36 K, Sarvodaya Nagar,

Kanpur

And

The Zonal Manager

State Bank of India,

Mall Road,

Kanpur.

AWARD

Central Government Mol, New Delhi, vide notification

No. L-12012/88/2012-IR-(B-1) dated 07.05.13, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication.

Whether the action of the management of State Bank

of India in terminating the services of Sri Rakesh Kumar

Tiwari son of Sri Jagat Narain Tiwari workman in the

year 1981 and not considering his name for re-

employment while re-employing others including the

recruitment of fresh hands is just fair and legal? If not

to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?

After receipt of reference order registered notices were

issued to the parties connected with the dispute and

both sides appeared and filed their authorities to

represent the case. The representative for the worker

sought several adjournments on one reason or the

other for filing statement of claim on behalf of the

workman.

When the case was taken up for hearing on 19.05.15,

representative for the bank was present but none

appeared for the workman nor was any claim statement

filed on his behalf. By a bare perusal of the order sheet

it is quite clear that the reference is pending

unnecessarily 18.09.13 and it also reveals that the

workman appears to be not interested in prosecuting

the reference made to this tribunal on his behest.

It is therefore, clear that the tribunal is left with no

other option but to decide the reference against the

workman for want of pleading and proof.

Reference is answered accordingly against the

workman.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1656-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dk'kh xkserh

leir 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] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 108@2013½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@53@2013&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th August, 2015

S.O. 1656.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 108/2013) of the

Central Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between

the management of Kashi Gomti Samyut Gramin Bank and

their workman, received by the Central Government on

18/08/2015.

[No. L-12011/53/2013-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3499

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

PRESENT :

Sri Shubhendra Kumar, HJS

Industrial Dispute No. 108 of 2013

Between

The General Secretary,

Kashi Gomti Samyut Gramin Bank Employees Association,

C/o Anil Kumar Singh,

212 Matbarganj,

Azamgarh (UP) 276001.

And

The Chairman,

Kashi Gomti Samyut Gramin Bank,

Ratman Road,

Singra, Varanasi. (UP)

AWARD

Central Government Mol, New Delhi, vide notification

No. L-12011/53/2013-IR-(B-1) dated 24.07.2013, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this

tribunal—

Whether the action of the management of Kashi Gomti

Samyut Gramin Bank in suspending the check-of

facility cancellation of recognition of Kashi Gomti

Samyut Gramin Bank Employees Association which is

a majority union in the origination is legal and

unjustified? If not, what relief the union is entitled and

to what extent?

In this case after receipt of the reference order from

the Ministry several opportunities were provided to

the contesting parties but neither any one appeared

on behalf on the claimant union nor filed their claim.

Ultimately on 03.10.2013 an application through

registered post was received in the office of the tribunal

which was on behalf of the Secretary of the Union

raising the present dispute. In his application dated

3.10.2013, he has clearly mentioned the fact he is not

interested to prosecute the present reference. It

therefore means that the union is not inclined to pursue

their claim. As such the tribunal is left with no other

option but to record a no claim award against the union.

Accordingly a no claim award in the case is passed

against the union as they are not interested in pressing

the present reference before this tribunal.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1657-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos ds izcaèra=

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 dkuiqj ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 45@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS ]tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 18@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41012@144@98&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 18 August, 2015

S.O. 1657.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/99) of the Central

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as shown

in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the

management of Northern Railway and their workman,

received by the Central Government on 18/08/2015.

[No. L-41012/144/98-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 45 of 99

Between

Uttar Railway Karamchari Union,

Sri Dinanath Tiwari,

Divisional Organizing Secretary

119/74 Quarter No. 61,

Nasimabad,

Kanpur

And

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Northern Railway,

Allahabad

AWARD

Central Government Mol, New Delhi, vide notification

No. L-41012/144/98-IR-(B-1) dated 09.03.99, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication.

Whether the action of the management of Northern

Railway Allahabad in terminating the services of Sri

Ganesh Kumar Pandey and 15 others (as per list

3500

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

attached) is legal and justified? If not to what relief

the concerned workers are entitled to?

On behalf of the workers one Sri Dinanath Tiwari has

filed claim statement alleging that worker of the present

case were firstly deployed under Chief Goods

Superintendent, GMT/TPT, Kanpur, through Janta

Labour Cooperative Society, Kanpur, for loading and

unloading work and from 04.04.96 the society suddenly

resigned and from 05.04.96, these workers started

working under direct supervision of the railway

officers.

On behalf of workmen Sri Vijay Kumar Srivastava has

examined himself as W.W.1, who has admitted in his

cross examination that he was not given any

appointment letter or slip and he was working on verbal

order and have not received any orders in writing, he

has not filed any document to show that they worked

for 240 days. They were not given any pay slip. Earlier

work was done by society and they were not granted

any leave. It is also alleged that their work was to load

luggage from one train to another. It is also alleged

that with effect from 05.04.96 to 31.05.97 the concerned

workers were treated as casual labour by railway

department and they were paid their wages as such by

railway but instead of giving defined wages, these

workers were paid very much less wages and they

were utilized to perform the work. The workers worked

continuously for more than 120 days as such they

became entitled for the status of temporary employee

and for regularization in the service of the railway but

they were deprived from the above benefit. It is also

alleged by the worker that the work on which they

were deployed by the railway was of regular and

permanent nature. The officers of the railway became

annoyed with the worker after inspection was done

by officers of the labour department and their services

were terminated under the oral orders with effect from

01.06.97. Management has not complied with the

provisions of section 25-F and 25-G of the Act at the

time of dispensing with the services of the workers.

Therefore, it is prayed that three workers are entitled

for reinstatement in service.

Opposite party has filed its reply admitting the fact

that in GMC/TPT, Northern Railway the work of loading

and unloading was done through Janta Labour

Cooperative Society till 04.04.96. After resignation of

the society the work of loading and unloading was

being carried on through market labours. It is denied

by the management that with effect from 05.04.96 to

31.05.97 concerned worker were ever in the direct

employment of the management nor they ever worked

as a casual labour and they were never paid wages of

a casual labour. It is also denied that none of the market

labour had ever worked continuously for 120 days.

Oposite party admitted the fact that the Assistant

Labour Commissioner (Central) inspected the GMC

on 23.05.97. It is denied by the management that the

work of loading and unloading neither was of regular

and permanent nature nor was likely to continue in

future. As such there was no sanctioned post for

loading and unloading. It is also denied that the worker

shown in annexure had never worked continuously

because the work of GMC was not of continuous

nature. As such question of payment of retrenchment

compensation, notice or notice pay does not arise.

Therefore, the management has not committed any

illegality nor they had ever terminated the services of

the workers, therefore, the claim of the worker is liable

to be dismissed being devoid of merit.

—

Workers have also examined Sri Ram Shanker Tiwari

as W.W.2 who has alleged in his evidence that he was

working in GMC(TPT) Fazalganj, Kanpur from 05.04.96

to 31.05.97 and was loading luggage from one wagon

to another and payment was made on monthly basis.

He has admitted in his cross examination that this work

was done by society and earlier to which they were

members. After termination of contract with society

they were doing the work of loading and unloading on

verbal orders. He has no slip of payment or regarding

his duties.

Both sides have filed their respective documents in

the case, whereas the worker vide application dated

21.11.2000 has filed 6 documents, management vide

application dated 30.04.2001 has filed 3 documents

relevancy of which will be seen at the appropriate

stage.

10. None appeared to argue the case, therefore, award is

being passed on the basis of records of the case. I

have carefully examined the whole file.

11. On behalf of management Z. Ekka was examined who

has alleged in his evidence that till 05.04.96 work was

done by society through labours and contract of

society has come an end on 05.04.96, thereafter

railway administration was taking work from market

labours for loading the luggage and they paid

combined charges to one labour for distribution

amongst all the labours. It is also alleged that paper

No. 12/2-7 are vouchers for combined payment of

loading charges.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3501

12. Management has filed copy of Rule 2302 of Indian

Railway Commercial Manual Vol. II regarding loading

and unloading in which it was provided that the work

will be done through contractors own employee.

Management also filed payment vouchers paper No.

12/2-7 which denotes that work was done by market

labour and payment was made collectively to one

person.

13. As it appears from the evidence adduced by the worker

they failed to prove that worker have worked

continuously for 120 days under direct employment

of the railway and they also failed to prove that they

have got temporary or regular status. Besides this they

could not file payment vouchers through which

payment was made to the workers. Contrary to it

management has filed payment vouchers which prove

that the work was taken by market labour for which

combined payment was done to one market labour for

distribution amongst all workers.

14. It is also admitted by the worker that they have worked

under oral orders and were not given any slip for the

work done by them.

15. Therefore, as the workers were not in the direct

employment of the management question of terminating

their services by the railway administration does not

arise.

16. Consequently reference is answered accordingly.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1658-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj iwoZ jsyos

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

dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 136@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-08-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41011@31@2013&vkbZvkj¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th August, 2015

S.O. 1658.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 136/2013) of the

Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of N.E. Railway and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 18.08.2015.

[No. L-41011/31/2013-IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Present :

Sri Shubhendra Kumar, HJS

Industrial Dispute No. 136 of 2013

Between—

Sri Ram Hulas,

Son of Budhan,

Village Amdaur,

P.O. Chhata,

District Ballia.

And

The General Manager,

N.E. Railway,

Gorakhpur.

AWARD

Central Government, MoI, New Delhi, vide Notification

No. L-41011/31/2013-IR(B-1) dated 24.10.2013, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this

tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of NE Railway

in not giving opportunity for screening to Sri Ram

Hulas son of Sri Budhan Ram is legal and justified? To

what relief the concerned workman is entitled for and

to what extent?

In the instant case after receipt of the reference from

MoI, New Delhi, notices were sent to the parties. On

behalf of opposite party their authorized representative

filed its authority in the case, but neither the workman

appeared in the case nor filed his statement of claim.

However another notice to the workman was again

sent by the office of the tribunal fixing 22.12.2014, for

filing claim statement by the workman, but yet again

he did not file his claim statement nor appeared before

the tribunal. Therefore, it is amply clear that the

workman is not interested to contest the reference.

As such under the facts and circumstances of the

case the reference is liable to be answered against the

workman for want of pleading and proof.

Reference is answered accordingly.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1659-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj e/; jsyos

3502

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 50@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-08-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41012@45@2007&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th August, 2015

S.O. 1659.—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

Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of North Central Railway and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

18.08.2015.

[No. L-41012/45/2007-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 50 of 2007

Between—

Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava,

Son of Sri Om Prakash Srivastava,

Village Bharua Sumerpur,

Near Railway Station,

Hamirpur U.P.

And

Divisional Railway Manager,

North Central Railway,

Jhansi.

AWARD

Central Government, MoI, New Delhi, vide Notification

No. L-41012/45/2007-IR(B-1), dated 04.10.07, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this

tribunal.

Whether the action of the management, DRM North

Central Railway, Jhansi in refusing to employ Sri

Pramod Kumar Srivastava and employing his junior

by violating Sections 25G and 25H of the ID Act, is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled?

It is unnecessary to give full facts of the case as after

filing the claim statement, the workman stopped coming

before the tribunal and this tribunal vide order dated

05.03.2014, debarred the workman from evidence and

the management too submitted that they also do not

want to lead any evidence.

In view of above it is abundantly clear that it is a case

where there is no evidence from either side as well as

it also appears that the workman is not interested in

prosecuting his case.

Even otherwise the present case cannot be termed to

be an industrial dispute within the definition of section

2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as refusal to

re-employ and workman by an industry is absolutely

outside the scope and ambit of the term Industrial

Dispute. From this point also workman cannot be

allowed for any relief in pursuance of the present

reference.

Moreover, term re-employ does not include

retrenchment within the meaning of retrenchment as

defined under section 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, being so at any rate the present schedule of

reference cannot be termed to be a case of Industrial

Dispute within the meaning of the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Therefore, for the reasons explained above, the

workman is held entitled to no relief for want of evidence

and the reference is bound to be decided against the

workman and in favour of the management.

Reference is answered against the workman.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1660-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj e/; 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

dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 14@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-08-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41011@29@2006&vkbZvkj¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th August, 2015

S.O. 1660.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2007) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as shown

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of North Central Railway and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 18.08.2015.

[No. L-41011/29/2006-IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3503

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHEDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 14 of 07

The Divisional Organizational Secretary,

All India Railway Employees Confederation,

107/76 Jawahar Nagar,

Kanpur.

And

The Divisional Railway Manager,

NCR,

Allahabad.

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, New Delhi vide notification

No.L-41011/29/2006-IR( B-I) dated 18.04.07 has referred

the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of North

Central Railway in refusing temporary status and CPC

scale to Sri Shiv Kumar from 1985 onwards is legal and

justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled

to?

In short the case of the workman is that he was

appointed for the first time on 17.05.84 at the post of

sweeper under Chief Goods Supervisor and continued

to work as such till 14.05.91 and on l5.5.91 he was

transferred at the same post at Ambiyapur. He was

again transferred at the same post under Station Suptd.

Bhaupur. According to Railway Boards Letter No. NG/

11-80/CM/25 dated 14.06.84 a railway employee after

completion of 120 days of continuous service he is

granted temporary status and the provisions of Railway

Servants Discipline and Appeal Rules becomes

enforceable and also he will be given CPC Scale. As

per records given by the opposite party concerned

workman had completed 240 days of service during

the period 07.06.85 to 31.12.85, but he was not greanted

the benefit of CPC scale as per policy of the railway

and he was given CPC scale in the year 1995. After

completion of 120 days of service an employee

becomes eligible for CPC Scale after screening such

employee is given CPC scale.

Therefore, union prays to grant of CPC scale to the

worker after completion of 120 days of continuous

service and he be also granted all related benefits as

per rules.

Opposite party has filed written statement in which

the claim of the workman was refuted on a number of

grounds. It is alleged that the workman had worked as

casual labour had never worked continuously for 120

days for grant of temporary status as such he is not

entitled for temporary status. Workers continuous

working for 240 days is also denied by the opposite

party. It is also stated by the opposite party that the

worker during the period 15.06.91 to 14.08.91 had

worked for 17 days, from 15.01.93 to 12.12.93 for 94

days and from 14.12.93 to 12.07.94 for 147 days and

the worker was screened on 15.03.95 and empanelled

vide panel O. 83/96. The worker was sent for medical

examination on 30.07.95 but being TB patient he was

not found medically fit and was given appointment as

safaiwala in roadside station. In the last it is stated

that the worker is not entitled for any relief.

The worker with his claim statement has filed paper

No. 4/5 to 4/10 which are in the nature of photocopies.

The worker has not appeared in the witness box to

prove his case and the documents which are in the

nature of photocopies cannot be considered as piece

of acceptable evidence.

Opposite party has also not adduced any evidence.

From the above discussion it appears that virtually it

is a case of no evidence and therefore, the workman

cannot be held entitled for any relief for want of proof.

10. Accordingly reference is bound to be answered against

the union/worker and in favour of the opposite party.

As such worker is not entitled for any relief.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1661-—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 lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

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

dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 32@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-08-2015 dks dk izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41012@11@2014&vkbZvkj¼ch&I]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th August, 2015

S.O. 1661.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishers the Award (Ref. No. 32/2004) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as shown

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of N.E. Railway and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 18.08.2015.

[No. L-41012/11/2014-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

3504

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 32 of 2004

Sri Hari Lal Son of Videshi,

Village Chakara,

Post Dohariya,

Distt. Gorakhpur,

And

The General Manager,

N.E. Railway,

Gorakhpur.

AWARD

1. Central Govt. Mol, New Delhi, vide notification No. L-

41012/11/2014-IR-(B-I) dated 10.06.2004, has referred the

following dispute for adudication to this tribunal.

2. Whether the action of the management of N.E. Railway

Gorakhpur, in terminating the services of Sri Hari Lal son

of Sri Videshi w.e.f. 15.10.83 is legal and justified? If not to

what relief the workman is entitled for?

3. In short the case of the workman is that he was

appointed at the post of Khalasi on 27.01.81 and was posted

at Khalilabad Railway Station. He was removed from service

with effect from 15.10.83 and during the period of his

employment he was utilized to work at the post. During the

period of his employment he was treated to be a regular

employee and he was paid his wages and other benefits

like a regular employee of the railway. It is also alleged by

the worker that he was engaged to work permanently and

he was river engaged for specific period. He is not award

of the fact that any seniority list was prepared by the

department. After his removal from service several fresh

intakes were given appointment by the opposite party. He

made several representations for his employment before

the authorities of the opposite party but all in vain. It is

also alleged by the worker that at the time of his removal

from the service neither he was given any notice, notice

pay or retrechment compensation as is provided under

section 25F of the Act, therefore his removal from service

is bad law and he is liable to be reinstated in the service of

the opposite party with full back wages and all

consequential benefits.

4. The opposite party has filed its reply against the

claim statement of the worker wherein it is alleged that the

worker was engaged as a casual khalasi on daily rate basis

under PWI Khalilabad. The work of the worker was of

temporary nature. Opposite party has admitted that the

worker had worked for 121 days. The work against the

worker was engaged was for a specific period for specific

work and after the completion of work his services stood

terminated automatically by efflux of time. Worker has never

worked against any regular post rather he was posted as

casual khalasi to work temporary. It is also stated by the

opposite party that as and when his name occurs according

to the seniority in the live register he will be considered for

regular appointment. he was appointed as casual khalasi

for specific project for specific work and on time bound

budgetary provision and as and when the project work is

completed the service of casual khalasi stood terminated

automatically by efflux of time. The claim of the worker is

highly belated and therefore is liable to be rejected on this

sole ground.

5. On the basis of above it has been prayed by the

opposite party that the worker is not entitled for any relief

as claimed by him.

6. The worker has filed service record paper No. 7/4

wherein he has been shown to have completed 121 days of

continuous service during the period 16.06.83 to 16.09.83.

He has also filed certain documents which are the guidelines

issued by Ministry of Transport Department of Railways

dated 11.09.86 on the subject of casual labour terms of

employment of.

7. Apart from above worker has also examined himself

as W.W.1, wherein he has corroborated the statement of

claim.

8. Management has not adduced any evidence in

support of their claim rather filed copy of judgment of Apex

Court in the case of Inder Pal Yadav versus Union of India

and other in writ petition No. 147, 320-69, 454, 4345-4434/83

etc. etc.

9. W.W 1 in his evidence stated that he was appointed

on 27.01.81 a Khalasi and his services were terminated on

15.10.83. He was appointed in regular service and was not

appointed for any specific period. His name was not

considered at the time of preparing seniority list and his

juniors were again appointed by the management. No cross-

examination has been conducted by the management and

they have not adduced any evidence. In written statement

it is alleged by the opposite party that the worker has

rendered his service for spcific project and for specific

period and after completion of project his services were

not required and came to an end on the end of project and

by efflux of time. It is further alleged that as per direction

given by Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra) that the matter of

project casual labour terms of employment was considered

and seniority list was prepared for taking services of

project casual labours if required. Worker has himself filed

paper No. 7/3 application given by him to General Manager

NE Railway Gorakhpur requesting for considering his name

in the sniority list for appointment and has also stated that

his name be show in the seniority list dated 01.04.85.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3505

10. Worker has failed to establish that he was appointed

against any regular vacancy as he has not filed any

documents to prove it and as he has moved application

paper No. 7/3 aforementioned it is evidence that he was

appointed for project work and that is the reason that his

name was found in seniority list as per direction of Hon'ble

Apex Court.

11. In this context the worker has filed record fo sevice

which is paper No. 7/4, wherein cause of discharge of the

service of the worker is mentioned as KARYA SAMAPTI

PER and it is also mentioned that he was engaged on

demand note which also establishes the case of the

management that the worker was engaged on time bound

project work and his sevice were not required after

completion of project and his name was recorded in the

of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which shall be taken in service

as and when required for another project. As such he was

neither appointed on any regular vacancy nor his service

ever terminated by the management.

12. As it is held that worker has not been appointed

against any regular vacancy for but was appointed for time

based project which came to an end by efflux of time,

therefore, he cannot be held entitled for any relief.

13. However, the management can again utilize his

service in any future project as per direction of the Hon'ble

Apex Court.

14. Reference is answered in above terms.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1662-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14 dh /kkjk 17½ ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad

izca/k ra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

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

dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 17@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-08-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@168@2007&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th August, 2015

S.O. 1662.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/2008) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur 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 18.08.2015.

[No. L-12012/168/2007-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Present : Sri Shubhendra Kumar, HJS

Industrial Dispute No. 17 of 2008

Between-

Sri Jugul Kishore,

Son of late Sri Beni Prasad,

R/o SBI Cmpound.

Elite Chauraha,

Civil Lines Jhansi.

And

The Regional Manager,

State Bank of India,

Main Branch,

Civil Lines, Jhansi.

AWARD

1. Central Government, vide notification No. L-12012/

168/2007-IR (B-I) dated 09,01.2008, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

2. Whether the action of the management of State Bank

of India viz. Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Jhansi,

& Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Jhansi, in refusing

to employ Sri Jugul Kishore son of late Sri Beni Prasad

from 02.02.06, is legal and justified? If not, what relief the

workman concerned is entitled to?

3. At the outset it may be pointed out here that by a bare

perusal of the language of the reference order it is quite

clear that the schedule of reference appears to be outside

the ambit and scope of section 2-A of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, as there is no mention of the fact that at any

point of time the workman had been terminated from the

service of the opposite party. Mere mention of the fact in

refusing to employ by the bank to the workman would not

ipso facto, brought the case of the workman within the

meaning of definition of term retrenchment. Therefore, on

this sole ground that workman cannot be held entitled for

any relief as claimed by him in his claim petition.

4. Now coming on the merit of the case, the claim of the

workman is that due to retirement of a permanent sweeper

by name Sri Guru, charan, post of sweeper became vacant

in SBI Main Branch, Jhansi. The claimant after completion

of all formalities and after approvel by the Assistant General

Manager, SBI, Zonal Office,Kanpur, he was engaged as

sweeper at Jhansi, in the month of March 1995. The applicant

from the date of his engagement continued to work

satisfactory.It is also alleged by the climant that from the

date of his engagement in each year he had worked more

than 240 days of continuous service. One other regular

employee by name Beni Prasad working at the post of

3506

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

sweeper on regular and permanent basis sought VRS on

31.03.2001 and in this way there remained two regular and

permanent post of sweeper as vacant. The Chief Manager,

of the bank vide letter dated 10.11.2004, wrote to the higher

authorities of the bank to regularize the services of the

claimant, but no action was taken thereon. It is also claimed

by the workman that the opposite party indulged in an

unfair labour practice because the main branch of the

opposite party is a big one and the officers of the bank

used to take work from the claimant against two posts of

sweepers by paying wages at Rs.1800/- per month. On the

assurances of the officers of the opposite party that he will

be regularized in the service of the bank he continued to

work in the bank but despite their assurances he was neither

regularized nor declared permanent employee of the bank.

The claimant continued to raise his request oral as well as

in writing to regularize him in the service of the bank but all

in vain and on action was taken by the opposite party to

his request.Against the demand of the claimant the officers

of the management became annoyed against him and by

oral order dated 02.02.06; they terminated the service of

the workman. At the time of termination of the services of

the workman, it was obligatory on the part of the opposite

party to have paid to the workman notice, notice pay and

retrenchment compensation as provided under section 25F

of the Act and since the management has breached the

provisions of section 25 F of the Act, the termination of the

service of the workman is a retrenchment. It is also alleged

that the action of the management is also violative of the

provision of section 25G of the Act, inasmuch as the

management allowed his junior Sri Rakesh in the serivce if

the bank. Not only it but the management also apponited

one Sri Ravi at the post of sweeper after the termination of

the serivce of the workman.

On the basis of above it is prayed by the workman

that the action of the management is against the provisions

of the Act, and in any view of the matter the workman is

entitled for protection of the provisions of the Act and

thus he be held entitled to be reinstated in the service of

the opposite party with full back wages, continuity of

service and all consequential benefits.

The claim of the workman has been refuted

vehenently by the opposite party on a number of grounds

viz., that the claimant had never worked in the office of

Regional Manager or Chief Manager, SBI Jhansi, therefore,

he had wrongly arrayed them as a party to the dispute and

also that the workman was ever refused employment by

the above concerns. As such the present claim is not

maintainable in the eye of law. Present matter is not aganist

the termination hence claimant connot get any relief from

this Hon’ble Court. Present dispute is not an industrial

dispute as such is not mantainable. There is no relationship

of employee and employer between the workman and the

bank. Workman did not work continuously for 240 days

either at Regional Manager, Jhansi or Chief Manager, SBI,

Jhansi in 12 calendar months, therefore, provisions of

section 25 F of the Act are not attracted. The authorities

who is claimed to have appointed the workman are not

competent to appoint the workman according to the rules

of the bank as there is a procedure for recruitment of

sweeper and service conditions of the bank employee are

governed by the Sashtri Award, Desai Award and Bipartite

Settlement. The workman was never engaged by the bank

as per setted procedure of the bank not he was paid wages.

No appointment letter was given to him by the bank. It is

also alleged by the opposite party that the claimant is trying

to seek back door entry in the service of the bank by

misusing the doors of this tribunal. On the case the bank

has reiterated the above points and no new point had been

pointed out against the claim petiton of the workman.

Lastly the bank has not disputed the letter dated

10.11.04, but stated that the recommendation was declined

by the Zonal Office.

On the basis of above it has been prayed by the

opposite party that the refernce should be answered against

the workman and in favour of the opposite party.

The opposite party vide affdavit dated 07.06.11

has filed documents paper No. 16/2-9 purported to be bills

and charges favoring Kasturi Builders for sweeping and

cleaning of the bank premises. Therefore from these

payment vouchers it is not at all clear as to whether these

payments were made in respect of the concerned workman

or not. Only from document No.16/5 it is clear that the

workman has received the payment of Rs.1800/- for the

period 01.08.03 to 31.08.2003 and from document No. 16/7 it

reveals that the workman prepared the bill but the amount

was received at Rs. 1800/- through some the kadar for the

period 01.10.03 to 22.10.03.

10.

The opposite party by means of affidavit dated

19.04.2011 has filed 28 original vocuhers for the period

01.06.2013 to 31.11.2005, In the affidavit it has also been

mentioned that vouchers relating to the month of August,

October, 2003, December, 2005 and January, 2006 could not

be treaced after best efforts.

11.

The opposite party has also filed paper No.

17/2-3 purported to be a letter dated 10.11.2004 written by

Chief Manager, SBI, Jhansi to the Assistant General

Manager, R. IV, SBI, Zonal Ofice, Kanpur on the subject of

provision of permanent sweeper, wherein by referring letters

of even numbers had stating that one permanent sweeper

by name Gurcharan retired on 31.12.91 and Sri Beni Prasad

another sweeper sought VRS and since then no full time

permanent sweepers are posted at the branch and the work

of sweeping and cleaning is being arranged at branch level

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3507

through Jugul son of Sri Beni Prasad and Sri Rakesh son of

Raja Ram (work of Farrash) on daily wages and the matter

was taken up time and again with the zonal office but no

full time sweeper and farrash are posted so far despite our

recommendation to appoint them for our branch.

12.

It may be pointed out here that according to

section 10(4) of the Act, the tribunal cannot travel beyond

the scope and ambit of the terms of the reference order. But

by a bare perusal of the pleadings of the workman it is

quite clear as if he is challenging his termination from the

service of the opposite party by seeking relief of

reinstatement whereas reference speaks otherwise. From

the reference order it reveals that it is the action which is

under challenge when the opposite party refused to employ

the workman from 02.02.2006, but it no where but it no

where speaks that at any point of time he was terminatied

from the service of the bank. But this plea has been taken

by the workman in his claim petition by stating that he was

terminated by the employer by oral order with effect from

02.02.06. Therefore, the plea that the employer terminated

the service of the worker is against the terms of reference

order, cannot be looked into as it is beyond the scope of

terms of reference order.

13.

Here it may be clarified that for examining the

action of the employer in case of termination of the services

of a daily rated employee, casual employee, temporary

employee what is required is to evaluate the evidence of

the parties and to find out whether such employee has

completed 240 days of continuous service and whether or

not he has been paid notice, notice pay or retrenchment

compensation at the time of his termination of service and

when after evaluation of evidence oral as well documentary

evidence it is found by the tribunal that workman has

established his claim, in that case the tribunal can allow

appropriate relief to such workman according to law as

tribunal deems fit and proper.

14.

Assuming the present case to be a case of

termination of the services of the workman, the tribunal

has also considered the evidence of the worker and the

opposite party. After evaluating the oral evidence of the

worker it is established that he had worked for 240 days of

continuous service preceding the alleged date of

termination of his service. This fact also stands proved

from the payment vocuchers filed in original by the bank

for the period 01.02.2005 to 30.11.2005 and also that the

worker was paid Rs. 1800/- per month.

15.

The workman has also filed his affidavit and has

examined himself as w.w.1 whereas the opposite party

examined Sri jitendra Kumar Verma as M.W.1.

16.

In his cross examination w.w.1 has clearly admitted

the fact that he has not filed any documents showing any

junior person was working in the bank. He has also admitted

that he worked up to Jan. 2006. Witness has expressed his

ignorance on paper No. 17/2-4 saying that he does not as

to what happen on this letter from Zonal Office. He further

admitted that on a number of vouchers it is mentioned that

he worked through contractor. The writing appearing on

these vouchers is not of his but admitted the fact that his

signatures are appearing thereon.

17.

Management witness in his evidence has stated

that the worker had never worked for 240 days preceding

12 calendar months from the date of termination of the service

of the workman but when this statement of the witness is

compared with documentary evidence filed by the bank, it is

clear that the statement of the witness is not correct.

18.

Be that as it may, the evidence oral as well as

documentary lead by the contesting parties in the case,

cannot improve the case of the workman in any manner

that he had worked continuously for 240 days and he has

been removed from the service of the bank in breach of the

provisions of Section 25F of Act, therefore, he is entitled to

the relief of reinstatement.

19.

As already in the para 3 of the award it has already

been observed by the tribunal that in the light of the reference

order the workman is not entitled for the relief as claimed by

him as it goes contrary to terms of reference order.

20.

Therefore, in view of above discussion, it is held

that although the workman has been found to have worked

for more than 240 days of continuous service, still he cannot

be granted any relief of any nature whatsoever, because

from the reference order it is quite clear that it is not posing

the question of justification of the action of the bank

regarding termination of the service.

21.

Reference is therefore, answered against the

worker and in favour of the bank.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1663-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj iwoZ jsyos

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 dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 33@2004½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-08-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41012@1@2004&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th August, 2015

S.O. 1663.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/2004) of the Cent.

3508

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as shown

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of N.E. Railway and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 18.08.2015.

[No. L-41012/1/2004-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

KANPUR

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 33 OF 2004

Between

Sri Ram Pyarey son of Sri Tirath,

Village & Post Rawat Bheeti,

Sahjanwa,

District Gorakhpur

And

The General Manager,

NE Railway,

Gorekhpur

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide

notification No. L-41012/1/2004-IR(B-1) dated 07.06.04,

has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this

tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of NE

Railway, Gorakhpur, through Dy. Chief Engineer (Const)

Survey Gorakhpur in terminating the services of Sri Ram

Pyarey son of Sri Teerath w.e.f. 16.04.82 is legal and

justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled for?

It is alleged by the workman that he was

appointed the post of Khalasi on 17.11.80, under

Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction & Survey) N.E. Railway

Gorakhpur, and continued to work till 15.4.82. He was

treated at par with those of regular and permanent railway

employee belonging to his category and received all wages

and facilities from the opposite party as are given to

regular employees. A seniority list of workers was prepared

by the opposite party on 01.04.85 in which his name is

appearing. It is also alleged that the services of the

workman were dispensed with by the opposite party with

effect from 15.04.84, without any reason, without notice,

notice pay or retrenchmnt compensation, hence his

termination from service is in breach of provision of section

25F of the Act, and therefore, the action of the management

is liable to be held as illegal and unjustified and the

workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with full

back wages, continuity of service and all consequential

benefits.

Opposite party filed their reply in which in para

19 and 20, after denying the working of the workman

against regular post it is stated that the engagement of

the workman was against a sanctioned project for

specified period for which budgetary provisions are made

to complete the work within specific period and after

completion of the project the services of the workman

stood automatically terminated by efflux of time. The work

on which the workman was engaged was not of permanent

nature. The workman was removed from the service after

providing him notice dated 27.03.82 and he was also paid

compensation as provided under law and that the claim

of the workman is highly belated, hence is liable to be

dismissed.

5. During pendency of the case claimant Ram Pyarey

had expired and an application was given by his wife

Smt. Mohra for substituting her which was allowed on

02.07.08.

It is pertinent to mention here that the workman

has not adduced any evidence in support of his claim.

Mere filing of affidavit by the workman and certain

photocopies of documents, no cognizance of it can be

taken in the eye of law unless he it is proved. Under these

circumstances, it can be safely held that it is a case where

workman has not adduced evidence in support of his

claim.

Management has also not adduced any

evidence.

In view of position explained above, it is crystal

clear that it is a case of no evidence and the workman

cannot be held entitled for any relief for want of evidence.

Reference is answered accordingly against the

workman.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1664-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

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

mÙkj e/; jsyos 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 dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 43@2007½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-08-2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41012@44@2007&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th August, 2015

S.O. 1664.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/2007) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as shown

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3509

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of North Central Railway and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 18.08.2015.

[No. L-41012/44/2007-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 43 of 07

Between -

Sri Riya at Ali son of Sri Shaukat Ali, Village & Post Rura,

Ward No. 2 Kanpur Dehat.

And

The Divisional Railway Manager,

North Central Railway,

Allahabad and others.

AWARD

1. Central Government. Mol, New Delhi vide notification

No. L-41012/44/2007-IR (B-1) dated 06-09-07, has referred

the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

2. Whether the action of the management of Divisional

Railway Manager NCR, Allahabad in refusing to employ

Sri Riyasat Ali son of Sri Shaukat Ali as Casual Khalasi or

in any other suitable alternative job with effect from

07.01.2003 onwards is legal and justified? If not to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled?

3. In short the case of the workman is that he was

appointed as casual khalasi on 06.04.75, under PWI,

Northern Railway Phaphund and during the closure of work

he met which a accident by 55 UP Assam mail due to which

he sustained serious injuries in his left leg. He was

hospitalized at Rura for preliminary medical treatment where

after he was referred for his regular treatment at Loco

Hospital, Kanpur. Subsequently he was referred to railway

hospital at Allahabad and was admitted there. He was

discharged from the hospital on 11.10.77 for joining his

duty. According to the workman this would mean that he

was held medically fit for resuming his duties otherwise

doctors would not have recommended him for his duty

and he again joined his duties under PWI Phaphund. The

railway authorities keeping in view of the fact that his left

was injured in rail accident allowed him light duty as

chowkidar where he worked continuously up to 1980.

Without showing any cogent reasons services of the

workman were transferred with effect from 24.12.80 with

direction to join under Signal Inspector (D) Etawah. The

workman had acquired temporary status and his services

were terminated by the railway administration along with

one Sheo Kumar on 11.05.88 without showing any cause

and without Complying with the provisions of the

Act.Workman raised an industrial dispute which was

referred to this Tribunal by appropriate government for

adjudication and the tribunal in its award held that the

workman had acquired temporary status as he worked

continuously till 11.05.88, therefore, his termination is bad

in law being in breach of the provisions of Sec. 25F of the

I.D. Act, Accordingly he was reinstated in service with full

back wages that was drawn by him on the date of

termination. Thereafter he was reinstated in service vide

letter dated 17.07.2002 and he was paid his entire back

wages. It is alleged that with malafide intention to remove

his service illegally the railway administration again sent

the workman for medical examination twice and the

workman on the provocation of the officers under whom

he worked was declared medically unfit for category B1, B2

and below. The worker got medically axamined himself

through Dr. K.C. Goel who after examining him put his

remark that workman is fit in all respect and he can walk on

his own, his eye and ear are normal and photocopy of the

said certificate is enclosed. He was again removed from the

service of the railway with a view to prevent him to enjoy

the fruits of the award under the garb of medical

examination. At any rate the action of the opposite party is

not justified and fair and in all respect he is entitled for his

reinstatement on some alternative post with full back

wages, seniority and all consequential benefits.

4.The calim of the workman has been vehemently refuted

by the opposite party on a number of grounds viz. the

workman was referred for medical examination before railway

doctor and there he was declared medically unfit by the

doctor, It is admitted by the railway that the worker was

allowed light work on his reinstatement; transfer and

posting of an employee is the prerogative of the

administration therefore, if the worker was transferred to

Etawah no illegality can be said to have been committed by

the railway administration; it is deneid by the opposite

party that services of the worker were terminated without

any reason rather hard fact remain that he was medically

declared unfit for B1, B2 and all category; if the worker was

not satisfied with the report of the doctors he should have

claimed for Medical Board; private medical certificate is

not accepted by the railway as railway has its own doctors

and hospitals; the services of the worker has been

terminated as per law as he was declared medically unifit

for B1 and B2 category and below and as the claim of the

worker has already been decided by this tribunal in

I.D. No. 216 of 90, hence the present case is liable to be

dismissed without any relief to the worker.

5. Rejoinder statement has also been filed by the worker

but nothing new has been stated therein.

6. The worker has filed documents paper no. 12/6-13 on

affidavit.

3510

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7. He has also filed his evidence on affidavit but since

none appeared on behalf of the railway administration to

cross examine him, opportunity to cross was closed by the

tribunal vide order dated 24.03.14.

8. I have heard the learned representative for the worker

at length and have also perused the whole record carefully.

None present for the railway to argue the case.

9. It is admitted by the railway that the workman was

appointed as casual khalasi on 06.04.75, under PWI,

Northern Railway, Rura. It is also admitted by the railway in

their reply that the services of the worker were terminated

according to law as the worker was declared medically unfit

1 B1, B2 and below and he was not found fit in any category.

10. It is also pertinent to mention here that worker has

summoned serveral documentary records from the opposite

party which includes documents relating his service and

his treatment and this application was allowed on 17.03.11

but called for documents were not filed by the opposite

party as such tribunal vide order dated 19.04.12 held that

necessary inference shall be taken to the appropriate stage.

11. It is further pertinent to mention that worker has

examined himself as w.w.1 supporting his case as alleged in

the claim statement but no cross examination done by the

opposite party and also opposite party has not examined

any witness I support of their case and union has not filed

medical examination report of the worker declaring him

totally unfit as alleged by the opposite party. Cantrary to it

worker he filed his medical examination report dated 22.06.04

obtained through a private medical practitioner, wherein it

mentioned that he can walk on his own and he cannot run

normally and his eye and ear are in normal limits and he is

free from any skin disease. As alleged by the worker in his

evidence that he was removed from service earlier on

medical grounds on 11.05.88 which was challenged before

this tribunal in I.D. No. 216 of 90, and the award was

recorded in his favor on 24.07.97 with back wages and all

consequential benefits. Thereafter the management has

taken him in service on 17.02.02. He was again referred for

medical examination and after examination he was found

medically unit in Category B1 ad B2 and again by order

dated 17.01.03 he was removed from service on medical

ground.

12. In railway manual it is provided that if any employees

in injured in accident, he will be given lighter work. He has

filed paper No. 15/3 which is the copy of order of removal

of worker on medical ground dated 05.01.03. He has also

filed copy of award of this tribunal dated 24.02.97 in I.D.

No. 216 of 90, which is paper no. 4/3 and has also filed copy

of reinstatement order in compliance of award of this

tribunal which is paper No. 4/13.

13. As the opposite party has not cross examined the

worker and also has not adduced any evidence in the case,

the evidence of the workman remains un-controvered and

can be believed.

14. Rule 152 of Establishment Rules is on the subject of

alternative appointment to the medically unfitted staff and

their seniority which, envisages that an alternative job must

be offered to a Railway servant, who has failed in vision

test or has been otherwise declared physically unfit to

continue in a particular post. Only that alternative job

should be offered to him which he is capable to perform. If

no suitable alternative job is immediately available, he

should be given leave in order to find out one. Such leave

shall is granted according to ordinary rule, but where a

railway servant has less than six months leave to his credit,

such leave shall be made up to six months by grant of extra

ordinary leave without pay. Effort must be made during

this period to find a suitable alternative job for him. The

emoluments of the alternative job should be reasonable,

keeping the former emoluments in view.

15. In view of above discussion the action of the

management of Divisional Railway Manager, NCR,

Allahabad in refusing to employ Sri Riyasat Ali son of Sri

Shaukat Ali as casual khalasi or in any other suitable

alternative job with effect from 07.01.2003 onwards is neither

legal nor justified. Accordingly the workman is held entitled

for his reinstatement in service with full back wages and all

consequential benefits according to Rule 152 of

Establishment Rules (supra) and he is entitled for an

alternative job under the railway administration according

to his suitability for the job considering his physical

disability as was done earlier when he was reinstated in the

service of the railway in compliance of award of this tribunal

in I.D. Case No. 216/90 decided on 24.02.97 by this

tribunal.

16. Reference is answered accordingly in favor of the

workman and against the railway administration.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1665-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj iwoZ jsyos

izca/kra= ds lc) fu;kstdksas 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 22@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,yñ & 41011@24@2014 & vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2015

S.O. 1665.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2014) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3511

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of North Eastern Railway and their

workman, received by the Central Government on

19/08/2015.

[No. L-41011/24/2014 - IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

LUCKNOW

Present

Rakesh Kumar, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 22/2014

Ref. No. L-41011/24/2014-IR(B-1) dated: 31.03.2014

Between

Anchal Sangthan Secretary

Rail Sevak Sangh

C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi

49, Tilak Nagar

Lucknow.

(Espousing cause of Sri Hari Ram Prasad)

And

1. Sr. Divisional 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-41011/24/2014-IR(B-1) dated: 31.03.2014

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 Disptues 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 gfj jke izlkn

iq= Jh jke vkljs] 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 22.05.2014 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 Sri 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-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. The authorized representative of the workman's

union sought time to consult the workman; and accordingly,

the case was taken up on 24.07.2015 at Lok Adalat. The

Authorized representative of 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 been accepted

by the Rly management, the further proceeding of case

may 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 to be given to the workman concerned. The

reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

3512

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

9. Award as above.

Lucknow.

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

05th August, 2015

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1666-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos 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]

y[kuÅ ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼43@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41011@04@2013 & vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2015

S.O. 1666.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 43/2013) of the

Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Northern Railway and their workman,

received by the Central Government on 19/08/2015.

[No. L-41011/04/2013 - IR(B-1)

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

Shri Rakesh Kumar, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 43/2013

Ref No. L-41011/04/2013-IR(B-I) dated: 21.05.2013

BETWEEN

The General Secretary

Rail Sewak Sangh

49, Tilak Nagar,

Lucknow

(Espousing cause of Shri Rajeev Kumar)

AND

The Chief Works Manager,

(C&W) Workshop, Northern Railway

Alambagh, Lucknow.

The Dy. Chief Personnel Officer

(C&W) Workshop, Northern Railway

Alambagh, Lucknow.

AWARD

1. By order No. L-41011/04/2013-IR (B-I) dated: 21.05.2013

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) refered this

industrial dispute between the General Secretary, Rail Sewak

Sangh, 49, Tilak Nagar, Lucknow and the Chief Works

Manager, (C&W) Workshop, Northern Railway, Alambagh,

Lucknow & the Dy. Chief Personnel Officer, (C & W)

Workshop, Northern Railway, Alambagh, Lucknow for

adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the action of the Management of Northern

Railway, Lucknow in not including the name of Workman

Shri Rajeev Kumar S/o Shri Manji Ram, Technician Grade

III Carpenter-I No. 486 in the list of candidates to appear

in written test for the post of 25% quota of intermediate

Apprentice to be held on 18.12.2011, is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled

to?"

3. The order of reference was endorsed, by the Central

Government, to the General Secretary, Rail Sewak Sangh,

49, Tilak Nagar, Lucknow with direction to the party raising

the dispute to filed the statement of claim along with

relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with the

Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of the order of

reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to

each one of the opposite parties involved in this dispute

under rule 10 (B) of the Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules,

1957.

4. The order of reference was registered in this Tribunal

on 13.06.2013 and the office was directed to issue registered

notice to the workman' union for filing the statement of

claim with list of reliance & list of witnesses on 01.08.2013;

but no statement of claim together with documents etc.

was filed 01.08.2013, in spite of registered notice dated

18.06.2013; and the next date 20.09.2013 was fixed for further

order. None turned up on behalf of the workman's union on

successive dates i.e. on 20.09.2013, 11.11.2013, 26.12.2013,

11.02.2014, 15.04.2014, 04.06.2014, 28.07.2014, 12.09.2014,

14.11.2014 and 19.01.2015. However, Shri D.P. Awasthi

turned up on behalf of the workman's union on 23.03.2015

and sought time; but on subsequent date, he mentioned

his unwillingness to contest the case and made an

endorsement to the effect accordingly.

5. The union did not move any application or

adjournement seeking time to file the statement of claim;

moreover, it has "not pressed" the case. More than two

year's time has passed and the workman's union has failed

to file its statement of claim, therefore, the case was reserved

for award keeping in view the endorsement of the workman's

union.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3513

6. Therefore, in view of the endorsement, made by the

representative if the workman's union, it appears that the

workman's union does not want to pursue its claim on the

basis of which it has raised the present industrial dispute;

therefore, the present reference order is decided as if there

is no grievance left with the workman's union. Resultantly

no relief is required to be given to the workman concerned.

The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

7. Award as above.

Lucknow

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

03rd August, 2015.

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1667-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj iwoZ jsyos ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqcaè esa

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

y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 31@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41011@31@2014&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2015

S.O. 1667.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. (31/2014) of the

Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of North Eastern Railway and

their workman, received by the Central Government on

19/08/2015.

[No. L-41011/31/2014-IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

LUCKNOW

PRESENT

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 31/2014

Ref No. L-41011/31/2014-IR(B-I) dated: 06.05.2014

BETWEEN

Anchal Sangthan Secretary

Rail Sewak Sangh

C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi

49, Tilak Nagar

Lucknow

(Espousing cause of Mo. Shafat Ullah)

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-41011/31/2014-IR (B-I) dated: 06.05.2014

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

industial 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 eksñ 'kQ+kr mYykg

iq= eksñ 'kjkQr mYykg vèhu] lQ+kbZokyk dks iqjkuh isa'ku u

nsdj ubZ isa'ku fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa oSè 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, lits of reliance and

witnesses before Tribunal on 17.07.2014 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 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. The authorized representative of the workman's

3514

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

union sought time to consult the workman; and accordingly,

the case was taken up on 24.07.2015 at Lok Adalat. The

Authorized representative of 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 settle;

and made an endorsement thereupon as under:

"Since the relief claimed by the Union is been accepted

by the Railway management, the further proceeding of

case may kindly be dropped."

8. In view of the submission/endorsement of the

workmán'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

05th August, 2015

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1668-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947] 1947 dk

14 dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mrj jsyos ds izcaèra=

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

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k] y[kuÅ ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 38@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 19@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41011@107@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2015

S.O. 1668.—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 Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Northern Railway and their workman,

received by the Central Government on 19/08/2015.

[No. L-41011/107/2010-IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

PRAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 38/2011

Ref. No. L-41011/107/2010-IR(B-I) dated 14.03.2011

Between :

Mandal Sangatan Mantri, Uttar Railways

Karmachari Union, 283/63, KH, Gadi

Kannora (Premvati Nagar), Manak Nagar

Lucknow-16

And

Sr. Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel)

Northern Railway.

Hazratganj

Lucknow (U.P.)

AWARD

By order No. L-41011/107/2010-IR(B-I) dated

14.03.2011 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 Mandal Sangatan Mantri,

Uttar Railway Karmchari Union, 283/63 KH Gadi Kannora,

Manak Nagar, Lucknow 16 and the Sr. Divisional Railway

Manager (Personnel) Northern Railway, Hazratganj,

Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the Demand of Union Regarding Placing Sri

Mangal Prasad S/o Sri Sukh Lal, Assistant Loco Pilot,

Loco Shed, Lucknow in the Penal of the Year 1983-84

Above his Juniors, is Legal and Justified? To what Relief

the Workman is Entitled"

On reeiving reference from the government, ID

case was registered by the then Hon'ble Presiding Officer

on 01.04.2011. Notices were sent through registered post

to the parties. The workman has filed claim statement (W-4)

wherein it has been stated that he was appointed on the

post of cleaner on 26.03.1978 and worked till 03.09.1981, he

had worked for 1282 days. It has been alleged that the

workman was illegally retrenched on 04.09.1981, he filed

the case before CGIT, Kanpur as I.D. 48/83, CGIT, Kanpur

decided the case in his favour vide award dated 19.02.1987

and 25.11.1985. Management filed writ petition before

Hon'ble High Court which was dismissed and SLP filed in

Hon'ble Supreme Court has also been dismissed. It has

further been stated that during the pendency of aforesaid

industrial dispute the workman was reinstated on 03.04.1984,

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3515

he was regularized vide order dated 30.08.1991, while other

junior workmen were adjusted in the penal of year 1983-84,

thereby violating of fair labour practice and causing

prejudice to the applicant workman. The applicant has also

stated that similarly Amarjeet Singh and Abdul Aziz were

also adjusted in the year 1992, but in pursuance of the

Hon'ble CAT, Lucknow in OA 466/1991 & 510/93, they were

regularized in the year 1983-84. Other workman Sri Pratap

Bahadur and Sri Ahmad Ali in furtherance of the direction

given by Hon'ble CGIT, Lucknow in I.D. 28/04 & 12/05 they

have been adjusted in the year 1983-84 penal. With the

above pleadings the workman has prayed to get him

regularized in the year 1983-84 penal with all consequential

benefits and back wages etc...

The management has filed written statement,

wherein it has been admitted that the workman was engaged

as daily rated casual about alongwith many other workers

who had got the job by fraudulent means. The Railway

Administration found that they have been engaged on the

basis of fake and fictitious papers so the matter was referred

to Vigilance branch and the services of the workers were

terminated on 04.09.1981.

It has also been stated in the written statement

that some of the workers including applicant preferred a

I.D. Case No. 48 of 1983 before CGIT, Kanpur and got award

on 01.01.1987 in their favour, The Railway Administration

reengaged the applicant as well as other similarly situated

workers and provided them all service benefits after

empanelment and screening which is necessary as per

Railway Rules, However the worker is re-engaged prior to

the Award passed by the Presiding Officer, CGIT, Kanpur

as he himself admitted in the claim statement. The union

which is unrecognized in the Railway Administration and

no locus standi to raise the industrial dispute and sought a

relief which is not legally tenable. The industrial dispute is

referred after lapse of more than 25 years without any rhyme

and reason or without any good cause of condonation of

delay. The present industrial dispute is liable to be rejected

on the point of limitation. The present demand of worker is

not legally maintainable because of as per Railway Rule

2511 and amended para 2511(1), in which the seniority inter

se-Determination is clearly mention and upon the same

Railway Rule Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

M.Ramakotiah and other versus Union of India and other

cited in 2007(6) AWC 6556 (SC) provided that the seniority

of worker to be reckoned from the date of their regular

appointment.

The management has emphasized that in

compliance of the direction given by Hon'ble Supreme Court

2007 (6) AWC 6556 M. Ramakotiah and other versus Union

of India and others, the seniority matter has to be determined

accordingly.

The management has further stated that I.D.

Award No. 48/1983 which was decided on 01.01.1987 and

in the award the name of applicant is mentioned alongwith

206 other workers and Railway Administration has given

the benefits of Award to the workers, which were

permissible. The worker union sought the relief for posting

of cleaner by mentioning the name in the list of 1983-84

(Panel), which is not possible because the seniority of other

employees will be effected and they are not arreyed as

party in present industrial dispute and if the relief is granted

several other workers may prefer the matter in courts

because of their seniority will also be effected. In this

concern several employees alongwith S.N. Chaurasia

preferred a writ petition before Hon'ble High Court,

Lucknow Bench, Lucknow against the interpolation of

worker Pratap Bahadur in the panel of 1983-84. The matter

is subjudice and pending before Hon'ble High Court.

The management has emphasized that in the light

of the direction given by Hon'ble Supreme Court the present

claim is misconceived and liable to be rejected with special

cost.

Thereafter rejoinder W6 was filed with strong

denial of the grounds taken in the written statement while

reiterating the pleadings of the claim statement.

10.

The management alongwith M-7 has filed several

documents. The workman Mangal Prasad filed affidavit

W-8 in evidence. Several opportunity was provided to the

workman to appear in the court for his cross examination

but he did not turn up, consequently my learned

predecessor on 16.04.2014 closed the opportunity of his

cross examination and case was fixed for management

evidence. Since the workman was never present for his

cross examination, therefore the management also preferred

not to adduce any evidence.

11.

The workman despite being giving sufficient

opportunity, failed to adduce any evidence before this

Tribunal in support of claim statement. Therefoer the

demand of the union for refixation of the workman Mangal

Prasad in the panel year 1983-84, can not be termed as legal

and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief. The

version taken by management in written statement appears

to be more reasonable and cogent.

12.

Under the circumstances and the facts mentioned

herein, no relief is legally required to be given to the

applicant/workan Sh. Mangal Prasad. The reference under

adjudication is answered as No. Claim Award.

13.

Award as above

Lucknow

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

05.08.2015

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1669-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,u,ch,vkjMh

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

3516

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 148@95½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@113@94&vkbZ vkj ¼chñ 1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2015

S.O. 1669.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 148/95) of the Cen.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Nabard, and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 19/08/2015.

[No. L-12012/113/94-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/148/95

Shri Punnuram Chouhan,

In front of Janta Quarter 22

Harshwardhan Nagar,

Bhopal.

....Workman

Versus

The DGM,

NABARD,

Behind Habibganj Police Station,

Bhopal

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 2nd day of July 2015

As per letter dated 7.8.95 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/

113/94-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of District

General Manager, Nabard, Bhopal in terminating the

services of Shri Punnuram Chouhan w.e.f. 4-11-91 is justified

or not? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 2/1 to 2/5. Case of workman is that he was appointed

on 22-10-88 on pay of Rs. 600 per month for electrical work

in residential buildings by IInd party as per letter dated

29-3-98, workman was also appointed to look after

maintence work of sub-station. He was appointed on pay

of Rs. 1200 per month. His work was satisfactory. There

was no complaint from any corner. His services were orally

terminated from 5-11-91 without assigning reasons. The

application submitted by workman on 13-11-91, 14-11-91,

19-11-91 were not replied. IInd party did not consider his

representations. Termination of his service is in violation

of principles of natural justice. He was not given

oppportunity of hearing. When dispute was raised before

ALC, IInd party filed reply contending that workman was

engaged on contract basis, any contract was not produced.

Workman prays for his reinstatement with consequential

benefits.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/6

opposing claim of the workman. IInd party contented that

is not an industry covered under ID Act. Ist party is not

covered as workman uner ID Act. IInd party is corporation

established under Nationalised Bank for Agricultural and

Rural Development Act 1981. Workman as engaged as

contractor to attend the complaints of the residents of the

Bank's staff quarters relating to electrical works. Initially

he was engaged at Rs. 600 per month, subsequently

workman was awarded contract for attending work of

additional quarters. It was agreed to pay Rs. 750 per month

to the workman. from 23-7-89, the contract of maintenance

was awarded to him. There is no employee relationship. It

is reiterated that workman was required to attend

maintenance work of electric in staff colony. He was to

attend complaint of residents. Workman was not appointed

as employee for doing regular jobs. He was engaged for

maintenance of electrical work. it is denied that workman

was appointed by IInd party at Rs. 1200 per month.There

was no question of his satisfactory work as the Ist party

was not employee of the Bank. There was no question of

issuing chargesheet or conducting enquiry against

workman. It is contented that M/s Reliable services were

doing maintenance work in staff colony since July 1989.

IInd party No. 2 Dy. General Manage not appointed the

workman. Mr. Ghosh, Development Authority have no

authority to appoint workman. The claim of workman is not

tenable.

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 establishment

of IInd party is covered under

Section 2(aa) of ID Act?

In Affirmative

(ii) Whether the action of the

management of District

General Manager,

NABARD, Bhopal in

terminating the services

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3517

of Shri Punnuram

Chouhan w.e.f. 4-11-91 is

justified?

In Negative

(iii) If so, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?"

As per final order.

REASONS

5. IInd party has contented that it is not corporation

established under Nationalised Bank for Agricultural and

Rural Development Act 1981.

6. Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness

Shri Sudhir Kumar Jannawar has stated that NABARD is

not an industry covered under ID Act and Ist party is not

workman under ID Act. Ist party was independent

contractor. The affidavit of evidence of managment's

witness is silent what activities are carried by NABARD.

Section 2(j) of ID Act defines industry—

"Industry" means any business, trade, undertaking,

manufacture or calling of employers and includes any

calling, service, employment, handicarft, or industrial

occupation or avocation of workman;

The definition includes was amended as per Act 46 of

1982. As per amended Section 2(c) of said Act, Industry

means—

"industry" means any systematic activity carried on by

co-operation between an employer and his workmen

(whether such workmen are employed by such employer

directly or by or through any agency, including a

contractor) for the production, supply or distribution of

goods or services with a view to satisfy human wants

or wishes (not being wants or wishes which are merely

spiritual or religious in nature), whether or not,—

(i)

any capital has been invested for the purpose of

carrying on such activity; or

(ii) such activity is carried on with a motive to make

any gain or profit, and includes—

(a) any activity of the Dock Labour Board

established under section 5A of the Dock

Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948

(9 of 1948);

(b) any activity relating to the promotion of sales

or business or both carried on by an

establishment, but does not include—

(1) any agricltural operation except where

such agricultural operation is carried on

in an integrated manner with any other

activity (being any such activity as is

referred to in the foregoing provisions of

this clause) an such other activity is the

predominant one,

The pleadings in written Statement filed by IInd party

and evidence by management are silent that it is engaged

in any kind of sovereign functions of the Government or

institutions which are excluded under amended Section

2(j) of ID Act. In absence of such evidence, the contentions

of IInd party that it is not an industry under ID Act cannot

be accepted. Therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1 in

Affirmative.

Point No. 2- workman has filed affidavit of evidence

that he was appointed on 22-10-88 on pay Rs. 600 per month

for looking after the electrical work. As per letter dated

29-3-89, he was temporarily appointed to look after electrical

works at Sub Station and residential quarters. He was

appointed on pay Rs. 1200 per month. His services were

orally discontinued from 5-11-91. His representations were

not considered by IInd party. He worked continuously more

than 3 years. In his cross-examination, workman says his

work was to look after electrical implements. He admits his

signature at M-1 marked by letters A-A. He was not

engaged for work of cleaning water tank. He was doing

said work in directions of the Higher officers. He was

getting said work done through labours, the payment was

made to him. First he was submitting estimate. He was

getting some material from office, some material he used to

purchase from market. Workman denied that he was

engaged as contractor. he denied that he was also taking

other work on contract. He was paid Rs. 40 per day. In his

further cross-examination, workman says initially he was

paid Rs. 600 per month. Sometimes he was paid Rs. 1350

inclusive of overtime. He was not getting allowances. PF

contribution was not deducted from his pay. After July 90,

he had done electrical work in the colony. He admits his

signature at M-5 to M-10. That he received payment by

cheque. Letter Exhibit M-10 was written by him. He admits

his signature shown by letters A-A. the evidence of

workman that he was working with IInd party from

22-10-88 to 4-11-90 is not shattered.

8. IInd party has contented that workman was engaged

as contractor for maintenance of electrical works in the

colony. The affidavit of evidence of managements witness

Shri Sudhir Kumar Jannawar is filed. Management's witness

in his cross examination says that attendance register is

maintained for clerks and peons. Exhibit M-1© is copy of

Attendance Register. Register of payment is maintained

by the Bank. That no enquiry was made by the Bank about

signature marked by letter A-A, the bank maintains cash

book, ledger. The Bank did not produce leave register.

Management's witness in his affidavit says that Shri

H.P.Ghosh Development Officer has no authority to

appoint anyone including workman as employee for casual

type of work. That document filed by workman are

fabricated. The electrical maintenance is carried out on

contract basis, no appointment was made for said work.

3518

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

9. Exhibit marked by letter A is clear that workman was

engaged for electrical work in residential quarters at

Rs. 600 per month. As per letter Exhibit B, the workman was

appointed as electrician for maintenance of sub station

and building by Development Officer Shri H.P.Ghosh.

Those documents contradict evidence of workman. the

evidence of management's witness that documents

produced by workman are fabricated, forged is not

supported by cogent evidence. In view that workman was

appointed as per document Exhibit B, relationship of

employer employee is established. IInd party has not

produced documents about engagement of workman on

contract basis. workman defined under Section 2(s) of ID

Act. The definition is produced as under:—

"Workman means any person including an apprentice

employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled,

skill, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work

for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be

express or implied and for the purpose of any proceeding

under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes

any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or

retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of,

that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment

has led to that dispute, but doesnot include any such

person—

(i)

Who is subject to Air force Act, 1950 or the Army

Act, 1950 or

(ii) Who is employed in the police service or as an

officer or other employee of a prison, or

(iii) Who is employed mainly in a managerial or

administrative capacity or

(iv) Who being employed in a supervisory capacity,

draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred

rupee per mensem or exercises a either by the nature

of the duties attached to the officer or by reason of

the power vested in him, functions mainly of a

managerial nature."

The workman engaged on pay Rs.600 per month for

maintenance of electrical work is saquarely covered as

workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act. The contentions of

IInd party cannot be accepted. The bunch of citations are

produced. Considering the evidence discussed above, the

detailed discussion of ratio held in citations is not

necessary. The evidence clearly shown that workman was

continuously working with IInd party from 22-10-88 till

November 1981. His services are terminated without notice

is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Therefore I record

my finding in Points No.2 in Negative.

10. Point No.3— In view of my finding in points No. 2,

the services of workman are terminated in violation of

section 25-F of ID Act, question arises whether he is entitled

for reinstatement with backwages. The evidence clearly

shows workman was appointed for maintenance of electrical

work on Rs.600 per month enhanced time to time. workman

was also engaged for maintenance work at sub station. He

worked more than 3 years. There is no evidence that

workman was paid retrenchment compensation or

termination notice was issued to him. considering the short

spam of working, workman was not appointed on pay scale

as regular employee of the Bank, resinstatement of workman

would not be appropriate. Considering working for about 3

year, compensation Rs. 60,000 would be reasonable.

Accordingly I record my finding in point No.3.

11. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The action of the management of District General

Manager, NABARD, Bhopal in terminating the services of

Shri Punnuram Chouhan w.e.f. 4-11-91 is not proper.

(2) 2nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 60,000/-

to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1670-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k iwoZ jsyos ds

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

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

tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼295@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41012@158@99&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2015

S.O. 1670.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 295/99) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jablapur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial Dispute

between the the management of South Eastern Railway

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

19/08/2015.

[No. L-41012/158/99-IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3519

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/295/99

Shri B. Bangaraiah,

Ex-Bungalow Peon,

Small Hut Nr. Rly Qtrs No. 903/1,

A Type Quaters,

New Construction Colony,

Bilaspur (MP)

.....Workman

Versus

Dy. Chief Signal and Telelcommunications

Engineer (Construction),

South Eastern Railway,

Bilaspur (MP)

.....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 18th day of June 2015

1. As per letter dated 30-8-99 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-41012/158/99/IR(B-I). The dispute under reference

relates to:

"Whether the action of the Dy. C.S.T.E. (Const) Bilaspur

in terminating the services of Shri B. Bangaraiah,

workman w.e.f. 5-9-1997 is justified? If not, to what relief

the said workman is entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 2/3 to 2/14. Case of workman is that he passed SCC

Certificate Exam in October 1992. His date of birth is 19-6-75.

After screening of the proposal by SDE, he was appointed

on 16-1-97. He was posted as Bunglow peon in office of

Dy. CSE, Bilaspur. He was engaged as bunglow peon on

daily rate pay from 16-1-97. After completing 180 days

service he was given temporary status of Railway

employees. After getting temporary status, workman was

given regular scale benefit as per Vth Pay Commission

from July 97 onwards. The workman was medically examined

on 21-1-97 without any chargesheet, order of his termination

was issued on 5-9-97. Workman submits that he was not

given any letter of warning, he was not allowed hearing

before issuing termination order. The order of his

termination is high handed act. It is arbitrary. Workman

reiterates that he approached various authorities, SC ST

Commission and appeal to higher authorities. He did not

get response. He had also challenged order of his

termination filing appeal on 1-1-1998. His appeal was

rejected. Principles of natural justice were denied in his

matter. That as per section 25 B of ID act, employer has to

maintain muster roll of the workman. That casual labour

treated as temporary staff are entitled to all rights and

benefits admissible to temporary railway servants. That no

enquiry was conducted against him before terminating his

services. That General Manager is Appointing Authority.

Termination by Dy. CST is illegal. That temporary

employees cannot be removed. He is allowed benefit of

Article 311 of the constitution. Workman has referred to

principles laid down in various cases. Workman prays that

termination of his service is illegal. Workman prays for

monetary reliefs.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/2

opposing claim of the workman. That the workman was

engaged on 10-1-97 on casual rate. Workman was not

engaged on 18-1-96. After 180 days continuous service,

workman was given benefit of Central Pay commission.

Temporary status was not accorded to him. Vth Pay

commission was not implemented in July 97. Workman

deposited medical fees before acquiring medical fitness as

per the rules. It is reiterated that termporary status was not

awarded to workman due to non-completion of requisite

period. Bunglow peon is not attached to the bunglow of

the officers. On inspection by Dy. CST, Bilaspur attendance

was followed. That misbehavior to workman doesnot fulfill

to issue certificate of his working. The warning and

counseling of workman was done time to time. There was

no improvement. Termination letter was served on him.

4. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 11/1 to 11/2 reiterating

his contentions in statement of claim.

5. 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)

Whetehr the action of the

Dy. C.S.T.E. (Const) Bilaspur

In Negative

in terminating the services

of Shri B.Bangaraiah, workman

w.e.f. 5-9-1997 is justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

As per final order.

workman is entitled to?"

REASONS

6. Workman is challenging termination of his services.

The documents are produced by workman. Exhibit W-4 is

letter given by workman to the management. It shows that

he was kept as Bunglow peon as trial basis from 18-1-96 to

10-1-97. On completion of one year, he was issued the post

on daily rate basis etc. W-7, 8 are letters addressed to ALC

in the matter of conciliation of dispute. Exhibit W-1 is copy

of circular dated 9-4-64 in the matter of employment of

casual labours. W-2 is copy of circular dated 7-5-64 in the

3520

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

matter of employment of causal labours. Exhibit W-3 is part

of the same circular requiring to show the date of

engagement, date of termination, nature of job etc. Exhibit

W-4 is copy of proforma related to service card of casual

labour. Exhibit W-5 is copy of circular dated 19-6-81 in the

matter of engagement of causal labour. W-6 is copy of

Board's letter dated 12-11-1981.

7. Workman was engaged as a bunglow peon. Workman

filed affidavit of his evidence narrating details about his

date of birth qualifications, his engagement from 10-1-97,

his medical examination conducted on 21-1-97. Workman

was not served with chargesheet or no punishment was

imposed against him. Workman in his cross-examination

says he was working as bunglow peon. He was appointed

on 10-1-97. He discontinued to work till 5-9-97 for 236 days.

He was appointed by CST, order in writing was issued to

him. Termination order was not received.

8. Witness of management Shri Ram Sevak filed affidavit

of his evidence. He says that workman was appointed as

bunglow peon on 10-1-97. Workman was disobeying orders

of his superior. His behavior wasnot proper. Despite of

warnings issued, improvement was not seen. Order of

termination was issued on 5-9-97. Management's witness

in his cross- examination says his affidavit is based on

documents. He had seen the appointment letter as bunglow

peon. Workman had refused to work. He had not seen

letter of termination 3 years. period is required for

regularization of services of Bunglow peon. Benefits of

temporary status is not allowed to Bunglow peon.

Management's witness was unable to tell whether workman

was paid retrenchment compensation. Documents

produced Exhibit W-1 shows that workman was posted as

Bunglow peon from 10-1-97. He was transferred vide letter

dated 28-5-96 on daily rate. W-2, 2 (a) are documents relating

to medical examination of workman W-3 is letter of

termination of workman from 5-9-97.

9. Copy of Railway Manual is produced for perusal. It

provides that

"Casual labours engaged on open line who continue to

do the same work for which they were engaged or other

work of the same type for more than 120 days without a

break will be treated as temporary on completion of 120

days of continuous employment. Casual labour on

projects who have put in 180 days continuous service

on works of the same type are entitled for 1/30th of the

minimum of the appropriate scale of pay plus DA. Grant

of temporary status to project causal labour is regulated

by instructions separately issued by Railway Board."

10. Workman had completed 236 days service. He was

entitled to temporary status. After getting temporary status,

services of workman could not be termianted without

enquiry and therefor termintion of service of workman is

illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Pont

No. 1 in Negative.

11. Point No.2- workman is terminated without enquiry

even after being entitled to status of temporary employee,

question arises whether workman is entitled for

reinstatement with backwages. Workman had hardly

worked for 236 days therefore reinstatement of workman

would not be justified. considering short period of working,

compensation Rs. 75,000/- would be appropriate.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.

12. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The action of the Dy. C.S.T.E. (Const) Bilaspur in

terminating the services of Shri B.Bangaraiah,

workman w.e.f. 5-9-1997 is not proper and legal.

(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation

Rs. 75,000/- to the workman within 30 days from the

date of notification of award.

In case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per

annum from the date of award till its realization.

13. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour & employment as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1671-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fNanokMk flvksuh {ks=h;

xzkeh.k cSad izc/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 tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 108@97½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19&08&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@35@96&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2015

S.O. 1671.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. 108/97) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jabalpur

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the management of Chhindwara Seoni Kshetriya Gramin

Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19/08/2015.

[No. L -12012/35/96-IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3521

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/108/97

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE

Secretary,

MP Bank Employees Association,

C/o Bank of India,

Chhindwara

Workman/Union

Versus

The Chairman,

Chhindwara Seoni Kshetriya Gramin Bank,

Chhindwara

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 3rd day of July 2015

1. As per letter dated 26-3-97 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/

35/96-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the aciton of the Chairman, Chhindwara Seoni

Kshetriya Gramin Bank, chhindwara (MP) in terminating

the services of Shri Kuber Singh Verma from Panjara Branch

of Chhindwara Seoni Kshetriya Gramin Bank w.e.f. 5-8-94 is

justified and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to?"

2. Ist party workman is challenging termination of his

service in the dispute unfer reference. Even after issuing

notices, the Union did not participate in the proceeding,

no statement of claim is filed. Ist party is proceeded

proceeded exparte on 14-10-2014.

3. IInd party management also not filed Written

Statement. From conduct of the parties, it is clear that the

parties are not pursuing or participating in the dispute.

4. In the result, award is passed as under:-

"Reference is disposed off as No Dispute Award."

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1672-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ckafx;k xzkeh.k

fodkl cSad izc/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 dksydrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 28@2013½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@04@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2015

S.O. 1672.—in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. 28/2013) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Kolkata

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the management of Bangiya Gramin Vikas Bank and their

workman, received by the Central Government on

19-08-2015.

[No. L -12011/04/2013-IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 28 of 2013

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

Bangiya Gramin Vikas Bank

AND

Their workmen.

Present :

Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer

Appearance :

On behalf of the :

None

Management

On behalf of the :

None

Workmen

State : West Bengal. Industry : Banking.

Dated: 12th August, 2015.

AWARD

By Order No. L-12011/04/2013-IR(B-I) dated 21.05.2013

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of

its powers Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

''Whether the action of the management is justified by

Transferring the members of the Union as per Annexure-

V without following guidelines of Posting & Transfer/

Placement for Officers, Clerks and Sub-Staff is legal and/

for justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled

to?''

2. When the case is taken up today for hearing, none

appears on behalf of either of the parties. It appears from

3522

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the record that the union is absent since 26.03.2014. During

this period union has been given 9 opportunities to appear

before the Tribunal. Even then it has not been turned up.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances it appears

that the union is not willing to proceed with the case further.

So, no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping the matter

pending.

4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the

present reference is disposed of by passing a ''No Dispute

Award''.

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

The 12th August, 2015.

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1673-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj e/; jsyos izca/k ra=

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

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 126@02½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 19-08-2015 izkIr gqvk Fkk

[la- ,y&41012@59@2002&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2015

S.O. 1673.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 126/02) of the Central

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Central Railway and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 19-08-2015.

[No. L-41012/59/2002-IR (B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/126/02

Smt. Kala Bai, LR-widow of

Late Shri Ashok Kumar,

S/o Mewalal, 3,

Bunglow, RB-I, 198-G,

Itarsi (MP)

Workman

Versus

Assistant Mechanical Engineer (Gen.),

Central Railway,

Itarsi (MP)

Management

AWARD

Passing on this 29th day of June 2015

1. As per letter dated 27-08-02 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/

59/2002-IR (B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

''Whether the action of the management of Asstt.

Mechanical Engineer (Gen.), Central Railway, Itarsi in

terminating the services of Shri Ashok Kumar S/o

Mewalal w.e.f. 3-2-98 after imposing punishment, is

justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?''

2. After receiveing reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of Ist Party workman is that he was

appointed as Khalasi Helper in Mechanical branch on

18-08-82. His working was satisfactory, Services of workman

were terminated. The workman challenged order of

termination dated 2-2-98 in appeal. Appellate Authority

without giving him opportunity of hearing, illegally

dismissed his appeal. Workman further submits that he

was not supplied documents about unauthorized absence

alongwith chargesheet, principles of natural justice were

not followed. He was not allowed opportunity of Defence

assistance by Enquiry Officer. Enquiry Officer violated

principles of natural justice. Examination of his service on

basis of findings in illegal enquiry is illegal. Enquiry Officer

did not allow him personal enquiry. The punishment of

dismissal imposed against him is excessive. Workman

prayed for his reinstatement with backwages.

3. Workman died during pendency of reference

proceeding. His widow is substituted as LR.

4. Management filed Written Statement at Page 13/1 to

13/4 opposing claim of the workman. Management admitted

termination of service of workman and dismissal of appeal

filed by the workman. management submits that enquiry

was conducted against workman giving opportunity for

his defence. The workman did not avail opportunity of

Defence Assistant allowed to him. Workman was given

opportunity to cross-examine management witness.

Enquiry Officer putup certain questions to the deceased

employee for removing ambiguity. Defence of workman

was he remained absent from duty due to illness of his

wife. Workman failed to produce any medical certificate. It

is reiterated that enquiry was properly conducted. If enquiry

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3523

is found vitiated, IInd Party be permitted to prove

misconduct adducing his evidence.

5. As per order dated 22-5-2014, enquiry conducted

against workman was found illegal. IInd Party was permitted

to prove misconduct.

6. Considering pleading on record and findings of

preliminary issue, 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 misconduct

In Affirmative

alleged aganinst workman is

proved from evidence in

Enquiry proceedings?

(ii) Whether the punishment of

In Negative

dismissal imposed against

workamen is proper and

legal?

(ii) If not, what relif the

As per final order.

workman is entitled to?"

REASONS

7. Enquiry conducted against workman was found

illegal. Management was allowed opportunity to prove

misconduct aganinst workman. Management filed affidavit

of evidence of Shri R.D.Malviya. The affidavit of said

witness is devoted about enquiry conducted against

workman. His affidavit is silent about the period of

unauthorized absence of workman. Management filed

affidavit of other witness Bhagwandas Malviya. In his

affidavit said witness has narrated that deceased workman

was absent from duty on 2/1/97, 5/1/97 to 6/1/97, 9/1/97 to

10/1/97, 27/1/97, 13/2/97 to 17/2/97, 3/3/97 to 5/3/97, 9/6/97

to 12/6/97-Total 18 days. Workmen had not produced any

document about illness of his wife. Evidence of

management's witness remained unchallenged. Evidence

of management's witenss Bhagwandas proves change of

unauthorized absence aganist workmen. Therefore I record

my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

Point No.2- the punishment of dismissal is

imposed against workman for unauthorisd absence. From

evidence of management's witness Bhagwandas, period of

unauthorized absence is only 18 days. Punishment of

dismissal is imposed against workman for such short period

of unauthorized absence is shockingly disproportionate.

For unauthorised absence of only 18 days, the punishment

of dismissal imposed againt workman cannot be said proper

and legal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point

No.2 in Negative.

Point No.3 In view of my finding in Point No.2,

punishment of dismissal imposed against workman for

unauthorized absence of 18 days. Workman died during

pendency of reference. Therefore reinstatement of workman

is not possible. Workman was in service from 18-8-82. His

service were dismissed as per order dated 2-2-98. Workman

had completed about 16 years of service. Punishment of

dismissal imposed against workman is illegal. However

reinstatement of workman cannot be allowed as workman

is dead. Considering the circumstances, punishment of

dismissal is modified to compulsory retirement. Accordingly

I recoed my finding in Point No.3.

10. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The action of the management of Asstt. Mechanical

Engineer(Gen.), Central Railway, Itarsi terminating

the services of Shri Ashok Kumer S/o Mewalal

w.e.f.3-2-98 is not proper.

(2) Punishment of dismissal is modified to compulsory

retirement. Retiral benefits to member of decased

workman be allowed as per rules.

(3) IInd party shall pay cost of Rs.2000 to the LR.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr 2015

dkñvkñ 1674-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u jsyos dVfjax

,.M Vqfjte dkjiksjs'ku fyñ 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] dksydkrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

06@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41012@59@2013&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2015

S.O. 1674.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 06/2014) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kolkata as shown

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of Indian Railway Catering Tourism Corpn.

Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 19/08/2015.

[No. L-41012/59/2013-IR (B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 06 of 2014

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Indian

Railway Catering and Tourism Corpn. Ltd.

3524

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

Their workmen.

Present:

Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the

Ms. P. Banerjee, Ld.

Management

Counsel for EEPC India.

On behalf of the

None.

Workmen

State: West Bengal.

Industry: Railways

Dated: 4th August, 2015.

AWARD

By Order No. L-41012/59/2013-IR (B-I) dated 30.01.2014

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of

its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether (1) the action of the management is justified

by terminating the service of workman without following

statutory rules and regulations? (2) Whether the

workman is entitled to receive (i) Special Personal

Allowance, (ii) Medical Allowance and (iii) Washing

Allowance at par with the regular workman is justified

or not? If not, what relief the workman is entitled for?"

2. When the case is taken up today for hearing none

appears on behalf of concerned workman though the

management is represented by its Ld. Counsel. It appears

from the record that the workman is not appearing before

the Tribunal since 04.03.2015.

3. Considering the fact and circumstances is appears

that the concerned workman is not willing to proceed with

the case further. So no fruitful purpose will be served in

keeping the matter pending.

4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the

present reference is disposed of by passing a "No Dispute

Award".

Dated, Kolkata,

The 4th August, 2015.

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1675-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj iwoZ jsyos izca/

kra= ds laca) 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 32@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41011@32@2014&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2015

S.O. 1675.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 32/2014) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. 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 19/08/

2015.

[No. L-41011/32/2014-IR (B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

LUCKNOW

PRESENT

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 32/2014

Ref. No. L-41011/32/2014-IR (B-I) dated: 06.05.2014

BETWEEN

Anchal Sangthan Secretary

Rail Sevak Sangh

C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi

49, Tilak Nagar

Lucknow

(Espousing cause of Mo. Shubhanath)

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-41011/32/2014-IR (B-I) dated: 06.05.2014

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 (2 A) 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 Railways,

Gonda (UP) for adjudication.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3525

2. The reference under adjudication is:

^^D;k iwoksZÙkj jsy iz'kklu] y[kuÅ o xksaMk }kjk 'kqHkukFk iq= Jh

egs'k izlkn] 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 17.07.2014 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, Scretary 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

Sri 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 01.01.2014

may be covered under Old Pension Scheme.

7. A copy of the M-3 was furnished to the workman's

union. The authorized representative of the workman's

union sought time to consult the workman; and accordingly,

the case was taken up on 24.07.2015 at Lok Adalat. The

Authorized representative of the workman's union,

Shri D.P. Awasthi after going through the contents of letter,

M-3 and circular dated 29.1.2014 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 been accepted

by the Rly management. Further proceeding of this case

may 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.

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

LUCKNOW.

06th August, 2015

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1676-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh- ,y- ds

izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; xksnkojh[kUuh ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 64@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 20@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22013@1@2015&vkbZvkj ¼lh&2½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2015

S.O. 1676.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award of the Indus. Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/64/2010) as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 20.08.2015.

[No. L-22013/1/2015-IR (C-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT—CUM-VI ADDL.

DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI.

Present :

SRI G.V. KRISHNAIAH,

Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 64 OF 2010

Tuesday, the 7th day of July, 2015

Between:—

Seru Ravikanth @ Yeswant Teja, S/o.Late Srinivas,

Age 4 years, Occ: Student under natural guardian

of his grand mother.

Seru Sammakka, W/. Rajaiah, age 65 years, Occ:

House Hold,

R/o.Ambatpalli, Mandal Mahadevpoor, Distt.

Karimnagar is the grand mother of Applicant No.1.

—Petitioners

3526

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

And

The General Manager,

Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd., Mandamarri Area,

Mandamarri, District Adilabad.

The Managing Director,

Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd., Administration,

Kothagudem, Dist.Khammam

—Respondents.

This case coming before me for final hearing in the

presence of Sri S.Bhagavantha Rao, Advocate for the

petitioners and of Sri D.Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the

Respondents; and having been heard and having stood

over for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered

the following:—

AWARD

This petition is filed U/Sec. 2(A)(2) of I.D. Act

challenging the dismissal order dt.4-5-2005 passed by the

respondents, praying for grant of lumpsum amount of

Rs.5.00 Lakhs to the minor petitioner as per the settlements

till he gets majority.

Allegations in the petition are as follows:—

One Seru Srinivas was given dependent employment in

place of his father Seru Rajaiah on 17-02-2003. The

respondent dismissed the said Srinivas after framing the

following charge against him and holding domestic

enquiry:—

CHARGE:—

"25.25 Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from

duty without sufficient cause"

Minor petitioner Seru Ravikanth is only son of

Seru Srinivas and he represented by his grand mother

Smt. Seru Sammakka. The respondents did not provide an

amount of Rs.3.00 Lakhs in lieu of dependent employment

to the minor petitioner. The petitioners are entitled to

challenge the dismissal order of late Seru Srinivas. The

dismissal order is pre-meditated and illegal. Hence, they

prayed to allow the petition as prayed for.

In response to this challenge, respondents filed

counter justifying the dismissal of the petitioner. The

respondents company being mining industry is a Central

Government subject and the petitioner ought to have

approached the CGIT, Hyderabad. This petition is not

maintainable before this Court and is liable to be dismissed.

Seru Srinivas was appointed in the respondents company

as Badli Filler on 17-02-2003 on compassionate grounds as

dependant of his father Sri Seru Rajam, Ex-Coal Filler. From

the date of appointment Sri Seru Srinivas was irregular to

his duties as such he was dismissed from services of the

respondent company w.e.f., 04-05-2005 after conducting

domestic enquiry as per company standing orders.

Seru Srinivas during his service declared the following as

his dependents.

a. Smt. Sammakka—Mother

b. Smt. Rama Devi—Wife

c. Sri Rajam—Father

Respondent's company is not aware of the relationship

of Seru Srinivas, Ex-employee with petitioner No.1. As such

the respondents are denying that the petitioner No.1 is the

son of the ex-employee. The said Seru Srinivas, Ex-employee

had never put in the minimum musters as required under

Mines Act. Seru Srinivas, Ex-employee being an

underground employee is expected to put minimum of

190 musters in a calendar year. The following attendance

particulars indicates that Seru Srinivas, Ex-employee was

not regular to his duties and in no year he had put in 190

musters during the period from 2003—2005.

SI.No.

Year

No. of musters.

2003

2004

NIL

2005

NIL

During the period from July, 2003 to December, 2003,

Seru Srinivas, Ex-Employee had put in only 38 musters. As

the above Act amounted to misconduct under Standing

Orders Clause No.25.25 of the company, the petitioner was

charge sheeted. After considering the documentary

evidence and other evidence on record, the enquiry officer

submitted his unbiased report holding that the petitioner

is guilty of misconduct under company standing orders.

The relevant clause of standing orders reads as under:

"Clause 25(25) - Habitual late attendance or habitual

absence from duty without sufficient cause".

4. The charge sheet and enquiry notice were sent to the

permanent residential address of Seru Srinivas, Ex-

Employee through RPAD, he received the same but failed

to submit his explanation and failed to attend the enquiry.

As such, exparte enquiry was conducted on 22-3-2004 and

show cause notice was issued to him. As Seru Srinivas, Ex-

Employee failed to approach the respondent company and

to submit his explanation, the respondent's company was

constrained to dismiss him from service. The said

Seru Srinivas, Ex-Employee expired on 16-11-2005 by leaving

behind petitioner No.1 etc., are not known to the

respondent's company. As such the petitioners are put to

strict proof of the same. Petitioner No. 2 did not approach

the respondent's company for lump sum amount of Rs.3.00

Lakhs in lieu of dependent employment.

5. According to the respondents company rules only in

case of death and medical invalidation by Medical Board

while in service, the spouse of the deceased/medically unfit

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3527

employee is entitled to receive lump sum amount of

Rs. 5.00 Lakhs or Monthly Monetary Compensation (MMC)

of Rs. 6,000/- per month in lieu of dependent employment

to one eligible male dependent. In the instant case as Seru

Srinivas was dismissed from service of the respondents

company for misconduct, the dependents of the ex-

employee are not entitled to lumpsum amount of Rs. 5.00

Lakhs in lieu of dependent employment. The respondents

company conducted the enquiry proceedings duly in

accordance with the principles of natural justice and law

giving full opportunity to the ex- employee. Therefore, the

respondents pray to dismiss the petition without granting

any relief.

During the course of hearing, Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-8

and Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-10 are marked.

Heard both sides. Perused the material papers on

record.

Respondents filed written arguments.

On consideration of respective contentions of the

parties, the following points require to be determined:—

1. "Whether this Tribunal has got jurisdiction?"

2. "Whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief?

10.

POINT No:1

As per the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court reported

in 1997 (III) LLJ (Supp.) 11 between U. Chinnappa And

Cotton Corporation of India, this Court has got jurisdiction

to entertain the dispute raised by the petitioner. Hence, the

point is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioner.

11.

POINT NO:2

Mother of the deceased workman (Seru Srinivas) and a

minor boy said to be the son of the deceased workman are

seeking indulgence of this Tribunal to set aside the

dismissal order passed by the respondents company

against the deceased workman, so that they can get

consequential benefits.

12.

The main charge against the deceased workman

is that he had put in only 38 musters during the year 2003.

Charge sheet is marked as Ex.M-1. Acknowledgement of

the workman are marked as Ex.M-2 and M-2(a). It seems

that the workman failed to submit his explanation to the

charge sheet. Enquiry notice is marked as Ex.M-3 and it

was acknowledged by the workman under Ex.M-4. Enquiry

proceedings are marked as Ex.M-5 which shows that the

workman did not choose to participate in the enquiry.

Enquiry report is marked as Ex.M-6. The show cause notice

is marked as Ex.M-7 to which also no explanation was given

by the deceased workman. The deceased workman

Seru Srinivas was appointed as Badli Filler on 17-2-2003

and he had put in only 38 musters till December, 2003 and

remained absent on the remaining days. He was dismissed

from service by order dt.28-4-2005 after conducting

domestic enquiry. He died on 16-11-2005 and thereafter

this petition is filed in the year 2010. During the life time of

Srinivas, he did not declare the minor petitioner as his son.

Birth certificate of the minor son is not filed. The dependent

certificate of the year 2006 issued by the then MLA marked

as Ex.W-8 shows that it was issued for the purpose of

claiming ex-gratia under Apath Bandu Accident Benefit

Scheme. The name of the minor son is mentioned in the

said certificate as "Chintu", age 4 years. Name of the minor

petitioner is mentioned as "Ravikanth @ Yeshwanth" under

Ex.W-7, certificate dt.15-7-2010 issued by Sarpanch,

Grampanchayath, Ambatpalli. If really minor petitioner was

born in the year 2003, the deceased would have declared

the name of his minor son with the respondents' company.

Admittedly the name of minor petitioner does not find place

in the records of respondents' company. It can be seen

from the admitted facts that the deceased failed to submit

any explanation to the charge sheet and he did not attend

the domestic enquiry also. Even after the enquiry, the

deceased did not appear before the respondents company

and failed to give explanation to the show cause notice

with regard to the proposed punishment. During the years

2004 and 2005, the deceased not at all attended to his duties

and—Nil—musters put in by him. Ever since his

appointment in the year 2003 till his dismissal by order

dt.28-4-2005, he had put in only 38 musters and no reasons

for his absence are forthcoming.

13. It is argued by the learned counsel for the

respondents that lumpsum amount of Rs. 5 00 Lakhs/MMC/

dependent employment are available in case of death of a

workman while in service or medical invalidation by the

medical board while in service. The deceased workman

was dismissed from service after conducting domestic

enquiry and paper publication by order dt. 28-4-2005 due

to unauthorized absence from duty. As such the petitioners

are not at all entitled to claim any of the above benefits.

There is any amount of force and substance in the

contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents.

The documentary evidence placed before this court clearly

proves the charge of unauthorized and habitual absenteeism

to duties of the deceased workman. Considering all these

facts, even assuming that the minor boy was born to the

deceased Srinivas, it is not a fit case to set aside the

dismissal order. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.

14. In the result, the petition is dismissed, but without

any costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court, on this the 7th day of July, 2015.

G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

Appendix of Evidence

Witness Examined

For workman:-

For Management:—

-Nil-

3528

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

EXHIBITS

For workman:—

Ex.W-1

Dt. 12-12-2005

Death certificate

Ex.W-2

Dt. 18-06-2003

Office order - Appointment

orders as Badli Filler.

Ex.W-3

Dt. 14-01-2004

Charge sheet.

Ex.W-4

Dt. 14-01-2004

Charge sheet.

Ex.W-5

Dt. 28-04-2005

Dismissal order.

Ex/W-6 Dt. 02-07-2006

Demand letter.

Ex/W-7 Dt. 15-10-2010

Legal heirs certificate

Ex/W-8 Dt. 00-11-2006

Dependent certificate issued

by Koppula Eshwar, MLA.

For Management:—

Ex. M-1 Dt. 14-01-2004

Charge sheet

Ex. M-2 Dt. 23-01-2004

Acknowledgement

Ex. M-2a Dt. 23-01-2004

Acknowledgement

Ex. M-3 Dt. 04-03-2004

Enquiry notice

Ex. M-4 Dt. 05-03-2004

Postal Ack., card

Ex. M-5 Dt. 22-03-2004

Enquiry proceedings

Ex. M-6 Dt. 22-03-2004

Enquiry report

Ex. M-7 Dt. 01-12-2004

Show cause notice

Ex. M-8 Dt. 21-12-2004

Postal returned cover with Ack.

Ex. M-9 Dt. 04-02-2005

Petitioner's show cause notice

published in Andhra Jyothi

Telugu daily news paper,

Ex.M-10 Dt. 28-04-2005

Dismissal order.

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1677-—vkS|sfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñ lhñ lhñ ,yñ

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

k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]

xksnkojh[kUuh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 05@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22013@1@2015&vkbZvkj ¼lh&2½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2015

S.O. 1677.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/05/2012) as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 20.08.2015.

[No. L-22013/1/2015-IR(C-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT -CUM-VI ADDL.

DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT,

GODAVARIKHANI

Present:- SRI G.V. KRISHNAIAH,

Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 5 OF 2012

Monday, the 6th day of July, 2015

Between:-

Mohammad Saleem, E.C.No. 2794249,

Ex.Fitter, S/o. Md. Naseeruddin, Age 46 years,

C/o. Sri B.Amarender Rao, Advocate, Ganganagar,

Godavarikhani, Dist. Karimnagar-505 209.

--- Petitioner

And

The Superintendent of Mines,

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.,

Ravindra Khani No.5 Incline, Dist. Adilabad.

The Chief General Manager,

Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd., Srirampur Area,

PO Srirampur, District Adilabad.

The Chairman & Managing Director,

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.,

PO. Kothagudem, Dist.Khammam.

--- Respondents

This case coming before me for final hearing in the

presence of Sri B. Amarender Rao, Advocate for the

petitioner and of Sri D. Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the

Respondents; and having been heard and having stood

over for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered

the following:—

AWARD

This petition is filed U/Sec. 2(A)(2) of I.D. Act

challenging the dismissal of the petitioner passed by the

respondents praying for his reinstatement into service with

continuity of service, all attendant benefits and full back

wages.

Petitioner was dismissed from service by the

respondents vide office order dt.05-05-2011 after holding

domestic enquiry on the following charge.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3529

CHARGE:-

"25(25) - Habitual late attendance or habitual absence

from duty without sufficient cause during the period

from 01-01-2009 to 31-12-2009"

Petitioner challenges his dismissal on the following

grounds:-

The petitioner was appointed as Fitter by the

respondents company in the year 1988 and his

services were regularized in the year 1989.

Ever since the date of the appointment of the

petitioner he served the respondent company

effectively and put-in more than the (200) physical

musters every year as against the minimum (100)

musters. The performance of the petitioner from

1988 till 2003 is very good.

While the petitioner was working as Fitter

(underground), the underground atmosphere and

coal dust did not suit his health and the petitioner

suffered from TB & Asthama diseases from the year

2004 onwards. He underwent prolonged treatment

in the respondent's company hospitals and other

referral hospitals. Petitioner availed 6 months sick

leave and another 6 months half pay leave for taking

regular treatment. Due to underground work, he

was not cured completely and he became very weak.

As such, the petitioner applied to the Corporate

Medical Board for medical examination by the Main

Hospital, Kothagudem regarding surface job/

medical unfit for underground work. But the

respondents paid deaf-ear and compelled the

petitioner to perform underground duty and reduced

one increment in 2007 and gave warning in 2008.

The petitioner participated in the enquiry conducted

by the respondents and deposed about his chronic

ill-health during the course of his employment in

the company and requested to provide him surface

job. But the respondents unjustly victimized the

petitioner and did not provide surface job.

Punishment of dismissal from service is extremely

harsh, highly excessive and shockingly

disproportionate. Hence, the petitioner prays to

allow the petition.

4. In response to this challenge. respondents filed

counter justifying the dismissal of the petitioner. The

respondents company being mining industry is a Central

Government subject and the petitioner ought to have

approached the CGIT, Hyderabad. This petition is not

maintainable before this Court and is liable to be dismissed.

The petitioner was appointed in the respondents

company as Fitter on 19-11-1986. The petitioner was a

chronic absentee who has put in only 76 musters in the

year 2009. Therefore he was charge sheeted vide letter dt.

20-02-2010. According to Section 52(2) of the Mines Act,

1852 an underground employee is required to put in

minimum musters of 190 and surface employee is expected

to put in minimum of 190 musters in a calendar year. The

following attendance particulars of the petitioner indicate

the fact that the petitioner was not regular to his duties and

in no year he had put in 190 musters during the period from

2004 to 2009.

Sl.No.

Year

No. of musters.

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

During the period from January, 2009 to December, 2009,

the petitioner had put in only 76 musters. As the above act

amounted to misconduct under Standing Orders Clause

No. 25.25 of the company, the petitioner was charge

sheeted. After considering the documentary evidence and

other evidence on record, the enquiry officer submitted his

unbiased report holding that the petitioner is guilty of

misconduct under company standing orders.

5. The petitioner during the enquiry proceedings

accepted his guilt for the charge levelled and further neither

crosss examined the management witnesses nor produced

any documentary evidence to defend himself. Though the

respondents sent show cause notice, it was returned with

an endorsement "addressee refused to take". The

respondents company after considering the past record of

the petitioner and on findings that there were no

extenuating circumstances for taking a lenient view was

constrained to dismiss the petitioner from service. The

respondents company conducted the enquiry proceedings

duly in accordance with the principles of natural justice

and law giving full opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore,

the respondents pray to dismiss the petition without

granting any relief to the petitioner.

6. During the course of hearing, Ex. W-1 to Ex. W-35 and

Ex. M-1 to Ex. M-10 are marked.

7. Counsel for the petitioner filed Memo U/Sec. 11-A of

I.D., Act stating that he is not challenging the validity of

domestic enquiry conducted by the respondents and

prayed this Tribunal to decide the quantum of relief to

which the petitioner is entitled.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the material papers on

record.

9. Respondents filed written arguments.

3530

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10. On consideration of respective contentions of the

parties, the following points require to be determined:-

1. "Whether this Tribunal has got jurisdiction?"

2. "Whether the punishment of dismissal of the

petitioner is justified and proportionate?"

11. POINT No: 1

As per the Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court reported

in 1997 (III) LLJ (Supp.) 11 between U. Chinnappa And

Cotton Corporation of India, this Court has got jurisdiction

to entertain the dispute raised by the petitioner. Hence, the

point is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioner.

12. POINT No: 2

Charge sheet is marked as Ex. M-1 and explanation of

the petitioner there-to is marked as Ex.M-2.The detailed

explanation under Ex. M-2 reveals that the petitioner was

suffering from TB disease since 5 years and due to ill-

health, he could not attend to his duties regularly. During

the year 2004 and 2005, he consulted private practitioners

and attended to his duties. During the year 2006 and 2007,

he was on sick rolls availing half pay leave and took

treatment in the company eye hospital, Ramakrishnapur.

He performed duty in 2006 for some days due to which his

health detoriated in 2007 due to fever, cough and weakness.

He was not able to walk properly and he reported same

before the Colliery Manager during counseling. Under those

circumstances, he applied for assessment by medical board.

In the year 2008 he took treatment in company's hospital

for one month. On using medicines, he recouped his health

to some extent and was made fit by the Medical Board. Due

to performing duties inspite of weakness, his health further

detoriated and the Colliery Manager permitted for 2nd time

Medical Board, which was also informed to the A.G.M.,

Purely on account of ill-health and weakness, he was unable

to perform his duties but not otherwise. The petitioner

further stated that he got 4 children and mother dependent

on him and two daughters have attained martial age and

prayed for sympathetic consideration.

13. During the enquiry proceedings marked as Ex. M-4,

he reiterated that he submitted written explanation to the

charge sheet, which is admitted by the management witness

P. Mallaiah, O.S., who was examined as MW-1. In the

deposition statement before the enquiry officer under Ex.

M-4, the petitioner reiterated the same defence. He

categorically deposed that he was working as Fitter since

21 years that since 5 years he is suffering from T.B., that he

had taken treatment in private hospitals also but he did not

get any relief, that he availed special leave for six months

and took treatment in the company hospitals, but there

was no change in his health condition. He further stated

that day by day his health was detoriating and he was

becoming physically very weak and that his health was

not permitting to discharge his duties in the underground.

He clearly deposed that his health condition, his physical

weakness and his mental depression about his health are

the main reasons for his absenteeism. In the enquiry report

under Ex. M-5, the enquiry officer stated that "the reasons

stated by him (petitioner) for his absence is his ill-health/

TB". But in the same breath, the enquiry officer again stated

that the petitioner neither introduced any witness nor

produced any evidence of outside medical agencies. In

this context, it is curious to note that the petitioner

categorically stated from the stage of charge sheet

explanation that he was suffering from TB disease for the

last 5 years and gave detailed particulars of his treatment

from the year 2004 onwards. The respondents company

also admitted the ill-health/TB disease suffered by the

petitioner. In this context it is relevant to mention the medical

record produced by the petitioner showing the treatment

undergone by him in the SCCL hospitals, special leave

sanctioned by the company, medical treatment imparted

by Government CD & TB Hospital, Hanamkonda etc., as

shown in the following tabular form:—

Sl. No. Date

Particulars of documents

22-04-2005

Medical prescriptions and

treatment by Chest Physician Dr.

V. Narayana Reddy, Warangal.

07-05-2005

-do-

02-12-2005

SCCL special leave for suffering

from TBH disease from 17-3-2005

to 16-10-2005 for undergoing

treatment.

28-12-2005

-do- from 17-11-2005 to 16-12-2005

18-01-2006

-do- from 17-12-2005 to 16-01-2006

24-02-2006

-do- from 17-01-2006 to 16-02-2006

10-03-2006

SCCL Area Hospital treatment for

TB disease from 17-8-2005 to

10-03-2006

28-01-2008

SCCL medical treatment from

11-01-2008 to 28-01-2008

09-08-2008

SCCL medical presciption for TB

disease

09-09-2008

-do-

13-09-2008

-do-

16-09-2008

-do-

17-09-2008

-do- (2) slips for 17-9-2008 and

18-9-2008

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3531

01-07-2009

-do-

13-11-2009

-do- from 13-11-2009 to 12-12-2009

22-03-2010

SCCL medical prescriptions

13-04-2010

SSCL Medical treatment from

29-3-2010 to 13-4-2010

14-02-2011

Osmania General Hospital medical

prescriptions

18-02-2011

Government General and Chest

Hospital medical treatment

07-10-2008

SCCL corporate medical board

letter showing the petitioner is an

old PT (Pulmonary Tuberculosis)

patient.

21.

29-04-2010

-do-

22.

13-10-2010

-do-

14. The above documentary evidence placed before this

court substantiates the explanations of the petitioner from

time to time that he has been suffering from TB disease and

other allied ailments undergoing treatment very frequently

and availed SCCI sick leave several times for treatment.

The explanations of the petitioner before the respondents

and his enquiry statements clearly shows that the petitioner

was suffering from TB disease, fever, cough and weakness

and that he was not able to walk properly due to

deterioration of health day by day; and he took treatment

in the SCCL hospitals frequently for long spells availing

sick leave. The petitioner was also referred to the

Corporation Medical Board 3 time. Appearing before the

SCCL hospitals may indicate authenticity of suffering from

illness or otherwise of the petitioner; but, the basic fact of

sickness of the petitioner can be made out even by other

evidence.

15. The main charge against the petitioner is that he was

habitually absent from duty between 1-1-2009 to 31-12-

2009. The absence of the petitioner should have been

considered taking into account the previous medical history

of the patient which was mentioned in detail in his

explanation to the charge sheet marked as Ex. M-2. The

enquiry officer concentrated more on extracting a plea of

guilt from the petitioner rather than summoning the medical

records pertaining to the petitioner from the company's

hospital and verifying the authenticity of his explanations

with reference to the periods of treatment taken by him in

the company's hospitals. It is not in dispute that the

petitioner suffered from TB disease and was granted special

leave for undergoing TB treatment from August, 2005 to

February, 2006. Subsequently also he was consulting

company's hospital as well as other hospitals for having

some allied problems. Ex. W-7 & W-8 shows that the

petitioner consulted Chest Physician, Hanamkonda for TB

and other allied problems. It is also borne out by record

that the petitioner was under treatment in SCCL Area

Hospital for TB disease from 17-6-2005 to 10-3-2006 as per

Ex. W-13.

16. As process of recuperation from illness like

Tuberculosis may differ from person to person, it is the

consistent case of the petitioner that he did not fully recover

from the illness. Even if we take the absence of the petitioner

from duty during the year 2009, he was absent for (5) days

in January, (6) days in February, (3) days in August and (7)

days in November, 2009. During March to July, September

and December 2009, the petititoner was mostly absent

(summer and cold seasons). SCCL medical treatment and

prescriptions under Ex W-22 to Ex-27 shows that the

petitioner was given treatment during the years 2008 and

2009 in the company's hospitals. The enquiry officer also

referred to absence of the petitioner during the years 2004

to 2008. The medical record filed by the petitioner would

go to show that the petitioner had taken treatment in a

private hospital during the years 2004-2005. He had taken

treatment from the company's hospital during the years

2005 and 2006 and he was as inpatient also during the year

2008. But the enquiry officer never cared to summon records

from the company's hospital with regard to absence of the

petitioner during the years 2004-2008. It is no doubt true

that prior to dismissal from service, petitioner was warned

to be careful and not to repeat the absence in future as per

Ex. M-9 and M-10 but the ill-health condition of the

petitioner was admitted by the respondents. However,

petitioner submitted representation dt. 19-12-2009 under

Ex. W-17 stating that he was unable to perform duties

continuously because of his ill-health.

17. It may be mentioned here that prior to his ill health

from 2004, petitioner maintained reasonable attendance viz.,

(199) musters in 1998, (176) musters in 1999, (190) musters

in 2000, (171) musters in 2001, (132) musters in 2002 and

(167) musters in 2003 as can be seen from the pay sheets

under Ex W-1 to Ex W-6. At page No. 3 of the enquiry

report, it is mentioned that the petitioner pleaded about his

ill health, his deteriorating health condition and he was

unable to work in the underground. But, the Enquiry Officer

relied upon the admission of the petitioner that he did not

report sick in any of the company's hospital during the

year 2009.

18. This is a case where the petitioner was unable to

work continously, but as far as fitness on the basis of

medical test is concerned, the medical board was not

satisfied about his version of being unfit and instead

declared him as fit, as can be seen from Ex. W-21 dt.

13-10-2010. Ex. W-26, dt. 1-7-2009 shows that petitioner

attended company's hospital at Srirampur on 1-7-2009 and

Sl.No. Date

Particulars of documents

3532

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

he was given treatment. Ex. W-27 also shows that the

petitioner suffered from cold fever and head ache and was

treated at company's hospital, Srirampur on 13-11-2009,

3-12-2009, 9-12-2009 and 12-12-2009. During the year 2010

also, he was treated by the company's hospital from

23-3-2010 to 29-3-2010 under Ex. W-28 and he was unfit

from 29-3-2010 to 13-04-2010 under Ex. W-29. Petitioner

was taking treatment in other Government Hospitals after

attending the enquiry. As can be seen from Ex. W-28 to

W-33, he was treated by the company's hospital, Osmania

General Hospital and Govt. General & Chest Hospital,

Hyderabad during the years 2010 and 2011.

19. Work in the underground mines is not a job which

can be performed with 70% fitness or 80% fitness.

Performance of duties in the underground requires a strong

body supported by good health. A workman working in

the underground mines does not have the facility of going

on various types of leave which are open to a white collar

job holder in the Government. Even according to the

respondents, petitioner worked in the company from the

year 1986. Only after the petitioner contacted Tuberculosis,

his percentage of attendance came down. Therefore, taking

an overall view of the matter it cannot be said that the

petitioner was absent for duties without sufficient cause.

The medical record produced by the petitioner together

with the reference letters of the respondents 3 times to the

Corporate Medical Board and SCCL special leave for

undergoing TB treatment for 5 long spells clearly show

that there is reasonable and sufficient cause for the absence

of petitioner; and the charges against him arose only due

to his illness and his inability to work continuously. This is

not a case where the petitioner/workman had feigned

sickness in order to avoid duty by producing false medical

certificates. Therefore, the conclusion of the enquiry officer

that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct is not fully

justified.

20. Regarding quantum of punishment, in a decision

reported in DIVISION BENCH JUDGEMENT OF

GUJARATH HIGH COURT REPORTED IN 1982

LAB.IC.1031 BETWEEN: R.M., PARMAR VRS.,

GUJARATH ELECTRICITY BOARD, the followin guide

lines were laid down in the matter of inflicting punishment

of discharge and dismissal:—

In a disciplinary proceeding for an alleged fault

of an employee, punishment is imposed not in order

to seek retribution or to give vent to feelings of

wrath.

The main purpose of a punishment is to correct

the fault of the employee concerned by making

him more alert in the future and to hold out

warning to the other employees to be careful in

the discharge of their duties so that they do not

expose themselves to similar punishment. And the

approach to be made is the approach parents

make towards an erring or misguided child.

It is not expedient in the interest of the

administration to visit every employee against

whom a fault is established with the penalty of

dismissal and to get rid of him. It would be counter-

productive to do so for it would be futile to expect

to recruit employees who are so perfect that they

would never commit any fault.

In order not to attract the charge of arbitrariness

it has to be ensured that the penalty imposed is

commensurate with the magnitude of the fault.

Surely one cannot rationally or justly impose the

same penalty for giving a slap as one would impose

for homicide.

When different categories of penalties can be

imposed in respect of the alleged fault, one of which

is dismissal from service, the disciplinary authority

perforce is required to consult himself for selecting

the most appropriate penalty from out of the range

of penalty available that can be imposed, having

regard to the nature, content and gravity of the

default. Unless the disciplinary authority reaches

the conclusion that having regard to the nature,

content and magnitude of the fault committed by

the employee concerned, it would be absolutely

unsafe to retain him in service the maximum

penalty of dimissal cannot be imposed. If a lesser

penalty can be imposed without seriously

jeopardizing the interest of the employees the

disciplinary authority cannot impose the

maximum penalty of dismissal from service. He is

bound to ask the inner voice and rational faculty

why a lesser penalty cannot be imposed.

It cannot be over looked that by and large it is

because the maximum penalty is imposed and total

ruination stares one in the eyes that the employee

concerned is obliged to approach the court and

avail the costly time-consuming machinery to

challenge in desperation the order passed by the

disciplinary authority. If a lesser penalty was

imposed, he might not have been obliged to take

recourse to costly legal proceedings which result

in loss of public time and also result in

considerable hardship and misery to the employee

concerned.

When the disciplinary proceedings end in favour

of the employee, the employer has ofter to pay back

wages say for about 5 years without being able to

take work from the employee concerned. On the

other hand, the employee concerned would have

had to suffer economic misery and mental torture

for all these years. Even the misery of being

obliged to remain idle without work would

constitute an unbearable burden. And when the

curtain drops every one is left with a bitter taste in

the mouth. All because the extreme penalty of

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3533

dismissal or removal is imposed instead of a lighter

one.

Every harsh order of removal from service creates

bitterness and arouses feeling of antagonism in

the collective mind of the workers and gives raise

to a feeling of class conflict. It does more harm

than good to the employer as also to the society.

Taking of a petty article by a worker in a moment

of weakness when he yields to a temptation does

not call for an extreme penalty of dismissal from

service. More particularly, when he does not hold

a sensitive post of trust (pilferage by a cashier or

by a store keeper from the stores in his charge, for

instances, may be viewed with seriousness). A

worker brought up and living in an atmosphere of

poverty and want when faced with temptation,

ought not to, but may yield to it in a moment of

weakness. It cannot be approved, but it can

certainly be understood particularly in an age

when even the rich commit economic offences to

get richer and do so by and large with impunity

(and even tax evasion or possession of black money

is not considered to be dishonorable by and

large). A penalty of removal from service is

therefore not called for when a poor worker yields

to a momentary temptation and commits an offence

which often passed under the name of kleptomania

when committed by the rich.

21. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

and the medical record of the petitioner discussed supra, I

hold that the extreme penalty of dismissal from service is

not at all warranted, keeping in view the health conditions

of the petitioner and the fact that he did perform his duties

for 18 long years from the years 1986 to 2004; and since the

petitioner is out of employment due to illness from the year

2011, I am of the considered opinion that back wages cannot

be granted which is sufficient punishment to the petitioner.

Therefore, the dismissal order dt. 5-5-2011 passed by the

2nd respondent is set aside and the petitioner shall be

reinstated into service as Fitter with continuity of service

and attendant benefits, but without any back wages.

22. In the result, the order of dismissal dt. 05-5-2011

marked as Ex. M-8 is set aside and the respondents' company

is hereby directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as

Fitter with continuity of service and attendant benefits;

however, he is not entitled to any back wages. Since the

petitioner will be subjected to medical tests to find out

whether he is physically fit to join or not, in case the

petitioner fails the medical tests, it shall be deemed that he

is medically unfit after his reinstatement into service as per

this award i.e., by treating the petitioner medically unfit

while in service. The award shall come into force within

(30) days of its publication. If the respondents fail to

implement the award within the above stipulated period,

petitioner shall be paid wages for the said delay period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court, on this the 6th day of July, 2015.

G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Presiding Officer

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For workman:

For Management:

-Nil-

EXHIBITS

For workman:—

Ex.W-1

Dt. 30-11-1998

Pay sheet for the month of

November, 1998

Ex.W-2

Dt. —

Pay sheet for the month of

October, 1999

Ex.W-3

Dt. —

Pay sheet for the month of

December, 2000

Ex.W-4

Dt. —

Pay sheet for the month of

December, 2001

Ex.W-5

Dt. —

Pay sheet for the month of

December, 2012

Ex.W-6

Dt. —

Pay sheet for the month of

December, 2013

Ex.W-7

Dt. 22-04-2005

Medical prescription for

treatment

Ex.W-8

Dt. 07-05-2005

Medical prescription

Ex.W-9

Dt. 02-12-2005

SCCL special leave for

undergoing the TB treatment

from 17-8-2005 to 16-10-2005

Ex.W-10 Dt. 28-12-2005

SCCL special leave for

undergoing the TB treatment

from 17-11-2005 to 16-12-2005

Ex.W-11 Dt. 18-01-2006

SCCL special leave for

undergoing the TB treatment

from 17-12-2005 to 16-1-2006

Ex.W-12 Dt. 24-02-2006

SCCL special leave for

undergoing the TB treatment

from 17-1-2006 to 16-02-2006

Ex.W-13 Dt. 10-03-2006

SCCL special leave for

undergoing the TB treatment

from 17-8-2005 to 16-03-2006

Ex.W-14 Dt. 01-03-2007

Letter issued to the petitioner

by respondent for reducing one

increment from 01-03-2007

Ex.W-15 Dt. 21-08-2008

Warning letter issued to

petitioner

Ex.W-16 Dt. 07-10-2008

Corporate medical board letter

showing the petitioner is case

of old PT (1st time)

Ex.W-17 Dt. 19-12-2009

Representation of petitioner for

medical unfit by the corporate

medical board.

3534

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.W-18 Dt. 09-01-2010

Referred letter of R-2 to the

corporate medical board for

further action

Ex.W-19 Dt. 29-04-2010

Corporate medical board letter

showing the petitioner is case

of old PT (2nd time)

Ex.W-20 Dt. —

Representation and

explanation to the charge sheet

Ex.W-21 Dt. 13-10-2010

Corporate medical board letter

showing the petitioner is case

of old PT (3rd time)

Ex.W-22 Dt. 28-01-2008

SCCL medical treatment for the

petitioner from 17-1-2008 to

28-1-2008, fit certificate

Ex.W-23 Dt. 09-08-2008

SCCL Area Hospital medical

prescription OP slip

Ex.W-24 Dt. 09-09-2008/

SCCL Area Hospital medical

16-09-2008

prescriptions three slips

Ex.W-25 Dt. 17-09-2008

SCCL Area Hospital medical

prescription from 17-9-2008,

18-9-2008 two OP slips.

Ex.W-26 Dt. 01-07-2009

SCCL Area Hospital medical

prescription OP slip

Ex.W-27 Dt. 13-11-2009

SCCL Area Hospital medical

OP slip

Ex.W-28 Dt. 22-03-2010

SCCL Area Hospital medical

OP slip

Ex.W-29 Dt. 13-04-2010

Fit certificate issued by Area

Hospital

Ex.W-30 Dt. 14-02-2011

Osmania General Hospital out

patient sheet

Ex.W-31 Dt. 14-02-2011

Complete blood picture of

petitioner

Ex.W-32 Dt. 18-02-2011

Govt. General & Hospital out

patient

ticket

medical

prescription

Ex.W-33 Dt. 05-05-2011

Dismissal order

Ex.W-34 Dt. 01-11-2011

Demand letter

Ex.W-35 Dt. 08-11-2011

Postal Acks. (2) Nos.,

For Management:—

Ex.W-1

Dt. 20-02-2010

Charge sheet

Ex.M-2

Dt. 06-03-2010

Reply to charge sheet

Ex.M-3

Dt. 09-03-2010

Enquiry notice

Ex.M-4

Dt. 25-03-2010

Enquiry proceedings

Ex.M-5

Dt. 11-06-2010

Enquiry report

Ex.M-6

Dt. 12-07-2010

Show cause notice

Ex.M-7

Dt. 12-07-2010

Undelivered postal returned

cover with Ack.,

Ex.M-8

Dt. 05-05-2011

Dismissal letter

Ex.M-9

Dt. 21-08-2008

Copy of letter issued to

petitioner after conclusion of

enquiry into charge sheet

dt. 14-2-2008 taking lenient

view in of his ill health.

Ex.M-10 Dt. 07-01-2010

Copy of letter issued to

petitioner after conclusion of

enquiry into charge sheet

dt. 2-3-2009 taking lenient view.

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1678-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñ lhñ lhñ ,yñ

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

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

xksnkojh[kUuh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 25@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk

[lañ ,y&22013@1@2015µvkbZ vkj ¼lh&2½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2015

S.O. 1678.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award of the Indus. Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/25/2013) as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 20.08.2015.

[No. L-22013/1/2015-IR(C-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM-VI- ADDL.

DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI

Present:— SRI G.V. KRISHNAIAH,

Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 25 of 2013

Monday, the 13th day of July, 2015

Between:—

W.ASHOK KUMAR, S/o. Gangaram aged about 47 years,

Ex. Electrician Category-IV, Goleti 1-Incline,

H.No. 1-2-166, Near Government Degree College,

Shanthi Nagar, Adilabad Town, Dist. Adilabad.

...Petitioner.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3535

AND

The General Manager,

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Bellampalli Area, PO. Bellampalli, Dist. Adilabad.

The Chairman & Managing Director,

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., PO. Kothagudem,

Dist. Khammam.

...Respondents.

This case coming before me for final hearing in the

presence of Sri. J. Rajaiah, Advocate for the petitioner and

of Sri D. Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the respondents;

and having been heard and having stood over for

consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered the

following:—

AWARD

1. This petition is filed U/Sec. 2(A)(2) of I.D. Act

challenging the dismissal of the petitioner passed by the

1st respondent praying for his reinstatement into service

with continuity of service, all attendant benefits and full

back wages.

2. Petitioner was dismissed from service by the 1st

respondent vide office order dt. 09/11-08-1995 with the

following charge.

CHARGE

"For your continuous absence from 11-09-1993 to

6-6-1995 which is misconduct under company's standing

order No. 25(31)"

3. Petitioner challenges his dismissal on the following

grounds:—

(a) The petitioner was appointed as an Electrician by

the repondents' company in the year 1987 duly

completing the Apprenticeship Training from

22-3-1987 to 21-3-1988. He was promoted as

Category-II Electrician and later he was again

promoted as Category-IV Electrician. Ever-since the

date of his appointment, the petitioner was

discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of

the respondents' company authorities.

(b) Due to servere Asthama and ill-health, the petitioner

was compelled to undergo treatment and on the

advice of doctors, he could not attend to duties.

He informed the same to the company authorities

and made applications to that effect. But the first

respondent without considering the true facts and

ill-health condition of the petitioner, issued charge

sheet.

participated in the enquiry, but his detailed

statement was not recorded. The enquiry officer

failed to consider the ill-health condition of the

petitioner and his finding are quite biased and

perverse.

(d) The 1st respondent without considering the

genuine ill-health of the petitioner and his

representation on the enquiry officers findings,

straight away dismissed him from service illegally

without issuing any prior show cause.

(e) Punishment of dismissal from service is extremely

harsh, highly excessive and shockingly

disproportionate. Hence, the petitioner prays to

allow the petition.

4. Respondent filed counter with the following

allegations:—

The present dispute is barred by limitation in accordance

with Section 2-A of the I.D., (Amendment) Act, 2010

(w.e.f. 15-09-2010). The petitioner was dismissed in the

year 1995. The petitioner having kept quiet for all these

years, now after lapse of about 18 years is raising this

dispute. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1987

and worked as Electrician at Goleti-1 incline, Bellampalli

Area of the respondent's company. The petitioner was

a chronic absentee remained absent from his duties from

11-09-1993 to 6-6-1995 i.e., continuously for a period of

21 months without any intimation to the respondents'

company. The petitioner attended the enquiry

proceedings on 20-5-1995. The enquiry officer

conducted the enquiry duly following the principles of

natural justice giving opportunity to the petitioner to

defend his case. The petitioner was issued show cause

notice and he submitted his explanation to the show

cause notice.

5. The respondents' company after considering the past

record of the petitioner and on findings that there were no

extenuating circumstances for taking a lenient view was

constrained to dismiss the petitioner from service. The

respondents company conducted the enquiry proceedings

duly in accordance with the principles of natural justice

and law giving full opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore,

the respondents pray to dismiss the petition without

granting any relief to the petitioner.

6. During the course of hearing, Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-10 are

marked on bahalf of the petitioner and no documents are

marked on behalf of the respondents.

7. Heard both sides. Perused the material papers on

record.

8. On consideration of respective contentions of the

parties, the following points require to be determined:—

"Whether the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner

from service is justified and proportionate?"

9. POINT:—

From the pleadings of both sides, admittedly the

petitioner was appointed in the year 1987 and worked as

Electrician. He remained absent to his duties from

3536

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11-9-1993 to 6-6-1995 i.e., continuously for a period of 21

months without any intimation to the respondents

company. Charge sheet dt. 13/16-6-1995 was issued to the

"petitioner and he attended the enquiry on 20-6-1995. He

was issued show cause notice dt. 27/29-7-1995 to which he

submitted reply dt. 7-8-1995. Later petitioner was dismissed

from service through office order No. BPA/129/2071,

dt. 9/11-8-1995 w.e.f., 21-8-1995. Admittedly the petitioner

continuously remained absent to his duties for 21 months

i.e., from 11-9-1993 to 6-6-1995 and he was dismissed from

service by order dt. 9/11-8-1995. The medical certificate

dt. 7-6-2013 under Ex.W-7 showing treatment for 17 years

stating that the petitioner was suffering with Br. Asthma

cannot be believed. If really the petitioner was suffering

from Asthma or any other health problems, he would have

produced the medical certificate for the relevant charge

sheeted period to the respondents company at the time of

his explanation to the charge sheet or during the enquiry.

But, without doing so, the medical certificate under

Ex. W-7 and the medical prescription under Ex.W-8

dt. 1-8-2012 is of no help to the petitioner's case. Admittedly

the petitioner kept quiet for 18 long years without raising

any Industrial Dispute since 1993 and filed the present

petition in August, 2013. The long delay of 18 years is not

supported by any cogent evidence and the attitude of the

petitioner in keeping quiet for all these 18 years shows that

he has no real grievance against his dismissal and this

case may have to be treated as a state claim. Further, there

are no merits forthcoming for the continuous absence of

the petitioner for a period of 21 months and his keepin

quiet 18 long years without assailing the dismissal order.

Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the dismissal order

dt. 9/11-8-1995 passed by the respondents' company is

justified and there are no mitigating circumstances to

interfere with the said punishment. Hence, the I.D., is liable

to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

10. In the result, the petition is dismissed, but without

any costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court, on this the 13th day of July, 2015.

G.V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-Cum-Presiding Officer.

ID.No.25/2013

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For workman:

For Management:

-Nil-

EXHIBITS

For workman:—

Ex.W-1

Dt. 9/11-8-1995

Copy of dismissal order

Ex.W-2

Dt. 16-05-1988

Apprenticeship certificate

Ex.W-3

Dt. 11-08-1998

Provisional certificate

Ex.W-4

Dt. 18-08-1993

Application of the petitioner

x.copy

Ex.W-5

Dt. 18-08-1995

Mercy representation of

petitioner

Ex.W-6

Dt. --

Representation of petitioner for

his employment, x.copy

Ex.W-7

Dt. 07-06-2013

Medical certificate issued by

Dr. P. Ramesh, M.D.,

(Pulmonary Medicine)

Ex.W-8

Dt. 01-08-2012

Medical prescription of

petitioner issued by

Dr. Ramesh Pawar

Ex.W-9

Dt. 16-07-2003

Demand notice

Ex.W-10 Dt. 16-07-2013

Postal receipt

For Management:

-Nil-

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1679-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñ lhñ lhñ ,yñ

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

k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxdf fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

xksnkojh[kUuh ds izpkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 78@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22013@1@2015&vkbZvkj ¼lh&2½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2015

S.O. 1679.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/78/2010) as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Goernment

on 20.08.2015.

[No. L-22013/1/2015-IR(C-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3537

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT- CUM-VI ADDL. DISTRICT &

SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI

Present:- SRI G.V. Krishnaiah,

Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 78 of 2010

Friday, the 10th day of July, 2015

Between:—

Kavoori Srinivasa Reddy, E.C.No. 2911972,

Ex. Badli Filler, S/o. late Sri Poli Reddy, Age 32 years,

C/o. Sri Amarender Rao, Advocate, Ganganagar,

PO: Godavarikhani-505 209, Dist. Karimnagar.--Petitioner.

AND

The Superintendent of Mines,

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Ravindra Khani No.8 Incline, Dist. Adilabad.

The Chief General Manager,

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Srirampur Area, PO

Srirampur, Dist. Adilabad.

The Chairman & Managing Director,

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., PO. Kothagudem,

Dist. Khammam.

--Respondents.

This case coming before me for final bearing in the

presence of Sri B. Amarender Rao, Advocate for the

petitioner and of Sri D. Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the

respondents; and having been heard and having stood

over for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered

the following:—

AWARD

1. This petition is filed U/Sec. 2(A)(2) of I.D. Act

challenging the dismissal of the petitioner passed by the

2nd respondent praying for his reinstatement into service

with continuity of service, all attendent benefits and full

back wages.

2. Petitioner was dismissed from service by the 2nd

respondent vide office order dt. 25-03-2014 with the following

charge.

CHARGE:—

"25.31: Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or

sufficient cause or overstaying beyond sanctioned

leave during the period from 01-01-2007 to 31-01-2008".

3. Petitioner challenges his dismissal on the following

grounds:—

(a) The petitioner was appointed as Badli Filler by the

respondents' company is the year 2002 under the

dependent employment scheme in place of his

father Late Sri Poli Reddy who died while in service.

Ever since the date of his appointment, the petitioner

was discharging his duties to the utmost

satisfaction of all his superiors without any kind of

adverse remarks.

(b) During the course of his employment, the petitioner

sustained injuries to his head and left eye. He

underwent medical treatment frequently for viral

hepatitis and defective vision in the year 2005. As

such the petitioner could not attend to his duties

and availed sick leaves. The company's Area

Hospital examined the petitioner and found that he

was suffering with "Defective vision in left eye for

the last 1½ years following trauma to LE. He had a

H/o surgery in left eye for retinal detachment after

a month of trauma and that he was a known case of

Hepatitis-B virus and to apply for Corporate Medical

Board vide letter dt. 27-10-2005".

the above facts and also has submitted detailed

representation to the 1st and 2nd respondents

narrating the fact of his serious ill-health during

the course of his employment in the company and

requested the respondents' company to provide

surface job.

(d) The respondents did not conduct fair and proper

enquiry and the petitioner was not given fair

opportunity to defend himself. There is reasonable

and sufficient cause for the alleged absence of the

petitioner during the years 2008-2009. The

respondents have adopted unfair labour practice

against the petitioner.

(e) Punishment of dismissal from service is extremely

harsh. highly excessive and shockingly

disproportionate. Hence, the petitioner prays to

allow the petition.

4. In response to this challenge, respondents filed

counter justifying the dismissal of the petitioner. The

respondents company being mining industry is a Central

Government subject and the petitioner ought to have

approached the CGIT, Hyderabad. This petition is not

maintainable before this Court and is liable to be dismissed.

The petitioner was appointed in the respondents

company as Badli Filler on 21-12-2002 on compassionate

grounds. The petitioner did not sustain any injuries to

head or left eye during the course of employment as alleged

by him. The petitioner is a known case of Hepatitis-B and

Defective eye vision. The petitioner was suffering from the

above said ailments, the petitioner's case was forwarded to

Chief of Medical Services, Kothagudem for fitness to work

underground. The petitioner continued to be absent for

the year 2006, 2007 and 2008. Though the petitioner was

warned for his unauthorized absence and advised to

3538

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

improve his attendance, the petitioner failed to improve

attendance and continued to be absent. The following

attendance particulars of the petitioner indicate the fact

that the petitioner was not regular to his duties and in no

year he had put in 190 musters during the period from 2002

to 2008.

Sl. No.

Year

No. of musters

2002

2003

131

2004

101

2005

2006

2007

Nil

2008

Nil

2009

Nil

2010

Nil

During the period from January, 2008 to January, 2010,

the petitioner had put in- Nil-musters. As the above act

amounted to misconduct under Standing Orders Clause

No. 25.31 of the company, the petitioner was charge

sheeted. After considering the documentary evidence and

other evidence on record, the enquiry officer submitted his

unbiased report holding that the petitioner is guilty of

misconduct under company standing orders.

5. The respondents' company having conducted enquiry

and having counselled the petitioner taking a lenient view

advised him to improve his attendance. But the petitioner

failed to improve his attendance and continued to be absent

from service. The respondent company after considering

the past record of the petitioner and on finding that there

were no extenuating circumstances for taking a lenient view

was constrained to dismiss the petitioner from service. The

respondent company conducted the enquiry proceedings

duly in accordance with the principles of natural justice

and law giving full opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore,

the respondents pray to dismiss the petition without

granting any relief to the petitioner.

6. During the course of hearing, Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-10 and

Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-10 are marked.

7. Counsel for the petitioner filed Memo U/Sec. 11-A of

I.D., Act stating that he is not challenging the validity of

domestic enquiry conducted by the respondents and

prayed this Tribunal to decide the quantum of relief to

which the petitioner is entitled.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the material papers on

record.

9. Respondents filed written arguments.

10. On consideration of respective contentions of the

parties, the following points require to be determined:—

1. "Whether this Tribunal has got jurisdiction?"

2. " Wether the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner

is justified and proportionate?"

11. POINT No.:1

As per the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court reported

in 1997 (III) LLJ (Supp.) 11 between U. Chinnappa And

Cotton Corporation of India, this Court has got jurisdiction

to entertain the dispute raised by the petitioner. Hence, the

point is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioner.

12. POINT No:2

Medical prescription and treatment given to the

petitioner by the SCCL Area Hospital, Ramakrishnapur dt.

9-8-2005 is marked as Ex.W-1. Another medical prescription

dt. 12-8-2005 showing the treatment given to the petitioner

in the same SCCL Area Hospital is marked as Ex. W-2. Letter

dt. 26/30-8-2005 of the Chief Medical Officer, SCCL Area

Hospital, Ramakrishnapur/SRP addressed to the Chief of

Medical Services, Kothagudem is marked as Ex. W-3 which

shows that the petitioner is a known case of "Hepatitis-B",

that he was suffering from defective eye vision and that he

was referred the Main Hospital, Kothagudem for advice

regarding his fitness to work as Badli Filler in the

underground. Letter dt. 27-10-2005 of the Addl. CMO, on

behalf of Chief Medical Services, Kothagudem to the Addl.

CMO, Area Hospital, RKP (SRR Area) is marked as

Ex. W-5 which shows that the petitioner is a case of

"Defective vision in left eye for the last one and half years

following Trauma to LE" and that he is a known case of

Hepatitis-B also. It is further clearly stated that petitioner

was exmined and advised to apply for Corporate Medical

Board. Previous charge sheet dt. 1-2-2008 issued to the

petitioner is marked as Ex. W-5 and enquiry notice thereof

is market as Ex. W-6, where under petitioner was directed

to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be

taken against him for his absence to duty from 1-1-2007 to

31-1-2008. Order dt. 3-5-2008 issued by the 2nd respondent

is marked as Ex.W-7 which shows that petitioner's

representation dt. 26-2-2008 was examined and that a lenient

view was taken by warning the petitioner. The petitioner

was issued another charge sheet dt. 18-2-2009 marked as

Ex. M-1 for his absence from duty from 1-2-2008 to 31-1-

2009. Enquiry proceedings are marked as Ex. M-5 and the

dismissal order dt. 25-3-2010 is marked as Ex. M-10.

13. That even according to the respondents, it can be

seen from Para No.6 of the counter that:—

"Petitioner is a known case of Hepatitis-B and defective

eye vision, that as the petitioner was suffering from the

above said ailments, his case was forwarded to the Chief of

Medical Services, Kothagudem for fitness to work

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3539

underground, vide letter dt. 30-8-2005 The petitioner

reported to the Main Hospital, Kothagudem on 26-10-2005

and was examined and advised to apply to Corporate

Medical Board for fitness, vide letter dt.27-10-2005. The

petitioner having applied to the Corporate Medical Board

should have waited for reply of the Board and continue to

his duty or avail treatment by reporting sick in the Company

Area Hospital."

The grievance of the Petitioner is that as the Addl. CMO,

Kothagudem examined the petitioner and found that

petitioner is a case of defective vision in left eye and a

known case of Hepatitis-B virus and to apply for Corporate

Medical Board vide letter dt. 27-10-2005, the 1st respondent

sent the petitioner's record to the Area Hospital,

Ramakrishnapur for referring him to the Corporate Medical

Board and not allowed him to do Badli Filler underground

duty, due to the above ailment. Petitioner was undergoing

medical treatment for his ailment. The respondents neither

provided him surface job nor made him medically unfit for

underground duty. Petitioner was taking treatment and

waited for communication from the Corporate Medical

Board, so that he can appear before the Medical Board.

But instead the respondents have chosen to issue charge

sheet to him alleging absence from duty from 1-1-2007 to

31-8-2008. However after enquiry petitioner was directed

to improve this attendance. Again petitioner was not allowed

to work underground because of defective vision and virus

Hepatitis-B. But another enquiry was held for his absence

to duty without sufficient cause for the period from

1-2-2008 to 31-1-2009. Domestic enquiry was ordered and

later petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f., 27-3-2010.

The respondents without applying to the Corporate

Medical Board as per the medical opinion of Main Hospital,

Kothagudem, dismissed him from service unjustly by order

dt. 25-3-2010 to deprive him surface job and his medical

unfit benefits.

14. The respondents have brought to the notice of this

court the guidelines with regard to considering the medical

fitness of the workers by constituting "Corporate Medical

Board", vide circular dt. 29-5-2000. The guidelines nowhere

prohibit the management/respondents company to refer

an employee to the Medical Superintendent of the Area

Hospital and in turn to the Corporate Medical Board.

According to the letter of the Main Hospital, Kothagudem

under Ex.W-4 communication was sent by the Chief of

Medical Services, Kothagudem Hospital to the Addl. CMO,

Area Hospital RKP (SRP Area) that petitioner was suffering

from defective vision and he is a known case of virus

Hepatitis-B also and advised to apply for Corporate Medical

Board. These aspects were not at all considered in the

domestic enquiry with regard to the absence of the

petitioner to duties. It is not the case of the respondents

that the petitioner is fit to work in the underground mines

and inspite of fitness; he failed to attend to duties.

Petitioner is admittedly suffering from defective vision and

is a known case of Hepatitis-B, because of which he was

not allowed in the underground. No action was taken by

the respondents company to allot any surface duties to

the petitioner or declare him unfit for any sort of duty.

Therefore it is not a case where the petitioner was

intentionally abstaining from duties. Considering the

medical record of the petitioner, it is appropriate to take a

lenient view. If the petitioner had lacked initiative in

pursuing his case with the Corporate Medical Board, the

respondents were also equally at fault for not processing

petitioner's case to a logical conclusion with regard to his

medical fitness.

15. In a decision reported in DIVISION BENCH

JUDGMENT OF GUJARATH HIGH COURT REPORTED

IN 1982 LAB.IC 1031 BETWEEN: R.M., PARMAR VRS.,

GUJARATH ELECTRICITY BOARD, the following guide

lines were laid down in the matter of inflicting punishment

of discharge and dismissal:—

In a disciplinary proceeding for an alleged fault of

an employee, punishment is imposed not in order to seek

retribution or to give vent to feelings of wrath.

The main purpose of a punishment is to correct

the fault of the employee concerned by making him more

alert in the future and to hold out warning to the other

employees to be careful in the discharge of their duties so

that they do not expose themselves to similar punishment.

And the approach to be made is the approach parents

make towards an erring or misguided child.

It is not expedient in the interest of the

administration to visit every employee against whom a fault

is established with the penalty of dismissal and to get rid

of him. It would be counter-productive to do so for it

would be futile to expect to recruit employees who are so

perfect that they would never commit any fault.

In order not to attract the charge of arbitrariness

it has to be ensured that the penalty imposed is

commensurate with the magnitude of the fault. Surely one

cannot rationally or justly impose the same penalty for

giving a slap as one would impose for homicide.

When different categories of penalties can be

imposed in respect of the alleged fault, one of which is

dismissal from service, the disciplinary authority perforce

is required to consult himself for selecting the most

appropriate penalty from out of the range of penalty

available that can be imposed, having regard to the nature,

content and gravity of the default. Unless the disciplinary

authority reaches the conclusion that having regard to the

nature, content and magnitude of the fault committed by

the employee concerned, it would be absolutely unsafe to

retain him in service, the maximum penalty of dismissal

cannot be imposed. It a lesser penalty can be imposed

without seriously jeopardizing the interest of the employees

the disciplinary authority cannot impose the maximum

3540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

penalty of dismissal from service. He is bound to ask the

inner voice and rational faculty why a lesser penalty cannot

be imposed.

It cannot be over looked that by and large it is

because the maximum penalty is imposed and total ruination

stares one in the eyes that the employee concerned is

obliged to approach the court and avail the costly time-

consuming machinery to challenge in desperation the order

passed by the disciplinary authority. It a lesser penalty

was imposed, he might not have been obliged to take

recourse to costly legal proceedings which result in loss of

public time and also result in considerable hardship and

misery to the employee concerned.

When the disciplinary proceedings end in favour

of the employee, the employer has often to pay back wages

say for about 5 years without being able to take work from

the employee concerned. On the other hand, the employee

concerned would have had to suffer economic misery and

mental torture for all these years. Even the misery of being

obliged to remain idle without work would constitute an

unberable burden. And when the curtain drops every one

is left with a bitter taste in the mouth. All because the

extreme penalty of dismissal or removal is imposed instead

of a lighter one.

Every harsh order of removal from service creates

bitterness and arouses feeling of antagonism in the

collective mind of the workers and gives raise to a feeling

of class conflict. It does more harm than good to the

employer as also to the society.

Taking of a petty article by a worker in a moment

of weakness when he yields to a temptation does not call

for an extreme penalty of dismissal from service. More

particularly, when he does not hold a sensitive post of

trust (pilferage by a cashier or by a store keeper from the

stores in his charge, for instances, may be viewed with

seriousness). A worker brought up and living in an

atmosphere of poverty and want when faced with

temptation, ought not to, but may yield to it in a moment of

weakness. It cannot be approved, but it can certainly be

understood particularly in an age when even the rich

commit economic offences to get richer and do so by and

large with impunity (and even tax evasion or possession of

black money is not considered to be dishonorable by and

large). A penalty of removal from service is therefore not

called for when a poor worker yields to a momentary

temptation and commits an offence which often passed

under the name of kleptomania when committed by the

rich.

16. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,

medical record and keeping in view the admitted defective

vision and virus Hepatitis-B being suffered by the petitioner

discussed supra, I hold that the dismissal order dt. 25-3-

2010 passed by the 2nd respondent is liable to be set aside,

to meet the ends of justice. However, the petitioner is not

entitled to any back wages.

17. In the result, the order of dismissal dt. 25-03-2010

marked as Ex.M-10 is set aside and the respondents'

company is hereby directed to send the petitioner to

Corporate Medical Board, Kothagudem for fitness test,

within (30) days of publication of this award. For this

purpose, petitioner shall furnish his postal address to the

2nd respondent for further communications as per the award

and he shall appear before the 2nd respoundent as and

when required. In case the petitioner is found to be unfit

for underground job as Badli Filler, the respondents shall

provide surface job to him. If the petitioner is unfit to be

reinstated for any type of job, it shall be deemed that the

petitioner is medically unfit while in service, since the

dismissal order is set aside by this court. Petitioner is not

entitled to any back wages.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court, on this the 10th day of July, 2015.

G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-Cum- Presiding Officer

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Workman:—

For Management:—

-Nil-

EXHIBITS

For workman:—

Ex. W-1 Dt. 09-08-2005

SCCL Area Hospital OP Slip No.

15757, x. Copy

Ex. W-2 Dt. 12-08-2005

SCCL Area Hospital OP Slip No.

13764

Ex. W-3 Dt. 26/30-08-2005 Letter to Chief of Medical

Services, Kothagudem

by Addl. Chief Medical Officer,

Area Hospital,

Ramakrishnapur, x. copy

Ex. W-4 Dt. 27-10-2005

Letter to Addl. CMO, Area

Hospital, Ramakrishnapur, SRP,

Area by Addl. CMO, advising

to apply for corporate Medical

Board.

Ex. W-5 Dt. 01-02-2008

Charge sheet

Ex. W-6 Dt. 08-02-2008

Enquiry notice

Ex. W-7 Dt. 3/5-04-2008

Letter issued to the petitioner

by the General Manager,

Srirampur Area advising the

petitioner

improve

attendance

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3541

Ex.. W-8 Dt. 25-03-2010

Dismissal order, x. copy

Ex. W-9 Dt. 10-05-2010

Demand letter

Ex. W-10Dt. 04-03-2010

Postal Ack., card of petitioner

For Management:—

Ex. M-1 Dt. 18-02-2009

Charge sheet

Ex. M-2 Dt. 03-08-2009

Enquiry notice

Ex. M-3 Dt. 24-08-2009

Undelivered postal returned

cover with Ack.

Ex M-4

Dt. 11-09-2009

Enquiry notice was published

in Sakshi telugu news paper

Ex. M-5 Dt. 23-04-2009

Enquiry proceedings

Ex. M-6 Dt. 30-09-2009

Enquiry report

Ex. M-7 Dt. 30-10-2009

Show cause notice

Ex. M-8 Dt. 30-10-2009

Undelivered postal returned

cover with Ack.

Ex. M-9 Dt. 20-01-2010

Show cause notice was

published in Andhra Jyothi

Telugu daily news paper

Ex. M-10Dt. 25-03-2010

Dismissal order.

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1680-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds izca/kra=

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

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

vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 01@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@258@1999&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2015

S.O. 1680.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. 01/2000) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,

ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of the Khas Kajora

Colliery of M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited, and their

workman, received by the Central Government on

20/08/2015.

[No. L-22012/258/1999-IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT: Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 01 OF 2000

PARTIES:

The Management of Khas Kajora

Colliery of M/s. ECL

Vs.

Shri Khiru Bhuia

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management:

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

for the union (Workman): Shri Rakesh Kumar, President

(KMC)

INDUSTRY: COAL

STATE: WEST BENGAL

Dated: 07.08.2015

AWARD

In exercise of power 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/

258/1999-IR(CM-II) dated 21.12. 1999 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Khas Kajora

Colliery of Kajora Area of M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited,

in dismissing Shri Khiru Bhuia, Driller from services is

legal and justified, if not, what relief the workman is

entitled to?"

Having received the Order No. L-22012/258/1999-

IR(CM-II) dated 21.12. 1999 of the above said reference

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

adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 01 of 2000

was registered on 05.01.2000/10.10.2001 and accordingly

an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through

the registered post to the parties concerned directing them

to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their

written statements along with the relevant documents and

a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance

of the said order notices by the registered post were sent

to the parties concerned.

Case called out Sri Rakesh Kumar, President of the union

(Koyla Mazdoor Congress) appears on behalf of the

workman but none appears on behalf of the management

(Khas Kajora Colliery, ECL).

3542

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Shri R. Kumar submits that the workman is not interested

to proceed with the case further and he has got no

instruction from the workman. He has also written it on the

order sheet. Since the workman is now not at all interested

to proceed with the case further and the case is also very

old-of the year 2015. 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] 20 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1681-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds izca/kra=

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

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

vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 56@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@542@1999&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2015

S.O. 1681.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 56/2000) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,

ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of the Pure Searsole

Colliery of M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

20/08/2015.

[No. L-22012/542/1999-IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Sri Promod Kumar Mishra,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 56 OF 2000

PARTIES:

The Management of Pure Searsole

Colliery of M/s. ECL

Vs.

Shri Ishaque Mia

REPRESENTATIVES:

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

For the union (Workman): Shri Pralay Dutta, Ld. Adv. of

the workman

INDUSTRY: COAL

STATE: WEST BENGAL

Dated: 04.08.2015

AWARD

In exercise of power conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt.

of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No.

L-22012/542/1999-IR(CM-II) dated 13.07.2000 has been

pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by

this Tribunal.

THE SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Pure Searsol

Colliery under ECL in denying/refusing re-instatement

of Sh. Ishaque Mia as per the judgement of Junior

Division Second Court, Asansol dated 26.02.1998 is legal

valid and justified? If not what relief the workman is

entitled?"

Having received the Order No. L-22012/542/1999-IR

(CM-II) dated 13.07.2000 of the above said reference from

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

adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 56 of

2000 was registered on 01.08.2000 and accordingly an order

to that effect was passed to issue notice 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.

The case record is put up today as it was tagged with

L.C. Application no. 02 of 2009 which was also filled by the

same workman, i.e. Shri Ishaque Mia.

Shri P. K. Goswami, learned advocate for the opposite

party and Srhi Pralay Dutta, Learned Advocate for the

workman are present. Both of them pressed for passing a

"No Dispute Award' in this case as the workman has already

died. The case was for reinstatement of the workman. Since

the workman is dead and his lawyer was written on the

order sheet for passing a 'No' Dispute Award' I think it jsut

and proper to close this case. Hence the case is closed and

accordingly a 'No Dispute Award' may be passed.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3543

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] 20 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1682-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

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

y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 5@2003½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@30@2002&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2015

S.O. 1682.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 5/2003) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of the Food Corporation

of India, and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 20/08/2015.

[No. L-22012/30/2002-IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

RAKESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 05/2003

L-22012/30/2002-IR(CM-II) dated 08.10.2002

BETWEEN

The State Secretary

Bharatiya Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh

TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar

Lucknow

AND

The Regional Manager

Food Corporation of India

TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar

Lucknow

AWARD

1. By order No. L-22012/30/2002-IR(CM-II) dated

08.10.2002, 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 Indudstrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this

industrial dispute between The State Secretary, Bharatiya

Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh, TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand,

Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and The Regional Manager (UP)

Food Corporation of India, TC/3V Vibhuti Khand Gomti

Nagar, Lucknow for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the action of the management of food

corporation of india in passing reversion orders against

68 workmen vide office order dated 30.10.2000 is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled to?"

In brief, facts of the case as per the claim statement are

as follows;

The Karmchari Sangh has stated that opposite party

No. 1 has promoted 50 AG-II (Min.) to Asstt. Grade-I(Min.)

against penal year 1991 vide office order dated 21.12.1991,

various cadres of category III employees in FCI are there

such as Depot. Cadre, Technical cadre, ministry cadre,

accounts cadre and engineering cadre, seniority of each

cadre of employee is maintained at Zonal level separately.

The opposite party No. 1 has promoted 44 AG.II (M) to

the post of Ag.1(M) against penal year from 1990 to 1992

vide office order dated 22.12.1982. The opposite party No.

1 has again issued promotion orders for 19 employees

promoting them from the post of Ag.II (M) to Ag.II (M)

vide office order dated 02.12.1993. All the employees had

joined and started functioning on the promoted post as

soon as they got the promotion orders. The pay of the

promoted employees was also fixed by FCI ono their

promotions. After working for 7-8 years as Ag.I (M) the Dy.

Zonal Manager (N) has issued a cyclostyle show cause

notice dated 12.02.1998 to the workmen. Some of them

received it and some have not.

The applicant has emphasized that the show cause

notice issued by the opposite party is illegal, arbitrary and

against the law, as major penalty under regulation 54 can

not be awarded without going throught he procedure

prescribed under regulation 58. Directions of Hon'ble High

Courts and Hon'ble Supreome Court have not been followed

by the opposite party, moreover the workmen were not

parties to the case referred in the show cause notice as

such those orders were not binding upon them. The Sangh

has stated that workmen joined the FCI in 1972 as Ag.III

(M) as fresh appointee and the seniority is fixed according

to the merit in the selection as provided in regulation 16(1),

seniority list cannot be revised arbitrarily, and it cannot be

changed after 26 years or so, while two promotions have

already been granted in between.

3544

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Sangh has further stated that it was duty of the FCI

to provide copies of all the relevant orders of Hon'ble various

High Courts and Supreme Court to the workmen so that

they could give effective replies. But the copies were not

provided despite demands. It was the duty not to pass any

adverse order before providing copies. The Dy. Zonal

Manager is not the appointing authority of the workmen,

they were promoted by Zonal Manager as such the show

cause notice is without jurisdiction. The applicant has come

to know from the reliable sources that not court has evern

ordered to change the seniority of entire cadre in whole of

the North Zone of FCI since 1972 and revert the workmen

after they worked for 7-8 years in promoted capactiy. The

change of seniority and consequential show cause notice

etc. are totally arbitrary, illegal and malafide act.

The Sangh has stressed further that the workmen

promoted and worked as Ag.II (M) from 1991-93 were not

only reversed as Ag.I (M), but pay was also reduced and

salary already paid form 1991 to 2000 was to be recovered

while they have worked on the post of Ag.I (M), there was

not fault of the workmen, no charge sheet etc. was given to

them. With the above pleadings the Sangh has prayed to

set aside the impugned order dated 30.10.2000 passed by

the management whereby promotion granted in 1991, 92,

93 to 68 workmen of FCI were cancelled/withdrawn,

consequently they were reversed. Direction has also been

sought for the FCI to pay all the consequential benefits of

promotion from the date the workmen were promoted and

to award cost as well.

The opposite party has filed written statement A2-15,

denying the main allegation taken by the workmen in the

claim statement. The opposite party has stated that a show

cause notice was served upon all the effective parties, and

thereafter the order was enforced, opportunity of hearing

was also provided. The management has emphasized that

the said action was taken in pursuance of the directions

given by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its judgement dated

14.01.1992 which was reiterated on 11.11.1994 resulting into

recasting of the seniority. The opposite party has stated

the SLP was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, thereafter

in the absence of availability of vacancies show cause

notice was issued to the effected workmen but none of

them approached the opposite party, neither they ever

demanded any document. The management has submitted

that it was upon the workman to approach and demand

any document which they required.

It has been stated in the written statement that before

the reversion of the workmen, sufficient vacancies were

created under Carrier Progressive Scheme in the year 2000

and they were promoted notionally as Ag.I (D), vide office

order dated 30.10.2000 regarding fixation of inter-se

seniority, zonal seniority position, earlier promotion order

issued during 1991-93 was cancelled/withdrawn, the pre

revised seniority list became impunative.

The opposite party further stated that in pursuance of

Hon'ble High Court's judgement Zonal Office revised

seniority list of the intitial grade by adopting the procedure

laid down in regulation 16(1) and the revised zonal seniority

list was circulated, the impugned order was made effective

and it is legal just and in accordance with law, enforced in

pursuance of the Hon'ble High Court orders. It has also

been emphasized that Dy. Zonal Manager is competent

authority in the case of promotion of the category 3 official.

The opposite party has stressed that the applicants

workmen are not entitled to any relief.

Rejoinder A1-17 was filed by the Karmchari Sangh

wherein averments taken in the written statement were

denied and main assertions taken in the claim statement

have been reiterated.

As per list C-23 36 documents have been filed by the

workmen.

Earlier the then Hon'ble Presiding Officer of this court

has passed an award dated 06.10.2006, which on the misc.,

application AI dated 21.11.2006, moved by the workmen,

was recalled vide another order dated 30.05.2007, since the

earlier award was treated as an ex-parte award.

Consequently the proceedings of the industrial dispute

were initiated as fresh.

On behalf of the workmen, affidavit A-30 of Sri S.B.

Singh was filed in the court, he was thoroughly cross-

examined on behalf of the opposite party. Sri S.B. Singh in

his cross examination has admitted the notice was issued

to workmen, wherein an order of Hon'ble Supreme Court

was referred. Although the witnesses have asserted that

there was no such direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, his assertion has not been corroborated by any

cogent evidence or documents. It has also been admitted

by him that the reversion order was not challenged before

any other competent authority.

It has been argued by the management that the effected

workmen migh have attained the age of superannuation by

now; moreover notional promotion had already been given

to the deserving workmen.

It is evident from the perusal of the record, that as

consequence of the directions dated 14.01.1992 and

11.01.2004 given by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and another

direction given by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court

on 08.12.1989, integrated Zonal seniority was determined,

since no relief was further provided by Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India. It is also quite relevant to mention here that

most of the effected officials were notionally promoted,

subject to the decision of the court cases.

Karmchari Sangh has measureably failed to produce

before this court any reliable evidence in support of the

pleading taken in the claim statement. Therefore, any

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3545

allegality or irregularity in the impugned reversion orders

passed by FCI against said 68 workmen vide office order

dated 30.10.2000, cannot be inferred. The aforesaid reversion

order appears to be perfectly legal and justified. The

reference under adjudication is answered as NO CLAIM

AWARD.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

03.08.2015

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1683-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

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

dksydÙkk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 39@1997½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y & 22012@451@1996 & vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2015

S.O. 1683.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/1997) of the

Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kalkata as

shwon in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Dankuni Coal Complex, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 20/08/

2015.

[No. L-22012/451/1996-IR (C-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 39 of 1997

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

Dankuni Coal Complex

AND

Their workmen.

Present: Justice Dipak Saha Ray,

... Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the :

Mr. Uttam Kumar Mondal, Ld.

Management

Counsel,

On behalf of the :

Mr. Saibal Mukherjee, Ld.

Workman

Counsel.

Sate: West Bengal.

Industry: Coal.

Dated: 4th August, 2015.

AWARD

By Order No. L-22012/451/96-IR(C.II) dated 10.09.1997

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of

its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Dankuni

Coal Complex of CIL

(1) In denying to promote S/Sh. R.S. Roy, Avay Pada

Samanta, Parimal Acharya and Dulal Rajbanshi w.e.f.

26.04.91 along with Sh. A. Chakraborty is legal and

justified; and

(2) In superceeding Sh. Gopal Chandra Mondal by

Sh. Adinath Chakraborty in promotion to T&S Gr.

'C' is legal and justified?

if not, to what relief are the workmen entitled and from

which date?"

2. When the case is taken up for today for hearing, Ld.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the union submits that he

has got instruction from the Secretary of the union, namely,

Shri Partha Sarathi Roy, who is also present before the

Tribunal that the union is not willing to proceed with the

case further as all the concerned workmen have retired

from service.

3. Considering the above facts and circumstances and

the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the union it appears

that no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping the matter

pending.

4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the

present reference is disposed of by passing a "No Dispute

Award".

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

The 4th August, 2005

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1684-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

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

dksydkrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 35@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@08@2015 dk izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@87@2013&vkbZñvkjñ¼lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

3546

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 20 August, 2015

S.O. 1684.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby

publishes the Award (Ref. No. 35/2013) of the Cent. Govt.

Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour, Kolkata as shown in the

Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management

of Dankuni Coal Complex, and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 20/08/2015.

[No. L-22012/87/2013-IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 35 of 2013

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

Dankuni Coal Complex

AND

Their Workmen

Present : Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the :

Mr. Uttam Kurnar Mondal, Ld.

Management

Counsel for Dankuni Coal

Complex.

None for M/s. B.N. Enterprise.

On behalf of the :

None

Workman

State: West Bengal.

Industry: Coal.

Dated: 2nd July, 2015.

AWARD

By Order No. L-22012/87/2013-IR(CM-II) dated

17.07.2013 and Corrigendum of even number dated

14.07.2014 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of its powes under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of

the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action for the management of Dankuni

Coal Complex in not allowing Sri Somnath Bag, General

Secretary, Dankuni Coal Complex Contractor's Labour

Union to enter into their establishment on 07.11.2012

and disengagement from job by M/s. B.M. Enterprise,

Contractor is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief

the workman is entitled to?"

2. When the case was taken up on 30.06.2015, none

appeared on behalf of the union, none also appeared on

behalf of M/s. B.N. Enterprise though the management

was represented by its Ld. Counsel, it appears from the

record that none also appeared on behalf of the union on

the previous two consecutive dates.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances, it may

reasonably be presumed that the union is not interested to

proceed with this reference case further. So, no fruitful

purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending.

4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, present

reference is disposed of by passing a "No Dispute Award".

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata

The 2nd July, 2015

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1685-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

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

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

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1@2011]

3@2011] 4@2011] 5@2011] 6@2011] 7@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2015 dk izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40011@09@2010&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

lañ ,y&40011@12@2010&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

lañ ,y&40011@13@2010&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

lañ ,y&40011@14@2010&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

lañ ,y&40011@15@2010&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

lañ ,y&40011@17@2010&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

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

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2015

S.O. 1685.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 1/2011, 3/2011, 4/

2011, 5/2011, 6/2011, 7/2011) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Delhi now as

shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of the Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 19/08/2015.

[No. L-40011/09/2010-IR(DU),

No. L-40011/12/2010-IR(DU),

No. L-40011/13/2010-IR(DU),

No. L-40011/14/2010-IR(DU),

No. L-40011/15/2010-IR(DU),

No. L-40011/17/2010-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3547

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND

DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT

COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No. 1/2011

Sh. Himmat Singh

S/o Shri Kundan Singh

Vill. Reta, Post Bannakhera,

Udhamsingh Nagar

...Workman

Versus

The Chief General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Uttrakhand Circle,

Dehradun

The Telecom District Manager

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Haldwani

... Management

AWARD

Background facts giving rise to the reference are that

the claimant, Shri Himmat Singh was engaged as casual

labourer on 01.01.1995 under Sub Divisional Officer,

Kashipur in the Departmet of Telecommunication, Rudrapur,

Nainital, Uttar Pradesh. Shri Beg Sahib was the SDO of the

workman at the time of his initial appointment, who has

also issued certificate to the claimant showing the number

of days the claimant has worked and the same is Annexure

P-1.

2. Thereafter, the claimant continued to work with the

Department of Telecommunication under SDO, Puran Singh

from 01.01.1995 to 01.01.1996 for 336 days and certificate is

Annexure B. Similarly, the claimant worked from 01.02.1996

to 01.10.1996 under SDO Shri Puran Singh for a total of 104

days as a clear from Annexure P-2.

3. After the year 2005, the claimant has been paid through

ACA-17 slip by SDO Kedar Rai. Thus, the workman had

been working continuously in the Department of

Telecommunications and thereafter the department of

Telecommunications framed the scheme of grant of

temporary status to the casual labourers known as 'Grant

of Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme", which

came into effect on 01.10.1989. Clauses 5 of the said Scheme

is as under:

5. Temporary status—

(i)

Temporary status would be conferred of all casual

labourers who are in employment on the date of

issue of this OM and who have rendered a

continuous service of at least one year, which means

that they must have been engaged for a period of

at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices

observing 5 days week).

(ii) Such conferment of temporary status would be

without reference to the creation/availability of

regular Group 'D' posts.

(iii) Conferment of temporary status on a casual labourer

would not involve and change in his duties and

responsibilities. The engagement will be on daily

rates of pay on need basis. He may be deployed

anywhere within the recruitment until/territorial

circle on the basis of availability of work.

(iv) Such casual labourers who acquire temporary status

will not, however, be brought on to the permanent

establishment unless they are selected through

regular selection process for Group 'D' posts.

4. After coming into force of the above scheme,

Department of Telecommunication issued circular dated

07.11.1989 stating that the said Scheme would be made

applicable to those casual labourer who were engaged prior

to 01.04.1985. However, the said circular was held to be

illegal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Braj

Kishore Vs. Union of India, wherein it has been held that

the above scheme would be applicable to all those casual

labourer who had continuously worked for a period of one

year irrespective of the cut off date, i.e. 10.04.1985. Since

the claimant was working in the Department of

Telecommunication continuously, as such, he was entitled

to the benefits of the Scheme discussed above. It is also

clear that as per the above Scheme, a person who has

continuously worked for 10 years from the date of

engagement was entitled to be regularized and applying

the grant of temporary status scheme several other casual

workers were permanently regularized who have served

for 10 years from the date of their original engagement.

5. It is also clear from the statement of claim that in the

year 2000, assets and liabilities of Department of

Telecommunication were transferred to a Government

Company known as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and all the

officers and employees of all cadres became employees of

BSNL. Management, with a view to deny legitimate rights

of the claimants in the year 2006 placed the workers under

the Contractor and at that time Shri R.P. Singh was the SDO

under whom the contractor started working. Being

aggrieved, the workers approached the labour authorities

and ultimately dispute for regularization of such workers

were referred to the Labour Court in Delhi. Since the

3548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

claimant has been working in the Department of

Telecommunication for more than 20 years, as such he was

to get benefit of the Scheme discussed above. He was

entitled for grant of temporary status initially and thereafter

was required to be regularized as regular Mazdoor.

6. Management was put to notice and on appearance

filed written statement wherein Respondent No. 1 and 2

took preliminary objections inter alia of cause of action,

workman not approaching the court with clean hands,

malafide and concealing of material facts etc. It was also

alleged that present reference is bad for non-joinder of

necessary parties, since the workman has been working

under the contractor who was required to be impleaded as

a party. It is further alleged that in order to meet exigencies

of the work, respondents have taken services of a contractor

for providing work force on part-time basis on some dates.

As such, engagement of casual workers do not confer upon

any workman any automatic right of regularization. On

merits, it has been denied that the claimant was engaged as

casual labourer since 01.03.1987 on muster roll under

Shri Joshi, SDO Kashipur. It is also denied that the claimant

worked

continuously

with

Department

Telecommunication under Shri Beg Sahib, SDO. Claimant

was not paid wages through ACA 17 slip by SDO Kedar

Rai from 2005. Management also denied other material

averments made in the statement of claim.

7. Since conciliation between the parties could not be

arrived at when the matter was referred to the Regional

Labour Commission, as such the Union Government under

sub section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, made the following reference:

"Whether the demand of Shri Himmat Singh., S/o

Shri Kundan Singh, for reinstatement and regularization of

his services with effect fom 28.02.2006 in Bharat Sanchar

Nigam Limited, who worked with them since last 20 years is

valid and justified? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled

to?"

8. Claimant, herein, filed statement of claim as discussed

above and on which written statement was filed by

Respondent No. 1 and 2, i.e. the managements.

9. It is clear from order dated 07.03.2011 passed by my

learned predecessor that no specific issues were framed. It

was clarified that no other issue than those referred by the

appropriate Government under Section 10 of the ID Act for

adjudication, is made out.

10. Claimant, in support of his case, examined himself as

WW1 and adduced both oral as well as documentary

evidence in support of the stand taken in the statement of

claim. Similarly, the management examined Shri R.P. Singh

as MW1 so as to rebut the case of the claimant.

11. I have heard Shri Rajinder Singh Palni, A/R for the

claimant and Shri Lokesh Sukhwani, A/R for the

management.

12. Shri Palni, appearing on behalf of the claimant, urged

that the claimant herein was employed as casual labourer

by the Department of Telecommunications from 01.03.1987

and in this regard, attention of the court was invited to

Ex.WW1/1 (Annexure P1), which is a certificate issued by

Junior Telecom Officer Kashipur wherein month-wise details

of attendance of the claimant herein has been mentioned.

There is another certifricate Ex.WW1/2 (Annexure P2)

which also contains similar details and number of total

working days of the claimant during the year 1996 as 104.

There is another certificate Ex.WW1/3 which also contains

details of attendance of the claimant herein for the year

2003 and total number of working days, i.e. 269. Ex.WW1/

4 also contains details of attendance of the claimant herein

for the year 2004 and total number of working days is 290.

It is, further, clear from the affidavit Ex.WW1/A of the

claimant Shri Himmat Singh that he has tried to support all

the material averments contained in the statement of claim

in the said affidavit. Claimant was subjected to cross

examination, but there is hardly anything to impeach his

credit. Claimant has also made reference to photograph

Ex.WW1/5 to Ex.WW1/13 in his statement.

13. During the course of arguments, much reliance was

placed upon the Scheme which came into force on 19.10.1989

regarding of temporary status to casual workmen. It was

not disputed even by the respondent that in fact the said

Scheme was followed by Department of Telecommunication

and in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Braj Kishore Vs. Union of India, it has been

observed that the Scheme is fully applicable to all the casual

labourer who have worked for a period of one year

irrespective of the cut off date, i.e. 01.04.1985. Thus, it is

strongly agued on behalf of the claimant that in view of the

above Scheme as well as judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court, management was legally required to grant temporary

status as per the above Scheme to the claimant herein.

14. Per contra, Shri Lokesh Sukhwani, A/R for the

management, urged that documents in the present case

relating to attendance of the workman Ex.WW1//9 have

not been proved by the workman in accordance with law

and as such no reliance can be placed upon such vague

and fictitius documents. Similarly, Shri Joshi was not the

SDO at the relevant time as mentioned in the affidavit of

the workman, which fact the workman has admitted in his

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3549

statement while appearing as WW1. Secondly, the learned

authorized representative of the management proceeded

to argue that the workman was not engaged as a casual

labourer in a legal manner and in view of the judgement of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC I,

their appointment/engagement was purely illegal being in

violation of statutory principles. As such, he cannot be

granted any permanent status. Therefore, there is no

question of regularization of service of such workmen.

15. Before I proceed to consider the comparative merits

of the submissions placed on behalf of either parties, it is

pertinent to note here that during the course of arguments,

it was not disputed that Department of Telecommunications

had issued a circular dated 07.11.1999 and it was made

applicable from 01.10.1999 as alleged in para 6 of the

statement of claim and the same was applicable to casual

labourers who were engaged prior to 01.04.1985. The said

circular admittedly was held to be illegal by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Braj Kishore vs. Union of India wherein

observations have been made that the above Scheme of

casual workers would be applicable to all casual labourer

who had continuously worked for a period of one year

irrespective of the cut off date, i.e. 01.04.1985.

16. Now the moot question which requires determination

in the present case is whether the claimant was directly

engaged as casual labourer as alleged by him in the year

1987 under SDO Kashipur. In this regard, it is appropriate to

refer to the pleadings as well as affidavit of the workman,

Shri Himmat Singh, filed as Ex.WW1/A wherein the workman

has reiterated the stand taken in his statement of claim.

Certificate Ex.WW1/1, clearly shows that from January 1995

till January 1996, claimant herein, was working as casual

labourer in Department of Telecommunications and the said

certificate is signed by Sub Divisional Engineer. He has

denied that Ex.WW1/1 is fake. He has also denied certificate

Ex.WW1/M1 is false. He further denied that he has not

worked for 240 days with the management in any calendar

year.

17. Management in order to rebut the case of the

claimant, examined Shri R.P. Singh, SDO as MW1, whose

affidavit is Ex.MW1/A, which is almost on the similar lines

as the stand taken in the written statement. He has averred

in the affidavit that the Department has imposed ban on

recruitment/engagement of casual labourer vide circular

22.01.1988. He has also relied upon the instructions

contained in the manual extract, Ex.MW1/2. Further stand

of the management has been that the claimant has not

worked for a period of 240 days in any calendar year. In his

cross examination, he has feigned ignorance whether at

present claimant is working under the contractor. He has

denied the suggestion that prior to December 2005, the

claimant was working under the management. He has

admitted that Ex.WW1/17 to Ex.WW1/42 were supplied to

the workman under the RTI Act. He has further made a vital

admission that name of Shri Himmat Singh is mentioned in

the above documents alongwith period of his engagement.

He has further admitted Ex.WW1/18 was issued by the

management and he has not carefully perused most of these

documents earlier.

18. It is clear from the resume of evidence on record that

the management has taken the plea that the claimant herein

has not worked at any time directly under the management.

However, evidence on record is crystal clear that the

claimant, even in the year 1995 was employed as casual

labourer by the Department of Telecommunications as is

evident from perusal of certificate Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.

WW1/4. Bare perusal of the above certificate clearly shows

that the clamant herein was employed as a casual labourer

in January 1995 and in the said month he worked for

30 days, in the month of February 1995 for 20 days.

Admittedly, Ex.WW1/1 clearly shows that the claimant

herein was working as casual labourer in Department of

Telecommunications.

19. It was argued with much vehemence that the

documents relied upon by the claimant are fake and forged;

as such they cannot be relied upon. There are other

documents filed by the claimant, which clearly shows that

till 2005, the claimant herein was directly working with

Department of Telecommunications and there is nothing

on record to suggest that these documents are fake or

fictitious. It is pertinent to note that SDO, Shri R.P. Singh,

appearing as MW1, has clearly deposed in his cross

examination that documents Ex.WW1/17 to Ex.WW1/42

was supplied to the claimant under the RTI Act. He has,

further, made a vital admission that the name of the claimant,

Shri Himmat Singh, finds mention in all these documents

alongwith the period of his engagement. In view of the

clear cut admission made by Shri R.P. Singh, MW1, in his

cross examination, regarding supply of the above

documents, it does not lie in the mouth of the management

to say that the documents in question are fake or fictitious.

Even, prime facie, examination of all these documents

clearly shows that they are issued by Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Limited and the name of Shri Himmat Singh, the claimant

herein finds mention in all the documents alongwith period

of his employment. These documents also prove that the

claimant has worked with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

till 2005. It is admitted case of parties that Department of

Telecommunications stood converted to a Government

Company, i.e. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Thus, there is no

3550

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

merit in the contention of the management that documents

Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/42 cannot be taken into

consideration being photocopies of the original as no

objection was raised when these documents were tendered

in evidence or exhibited by the claimant. As discussed,

documents Ex.WW1/17 to Ex.WW1/24 were supplied to

the workman under the RTI Act. Therefore, there is no

question of these documents being fake or fictitious. No

doubt, it is settled proposition of law that mere production

and marking of documents as exhibit by the court cannot

be held to be due proof of its contents. Its execution is to

be proved by admissible evidence. Situation is, however,

different when documents are produced and their

genuineness is not disputed by the opposite party when

they are tendered in evidence or when they are marked as

exhibits. I am fortified in my opinion from the case of RVE

Venkatachala Gounder versus A.V.V.P. Temples (AIR 2003

SC 4548). This was a case where the Hon'ble Apex Court

dealt at length with the question of mode of proof and

admissibility of documents and after considering entire

case law on the subject, it was held as under:

"An objection to the admissibility of the document

should be raised before such endorsement is made and

the Court is obliged to form its opinion on the question

of admissibility and express the same on which opinion

would depend the document being endorsed as

admitted or not admitted in evidence. In the latter case,

the document may be returned by the Court to the

person from whose custody it was produced.

Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of evidence

should be taken when it is tendered and not

subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of

documents is evidence may be classified into two

classes:—(i) an objection that the document which is

sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence;

and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the

admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed

towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be

irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because

a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection

as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to

be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or

revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken

before the evidence is tendered and once the document

has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit,

the objection that it should not have been admitted in

evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the

document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at

any stage subsequent to the marking of the document

as an exhibit.'

20. The same view appears to have been taken in the

case of Narbada Devi Gupta versus Birendra Kumar Jaiswal

(AIR 2004 SC 175). In view of the ratio of law discussed

above, it is clear in the present case that no objection was

taken by the management (i.e. opposite party) when

workman while appearing as WW1 tendered photocopy in

evidence. Now, it is too late in the day to urge that the

above document, original of which is obviously in

possession of the management, has not been proved in

accordance with law. Since at no point of time validity of

these document was questioned during the course of

evidence, as such, contention of the management deserves

to be rejected.

21. In view of the above evidence on record, it is held

that claimant herein was working as casual labourer during

the period 1987 to 2005 in the establishment of the

management.

22. Now, the residual question is whether the claimant

has worked for 240 days in a calender year so as to get the

benefit of the Scheme framed by Department of

Telecommunications regarding grant of temporary status

to the casual labourers. Sub clause 1 of Clause 5 of the

above Scheme clearly provides that temporary status would

be conferred on all casual labourers currently employed

and have rendered continuous service for one year in a

calendar year. Such casual labourer will be designated as

temporary mazdoor. Clause 2 further provides that said

conferment of temporary status would be without reference

to the creation/availabilityof regular Group D posts.

23. As discussed above, perusal of certificate

Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/4 as well as documents

Ex.WW1/17 to Ex.WW1/42 clearly shows that the claimant

herein worked for more than 240 days in each of the calendar

years. In fact, combined reading of these documents shows

that claimant herein from January 1995 till 2005 was in the

employment of Department of Telecommunications/BSNI.

Thus, the workman herein is liable to be given status of

temporary mazdoor in view of the Scheme for grant of

temporary status.

24. It was argued with much vehemence by Shri Lokesh

Sukhwani, learned authorized representative of the

management, that most of the workman who are alleging

themselves to be employees of the management were in

fact never employed in accordance with any rules or

regulations nor there is any specific order regarding

employment of such workmen. Appointment of such

workman. Appointment of such workman, in the contention

of the authorized representative of the management, is

backdoor appointment and as such, in view of the ratio of

judgement of Hon'ble Apex court in Secretary State of

Karnataka vs Uma Devi (2006) 4 SC1, Claimant herein cannot

claim to be regularized in derogation of the rules, being

back door entry in as much as their appointment is totally

illegal.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3551

25. I have carefully gone through the ratio of the above

judgement and this plea of the management even did not

find favour with the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There are

observations that decision of Constitution Bench in Uma

Devi case is not attracted or applicable when the question

simply is regularization or mere grant of temporary status

to daily or casual labourers. Tribunal cannot ignore that

the claimant herein is doing the same kind of job and

performing same work which is being performed by workers

who are currently employed. The work in question not

contingent in nature and the same is perennial and still the

management is employing such workers, sometimes

through contractors for the performance of needful job.

26. During the course of arguments, reliance was also

placed upon judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in

Maharashtra State Road Transport and another vs.

Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karamchari Sanghatana (2009)

8 SCC 556. In the said case, Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with

the question of unfair labour practice and specific reference

was made to Uma Devi Case (2006) 4 SCC and it was held

as under:

"34. It is true that the case of Dharwad District

PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Association

vs. State of Karnataka (1990 2 SCC 396) arising out of

industrial adjudication has been considered in

Umadevi (3) (2006 (4) SCC 1) and that decision has

been held to be not laying down the correct law but

a careful and complete reading of decision in Umadevi

(3) leaves no manner of doubt that what this Court

was concerned in Umadevi (3) was the exercise of

power by the High Court under Article 226 and this

Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in

the matters of public employment where the

employees have been engaged as contractual,

temporary or casual workers not based on proper

selection as recognized by the rules or procedure

and yet orders of their regularization and conferring

them status of permanency have been passed.

35. Umdevi(3) is an authoritative pronouncement

for the proposition that Supreme Court (Article 32)

and High Court (Article 226) should not issue

directions of absorption, regularization or permanent

continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily

wage or ad-hoc employees unless the recruitment

itself was made regularly in terms of constitutional

scheme.

36. Umadevi(3) does not denude the Industrial

and Labour Courts of their statutory power under

Section 30 read with Section 32 of MRTU & PULP

Act to order permancency of the workers who have

been victim of unfair labour practice on the part of

the employer under item 6 of Schedule IV where the

posts on which they have been working exists.

Umadevi (3) cannot be held to have overridden the

powers of Industrial and Labour Caurts in passing

appropriate order under Section 30 of MRTU/PULP

Act, once unfair labour practice on the part of the

employer under item 6 of Schedule IV is established."

27. In UP State Electricity Board vs. Pooran Chandra

Pandey and Others 2007(12) Scale 304, the Hon'ble Apex

Court has held that the judgement in Uma Devi case cannot

be applied mechanically without seeing the facts of a

particular case. There are clear observations in the above

judgement that ratio of Uma Devi (Supra) is not attracted

to a case where simply temporary status or regularization

has been sought in pursuance of Article 14 of the

Constitution.

28. Yet, in another judgement, Hon'ble Apex Court, in

the case of Ajaypal Singh Vs. Haryana Wanehousing

Corporation (2015) 6 SCC 321 dealt with almost similar

question as to whether a workman employed in an industry

who had completed more than 240 days of service in

preceding calendar year, but his services were terminated

with effect from 01.07.1988 without one month's notice or

pay in lieu thereof in terms of Section 25F of the ID Act. On

a reference to the Labour Court, it was held by the Labour

Tribunal that termination of service of the worker was illegal

and he was entitled to be reinstated with full back wages.

This award was challenged by the employer before the

High Court in a writ petition and the High Court held that

appointment of the worker was made in violation of Article

14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore,

the workman was held not to be entitled to be reinstated.

However, compensation was awarded to the workman.

Aforesaid order was affirmed by Division Bench of the

High Court. When the matter was taken by the workman to

the Hon'ble Apex Court, plea of irregular or illegal

appointment being in violation of article 14 and Article 16

of the Constitution was out-reghtly rijected by the Hon'ble

Apex Court by observing as under:

"When no such plea is taken by the employer in

the order or retrenchment that the workman was appointed

in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution or in

violation of any statutory rule or his appointment was a

back door appointment, while granting relief, it is not open

to the employer of a public industrial establishment and

undertaking to take a plea that intial appointment of such

workman was made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 or the

workman was a back door appointee, in absence of a

reference made by the appropriate Government for

determination of question whether the initial appointment

of the workman was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 or

statutory rules. Only if such reference is made, a workman

is required to lead evidence to prove that he was appointed

by following procedure prescribed under the Rules and his

initial appointment was legal.

3552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

29. Yet, in another case, i.e. ONGC vs. Petroleum

Coal Labour Union (2015) Lab. IC 2483, Hon'ble Apex Court

dealt with the question of non-regularization of the workmen

who were alleged to be not recruited in accordance with

the rule/regulations or by following due procedure under

the law. In the said case also, the workmen were initially

employed as security guards and security supervisors

through a contractor. Later on, due to settlement between

the workers union and the management, their services were

utilized by ONGC through Co-operative Society to meet its

security requirements. Later on, due to decision taken by

the Corporation, security work was entrusted to Central

Industrial Security Force (CISF) to protect their installation.

Matter was taken by the employees union before the High

Court on the grounds that this amounts to breach of

settlement already arrived at between the parties and

Corporation took the stand that workers were not entitled

for retention and regularization as their recruitment was

not as per norms. Though the employees union lost the

case before Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court, but

later on when the matter went to Supreme Court, it was

held as under:

"Even though due procedure was not followed by

the Corporation for the appointment of the concerned

workmen in the post of 'ward and watch security,

this does not disentitle them of their right to seek

regularization of their services by the Corporation

under the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders,

after they have rendered more than 240 days of

service in a calendar year from the date of the

memorandum of appointment issued to each one of

the concerned workmen in the year 1988. The alleged

'policy decision' to appoint CISF personnel to the

security post is on deputation basis and cannot be

called appointment per se. Whereas, the concerned

workmen have acquired their right to be regularized

under the provision of Clause2(ii) of the 'Certified

Standing Orders'.

Further, the concerned workmen have clearly

completed more than 240 days of services

subsequent to the memorandum of appointment

issued by the Corporation in the year 1988 in a period

of twelve calendar months, therefore, they are entitled

for regularization of their services into permanent

posts of the Corporation as per the Act as well as the

Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation."

30. In the case in hand also, it is not the case of the

management that initial appointment of the workman herein

is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of

India. Rather management has come with the plea that the

workman herein was never employed in the year 1987 and

was directly working under the contractor.

31.

There is no merit in the contention of the

management that workman herein is an employee of the

contractor. There is nothing on record to suggest as to

who was the contractor to whom the management had given

the work in question. It was incumbent upon the

management to have brought on record all the relevant

documents, which show that contractor was awarded

contract for employment of casual labourers who were

otherwise working for the benefit of the management. Even

name of such contractor has not been disclosed by the

management. Accordingly, it is held workman herein is/

was in the employment of the management.

32.

Since this Tribunal has already observed that the

workman nerein was working under the Department of

Telecommunication/Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. right from

the year 1987 till the end of 2005, as such workman is held

to be in the employment of the respondent management.

As a sequel to the above, workman herein is also entitled

to be given temporary status in view of the Scheme of

'Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme'.

33.

So far as question of regularization of service of

the workman is concerned, it is clear from record that no

rules or regularization or standing order governing the

procedure to be followed for regularization of such

temporary employees have been filed by either of the

parties. Moreover, law is very clear that grant of

regularization is not a matter of course and it depends on

the facts and circumstances as well as rules and regulations

governing such matters. Equally settled is the law that

there cannot be any regularization dehors the rules.

34. Consequently, it is held that the workman herein

would be duly considered for regularization if the rules or

regulations applicable in this regard entitle the workman

for such regularization. If similarly situated employees

working in the management of the respondent, have been

regularized, in that eventuality, workman herein would also

be duly considered for such absorption or regularization.

Hence, issue is answered accordingly. Hence, an award is

accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the

appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated: July 28, 2015

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT NO. 1 KARKARDOOMA

COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No. 3/2011

Sh. Rattan Lal Singh

S/o Shri Ram Kishan Singh

Vill, Bhoop Singh, Post Jaspur,

Udhamsingh Nagar

...Workman

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3553

Versus

The Chief General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Uttrakhand Circle,

Dehradun

The Telecom District Manager

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Haldwani-

AWARD

Background facts giving rise to the reference are that

the claimant, Shri Rattan Lal Singh was engaged as casual

labourer on 01.08.1986 under Sub Divisional Officer,

Kashipur in the Department of Telecommunication,

Rudrapur, Naintal, Uttar Pradesh. Shri Madan Chandra was

the SDO of the workman at the time of his initial

appointment, who has also issued certificate to the claimant

showing the number of days the claimant has worked and

the same in Annexure P-1.

2. Thereafter, the claimant continued to work with the

Department of Telecommunication under SDO, Madan

Chandra in 1990, under SDO Shri Kedar Rai from 1991 to

2001 and Shri Ram Ramji from 2002 to 2004 and in 2005

under SDI Shri Saxena.

3. After the year 2005, the claimant has been paid

through ACA-17 slip by SDO Kedar Rai. Thus, the

workman had been working continuously in the

Department of Telecommunications and thereafter the

department of Telecommunication framed the scheme of

grant of temporary status to the casual labourers known

as 'Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme,''

which came into effect on 01.10.1989. Clause 5 of the said

Scheme is as under:

4. Temporary status-

(i)

Temporary status would be conferred to all casual

labourers who are in employment on the date of

issue of this OM and who have rendered a

continuous service of at least one year, which means

that they must have been engaged for a period of

at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices

observing 5 days week).

(ii) Such conferment of temporary status would be

without reference to the creation/availability of

regular Group 'D' posts.

(iii) Conferment of temporary status on a casual labourer

would not involve and change in his duties and

responsibilities. The engagement will be on daily

rates of pay on need basis. He may be deployed

anywhere within the recruitment until/territorial

circle on the basis of availability of work.

(iv) Such casual labourers who acquire temporary status

will not, however, be brought on the permanent

establishment unless they are selected through

regular selection process for Group 'D' posts.

5. After coming into force of the above scheme,

Department of Telecommunication issued circular dated

07.10.1989 stating that the said Scheme would be made

applicable to those casual labourer who were engaged prior

to 01.04.1985. However, the said circular was held to be

illegal by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of Braj

Kishore Vs. Union of India, wherein it has been held that

the above scheme would be applicable to all those casual

labourer who had continuously worked for a period of one

year irrespective of the cut off date, i.e. 10.04.1985. Since

the claimant was working in the Department of

Telecommunication continuously, as such, he was entitled

to the benefits of the Scheme discussed above. It is also

clear that as per the above Scheme, a person who has

continuously worked for 10 years from the date of

engagement was entitled to be regularized and applying

the grant of temporary status scheme several other casual

workers were permanently regularized who have served

for 10 years from the date of their original engagement.

6. It is also clear from the statement of claim that in the

year 2000, assets and liabilities of Department of

Telecommunication were transferred to a Government

Company known as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and all the

officers and employees of all cadres became employees of

BSNL. Management, with a view to deny legitimate rights

of the claimants in the year 2006 placed the workers under

the Contractor and at that time Shri R.P. Singh was the SDO

under whom the contractor started working. Being

aggrieved, the workers approached the labour authorities

and ultimately dispute for regularization of such workers

were referred to the Labour Court in Delhi. Since the

claimant have been working in the Department of

Telecommunication for more than 20 years, as such he was

to get benefit of the Scheme discussed above. He was

entitled for grant of temporary status initially and thereafter

was required to be regularized as regular Mazdoor.

7. Management was put to notice and on appearance

filed written statement wherein Respondent No. 1 and 2

took preliminary objections inter alia of cause of action,

workman not approaching the court with clean hands,

malafide and concealing of material facts etc. It was also

alleged that present reference is bad for non-joinder of

necessary parties, since the workman has been working

under the contractor who was required to be impleaded as

a party. It is further alleged that in order to meet exigencies

of the work, respondents have taken services of a contractor

for providing work force on part-time basis on some dates.

As such, engagement of casual workers do not confer upon

any workman any automatic right of regularization. On

merits, it has been denied that the claimant was engaged as

casual labourer since 01.08.1986 on muster roll under

Mahesh Chandra, SDO Kashipur. It is also denied that the

claimant worked continuously with Department of

Telecommunication under SDO, Kashipur. Claimant was

not paid wages through Act 17 slip by SDO Kedar Rai from

3554

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2005. Management also denied other material averments

made in the statement of claim.

7. Since conciliation between the parties could not be

arrived at when the matter was referred to the Regional

Labour Commission, as scuh the Union Government under

sub section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, made the following reference:

“Whether the demand of Shri Rattan Lal Singh, S/o

Shri Ram Singh, for reinstatement and regularization

of his services with effect from 28.02.2006 in Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited, who worked with them since

last 20 years is valid and justified? If yes, what relief

the workman is enttitled to.?”

8. Claimant, herein filed statement of claim as discussed

above and on which written statement was filed by

Respondent No. 1 and 2, i.e. the managements.

9. It is clear from dated 07.03.2011 passed by my learned

predecessor that no specific issues were framed. It was

clarified that no other issue than those referred by the

appropriate Government under Section 10 of the ID Act for

adjudication, is made out.

10. Claimant, in support of his case, examined himself as

WW1 and adduced both oral as well as documentary

evidence in support of the stand taken in the statement of

claim, Similarly, the management examined Shri R.P. Singh

as MW1 so as to rebut the case of the claimant.

11. I have heard Shri Rajinder Singh Palni, A/R for the

claimant and Shri Lokesh Sukhwani, A/R for the

management.

12. Shri Palini, appearing on behalf of the claimant, urged

that the claimant herein was employed as casual labourer

by the Department of Telecommunications from 01.08.1986

and in this regard, attention of the court was invited to

Annexure P1, which is a certificate issued by S.D.O.

Kashipur wherein month-wise details of attendance of the

claimant herein has been mentioned. It is, further, clear

from the affidavit EX.WW1/A of the claimant Shri Rattan

Lal Singh that he has tried to support all the material

averments contained in the statement of claim in the said

affidavit. Claimant was subjected to cross examination, but

there is hardly anything to impeach his credit. Claimant

has also made reference to photograph Ex.WW1/2 in his

statement.

13. During the course of arguments, much reliance was

placed upon the Scheme which came into force on 19.10.1989

regarding of temporary status to casual workmen. It was

not disputed even by the respondent that in fact the said

Scheme was followed by Department of Telecommunication

and in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in

the case of Braj Kishore Vs. Union of India, it has been

observed that the Scheme is fully applicable to all the casual

labourer who have worked for a period of one year

irrespective of the cut off date i.e. 01.04.1985. Thus, it is

strongly agued on behalf of the climant that in view of

above Scheme as well as judgement of the Hon’ble Apex

Court, management was legally required to grant temporary

status as per the above Scheme to the claimant herein.

14. Per contra, Shri Lokesh Sukhwani, A/R for the

management, urged that documents in the present case

relating to attendance of the workman have not been proved

by the workman in accordance with law and as such no

reliance can be placed upon such vague and fictitious

documents. Secondly, the learned authorized representative

of the management proceeded to argue that the workman

was not engaged as a casual labourer in a legal manner and

in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Uma Devi (2006) 4SCC I, their appointment/engagement

was purely illegal being in violation of statutory principles.

As such, he cannot be granted any permanent status.

Therefore, there is no question of regularization of service

of such workmen.

15. Before I proceed to consider the comparative merits

of the submissions placed on behalf of either parties, it is

pertinent to note here that during the course of arguments,

it was not disputed that Department of Telecommunications

had issued a circular dated 07.11.1999 and it was made

applicable from 01.10.1999 as alleged in para 6 of the

statement of claim and the the same was applicable to casual

labourers who were engaged prior to 01.04.1985. The said

circular admittedly was held to be illegal by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in Braj Kishore vs. Union of India wherein

observations have been made that the above Scheme of

casual workers would be applicable to all casual labourers

who had continuously worked for a period of one year

irrespective of the cut off date, i.e. 01.04.1985.

16. Now the moot question which requires determination

in the present case is whether the claimant was directly

engaged as casual labourer as alleged by him in the year

1986 under SDO Kashipur. In this regard, it is appropriate

to refere to the pleadings as well as affidavit of the workman,

Shri Rattan Lal Singh, filed as ExWW1/A wherein the

workman has reiterated the stand taken in his statement of

claim. Shri Rattan Lal Singh admitted that SDO Kashipur

has issued certificate Ex.WW1/M1, which clearly shows

that from August 1986 till May 1987, claimant herein, was

working as casual labourer in Department of

Telecommunications and the said certificate is signed by

Sub Divisional Officer Kashipur, and denied that Ex.WW1/

M1 is fake. He has also denied that he has not worked for

240 days with the management in any calendar year.

17. Management in order to rebut the case of the

claimant, examined Shri R.P. Singh, SDO as MW1, whose

affidavit is Ex.MW1/A, which is almost of the similar lines

as the stand taken in the written statement. He has averred

in the affidavit that the Department has imposed ban on

recruitment/engagement of casual labourer vide circular

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3555

22.01.1988. He has also relied upon the instructions

contained in the manual extract, Ex.MW1/2. Further stand

of the management has been that the claimant has not

worked for a period of 240 days in any calendar year and

Shri Madan Chandra was posted as SDO(T), Kashipur

during the period 01.03.1987 to 01.12.1987. In his cross

examination, he has feigned ignorace whether at present

claimant is working under the contractor. He has denied

the suggestion that prior to December 2005, the claimant

was working under the management. It is clear from the

resume of evidence on record that the management has

taken the plea that the claimant herein has not worked at

any time directly under the management. However, evidence

on record is crystal clear that the claimant, even in the year

1986 was employed as casual labourer by the Department

of Telecommunications as is evident from persual of

certificate Ex.WW1/M1. Bare perusal of the above

Certificate clearly shows that the clamant herein was

employed as a casual labourer in August 1986 and upto

May 1987, claimant here in worked for 280 days. Ammittedly,

Ex.WW1/M1 clearly shows that the claimant herein was

working as casual labourer in Department of

Telecommunications.

19. It was argued with much vehemence that the

documents relied upon by the claimant are fake and forged;

as such they cannot be relied upon. There are other

documents filed by the claimant, which clearly shows that

till 2005, the claimant herein was directly working with

Department of Telecommunications and there is noting on

record to suggest that these documents are fake or fictitious.

Prime facie, examination of all these documents clearly

shows that they are issued by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

and the name of Shri Rattan Lal Singh, the claimant herein

finds mention in all the documents alongwith period of his

employment. These documents also prove that the claimant

has worked with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. It is

admitted case of parties that Department of

Telecommunications stood converted to a Government

Company, i.e. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Thus, there is no

merit in the contention of the management that documents

cannot be taken into consideration being photocopies of

the original as no objection was raised when these

documents were tendered in evidence or exhibited by the

claimant. No doubt, it is settled proposition of law that

mere production and marking of documents are exhibit by

the court cannot be held to be due proof of its contents. Its

execution is to be proved by admissible evidence. Situation

is, however, different when documents are produced and

their genuineness is not disputed by the oppoiste party

when they are tendered in evidence or when they are marked

as exhibits. I am fortified in my opinion from the case of

RVE Venkatachala Gounder versus A.V.V.P. Temples (AIR

2003 SC 4548). This was a case where the Hon’ble Apex

Court dealt at length with the question of mode of proof

and admissibility of documents and after considering entire

case law on the subject, it was held as under:

“An objection to the admissibility of the document

should be raised before such endorsement is made

and the Court is obliged to form its opinion on the

question of admissibility and express the same on

which opinion would depend the document being

endorsed as admitted or not admitted in Evidence. In

the latter case, the document may be returned by the

Court to the person from whose custody it was

produced.

Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of

evidence should be taken when it is tendered and

not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility

of documents in evidence may be classified into two

classes:- (i) an objection that the document which is

sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in

evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not

dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence

but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging

the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first

case, merely because a document has been marked

as ‘an exhibit’, an objection as to its admissibility is

not excluded and is available to be raised even at a

later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter

case, the objection should be taken before the

evidence is tendered and once the document has

been admitted in evidence as marked as on exhibit,

the objection that it would not have been admitted in

evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the

document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised

at any stage subsequent to the marking of the

document as an exhibit."

20. The same view appears to have been taken in the

case of Narbada Devi Gupta versus Birendra Kumar Jaiswal

(AIR 2004 SC 175). In view of the ratio of law discussed

above, it is clear in the present case that no objection was

taken by the management (i.e. opposite party) when

workman while appearing as WW1 tendered photocopy in

evidence. Now, it is too late in the day to urge that the

above document, original of which is obviously in

possession of the management, has not been proved in

accordance with law. Since at no point of time validity of

these documents was questioned during the course of

evidence, as such, contention of the management deserves

to be rejected.

21. In view of the above evidence on record, it is held

that claimant herein was working as casual labourer during

the period 1987 to 2005 in the establishment of the

management.

22. Now, the residual question is whether the claimant

has worked for 240 days in a calendar year so as to get

the benefit of the Scheme framed by Department of

Telecommunications regarding grant of temporary status

to the casual labourers. Sub-clause (1) of clause 5 of the

above Scheme clearly provides that temporary status

3556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

would be conferred on all casual labourers currently

employed and have rendered continuous service for one

year in a calendar year. Such causal labourer will be

designated as temporary mazdoor. Clause 2 further provides

that said conferment of temporary status would be without

reference to the creation/availability of regular Group D

posts.

23. As discussed above, perusal of certificate Ex.WW1/

M1 clearly shows that the claimant herein worked for more

than 240 days in a calendar year. In fact, combined reading

of the documents shows that claimant herein from March

1987 till date was in the employement of Department of

Telecommunications/BSNL. Thus the workman herein is

liable to be given status of temporary mazdor in view of the

Scheme for grant of temporary status.

24. It was argued with much vehemence by Shri Lokesh

Sukhwani, learned authorized representative of the

management, that most of the workman who are alleging

themselves to be employees of the management were in

act never employed in accordance with any rules or

regulations nor there is any specific order regarding

employement of such workmen. Appointment of such

workman, in the contention of the authorized representative

of the management, is backdoor appointment and as such,

in view of the ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in

Secretary State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi (2006) 4 SC 1,

claimant herein cannot claim to be regularized in derogation

of the rules, being back door entry in as much as their

appointment is totally illegal.

25. I have carefully gone through the ratio of the above

judgment and this plea of the management even did not

find favour with the Hon’ble Supreme Court. There are

observations that decision of Constitution Bench in Uma

Devi case is not attracted or applicable when the question

simply is regularization or mere grant of temporary status

to daily or casual labourers. Tribunal cannot ignore that

the claimant herein is doing the same kind of job and

performing same work which is being performed by workers

who are currently employed. The work in question not

contingent in nature and the same is perennial and still the

management is employing such workers, sometimes

through contractors for the performance of needful job.

26. During the course of arguments, reliance was also

placed upto judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in

Maharashtra State Road Transport and another vs.

Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karamchari Sanghatana (2009)

8 SCC 556. In the said case, Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with

the question of unfair labour practice and specific reference

was made to Uma Devi Case (2006) 4 SCC and it was held

as under:

“34. It is true that the case of Dharwad District PWD

Literate Daily Wage Employees Association vs. State

of Karnataka (1990 2 SCC 396) arising out of industrial

adjudication has been considered in Umadevi (3)

(2006(4) SCC1 and that decision has been held to be

not laying down the correct law but a careful and

complete reading of decision in Umadevi (3) leaves

no manner of doubt that what this Court was

concerned in Umadevi (3) was the exercise of power

by the High Courts under Article 226 and this Court

under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in the

matters of public employment where the employees

have been engaged as contractual, temporary or

casual workers not based on proper selection as

recognized by the rules or procedure and yet orders

of their regularization and conferring them status of

permanency have been passed.

35. Umadevi (3) is an authoritative pronouncement

for the proposition that Supreme Court (Article 32)

and High Courts (Article 226) should not issue

directions of absorption, regularization or permanent

continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily

wage or ad-hoc employees unless the recruitment

itself was made regularly in terms of constitutional

scheme.

36. Umadevi (3) does not denude the Industrial and

Labour Courts of their statutory power under Section

30 read with Section 32 of MRTU & PULP Act to

order permanency of the workers who have been

victim of unfair labour practice on the part of the

employer under item 6 of Schedule IV where the posts

on which they have been working exists. Umadevi

(3) cannot be held to have overridden the powers of

Industrial and Labour Courts in passing appropriate

order under Section 30 of MRTU & PULP Act, once

unfair labour practice on the part of the employer

under item 6 of Schedule IV is established."

27. In UP State Electricity Board vs. Pooran Chandra

Pandey and Others 2007(12) Scale 304, the Hon'ble Apex

Court has held that the judgement in Uma Devi case cannot

be applied mechanically without seeing the facts of a

particular case. There are clear observations in the above

judgement that ratio of Uma Devi (Supra) is not attracted

to a case where simply temporary status or regularization

has been sought in pursuance of Article 14 of the

Constitution.

28. Yet, in another judgement, Hon'ble Apex Court, in

the case of Ajaypal Singh Vs. Haryana Warehousing

Corporation (2015) 6 SCC 321 dealt with almost similar

question as to whether a workman employed in an industry

who had completed more than 240 days of service in

preceding calendar year, but his services were terminated

with effect from 01.07.1988 without one month's notice or

pay in lieu thereof in terms of Section 25F of the ID Act. On

a reference to the Labour Court, it was held by the Labour

Tribunal that termination of services of the worker was

illegal and he was entitled to be reinstated with full back

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3557

wages. This award was challenged by the employer before

the High Court in a writ petition and the High Court held

that appointment of the worker was made in violation of

Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, the workman was held not to be entitled to be

reinstated. However, compensation was awarded to the

workman. Aforesaid order was affirmed by Division Bench

of the High Court. When the matter was taken by the

workman to the Hon'ble Apex Court, plea of irregular or

illegal appointment being in violation of article 14 and

Article 16 of the Constitution was out-reghtly rejected by

the Hon'ble Apex Court by observing as under:

"When no such plea is taken by the employer in the

order of retrenchment that the workman was

appointed in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution or in violation of any statutory rule or

his appointment was a back door appointment, while

granting relief, it is not open to the employer of a

public industrial establishment and undertaking to

take a plea that initial appointment of such workman

was made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 or the

workman was a back door appointee, in absence of a

reference made by the appropriate Government for

determination of question whether the initial

appointment of the workman was in violation of

Articles 14 and 16 or statutory rules. Only if such

reference is made, a workman is required to lead

evidence to prove that he was appointed by following

procedure prescribed under the Rules and his initial

appointment was legal."

29. Yet, in another case, i.e. ONGC vs. Petroleum Coal

Labour Union (2015) Lab. IC 2483, Hon'ble Apex Court dealt

with the question of non-regularization of the workmen

who were alleged to be not recruited in accordance with

the rules/regulations or by following due procedure under

the law. In the said case also, the workmen were initially

employed as security guards and security supervisors

through a contractor. Later on, due to settlement between

the workers union and the management, their services were

utilized by ONGC through Co-operative Society to meet its

security requirements. Later on, due to decision taken by

the Corporation, security work was entrusted to Central

Industrial Security Force (CISF) to protect their installation.

Matter was taken by the employees union before the High

Court on the grounds that this amounts to breach of

settlement already arrived at between the parties and

Corporation took the stand that workers were not entitled

for retention and regularization as their recruitment was

not as per norms. Though the employees union lost the

case before Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court, but

later on when the matter went to Supreme Court, it was

held as under:

"Even though due procedure was not followed by

the Corporation for the appointment of the concerned

workmen in the post of 'ward and watch security,

this does not disentitle them of their right to seek

regularization of their services by the Corporation

under the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders,

after they have rendered more than 240 days of

service in a calendar year from the date of the

memorandum of appointment issued to each one of

the concerned workmen in the year 1988. The alleged

"policy decision" to appoint CISF personnel to the

security post is on deputation basis and cannot be

called appointment per se. Whereas, the concerned

workmen have acquired their right to be regularized

under the provision of Clause 2(ii) of the 'Certified

Standing Orders.

Further, the concerned workmen have clearly

completed more than 240 days of services

subsequent to the memorandum of appointment

issued by the Corporation in the year 1988 in a period

of twelve calendar months, therefore, they are entitled

for regularization of their services into permanent

posts of the Corporation as per the Act as well as the

Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation."

30. In the case in hand also, it is not the case of the

management that initial appointment of the workman herein

is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of

India. Rather management has come with the plea that the

workman herein was never employed in the year 1987 and

was directly working under the contractor.

31. There is no merit in the contention of the management

that workman herein is an employee of the contractor. There

is nothing on record to suggest as to who was the

contractor to whom the management had given the work in

question. It was incumbent upon the management to have

brought on record all the relevant documents, which show

that contractor was awarded contract for employment of

casual labourers who were otherwise working for the

benefit of the management. Even name of such contractor

has not been disclosed by the management. Accordingly,

it is held workman herein is/was in the employment of the

management.

32. Since this Tribunal has already observed that the

workman herein was working under the Department of

Telecommunication/Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. right from

the year 1987 till end of 2005, as such workman is held to be

in the employment of the respondent management. As a

sequel to the above, workman herein is also entitled to be

given temporary status in view of the Scheme of Grant of

Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme.

33. So far as question of regularization of service of the

workman is concerned, it is clear from record that no rules

or regularization or standing order governing the procedure

to be followed for regularization of such temporary

employees have been filed by either of the parties.

Moreover, law is very clear that grant of regularization is

not a matter of course and it depends on the facts and

3558

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

circumstances as well as rules and regulations governing

such matters. Equally settled is the law that there cannot

be any regularization dehors the rules

34. Consequently, it is held that the workman herein

would be duly considered for regularization if the rules or

regulations applicable in this regard entitle the workman

for such regularization. If similarly situated employees

working in the management of the respondent, have been

regularized, in that eventuality, workman herein would also

be duly considered for such absorption or regularization.

Hence, issue is answered accordingly. Hence, an award is

accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the

appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated: July 28, 2015

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT

COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No. 4/2011

Shri Bhoop Singh

S/o Shri Shyam Lal,

Vill. Maheshpura, Post Bajpur,

Udhamsingh Nagar

...........Workman

Versus

1. The Chief General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Uttrakhand Circle,

Dehradun

The Telecom District Manager

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Haldwani.

........Management

AWARD

Background facts giving rise to the reference are that

the claimant, Shri Bhoop Singh was engaged as casual

labourer on 01.03.1987 under Sub-Divisional Officer,

Kashipur in the Department of Telecommunication,

Rudrapur, Nainital, Uttar Pradesh. Shri Joshi was the SDO

of the workman at the time of his initial appointment, who

has also issued certificate to the claimant showing the

number of days the claimant has worked and the same is

Annexure B.

2. Thereafter, the claimant continued to work with the

Department of Telecommunication under SDO, Kedar Rai

from 01.01.2002 to 01.12.2002 and certificate is Annexure B.

Similarly the claimant worked from 01.01.2003 to 01.12.2003

under SDO Kedar Rai for a total of 263 days as is clear from

Annexure A 3.

3. After the year 2005, the claimant has been paid through

ACA-17 slip by SDO Kedar Rai. Thus, the workman had

been working continuously in the Department of

Telecommunications and thereafter the department of

Telecommunication framed the scheme of grant of temporary

status to the casual labourers known as 'Grant of Temporary

Status and Regularization Scheme", which came into effect

on 01.10.1989. Clause 5 of the said Scheme is as under:

5. Temporary status:—

(i)

Temporary status would be conferred to all casual

labourers who are in employment on the date of

issue of this OM and who have rendered a

continuous service of at least one year, which means

that they must have been engaged for a period of

at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices

observing 5 days week).

(ii) Such conferment of temporary status would be

without reference to the creation/availability of

regular Group 'D' posts.

(iii) Conferment of temporary status on a casual labourer

would not involve and change in his duties and

responsibilities. the engagement will be on daily

rates of pay on need basis. He may be deployed

anywhere within the recruitment untill/territorial

circle on the basis of availability of work.

(iv) Such casual labourers who acquire temporary status

will not, however, be brought on to the permanent

establishment unless they are selected through

regular selection process for Group 'D' posts.

4. After coming into force of the above scheme,

Department of Telecommunication issued circular dated

07.11.1989 stating that the said Scheme would be made

applicable to those casual labourer who were engaged prior

to 01.04.1985. However, the said circular was held to be

illegal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Braj

Kishore Vs. Union of India, wherein it has been held that

the above scheme would be applicable to all those casual

labourer who had continuosly worked for a period of one

year irrespective of the cut off date, i.e. 10.04.1985. Since

the claimant was working in the Department of

Telecommunication continuosly, as such, he was entitled

to the benefits of the Scheme discussed above. It is also

clear that as per the above scheme, a person who has

continuously worked for 10 years from the date of

engagement was entitled to be regularized and applying

the grant of temporary status scheme several other casual

workers were permanently regularized who have served

for 10 years from the date of their original engagement.

5. It is also clear from the statement of claim that in the

year 2000, assets and liabilities of Department of

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3559

Telecommunication were transferred to a Government

Company known as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and all the

officers and employees of all cadres became employees of

BSNL. Management with a view to deny legitimate rights

of the claimants in the year 2006 placed the workers under

the Contractor and at that time Shri R.P.Singh was the SDO

under whom the contractor started working. Being

aggrieved, the workers approached the labour authorities

and ultimately dispute for regularization of such workers

were referred to the Labour Court in Delhi. Since the

claimant have been working in the Department of

Telecommunication for more than 20 years, as such he was

to get benefit of the Scheme discussed above. He was

entitled for grant of temporary status initially and thereafter

was required to be regularized as regular Mazdoor.

6. Management was put to notice and on appearance

filed written statement wherein Respondent No. 1 and 2

took preliminary objections inter alia of cause of action,

workman not approaching the court with clean hands,

malafide and concealing of material facts etc. It was also

alleged that present reference is bad for non-joinder of

necessary parties, since the workman has been working

under the contractor who was required to be impleaded as

a party. It is further alleged that in order to meet exigencies

of the work, respondents have taken services of a contractor

for providing work force on part-time basis on some dates.

As such, engagement of casual workers do not confer upon

any workman any automatic right of regularization. On

merits, it has been denied that the claimant was engaged as

casual labourer since 01.03.1987 on muster roll under

Shri Joshi, SDO Kashipur. It is also denied that the claimant

worked continuously with Department of Telecommuni-

cation under Kedar Rai, SDO. Claimant was not paid wages

through ACA 17 slip by SDO Kedar Rai from 2005.

Management also denied other material averments made in

the statement of claim.

7. Since conciliation between the parties could not be

arrived at when the matter was referred to the Regional

Labour Commission, as such the Union Government under

sub section 2A of Sectrion 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, made the following reference:

"Whether the demand of Shri Bhoop Singh, S/o

Shri Shyam Lal, for reinstatement and regularization of

his services with effect from 28.02.2006 in Bharat Sanchar

Nigam Limited, who worked with them since last 20 years

is valid and justified? If yes, what relief the workman is

entitled to.?"

8. Claimant, herein, filed statement of claim as discussed

above and on which written statement was filed by

Respondent No. 1 and 2, i.e. the managements.

9. It is clear from order dated 17.03.2011 passed by my

learned predecessor that no specific issues were framed. It

was clarified that no other issue than those referred by the

appropriate Government under Section 10 of the ID Act for

adjudication, is made out.

10. Claimmant, in support of his case, examined himself

as WW1 and adduced both oral as well as documentary

evidence in support of the stand taken in the statement of

claim. Similarly, the management examined Shri R.P. Singh

as MW1 so as to rebut the case of the claimant.

11. I have heard Shri Rajinder Singh Palni, A/R for the

claimant and Shri Lokesh Sukhwani, A/R for the

management.

12. Shri Plani, appearing on behalf of the claimant, urged

that the claimant herein was employed as casual labourer

by the Department of Telecommunications from 01.03.1987

and in this regard, attention of the court was invited to Ex.

WW1/9(Annexure P1), which is a certificate issued by

Junior Telecom Officer Kashipur wherein month-wise details

of attendance of the claimant herein has been mentioned.

There is another certificate Ex. WW1/10 (Annexure P2)

which also contains similar details and number of total

working days of the claimant during the year 2002 as 324.

There is another certificate Ex. WW1/11 which also contains

details of attendance of the claimant herein for the year

2003 and total number of working days is 263. It is, further,

clear from the affidavit Ex. WW1/A of the claimant Shri

Bhoop Singh that he has tried to support all the material

averments contained in the statement of claim in the said

affidavit. Claimant was subjected to cross examination, but

there is hardly anything to impeach his credit. Claimant

has also made reference to photograph Ex. WW1/1 to Ex.

WW1/8 in his statement. He has clarified in his cross

examination that in his affidavit, he has inadvertently

mentioned the name of Joshi as his SDO during March

1987 at Kashipur. Perusal of the certificate shows that the

same is signed by Junior Telecom Officer and name of Shri

Joshi admittedly does not find mention there, In fact, it is

photocopy of the Original and the said photocopy has

been attested by Veterinary Officer, Baspur Distt. US Nagar.

13. During the course of arguments. much reliance was

placed upon the Scheme which came into force on 19.10.1989

regarding of temporary status to casual workmen, It was

not disputed even by the respondent that in fact the said

Scheme was followed by Department of Telecommunication

and in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Braj Kishore Vs. Union of India, it has been

observed that the Scheme is fully applicable to all the casual

labourer who have worked for a period of one year

irrespective of the cut off date, i.e. 01.04.1985. Thus, it is

strongly agued on behalf of the claimant that in view of the

above Scheme as well as judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court, management was legally required to grant temporary

status as per the above Scheme to the claimant herein.

14. Per contra, Shri Lokesh Sukhwani, A/R for the

management, urged that documents in the present case

3560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

relating to attendance of the workman Ex. WW1/9 have

not been proved by the workman in accordance with law

and as such no reliance can be placed upon such vague

and fictitious documents. Similarly, Shri Joshi was not the

SDO at the relevant time as mentioned in the affidavit of

the workman, which fact the workman has admitted in his

statement while appearing as WW1. Secondly, the learned

authorized representative of the management proceeded

to argue that the workman was not engaged as a casual

labourer in a legal manner and in view of the judgement of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC I,

their appointment/engagement was purely illegal being in

violation of Statutory principles. As such, he cannot be

granted any permanent status. Therefore, there is no

question of regularization of service of such workman.

15. Before I proceed to consider the comparative merits

of the submissions placed on behalf of either parties, it is

pertinent to note here that during the course of arguments,

it was not disputed that Department of Telecommunications

had issued a circular dated 07.11.1999 and it was made

applicable from 01.10.1999 as alleged in para 6 of the

statement of claim and the same was applicable to casual

labourers who were engaged prior to 01.04.1985. the said

circular admittedly was held to be illegal by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Braj Kishore vs. Union of India wherein

observations have been made that the above Scheme of

casual workers would be applicable to all casual labourers

who had continuously worked for a period of one year

irrespective of the cut off date, i.e. 01.04.1985.

16. Now the moot question which requires determination

in the present case is whether the claimant was directly

engaged as casual labourer as alleged by him in the year

1987 under SDO Kashipur. In this regard, it is appropriate to

refer to the pleadings as well as affidavit of the workman,

Shri Bhoop Singh, filed as Ex. WW1/A wherein the workman

has reiterated the stand taken in his statement of claim. In

his cross examination, the claimant has admitted that he has

studied only upto 6th class and the claim statement as well

as his affidavit, Ex. WW1/A, bears his signatures. He does

not understand English. He has further admitted that in his

affidavit it is mentioned that Shri Joshi was has SDO in

March 1987. However, he has admitted this mistake and

admitted that Shri Joshi has issued certificate Ex. WW1/9,

which clearly shows that from March 1987 till December

1987, claimant herein, was working as casual labourer in

Department of Telecommunications and the said certificate

is signed by Sub Divisional Officer Kashipur and verified by

Junior Telecom Officer, Kashipur. He has denied that Ex.

WW1/9 is fake. In his cross examination (dated 09.04.2012),

claimant has specifically denied that engagement of casual

workers was stopped in the year 1980 by the management.

Rather, management has engaged casual labourers upto 1989.

Again said, upto 1981. He has also denied certificate Ex.

WW1/M 1 is false. He further denied that he has not worked

for 240 days with the management in any calendar year.

17. Management in order to rebut the case of the claimant,

examined Shri R.P. Singh, SDO as MW1, whose affidavit is

Ex. MW1/A, which is almost on the similar lines as the stand

taken in the written statement. He has averred in the affidavit

that the Department has imposed ban on recruitment/

engagement of casual labourer vide circular 22.01.1988. He

has also reiled upon the instructions contained in the manual

extract, Ex, MW1/2. Further stand of the management has

been that the claimant has not worked for a period of 240

days in any calendar year and Shri Madan Chandra was

posted as SDO(T), Kashipur during the period 01.03.1987 to

1.12.1987. He has categorically stated that the claimant has

not worked under him during the period from 01.03.1987 to

01.12.1987 for 270 days. In his cross examination, he has

feigned ignorance whether at present claimant is working

under the contractor. He has denied the suggestion that

prior to December 2005, the claimant was working under the

management. He has admitted that Ex. WW1/13 to Ex. WW1/

24 were supplied to the workman under the RTI Act. He was

further made a vital admission that name of Shri Bhoop Singh

is mentioned in the above document alongwith period of his

engagement. He has further admitted Ex. WW1/12 was issued

by the management and he has not carefully perused most

of these documents earlier.

18. It is clear from the resume of evidence on record that

the mangement has taken the plea that the claimant herein

has not worked at any time directly under the management.

However, evidence on record is crystal clear that the

claimant, even in the year 1987 was employed as casual

laborer by the Department of Telecommunications as is

evident from perusal of certificate Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.

WW1/9. Bare perusal of the above certificate clearly shows

that the clamant herein was employed as a casual labourer

in March 1987 and in the said month he worked for 22

days, in the month of April 1987 for 26 days. Further in

1987, claimant herein worked for 270 days from March

1987 to December 1987. No doubt, the claimant herein has

wrongly mentioned the name of SDO as Shri Joshi, in his

affidavit, to be his SDO in March 1987, but the has clarified

that the same has been mentioned inadvertently and the

mistake is that of his adovcate He has admitted in his

cross examination dated 02.11.2011 that certificate Ex.

WW/1/9 has been issued by Shri Madan Chandra. To my

mind, merely mentioning of a wrong name of employer or

SDO cannot be held to fatal to the case of the claimant,

who is semi-literate. It has come in evidence that the

claimant that he has studied only upto the 6th standard.

As such, mere wrong mention of the name of the employer

at a particular point of time would not mean that the

claimant has set up a wrong claim. Admittedly, Ex.WW1/9,

for that matter even Ex. WW1/1 clearly shows that the

claimant herein was working as casual labourer in

Department of Telecommunications.

19. It was argued with much vehemence that the

documents relied upon by that claimant are fake and

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3561

forged; as such they cannot be relied upon. There are other

documents filed by the claimant, which clearly shows

that till 2005, the claimant herein was directly working with

Department of Telecommunications are there is nothing

on record to suggest that these documents are fake or

fictitious. It is pertinent to note that SDO, Shri R.P. Singh,

appearing as MW1, has clearly deposed in his cross

examination that documents Ex. WW1/13 to Ex. WW1/24

was supplied to the claimant under the RTI Act. He has

further, made a vital admission that the name of the

claimant, Shri Bhoop Singh, finds mention in all these

documents alongiwth the period of his engagement. In

view of the clear cut admission made by Shri R.P. Singh,

MW1, in his cross examination, regarding supply of the

above documents, it does not lie in the mouth of the

management to say that the documents in question are

fake or fictitious. Even, prima facie, examination of all

these documents clearly shows that they are issued by

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and the same of Shri Bhoop

Singh, the claimant herein finds mention in all the

documents alongwith period of his employment. These

documents also prove that the claimant has worked with

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited till 2005. It is admitted case

of parties that Department of Telecommuniations stood

coverted to a Government Company, i.e. Bharat Sanchar

Nigam Ltd. Thus, there is no merit in the contention of the

management that documents Ex. WW1/9 to Ex WW1/24

cannot be taken into consideration being photocopies of

the original as no objection was raised when these

documents were tendered in evidence or exhibited by the

claimant. As discussed, documents Ex. WW1/13 to Ex.

WW1/24 were supplied to the workman under the RTI Act.

Therefore, there is no question of these documents

being fake or fictitious. No doubt, it is settled proposition

of law that mere production and marking of documents as

exhibit by the court cannot be held to be due proof of its

contents. Its execution is to be proved by admissible

evidence. Situation is, however, different when documents

are produced and their genuinness is not disputed by the

opposite party when they are tendered in evidence or

when they are marked as exhibits. I am fortified in my

opinion from the case of RVE Venkatachala Gounder versus

A.V.V.P. Temples (AIR 2003 SC 4548). This was a case

where the Hon'ble Apex Court dealh at length with the

question of made of proof and admissibility of documents

and after considering entire case law on the subject, it

was held as under:

"An objection to the admissibility of the document

should be raided before such endorsement is made and

the Court is obliged to form its opinion on the question

of admissibility and express the same on which opinion

would depend the document being endorsed as

admitted or not admitted in evidence. In the latter case,

the document may be returned by the Court to the

person from whose custody it was produced.

Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of evidence

should be taken when it is tendered and not

subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of

documents in evidence may be classified into two

classes:-

(i) an objection that the document which is sought to

be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii)

where the objection does not dispute the admissibility

of the document in evidence but is directed towards

the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or

insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document

has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its

admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised

even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In

the latter case, the objection should be taken before

the evidence is tendered and once the document has

been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit,

the objection that it should not have been admitted in

evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the

documents is irregular cannot be allowed to be

raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the

document as an exhibit.'

20. The same view appears to have been taken in the

case of Narbada Devi Gupta versus Birendra Kumar Jaiswal

(AIR 2004 SC 175). In view of the ratio of law discussed

above, it is clear in the present case that no objection was

taken by the management (i.e. opposite party) when

workman while appearing as WW1 tendered photocopy

in evidence. Now, it is too late in the day to urge that the

above document, original of which is obviously in

possession of the management, has not been proved in

accordance with law. Since at no point of time validity of

these document was questioned during the course of

evidence, as such, contention of the management deserves

to be rejected.

21. In view of the above evidence on record, it is held

that claimant herein was working as casual labourer during

the period 1987 to 2005 in the establishment of the

management.

22. Now, the residual question is whether the claimant

has worked for 240 days in a calendar year so as to get the

benefit of the Scheme framed by Department of

Telecommunications regarding grant of temporary status

to the casual labourers. Sub clause 1 of Clause 5 of the

above Scheme clearly provides that temporary status would

be conferred on all casual labourers currently employed

and have rendered continuous service for one year in a

calendar year.

Such casual labourer will be designated as temporary

mazdoor. Clause 2 further provides that said conferment of

temporary status would be without reference to the

creation/availability of regular Group D posts.

3562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

23. As discussed above, persual of certificate Ex WW1/

1 and Ex. WW1/9 as well as documents Ex.WW1/10 to Ex.

WW1/24 clearly shows that the claimant herein worked for

more than 240 days in each of the calendar years. In fact,

combined reading of these documents shows that claimant

herein from March 1987 till 2005 was in the employment of

Department of Telecommunications/ BSNL. thus, the

workman herein is liable to be given status of temporary

mazdoor in view of the Scheme for grant of temporary status.

24. It was argued with much vehemence by Shri Lokesh

Sukhwani, learned authorized representative of the

management that most of the workman who are alleging

themselves to be employees of the management were in

fact never employed in accordance with any rules of

regulations nor there is any specific order regarding

employment of such workmen. Appointment of such

workman, in the contention of the authorized representative

of the management, is backdoor appointment and as such,

in view of the ratio of judgement of Hon'ble Apex court in

Secretary State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi (2006) 4 SC1,

climant herein cannot claim to be regularized in derogation

of the rules, being back door entry in as much as their

appointment is totally illegal.

25. I have carefully gone through the ratio of the above

judgement and this plea of the management even did not

find favour with the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There are

observations that decision of Constitution Bench in Uma

Devi case is not attracted or applicable when the question

simply is regularization or mere grant of temporary status

to daily or casual labourers. Tribunal cannot ignore that

the claimant herein is doing the same kind of job and

performing same work which is being performed by workers

who are currently employed. The work in question not

contingent in nature and the same is perennial and still the

management is employing such workers, sometimes

through contractors for the performance of needful job.

26. During the course of arguments, reliance was also

placed upon judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in

Maharashtra State Road Transport and another Vs.

Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karamchari Sanghatana (2009)

8 SCC 556. In the said case, Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with

the question of unfair labour practice and specific reference

was made to Uma Devi Case (2006) 4 SCC and it was held

as under:

"34. It is true that the case of Dharwad District PWD

Literate Daily Wage Employees Association Vs. State

of Karnataka (1990 2SCC 396) arising out of industrial

adjudication has considered in Umadevi (3) (2006 (4)

SCC1) and the decision has been held to be not laying

down the correct law but a careful and complete reading

of decision in Umadevi (3) leaves no manner of doubt

that what this Court was concerned in Umadevi (3) was

the exercise of power by the High Courts under Article

226 and this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution

of India in the matters of public employment where the

employees have been engaged as contractual,

temporary of casual workers not based on proper

selection as recognized by the rule of procedure and

yet orders of their regularization and conferring them

status of permanency have been passed.

35. Umadevi (3) is an authoritative pronouncement for

the proposition that Supreme Court (Article 32) and High

courts (Article 226) should not issue directions of

absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of

temporary, contractual, casual, daily wages or ad-hoc

employees unless the recruitment itself was made

regularly in terms of constitutional scheme.

36. Umadevi (3) does not denude the Industrial and

Labour Courts of their statutory power under Section

30 read with Section 32 of MRTU & PULP Act to order

permanency of the workers who have been victim of

unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under

item 6 of Schedule IV where the posts on which they

have been working exists. Umadevi (3) cannot be held

to have overridden the powers of Industrial and Labour

Courts in passing appropriate order under Section 30 of

MRTU & PULP Act, once unfair labour practive on the

part of the employer under item 6 of Schedule IV is

established."

27. In UP State Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra

Pandey and Others 2007 (12) Scale 304, the Hon'ble Apex

Court has held that the judgement in Uma Devi case cannot

be applied mechanically without seeing the facts of a

particular case. There are clear observations in the above

judgement that ratio of Uma Devi (supra) is not attracted

to a case where simply temporary status or regularization

has been sought in pursuance of Article 14 of the

Constitution.

28. Yet, in another judgement, Hon'ble Apex Court, in

the case of Ajaypal Singh Vs. Haryana Warehousing

Corporation (2015) 6 SCC 321 dealt with almost similar

question as to whether a workman employed in an industry

who had completed more than 240 days of service in

preceding calendar year, but his services were terminated

with effect from 01.07.1988 without one month's notice or

pay in lieu thereof in terms of Section 25F of the ID Act. On

a reference to the Labour Court, it was held by the Labour

Tribunal that termination of services of the worker was

illegal and he was entitled to be reinstated with full back

wages. This award was challenged by the employer before

the High Court in a writ petition and the High Court held

that appointment of the worker was made in violation of

Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore. the workman was held not to be entitled to be

reinstated. However, compensation was awarded to the

workman. Aforesaid order was affirmed by Division Bench

of the High Court. When the matter was taken by the

workman to the Hon'ble Apex Court, plea or irregular or

illegal appointment being in violation of Article 14 and

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3563

Article 16 of the Constitution was out-rightly rejected by

the Hon'ble Apex court by observing as under:—

"When no such plea is taken by the employer in the

order of retrenchment that the workman was

appointed in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution or in violation of any statutory rule or

his appointment was a back door appointment, while

granting relief, it is not open to the employer of a

public industrial establishment and undertaking to

take a plea that initial appointment of such workman

was made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 or the

workman was a back door appointee, in absence of a

reference made by the appropriate Government for

determination of question whether the initial

appointment of the workman was in violation of

Articles 14 and 16 or statutory rules. Only if such

reference is made, a workman is required to lead

evidence to prove that he was appointed by following

procedure prescribed under the Rules and his initial

appointment was legal."

29. Yet, in another case, i.e ONGC Vs. Petroleum Coal

Labour Union (2015) Lab. IC 2483, Hon'ble Apex Court

dealt with the question of non-regularization of the workmen

who were alleged to be not recruited in accordance with

the rules/regulations or by following due procedure under

the law. In the said case also the workmen were initially

employed as security guards and security supervisors

through a contractor. Later on, due to settlement between

the workers union and the manangement, their services

were utilized by ONGC through Co-operative society to

meet its security requirements. Later on. due to decision

taken by the Corporation, security work was entrusted to

Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) to protect their

installation. Matter was taken by the employees union

before the High Court on the grounds that this amounts to

breach of settlement already arrived at between the parties

and Corporation took the stand the workers were not

entitled for retention and reqularization as their recruitment

was not as per norms. Though the employees union lost

the case before Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court,

but later on when the matter went to Supreme court, it was

held as under:

'Even though due procedure was not followed by the

Corporation for the appointment of the concerned

workmen in the post of ward and watch security this

does not disentitle them of their right to seek

regularization of their services by the Corporation under

the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders, after

they have rendered more than 240 days of service in a

calendar year from the date of the memorandum of

appointment issued to each one of the concerned

workmen in the year 1988. The alleged "policy decision"

to appoint CISF personnel to the security post is on

deputation basis and cannot be called appintment per

se. Whereas, the concerned workmen have acquired

their right to be regularized under the provision of Clause

2 (ii) of the 'Certified Standing Orders.

Further, the concerned workmen have clearly completed

more than 240 days of services subsequent to the

memorandum of appointment issued by the Corporation

in the year 1988 in a period of twelve calendar months,

therefore, they are entitled for regularization of their

services into permanent posts of the Corporation as per

the Act as well as the Certified Standing Orders of the

Corporation."

30. In the case in hand also, it is not the case of the

management that initial appointment of the workman herein

is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of

India. Rather management has come with the plea that the

workman herein was never employed in the year 1987 and

was directly working under the contractor.

31. There is no merit in the contention of the management

that workman herein is an employee of the contractor. There

is nothing on record to suggest as to who was the contractor

to whom the management had given the the work in

question. It was incumbent upon the management to have

brought on record all the relevant documents, which show

that contractor was awarded contract for employment of

casual labourers who were otherwise working for the

benefit of the management. Even name of such contractor

has not been disclosed by the management. Accordingly,

it is held workman herein is/was in the employment of the

management.

32. Since this Tribunal has already observed that the

workman herein was working under the Department of

Telecommunication/Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. right from

the year 1987 till the end of 2005, as such workman is held

to be in the employment of the respondent management.

As a sequel to the above, workman herein is also entitled

to be given temporary status in view of the Scheme of

'Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme.

33. So far as question of reqularisation of service of the

workman is concerned, it is clear from record that no rules

or regularization or standing order governing the procedure

to be followed for reqularization of such temporary

employees have been filed by either of the parties.

Moreover, law is very clear that grant of regularization is

not a matter of course and it depends on the facts and

circumstances as well as rules and regulations governing

such matters. Equally settled is the law that there cannot

be any regularization dehors the rules.

34. Consequently, it is held that the workman herein

would be duly considered for regularization if the rules or

regulations applicable in this regard entitle the workman

for such regularization. If similarly situated employees

working in the management of the respondent, have been

regularized, in that eventuality, workman here would also

be duly considered for such absorption or regularization.

Hence, issue is answered accordingly. Hence, an award is

3564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the

approptiate Government, as required under Section 17 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

Dated: July 28, 2015

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT

NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No 5/2011

Shri Jeevan Singh

S/o Shri Ram Singh

Vill. Peiga Post Mahukheraganj,

Kashipur.

Udhamsingh Nagar

...Workman

Versus

The Chief General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Uttrakhand Circle,

Dehradun

The Telecom District Manager

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Haldwani

...Management

AWARD

Background facts giving rise to the reference are that

the claimant, Shri Jeevan Singh was engaged as casual

labourer on 01.01.1987 under Sub Divisional Officer,

Kashipur in the Department of Telecommunication,

Rudrapur, Nainital, Uttar Pradesh. Shri Madan Chandra was

the SDO of the workman at the time of his initial

appointment, who has also issued certificate to the claimant

showing the number of days the claimant has worked and

the same is Annexure P-1.

2. Thereafter, the claimant continued to work with the

Department of Telecommunication under SDO, Kashipur

from 24.10.1987 to 01.08.1988 and certificate is Annexure

P2. Similarly the claimant worked from 01.02.1989 to

01.05.1990 under SDO Kashipur for a total of 447 days.

3. After the year 2005, the claimant has been paid through

ACA-17 slip by SDO Kedar Rai. Thus, the workman had

been working continuously in the Department of

Telecommunications and thereafter the department of

Telecommunication framed the scheme of grant of temporary

status to the casual labourers known as 'Grant of Temporary

Status and Regularization Scheme", which came into effect

on 01.10.1989. Clause 5 of the said Scheme is as under:

5. Temporary status:—

(i)

Temporary status would be conferred to all casual

labourers who are in employment on the date of

issue of this OM and who have rendered a

continuous service of at least one year, which means

that they must have been engaged for a period of

at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices

observing 5 days week).

(ii) Such conferment of temporary status would be

without reference to the creation/availability of

regular Group 'D' posts.

(iii) Conferment of temporary status on a casual labourer

would not involve and change in his duties and

responsibilities. The engagement will be on daily

rates of pay on need basis. He may be deployed

anywhere within the recruitment until/territorial

circle on the basis of availability of work.

(iv) Such casual labourers who acquire temporary status

will not, however, be brought on to the permanent

establishment unless they are selected through

regular selection process for Group 'D' posts.

4. After coming into force of the above scheme,

Department of Telecommunication issued circular dated

07.11.1989 stating that the said Scheme would be made

applicable to those casual labourer who were engaged prior

to 01.04.1985. However, the said circular was held to be

illegal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Braj

Kishore Vs. Union of India, wherein it has been held that

the above scheme would be applicable to all those casual

labourer who had continuously worked for a period of one

year irrespective of the cut off date, i.e. 10.04.1985. Since

the claimant was working in the Department of

Telecommunication continuously, as such, he was entitled

to the benefits of the Scheme discussed above. It is also

clear that as per the above Scheme, a person who has

continuously worked for 10 years from the date of

engagement was entitled to be regularized and applying

the grant of temporary status scheme several other casual

workers were permanently regularized who have served

for 10 years from the date of their original engagement.

5. It is also clear from the statement of claim that in the

year 2000, assets and liabilities of Department of

Telecommunication were transferred to a Government

Company known as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and all the

officers and employees of all cadres became employees of

BSNL. Management, with a view to deny legitimate rights

of the claimants in the year 2006 placed the workers under

the Contractor and at that time Shri R.P. Singh was the SDO

under whom the contractor started working. Being

aggrieved, the workers approached the labour authorities

and ultimately dispute for regularization of such workers

were referred to the Labour Court in Delhi. Since the

claimant have been working in the Department of

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3565

Telecommunication for more than 20 years, as such he was

to get benefit of the Scheme discussed above. He was

entitled for grant of temporary status initially and thereafter

was required to be regularized as regular Mazdoor.

6. Management was put to notice and on appearance

filed written statement wherein Respondent No.1 and 2

took preliminary objections inter alia of cause of action,

workman not approaching the court with clean hands,

malafide and concealing of material facts etc. It was also

alleged that present reference is bad for non-joinder of

necessary parties, since the workman has been working

under the contractor who was required to be impleaded as

a party. It is further alleged that in order to meet exigencies

of the work, respondents have taken services of a contractor

for providing work force on part-time basis on some dates.

As such, engagement of casual workers do not confer upon

any workman any automatic right of regularization. On

merits, it has been denied that the claimant was engaged as

casual labourer since 01.01.0987 on muster roll under

Mahesh Chandra, SDO Kashipur. It is also denied that the

claimant worked continuously with Department of

Telecommunication under SDO, Kashipur. Claimant was

not paid wages through ACA 17 slip by SDO Kedar Rai

from 2005. Management also denied other material

averments made in the statement of claim.

7. Since conciliation between the parties could not be

arrived at when the matter was referred to the Regional

Labour Commission, as such the Union Government under

sub section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, made the following reference:

"Whether the demand of Shri Jeevan Singh, S/o Shri

Ram Singh, for reinstatement and regularization of his

services with effect from 28.02.2006 in Bharat Sanchar

Nigam Limited, who worked with them since last 20 years

is valid and justified? If yes, what relief the workman is

entitled to.?"

8. Claimant, herein, filed statement of claim as discussed

above and on which written statement was filed by

Respondent No.1 and 2, i.e. the managements.

9. It is clear from order dated 07.03.2011 passed by my

learned predecessor that no specific issues were framed. It

was clarified that no other issue than those referred by the

appropriate Government under Section 10 of the ID Act for

adjudication, is made out.

10. Claimant, in support of his case, examined himself as

WW1 and adduced both oral as well as documentary

evidence in support of the stand taken in the statement of

claim. Similarly, the management examined Shri R.P. Singh

as MW 1 so as to rebut the case of the claimant.

11. I have heard Shri Rajinder Singh Palni, A/R for the

claimant and Shri Lokesh Sukhwani, A/R for the

management.

12.

Shri Palni , appearing on behalf of the claimant,

urged that the claimant herein was employed as casual

labourer by the Department of Telecommunications from

01.01.1987 and in this regard, attention of the court was

invited to Annexure P1, which is a certificate issued by

SDO Kashipur wherein month-wise details of attendance

of the claimant herein has been mentioned. It is, further,

clear from the affidavit Ex.WW 1/A of the claimant Shri

Jeevan Singh that he has tried to support all the material

averments contained in the statement of claim in the said

affidavit. Claimant was subjected to cross examination, but

there is hardly anything to impeach his credit. Claimant

has also made reference to photograph Ex.WW1/1 to

Ex.VVW1/4 in his statement.

13. During the course of arguments, much reliance was

placed upon the Scheme which came into force on 19.10.1989

regarding of temporary status to casual workmen. It was

not disputed even by the respondent that in fact the said

Scheme was followed by Department of Telecommunication

and in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Braj Kishore Vs. Union of India, it has been

observed that the Scheme is fully applicable to all the casual

labourer who have worked for a period of one year

irrespective of the cut off date, i.e 01.04.1985 Thus, it is

strongly argued on behalf of the claimant that in view of

the above Scheme as well as judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court, management was legally required to grant temporary

status as per the above Scheme to the claimant herein.

14. Per contra, Shri Lokesh Sukhwani, A/R for the

management, urged that documents in the present case

relating to attendance of the workman have not been proved

by the workman in accordance with law and as such no

reliance can be placed upon such vague and fictitious

documents. Secondly, the learned authorized representative

of the management proceeded to argue that the workman

was not engaged as a casual labourer in a legal manner and

in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC I, their appointment/engagement

was purely illegal being in violation of statutory principles.

As such, he cannot be granted any permanent status.

Therefore, there is no question of regularization of service

of such workmen.

15. Before I proceed to consider the comparative merits

of the submissions placed on behalf of either parties, it is

pertinent to note here that during the course of arguments,

it was not disputed that Department of Telecommunications

had issued a circular dated 07.11.1999 and it was made

applicable from 01.10.1999 as alleged in para 6 of the

statement of claim and the same was applicable to casual

labourers who were engaged prior to 01.04.1985. The said

circular admittedly was held to be illegal by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Braj Kishore vs. Union of India wherein

observations have been made that the above Scheme of

casual workers would be applicable to all casual labourers

who had continuously worked for a period of one year

irrespective of the cut off date, i.e. 01.04.1985.

3566

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

16. Now the moot question which requires determination

in the present case is whether the claimant was directly

engaged as casual labourer as alleged by him in the year

1987 under SDO Kashipur. In this regard, it is appropriate

to refer to the pleadings as well as affidavit of the workman,

Shri Jeevan Singh, filed as Ex.WW1/A wherein the workman

has reiterated the stand taken in his statement of claim.

Shri Jeevan Singh admitted that SDO Kashipur has issued

certificate Ex. WW1/M1, which clearly shows that from

January 1987 till September 1987, claimant herein, was

working as casual labourer in Department of

Telecommunications and the said certificate is signed by

Sub Divisional Officer Kashipur, and denied that Ex.WW1/

M1 is fake. He has also denied that he has not worked for

240 days with the management in any calendar year.

17. Management in order to rebut the case of the

claimant, examined Shri R.P. Singh, SDO as MW 1, whose

affidavit is Ex. MW1/A, which is almost on the similar lines

as the stand taken in the written statement. He has averred

in the affidavit that the Department has imposed ban on

recruitment/engagement of casual labourer vide circular

22.01.1988. He has also relied upon the instructions

contained in the manual extract, Ex, MW1/2. Further stand

of the management has been that the claimant has not

worked for a period of 240 days in any calendar year and

Shri Madan Chandra was posted as SDO(T), Kashipur

during the period 01.03.1987 to 01.12.1987. In his cross

examination, he has feigned ignorance whether at present

claimant is working under the contractor. He has denied

the suggestion that prior to December 2005. the claimant

was working under the management.

18. It is clear from the resume of evidence on record that

the management has taken the plea that the claimant herein

has not worked at any time directly under the management.

However, evidence on record is crystal clear that the

claimant, even in the year 1987 was employed as casual

labourer by the Department of Telecommunications as is

evident from perusal of certificate Ex.WW 1/M1. Bare

perusal of the above Certificate clearly shows that the

claimant herein was employed as a casual labourer in

January 1987 and upto September 1987, claimant herein

worked for 254 days. Admittedly, Ex.WW 1/M1 clearly

shows that the claimant herein was working as casual

labourer in Department of Telecommunications.

19. It was argued with much vehemence that the

documents relied upon by the claimant are fake and forged;

as such they cannot be relied upon. There are other

documents filed by the claimant, which clearly shows that

till 2005, the claimant herein was directly working with

Department of Telecommunications and there is nothing

on record to suggest that these documents are fake or

fictitious. Prima facie, examination of all these documents

clearly shows that they are issued by Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Limited and the name of Shri Jeevan Singh, the claimant

herein finds mention in all the documents alongwith period

of his employment. These documents also prove that the

claimant has worked with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. It

is admitted case of parties that Department of

Telecommunications stood converted to a Government

Company, i.e. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Thus, there is no

merit in the contention of the management that documents

cannot be taken into consideration being photocopies of

the original as no objection was raised when these

documents were tendered in evidence or exhibited by the

claimant. No doubt, it is settled proposition of law that

mere production and marking of documents as exhibit by

the court cannot be held to be due proof of its contents. Its

execution is to be proved by admissible evidence. Situation

is, however, different when documents. are produced and

their genuineness is not disputed by the opposite party

when they are tendered in evidence or when they are marked

as exhibits. I am fortified in my opinion from the case of

RVE Venkatachala Gounder versus A.V.V.P. Temples (AIR

2003 SC 4548). This was a case where the Hon'ble Apex

Court dealt at length with the question of mode of proof

and admissibility of documents and after considering entire

case law on the subject, it was held as under:—

‘‘An objection to the admissibility of the document

should be raised before such endorsement is made and

the Court is obliged to form its opinion on the question

of admissibility and express the same on which opinion

would depend the document being endorsed as

admitted or not admitted in evidence. In the latter case,

the document may be returned by the Court to the

person from whose custody it was produced.

Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of

evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not

subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of

documents in evidence may be classified into two

classes:- (i) an objection that the document which is

sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence;

and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the

admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed

towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be

irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because

a document has been marked as ‘an exhibit', an objection

as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to

be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or

revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken

before the evidence is tendered and once the document

has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit,

the objection that it should not have been admitted in

evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the

document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at

any stage subsequent to the marking of the document

as an exhibit.'

20. The same view appears to have been taken in the

case of Narbada Devi Gupta versus Birendra Kumar Jaiswal

(AIR 2004 SC 175). In view of the ratio of law discussed

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3567

above, it is clear in the present case that no objection was

taken by the management (i.e. opposite party) when

workman while appearing as WW 1 tendered photocopy

in evidence. Now, it is too late in the day to urge that the

above document, original of which is obviously in

possession of the management, has not been proved in

accordance with law. Since at no point of time validity of

these document was questioned during the course of

evidence, as such, contention of the management deserves

to be rejected.

21. In view of the above evidence on record, it is held

that claimant herein was working as casual labourer during

the period 1987 to 2005 in the establishment of the

management.

22. Now, the residual question is whether the claimant

has worked for 240 days in a calendar year so as to get the

benefit of the Scheme framed by Department of

Telecommunications regarding grant of temporary status

to the casual labourers. Sub clause 1 of Clause 5 of the

above Scheme clearly provides that temporary status would

be conferred on all casual labourers currently employed

and have rendered continuous service for one year in a

calendar year. Such casual labourer will be designated as

temporary mazdoor. Clause 2 further provides that said

conferment of temporary status would be without reference

to the creation/availability of regular Group D posts..

23. As discussed above, perusal of certificate Ex.WW1/

M1 clearly shows that the claimant herein worked for more

than 240 days in a calendar years. In fact, combined reading

of the documents shows that claimant herein from March

1987 till date was in the employment of Department of

Telecommunications/ BSNL. Thus, the workman herein is

liable to be given status of temporary mazdoor in view of

the Scheme for grant of temporary status.

24. It was argued with much vehemence by Shri Lokesh

Sukhwani, learned authorized representative of the

management, that most of the workman who are alleging

themselves to be employees of the management were in

fact never employed in accordance with any rules or

regulations nor there is any specific order regarding

employment of such workmen. Appointment of such

workman, in the contention of the authorized representative

of the management, is backdoor appointment and as such,

in view of the ratio of judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in

Secretary State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi (2006) 4 SC1,

claimant herein cannot claim to be regularized in derogation

of the rules, being back door entry in as much as their

appointment is totally illegal.

25. I have carefully gone through the ratio of the above

judgement and this plea of the management even did not

find favour with the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There are

observations that decision of Constitution Bench in Uma

Devi case is not attracted or applicable when the question

simply is regularization or mere grant of temporary status

to daily or casual labourers. Tribunal cannot ignore that

the claimant herein is doing the same kind of job and

performing same work which is being performed by workers

who are currently employed. The work in question not

contingent in nature and the same is perennial and still the

management is employing such workers, sometimes

through contractors for the performance of needful job.

26. During the course of arguments, reliance was also

placed upon judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in

Maharashtra State Road Transport and another vs.

Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karamchari Sanghatana (2009)

8 SCC 556. In the said case, Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with

the question of unfair labour practice and specific reference

was made to Uma Devi Case (2006) 4 SCC and it was held

as under:

"34. It is true that the case of Dharwad District PWD

Literate Daily Wage Employees Association vs. State

of Karnataka (1990 2 SCC 396) arising out of industrial

adjudication has been considered in Umadevi(3) (2006

(4) SCC1) and that decision has been held to be not

laying down the correct law but a careful and complete

reading of decision in Umadevi (3) leaves no manner of

doubt that what this Court was concerned in Umadevi

(3) was the exercise of power by the High Courts under

Article 226 and this Court under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India in the matters of public employment

where the employees have been engaged as contractual,

temporary or casual workers not based on proper

selection as recognized by the rules or procedure and

yet orders of their regularization and conferring them

status of permanency have been passed.

35. Umadevi (3) is an authoritative pronouncement for

the proposition that Supreme Court (Article 32) and High

Courts (Article 226) should not issue directions of

absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of

temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad-hoc

employees unless the recruitment itself was made

regularly in terms of constitutional scheme.

36. Umadevi(3) does not denude the Industrial and

Labour Courts of their statutory power under Section

30 read with Section 32 of MRTU & PULP Act to order

permanency of the workers who have been victim of

unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under

item 6 of Schedule IV where the posts on which they

have been working exists. Umadevi (3) cannot be held

to have overridden the powers of Industrial and Labour

Courts in passing appropriate order under Section 30 of

MRTU & PULP Act, once unfair labour practice on the

part of the employer under item 6 of Schedule IV is

established."

27. In UP State Electricity Board vs. Pooran Chandra

Pandey and Others 2007 (12) Scale 304, the Hon'ble Apex

3568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Court has held that the judgement in Uma Devi case cannot

be applied mechanically without seeing the facts of a

particular case. There are clear observations in the above

judgement that ratio of Uma Devi (supra) is not attracted to

a case where simply temporary status or regularization has

been sought in pursuance of Article 14 of the Constitution.

28. Yet, in another judgement, Hon'ble Apex Court, in

the case of Ajaypal Singh Vs. Haryana Warehousing

Corporation (2015) 6 SCC 321 dealt with almost similar

question as to whether a workman employed in an industry

who had completed more than 240 days of service in

preceding calendar year, but his services were terminated

with effect from 01.07.1988 without one month's notice or

pay in lieu thereof in terms of Section 25F of the ID Act. On

a reference to the Labour Court, it was held by the Labour

Tribunal that termination of services of the worker was

illegal and he was entitled to be reinstated with full back

wages. This award was challenged by the employer before

the High Court in a writ petition and the High Court held

that appointment of the worker was made in violation of

Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, the workman was held not to be entitled to be

reinstated. However, compensation was awarded to the

workman. Aforesaid order was affirmed by Division Bench

of the High Court. When the matter was taken by the

workman to the Hon'ble Apex Court, plea of irregular or

illegal appointment being in violation of Article 14 and

Article 16 of the Constitution was out-rightly rejected by

the Hon'ble Apex Court by observing as under:

"When no such plea is taken by the employer in the

order of retrenchment that the workman was appointed

in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution or

in violation of any statutory rule or his appointment

was a back door appointment, while granting relief, it is

not open to the employer of a public industrial

establishment and undertaking to take a plea that initial

appointment of such workman was made in violation of

Articles 14 and 16 or the workman was a back door

appointee, in absence of a reference made by the

appropriate Government for determination of question

whether the initial appointment of the workman was in

violation of Articles 14 and 16 or statutory rules. Only if

such reference is made, a workman is required to lead

evidence to prove that he was appointed by following

procedure prescribed under the Rules and his initial

appointment was legal.

29. Yet, in another case, i.e. ONGC vs. Petroleum Coal

Labour Union (2015) Lab.IC 2483, Hon'ble Apex Court dealt

with the question of non-regularization of the workmen

who were alleged to be not recruited in accordance with

the rules/regulations or by following due procedure under

the law. In the said case also, the workmen were initially

employed as security guards and security supervisors

through a contractor. Later on, due to settlement between

the workers union and the management, their services were

utilized by ONGC through Co-operative Society to meet its

security requirements. Later on, due to decision taken by

the Corporation, security work was entrusted to Central

Industrial Security Force (CISF) to protect their installation.

Matter was taken by the employees union before the High

Court on the grounds that this amounts to breach of

settlement already arrived at between the parties and

Corporation took the stand that workers were not entitled

for retention and regularization as their recruitment was

not as per norms. Though the employees union lost the

case before Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court, but

later on when the matter went to Supreme Court, it was

held as under:

'Even though due procedure was not followed by the

Corporation for the appointment of the concerned

workmen in the post of 'ward and watch security, this

does not disentitle them of their right to seek

regularization of their services by the Corporation under

the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders, after

they have rendered more than 240 days of service in a

calendar year from the date of the memorandum of

appointment issued to each one of the concerned

workmen in the year 1988. The alleged "policy decision"

to appoint CISF personnel to the security post is on

deputation basis and cannot be called appointment

perse. Whereas, the concerned workmen have acquired

their right to be regularized under the provision of Clause

2(ii) of the 'Certified Standing Orders.

Further, the concerned workmen have clearly completed

more than 240 days of services subsequent to the

memorandum of appointment issued by the Corporation

in the year 1988 in a period of twelve calendar months,

therefore, they are entitled for regularization of their

services into permanent posts of the Corporation as per

the Act as well as the Certified Standing Orders of the

Corporation."

30. In the case in hand also, it is not the case of the

management that initial appointment of the workman herein

is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of

India. Rather management has come with the plea that the

workman herein was never employed in the year 1987 and

was directly working under the contractor.

31. There is no merit in the contention of the management

that workman herein is an employee of the contractor. There

is nothing on record to suggest as to who was the

contractor to whom the management had given the work in

question. It was incumbent upon the management to have

brought on record all the relevant documents, which show

that contractor was awarded contract for employment of

casual labourers who were otherwise working for the

benefit of the management. Even name of such contractor

has not been disclosed by the management. Accordingly,

it is held workman herein is/was in the employment of the

management.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3569

32. Since this Tribunal has already observed that the

workman herein was working under the Department of

Telecommunication/Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. right from

the year 1987 till the end of 2005, as such workman is held

to be in the employment of the respondent management.

As a sequel to the above, workman herein is also entitled

to be given temporary status in view of the Scheme of

'‘Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme’.

33. So far as question of regularization of service of the

workman is concerned, it is clear from record that no rules

or regularization or standing order governing the procedure

to be followed for regularization of such temporary

employees have been filed by either of the parties.

Moreover, law is very clear that grant of regularization is

not a matter of course and it depends on the facts and

circumstances as well as rules and regulations governing

such matters. Equally settled is the law that there cannot

be any regularization dehors the rules.

34. Consequently, it is held that the workman herein

would be duly considered for regularization if the rules or

regulations applicable in this regard entitle the workman

for such regularization. If similarly situated employees

working in the management of the respondent, have been

regularized, in that eventuality, workman herein would also

be duly considered for such absorption or regularization.

Hence, issue is answered accordingly. Hence, an award is

accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the

appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

Dated: July 28, 2015

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT

NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No.6/2011

Shri Shyam Sunder

S/o Shri Girdhari Lal

Vill. Maheshpura, PO Bazpur,

Udhamsingh Nagar

...Workman

Versus

The Chief General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Uttrakhand Circle,

Dehradun

The Telecom District Manager

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Haldwani

...Management

AWARD

Background facts giving rise to the reference are that

the claimant, Shri Shyam Sunder was engaged as casual

labourer on 10.01.1987 under Sub Divisional Officer,

Kashipur in the Department of Telecommunication,

Rudrapur, Nainital, Uttar Pradesh. Shri Madan Chandra was

the SDO of the workman at the time of his initial

appointment, who has also issued certificate to the claimant

showing the number of days the claimant has worked and

the same is Annexure P-1.

2. Thereafter, the claimant continued to work with the

Department of Telecommunication under SDO, Kashipur

from 18.08.1987 to 07.06.1988 and certificate is Annexure

P2. Similarly the claimant worked from 01.02.1989 to

01.05.1990 under SDO Kashipur for a total of 447 days as is

clear from Annexure P3.

3. After the year 2005, the claimant has been paid through

ACA-17 slip by SDO Kedar Rai. Thus, the workman had

been working continuously in the Department of

Telecommunications and thereafter the department of

Telecommunication framed the scheme of grant of temporary

status to the casual labourers known as ‘‘Grant of

Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme", which came

into effect on 01 10.1989. Clause 5 of the said Scheme is as

under:

5. Temporary status—

(i)

Temporary status would be conferred of all casual

labourers who are in employment on the date of

issue of this OM and who have rendered a

continuous service of at least one year, which means

that they must have been engaged for a period of

at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices

observing 5 days week).

(ii) Such conferment of temporary status would be

without reference to the creation/availability of

regular Group 'D' posts.

(iii) Conferment of temporary status on a casual labourer

would not involve and change in his duties and

responsibilities. The engagement will be on daily

rates of pay on need basis. He may be deployed

anywhere within the recruitment until/territorial

circle on the basis of availability of work.

(iv) Such casual labourers who acquire temporary status

will not, however, be brought on to the permanent

establishment unless they are selected through

regular selection process for Group posts.

4. After coming into force of the above scheme,

Department of Telecommunication issued circular dated

07.11.1989 stating that the said Scheme would be made

applicable to those casual labourer who were engaged prior

to 01.04.1985. However, the said circular was held to be

illegal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Braj

Kishore Vs. Union of India, wherein it has been held that

3570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the above scheme would be applicable to all those casual

labourer who had continuously worked for a period of one

year irrespective of the cut off date, i.e. 10.04.1985. Since

the claimant was working in the Department of

Telecommunication continuously, as such, he was entitled

to the benefits of the Scheme discussed above. It is also

clear that as per the above Scheme, a person who has

continuously worked for 10 years from the date of

engagement was entitled to be regularized and applying

the grant of temporary status scheme several other casual

workers were permanently regularized who have served

for 10 years from the date of their original engagement.

5. It is also clear from the statement of claim that in the

year 2000, assets and liabilities of Department of

Telecommunication were transferred to a Government

Company known as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and all the

officers and employees of all cadres became employees of

BSNL. Management, with a view to deny legitimate rights

of the claimants in the year 2006 placed the workers under

the Contractor and at that time Shri R.P. Singh was the SDO

under whom the contractor started working. Being

aggrieved, the workers approached the labour authorities

and ultimately dispute for regularization of such workers

were referred to the Labour Court in Delhi. Since the

claimant have been working in the Department of

Telecommunication for more than 20 years, as such he was

to get benefit of the Scheme discussed above. He was

entitled for grant of temporary status initially and thereafter

was required to be regularized as regular Mazdoor.

6. Management was put to notice and on appearance

filed written statement wherein Respondent No.1 and 2

took preliminary objections inter alia of cause of action,

workman not approaching the court with clean hands,

malafide and concealing of material facts etc. It was also

alleged that present reference is bad ' for non-joinder of

necessary parties, since the workman has been working

under the contractor who was required to be impleaded as

a party. It is further alleged that in order to meet exigencies

of the work, respondents have taken services of a contractor

for providing work force on part-time basis on some dates.

As such, engagement of casual workers do not confer upon

any workman any automatic right of regularization. On

merits, it has been denied that the claimant was engaged as

casual labourer since 10.01.1987 on muster roll under

Mahesh Chandra,. SDO, Kashipur. It is also denied that

the claimant worked continuously with Department of

Telecommunication under SDO, Kashipur. Claimant was

not paid wages through ACA 17 slip by SDO Kedar Rai

from 2005. Management also denied other material

averments made in the statement of claim.

7. Since conciliation between the parties could not be

arrived at when the matter was referred to the Regional

Labour Commission, as such the Union Government under

sub section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, made the following reference:

"Whether the demand of Shri Shyam Sunder, S/o Shri

Girdhari, for reinstatement and regularization of his

services with effect from 28.02.2006 in Bharat Sanchar

Nigam Limited, who worked with them since last 20 years

is valid and justified? If yes, what relief the workman is

entitled to?"

8. Claimant, herein, filed statement of claim as discussed

above and on which written statement was filed by

Respondent No.1 and 2, i.e. the managements.

9. It is clear from order dated 07.03.2011 passed by my

learned predecessor that no specific issues were framed. It

was clarified that no other issue than those referred by the

appropriate Government under Section 10 of the ID Act for

adjudication, is made out.

10. Claimant, in support of his case, examined himself as

WW1 and adduced both oral as well as documentary

evidence in support of the stand taken in the statement of

claim. Similarly, the management examined Shri R.P. Singh

as MW1 so as to rebut the case of the claimant.

11. I have heard Shri Rajinder Singh Palni, A/R for the

claimant and Shri Lokesh Sukhwani, A/R for the

management.

12. Shri Palni, appearing on behalf of the claimant, urged

that the claimant herein was employed as casual labourer

by the Department of Telecommunications from 10.01.1987

and in this regard, attention of the court was invited to

Annexure P1, which is a certificate issued by S.D.O.

Kashipur wherein month-wise details of attendance of the

claimant herein has been mentioned. There is another

certificate Annexure P2 which also contains similar details

and number of total working days of the claimant during

the period 01.08.1987 to 01.06.1988 as 252. It is, further,

clear from the affidavit Ex.WW1/A of the claimant Shri

Shyam Sunder that he has tried to support all the material

averments contained in the statement of claim in the said

affidavit. Claimant was subjected to cross examination, but

there is hardly anything to impeach his credit. Claimant

has also made reference to photograph Ex.WW1/4 to

Ex.WW1/10 in his statement.

13. During the course of arguments, much reliance was

placed upon the Scheme which came into force on 19.10.1989

regarding of temporary status to casual workmen. It was

not disputed even by the respondent that in fact the said

Scheme was followed by Department of Telecommunication

and in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Braj Kishore Vs. Union of India, it has been

observed that the Scheme is fully applicable to all the casual

labourer who have worked for a period of one year

irrespective of the cut off date, i.e. 01.04.1985. Thus, it is

strongly agued on behalf of the claimant that in view of the

above Scheme as well as judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court, management was legally required to grant temporary

status as per the above Scheme to the claimant herein.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3571

14. Per contra, Shri Lokesh Sukhwani, A/R for the

management, urged that documents in the present case

relating to attendance of the workman have not been proved

by the workman in accordance with law and as such no

reliance can be placed upon such vague and fictitious

documents. Secondly, the learned authorized representative

of the management proceeded to argue that the workman

was not engaged as a casual labourer in a legal manner and

in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC I, their appointment/engagement

was purely illegal being in violation of statutory principles.

As such, he cannot be granted any permanent status.

Therefore, there is no question of regularization of service

of such workmen.

15. Before I proceed to consider the comparative merits

of the submissions placed on behalf of either parties, it is

pertinent to note here that during the course of arguments,

was

not

disputed

that

Department

Telecommunications had issued a circular dated 07.11.1999

and it was made applicable from 01.10.1999 as alleged in

para 6 of the statement of claim and the same was

applicable to casual labourers who were engaged prior to

01.04.1985. The said circular admittedly was held to be

illegal by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Braj Kishore vs. Union

of India wherein observations have been made that the

above Scheme of casual workers would be applicable to

all casual labourers who had continuously worked for a

period of one year irrespective of the cut off date, i.e.

01.04.1985.

16. Now the moot question which requires determination

in the present case is whether the claimant was directly

engaged as casual labourer as alleged by him in the year

1987 under SDO Kashipur. In this regard, it is appropriate

to refer to the pleadings as well as affidavit of the workman,

Shri Shyam Sunder, filed as Ex.WW1/A wherein the workman

has reiterated the stand taken in his statement of claim.

Shri Shyam Sunder admitted that SDO Kashipur has issued

certificate Ex.WW1/9, which clearly shows that from

January 1987 till July 1987, claimant herein, was working as

casual labourer in Department of Telecommunications and

the said certificate is signed by Sub Divisional Officer

Kashipur, and denied that Ex.WW1/1 is fake. He has also

denied that he has not worked for 240 days with the

management in any calendar year.

17. Management in order to rebut the case of the

claimant, examined Shri R.P. Singh, SDO as MW1, whose

affidavit is Ex.MW1/A, which is almost on the similar lines

as the stand taken in the written statement. He has averred

in the affidavit that the Department has imposed ban on

recruitment/engagement of casual labourer vide circular

22.01.1988. He has also relied upon the instructions

contained in the manual extract, Ex,MW1/2. Further stand

of the management has been that the claimant has not

worked for a period of 240 days in any calendar year and

Shri Madan Chandra was posted as SDO(T), Kashipur

during the period 01.03.1987 to 01.12.1987. In his cross

examination, he has feigned ignorance whether at present

claimant is working under the contractor. He has denied

the suggestion that prior to December 2005, the claimant

was working under the management.

18. It is clear from the resume of evidence on record that

the management has taken the plea that the claimant herein

has not worked at any time directly under the management.

However, evidence on record is crystal clear that the

claimant, even in the year 1987 was employed as casual

labourer by the Department of Telecommunications as is

evident from perusal of certificate Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW1/

2. Bare perusal of the above certificate clearly shows that

the clamant herein was employed as a casual labourer in

January 1987 and in the said month he worked for 31 days,

in the month of February 1987 for 28 days. Further From

August 1987 to June 1988, claimant herein worked for 252

days. Admittedly, Ex.WW1/2, for that matter even Ex.WW1/

1 clearly shows that the claimant herein was working as

casual labourer in Department of Telecommunications.

19. It was argued with much vehemence that the

documents relied upon by the claimant are fake and forged;

as such they cannot be relied upon. There are other

documents filed by the claimant, which clearly shows that

till 2005, the claimant herein was directly working with

Department of Telecommunications and there is nothing

on record to suggest that these documents are fake or

fictitious. Prima facie, examination of all these documents

clearly shows that they are issued by Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Limited and the name of Shri Shyam Sunder, the claimant

herein finds mention in all the documents along with period

of his employment. These documents also prove that the

claimant has worked with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. It

is admitted case of parties that Department of

Telecommunications stood converted to a Government

Company, i.e. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Thus, there is no

merit in the contention of the management that documents

Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/10 cannot be taken into

consideration being photocopies of the original as no

objection was raised when these documents were tendered

in evidence or exhibited by the claimant. No doubt, it is

settled proposition of law that mere production and marking

of documents as exhibit by the court cannot be held to be

due proof of its contents. Its execution is to be proved by

admissible evidence. Situation is, however, different when

documents are produced and their genuineness is not

disputed by the opposite party when they are tendered in

evidence or when they are marked as exhibits. I am fortified

in my opinion from the case of RVE Venkatachala Gounder

versus A.V.V.P, Temples (AIR 2003 SC 4548). This was a

case where the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt at length with the

question of mode of proof and admissibility of documents

and after considering entire case law on the subject, it was

held as under:

3572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"An objection to the admissibility of the document

should be raised before such endorsement is made and

the Court is obliged to form its opinion on the question

of admissibility and express the same on which opinion

would depend the document being endorsed as

admitted or not admitted in evidence. In the latter case,

the document may be returned by the Court to the

person from whose custody it was produced.

Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of

evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not

subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of

documents in evidence may be classified into two

classes:- (i) an objection that the document which is

sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence;

and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the

admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed

towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be

irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because

a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection

as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to

be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or

revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken

before the evidence is tendered and once the document

has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit,

the objection that it should not have been admitted in

evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the

document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at

any stage subsequent to the marking of the document

as an exhibit.'

20. The same view appears to have been taken in the

case of Narbada Devi Gupta versus Birendra Kumar Jaiswal

(AIR 2004 SC 175). In view of the ratio of law discussed

above, it is clear in the present case that no objection was

taken by the management (i.e. opposite party) when

workman while appearing as WW1 tendered photocopy in

evidence. Now, it is too late in the day to urge that the

above document, original of which is obviously in

possession of the management, has not been proved in

accordance with law. Since at no point of time validity of

these document was questioned during the course of

evidence, as such, contention of the management deserves

to be rejected.

21. In view of the above evidence on record, it is held

that claimant herein was working as casual labourer during

the period 1987 to 2005 in the establishment of the

management.

22. Now, the residual question is whether the claimant

has worked for 240 days in a calendar year so as to get the

benefit of the Scheme framed by Department of

Telecommunications regarding grant of temporary status

to the casual labourers. Sub clause 1 of Clause 5 of the

above Scheme clearly provides that temporary status would

be conferred on all casual labourers currently employed

and have rendered continuous service for one year in a

calendar year. Such casual labourer will be designated as

temporary mazdoor. Clause 2 further provides that said

conferment of temporary status would be without reference

to the creation/availability of regular Group D posts..

23. As discussed above, perusal of certificate Ex.WW1/

1 and Ex.WW1/2 clearly shows that the claimant herein

worked for more than 240 days in each of the calendar

years. In fact, combined reading of these documents shows

that claimant herein from March 1987 till date was in the

employment of Department of Telecommunications/ BSNL.

Thus, the workman herein is liable to be given status of

temporary mazdoor in view of the Scheme for grant of

temporary status.

24. It was argued with much vehemence by Shri Lokesh

Sukhwani, learned authorized representative of the

management, that most of the workman who are alleging

themselves to be employees of the management were in

fact never employed in accordance with any rules or

regulations nor there is any specific order regarding

employment of such workmen. Appointment of such

workman, in the contention of the authorized representative

of the management, is backdoor appointment and as such,

in view of the ratio of judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in

Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SC1,

claimant herein cannot claim to be regularized in derogation

of the rules, being back door entry in as much as their

appointment is totally illegal.

25. I have carefully gone through the ratio of the above

judgement and this plea of the management even did not

find favour with the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There are

observations that decision of Constitution Bench in Uma

Devi case is not attracted or applicable when the question

simply is regularization or mere grant of temporary status

to daily or casual labourers. Tribunal cannot ignore that

the claimant herein is doing the same kind of job and

performing same work which is being performed by workers

who are currently employed. The work in question not

contingent in nature and the same is perennial and still the

management is employing such workers, sometimes

through contractors for the performance of needful job.

26. During the course of arguments, reliance was also

placed upon judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in

Maharashtra State Road Transport and another vs.

Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karamchari Sanghatana (2009)

8 SCC 556. In the said case, Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with

the question of unfair labour practice and specific reference

was made to Uma Devi Case (2006) 4 SCC and it was held

as under:

"34.

It is true that the case of Dharwad District PWD

Literate Daily Wage Employees Association vs. State of

Karnataka (1990 2 SCC 396) arising out of industrial

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3573

adjudication has been considered in Umadevi(3) (2006

(4) SCC1) and that decision has been held to be not

laying down the correct law but a careful and complete

reading of decision in Umadevi (3) leaves no manner of

doubt that what this Court was concerned in Umadevi (3)

was the exercise of power by the High Courts under

Article 226 and this Court under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India in the matters of public employment

where the employees have been engaged as contractual,

temporary or casual workers not based on proper

selection as recognized by the rules or procedure and

yet orders of their regularization and conferring them

status of permanency have been passed.

35. Umadevi (3) is an authoritative pronouncement for

the proposition that Supreme Court (Article 32) and High

Courts (Article 226) should not issue directions of

absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of

temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad-hoc

employees unless the recruitment itself was made

regularly in terms of constitutional scheme.

36. Umadevi (3) does not denude the Industrial and

Labour Courts of their statutory power under Section

30 read with Section 32 of MRTU & PULP Act to order

permanency of the workers who have been victim of

unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under

item 6 of Schedule IV where the posts on which they

have been working exists. Umadevi (3) cannot be held

to have overridden the powers of Industrial and Labour

Courts in passing appropriate order under Section 30 of

MRTU & PULP Act, once unfair labour practice on the

part of the employer under item 6 of Schedule IV is

established."

27. In UP State Electricity Board vs. Pooran Chandra

Pandey and Others 2007 (12) Scale 304, the Hon'ble Apex

Court has held that the judgement in Uma Devi case cannot

be applied mechanically without seeing the facts of a

particular case. There are clear observations in the above

judgement that ratio of Uma Devi (supra) is not attracted to

a case where simply temporary status or regularization has

been sought in pursuance of Article 14 of the Constitution.

28. Yet, in another judgement, Hon'ble Apex Court, in

the case of Ajaypal Singh Vs. Haryana Warehousing

Corporation (2015) 6 SCC 321 dealt with almost similar

question as to whether a workman employed in an industry

who had completed more than 240 days of service in

preceding calendar year, but his services were terminated

with effect from 01.07.1988 without one month's notice or

pay in lieu thereof in terms of Section 25F of the ID Act. On

a reference to the Labour Court, it was held by the Labour

Tribunal that termination of services of the worker was

illegal and he was entitled to be reinstated with full back

wages. This award was challenged by the employer before

the High Court in a writ petition and the High Court held

that appointment of the worker was made in violation of

Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, the workman was held not to be entitled to be

reinstated. However, compensation was awarded to the

workman. Aforesaid order was affirmed by Division Bench

of the High Court. When the matter was taken by the

workman to the Hon'ble Apex Court, plea of irregular or

illegal appointment being in violation of Article 14 and

Article 16 of the Constitution was out-rightly rejected by

the Hontle Apex Court by observing as under:

"When no such plea is taken by the employer in the

order of retrenchment that the workman was appointed

in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution or

in violation of any statutory rule or his appointment

was a back door appointment, while granting relief, it is

not open to the employer of a public industrial

establishment and undertaking to take a plea that initial

appointment of such workman was made in violation of

Articles 14 and 16 or the workman was a back door

appointee, in absence of a reference made by the

appropriate Government for determination of question

whether the initial appointment of the workman was in

violation of Articles 14 and 16 or statutory rules. Only if

such reference is made, a workman is required to lead

evidence to prove that he was appointed by following

procedure prescribed under the Rules and his initial

appointment was legal.

29. Yet, in another case, i.e. ONGC vs. Petroleum Coal

Labour Union (2015) Lab. IC 2483, Hon'ble Apex Court dealt

with the question of non-regularization of the workmen

who were alleged to be not recruited in accordance with

the rules/regulations or by following due procedure under

the law. In the said case also, the workmen were initially

employed as security guards and security supervisors

through a contractor. Later on, due to settlement between

the workers union and the management, their services were

utilized by ONGC through Co-operative Society to meet its

security requirements. Later on, due to decision taken by

the Corporation, security work was entrusted to Central

Industrial Security Force (CISF) to protect their installation.

Matter was taken by the employees union before the High

Court on the grounds that this amounts to breach of

settlement already arrived at between the parties and

Corporation took the stand that workers were not entitled

for retention and regularization as their recruitment was

not as per norms. Though the employees union lost the

case before Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court, but

later on when the matter went to Supreme Court, it was

held as under:

'Even though due procedure was not followed by the

Corporation for the appointment of the concerned

workmen in the post of 'ward and watch security, this

does not disentitle them of their right to seek

regularization of their services by the Corporation under

the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders, after

they have rendered more than 240 days of service in a

3574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

calendar year from the date of the memorandum of

appointment issued to each one of the concerned

workmen in the year 1988. The alleged "policy decision"

to appoint CISF personnel to the security post is on

deputation basis and cannot be called appointment

per se. Whereas, the concerned workmen have acquired

their right to be regularized under the provision of Clause

2(ii) of the 'Certified Standing Orders.

Further, the concerned workmen have clearly completed

more than 240 days of services subsequent to the

memorandum of appointment issued by the Corporation

in the year 1988 in a period of twelve calendar months,

therefore, they are entitled for regularization of their

services into permanent posts of the Corporation as per

the Act as well as the Certified Standing Orders of the

Corporation."

30. In the case in hand also, it is not the case of the

management that initial appointment of the workman herein

is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of

India. Rather management has come with the plea that the

workman herein was never employed in the year 1987 and

was directly working under the contractor.

31. There is no merit in the contention of the management

that workman herein is an employee of the contractor. There

is nothing on record to suggest as to who was the

contractor to whom the management had given the work in

question. It was incumbent upon the management to have

brought on record all the relevant documents, which show

that contractor was awarded contract for employment of

casual labourers who were otherwise working for the

benefit of the management. Even name of such contractor

has not been disclosed by the management. Accordingly,

it is held workman herein is/was in the employment of the

management.

32. Since this Tribunal has already observed that the

workman herein was working under the Department of

Telecommunication/Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. right from

the year 1987 till the end of 2005, as such workman is held

to be in the employment of the respondent management.

As a sequel to the above, workman herein is also entitled

to be given temporary status in view of the Scheme of

'Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme'.

33. So far as question of regularization of service of the

workman is concerned, it is clear from record that no rules

or regularization or standing order governing the procedure

to be followed for regularization of such temporary

employees have been filed by either of the parties.

Moreover, law is very clear that grant of regularization is

not a matter of course and it depends on the facts and

circumstances as well as rules and regulations governing

such matters. Equally settled is the law that there cannot

be any regularization dehors the rules.

34. Consequently, it is held that the workman herein

would be duly considered for regularization if the rules or

regulations applicable in this regard entitle the workman

for such regularization. If similarly situated employees

working in the management of the respondent, have been

regularized, in that eventuality, workman herein would also

be duly considered for such absorption or regularization.

Hence, issue is answered accordingly. Hence, an award is

accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the

appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

Dated: July 28, 2015

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT

COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No. 7/2011

Shri Sau Prasad Singh

S/o Shri Tullan Singh

Vill. Taraf, Post Thakurdwara,

Moradabad (U.P).

...Workman

Versus

The Chief General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Uttrakhand Circle,

Dehradun.

The Telecom District Manager

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Haldwani

...Management

AWARD

Background facts giving rise to the reference are that

the claimant, Shri Sao Prasad Singh was engaged as casual

labour on 01.09.1978 under Sub Divisional Officer, Kashipur

in the Department of Telecommunication, Rudrapur,

Nainital, Uttar Pradesh. Shri R.R.Vidyasaetu was the SDO,

Kashipur under whom the applicant was working, who has

also issued certificate to the claimant showing the number

of days the claimant has worked and the same is Annexure

P-1.

2. Thereafter, the claimant continued to work with the

Department of Telecommunication from 01.09.1978 to

31.07.1981 under SDO, R.R. Vidyasitu for total number of

229 days, as is clear from certificate Annexure P-2. Similarly

the claimant worked from 13.10.1982 to 30.3.1985 under SDO

K.Kumar, from 19.10.1986 to 29.3.1988 under SDO Madan

Chand for a total of 360 days and from 13/10/1982 to

31/12/1988 making total number of 862 days as per Annexure

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3575

P-2. The workman had continuously worked from 19.10.1986

to 30.3.1987 making total number of 163 days as per

Annexure P-3.

3. After the year 2005, the claimant has been paid through

ACA-17 slip by SDO Kedar Rai. Thus, the workman had

been working continuously in the Department of

Telecommunications and thereafter the department of

Telecommunication framed the scheme of grant of temporary

status to the casual labourers known as 'Grant of Temporary

Status and Regularization Scheme', which came into effect

on 01.10.1989. Clause 5 of the said Scheme is as under:

5. Temporary status—

(i)

Temporary status would be conferred on all casual

labourers who are in employment on the date of

issue of this OM and who have rendered a

continuous service of at least one year, which means

that they must have been engaged for a period of

at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices

observing 5 days week).

(ii) Such conferment of temporary status would be

without reference to the creation/availability of

regular Group 'D' posts.

(iii) Conferment of temporary status on a casual labourer

would not involve and change in his duties and

responsibilities. The engagement will be on daily

rates of pay on need basis. He may be deployed

anywhere within the recruitment until/territorial

circle on the basis of availability of work.

(iv) Such casual labourers who acquire temporary status

will not, however, be brought on to the permanent

establishment unless they are selected through

regular selection process for Group 'D' posts.

4. After coming into force of the above scheme,

Department of Telecommunication issued circular dated

07.11.1989 stating that the said Scheme would be made

applicable to those casual labourer who were engaged prior

to 01.04.1985. However, the said circular was held to be

illegal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Braj

Kishore Vs. Union of India, wherein it has been held that

the above scheme would be applicable to all those casual

labour who had continuously worked for a period of one

year irrespective of the cut off date, i.e. 10.04.1985. Since

the claimant was working in the Department of

Telecommunication continuously, as such, he was entitled

to the benefits of the Scheme discussed above. It is also

clear that as per the above Scheme, a person who has

continuously worked for 10 years from the date of

engagement was entitled to be regularized and applying

the grant of temporary status scheme several other casual

workers were permanently regularized who have served

for 10 years from the date of their original engagement.

5. It is also clear from the statement of claim that in the

year 2000, assets and liabilities of Department of

Telecommunication were transferred to a Government

Company known as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and all the

officers and employees of all cadres became employees of

BSNL. Management, with a view to deny legitimate rights

of the claimants in the year 2006 placed the workers under

the Contractor and at that time Shri R.P. Singh was the SDO

under whom the contractor started working. Being

aggrieved, the workers approached the labour authorities

and ultimately dispute for regularization of such workers

were referred to the Labour Court in Delhi. Since the

claimant has been working in the Department of

Telecommunication for more than 20 years, as such he was

to get benefit of the Scheme discussed above. He was

entitled for grant of temporary status initially and thereafter

was required to be regularized as regular Mazdoor.

6. Management was put to notice and on appearance

filed written statement wherein Respondent No. 1 and 2

took preliminary objections inter alia of cause of action,

workman not approaching the court with clean hands,

malafide and concealing of material facts etc. It was also

alleged that present reference is bad for non-joinder of

necessary parties, since the workman has been working

under the contractor who was required to be impleaded as

a party. It is further alleged that in order to meet exigencies

of the work, respondents have taken services of a contractor

for providing work force on part-time basis on some dates.

As such, engagement of casual workers do not confer upon

any workman any automatic right of regularization. On

merits, it has been denied that the claimant was engaged as

casual labour since 01.03.1987 on muster roll under Shri

Joshi, SDO Kashipur. It is also denied that the claimant

worked continuously with Department of Telecommuni-

cation under Kedar Rai, SDO. Claimant was not paid wages

through ACA 17 slip by SDO Kedar Rai from 2005.

Management also denied other material averments made in

the statement of claim.

7. Since conciliation between the parties could not be

arrived at when the matter was referred to the Regional

Labour Commission, as such the Union Government under

sub section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, made the following reference:

"Whether the demand of Shri Sau Prasad Singh, S/o

Shri Tullan Singh, for reinstatement and regularization

of his services with effect from 28.02.2006 in Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited, who worked with them since

last 20 years is valid and justified? If yes, what relief the

workman is entitled to.?"

8. Claimant, herein, filed statement of claim as discussed

above and on which written statement was filed by

Respondent No. 1 and 2, i.e. the managements.

9. It is clear from order dated 07.03.2011 passed by my

learned predecessor that no specific issues were framed. It

was clarified that no other issue than those referred by the

appropriate Government under Section 10 of the ID Act for

adjudication, is made out.

3576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10. Claimant, in support of his case, examined himself as

WW1 and adduced both oral as well as documentary

evidence in support of the stand taken in the statement of

claim. Similarly, the management examined Shri R.P. Singh

as MW1 so as to rebut the case of the claimant.

11. I have heard Shri Rajinder Singh Palni, A/R for the

claimant and Shri Lokesh Sukhwani, A/R for the

management.

12. Shri Palni, appearing on behalf of the claimant, urged

that the claimant herein was employed as casual labour by

the Department of Telecommunications from 01.09.1978 and

in this regard, attention of the court was invited to Ex.

WW1/17 (Annexure P1), which is a certificate issued by

Junior Telecom Officer Kashipur and Ex. WW1/18 issued

by SDO Kashipur, wherein month-wise details of

attendance of the claimant herein has been mentioned. It

is, further, clear from the affidavit Ex. WW1/A of the claimant

Shri Sau Prasad Singh that he has tried to support all the

material averments contained in the statement of claim in

the said affidavit. Claimant was subjected to cross

examination, but there is hardly anything to impeach his

credit. Claimant has also made reference to photograph Ex.

WW1/3 to Ex. WW1/7 in his statement. Perusal of the

certificate shows that the same is signed by Junior Telecom

Officer and name of Shri Joshi admittedly does not find

mention there. In fact, it is photocopy of the original and

the said photocopy has been attested by the Principal,

AIIC, Talabpur, Jaspur, US Nagar.

13. During the course of arguments, much reliance was

placed upon the Scheme which came into force on 19.10.1989

regarding of temporary status to casual workmen. It was

not disputed even by the respondent that in fact the said

Scheme was followed by Department of Telecommunication

and in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Braj Kishore Vs. Union of India, it has been

observed that the Scheme is fully applicable to all the casual

labour who have worked for a period of one year irrespective

of the cut off date, i.e. 01.04.1985. Thus, it is strongly agued

on behalf of the claimant that in view of the above Scheme

as well as judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, management

was legally required to grant temporary status as per the

above Scheme to the claimant herein.

14. Per contra, Shri Lokesh Sukhwani, A/R for the

management, urged that documents in the present case

relating to attendance of the workman Ex. WW1/18 have

not been proved by the workman in accordance with law

and as such no reliance can be placed upon such vague

and fictitious documents. Secondly, the learned authorized

representative of the management proceeded to argue that

the workman was not engaged as a casual labour in a legal

manner and in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC I, their appointment/

engagement was purely illegal being in violation of

statutory principles. As such, he cannot be granted any

permanent status. Therefore, there is no question of

regularization of service of such workmen.

15. Before I proceed to consider the comparative merits

of the submissions placed on behalf of either parties, it is

pertinent to note here that during the course of arguments,

it was not disputed that Department of Telecommunications

had issued a circular dated 07.11.1999 and it was made

applicable from 01.10.1999 as alleged in para 6 of the

statement of claim and the same was applicable to casual

labourers who were engaged prior to 1.04.1985. The said

circular admittedly was held to be illegal by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Braj Kishore vs. Union of India wherein

observations have been made that the above Scheme of

casual workers would be applicable to all casual labourers

who had continuously worked for a period of one year

irrespective of the cut off date, i.e. 01.04.1985.

16. Now the moot question which requires determination

in the present case is whether the claimant was directly

engaged as casual labour as alleged by him in the year

1978 under SDO Kashipur. In this regard, it is appropriate

to refer to the pleadings as well as affidavit of the workman,

Shri Sau Prasad Singh, filed as Ex. WW1/A wherein the

workman has reiterated the stand taken in his statement of

claim. In his cross examination, the claimant has admitted

that he has studied only upto 9th class and the claim

statement as well as his affidavit, Ex. WW1/A, bears his

signatures. He understands English a little bit. He has

further admitted that in his affidavit it is mentioned that

Shri R.R. Vidyasethu was his SDO 1978. . However, he has

admitted this mistake and admitted that Shri Vidyasethu

has issued certificate Ex. WW1/17, which clearly shows

that from September 1978 to July 1981, claimant herein, was

working as casual labour in Department of

Telecommunications and the said certificate is verified by

Junior Telecom Officer, Kashipur. He has denied that

Ex. WW1/17 is fake. He has also denied certificate Ex.

WW1/M1 is false. He further denied that he has not worked

for 240 days with the management in any calendar year.

17. Management in order to rebut the case of the

claimant, examined Shri R.P. Singh, SDO as MW1, whose

affidavit is Ex. MW1/A, which is almost on the similar lines

as the stand taken in the written statement. He has averred

in the affidavit that the Department has imposed ban on

recruitment/engagement of casual labour vide circular

22.01.1988. He has also relied upon the instructions

contained in the manual extract, Ex, MW1/2. Further stand

of the management has been that the claimant has not

worked for a period of 240 days in any calendar year and

Shri Madan Chandra was posted as SDO(T), Kashipur

during the period 01.03.1987 to 01.12.1987. He has

categorically stated that the claimant has not worked under

him during the period from 01.03.1987 to 01.12.1987 for 270

days. In his cross examination, he has feigned ignorance

whether at present claimant is working under the contractor.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3577

He has denied the suggestion that prior to December 2005,

the claimant was working under the management.

18. It is clear from the resume of evidence on record that

the management has taken the plea that the claimant herein

has not worked at any time directly under the management.

However, evidence on record is crystal clear that the

claimant, even in the year 1978 was employed as casual

labour by the Department of Telecommunications as is

evident from perusal of certificate Ex. WW1/M1 and Ex.

WW1/M2. Bare perusal of the above certificate clearly

shows that the claimant herein was employed as a casual

labour in September 1978 and in the said month he worked

for 30 days, in the month of October 1978 for 31 days and

so on. No doubt, the claimant herein has wrongly

mentioned the name of SDO as Shri Vidyasethu, in his

affidavit, to be his SDO in September 1978, but he has

clarified that the same has been mentioned inadvertently

and the mistake is that of his advocate. He has admitted in

his cross examination dated 02.11.2011 that certificate Ex.

WW1/9 has been issued by Shri Vidyasethu. To my mind,

merely mentioning of a wrong name of employer or SDO

cannot be held to fatal to the case of the claimant, who is

semi-literate. It has come in evidence that the claimant that

he has studied only upto the 9th standard. As such, mere

wrong mention of the name of the employer at a particular

point of time would not mean that the claimant has set up a

wrong claim. Admittedly, Ex. WW1/18, Ex.WW1/19 and for

that matter even Ex. WW1/M1 and Ex. WW1/M2 clearly

shows that the claimant herein was working as casual labour

in Department of Telecommunications.

19. It was argued with much vehemence that the

documents relied upon by the claimant are fake and forged;

as such they cannot be relied upon. There are other

documents filed by the claimant, which clearly shows that

till 2005, the claimant herein was directly working with

Department of Telecommunications and there is nothing

on record to suggest that these documents are fake or

fictitious. Prima facie, examination of all these documents

clearly shows that they are issued by Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Limited and the name of Shri Sau Prasad Singh, the claimant

herein finds mention in all the documents alongwith period

of his employment. These documents also prove that the

claimant has worked with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

till 2005. It is admitted case of parties that Department of

Telecommunications stood converted to a Government

Company, i.e. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Thus, there is no

merit in the contention of the management that documents

Ex. WW1/8 to Ex. WW1/19 cannot be taken into

consideration being photocopies of the original as no

objection was raised when these documents were tendered

in evidence or exhibited by the claimant. No doubt, it is

settled proposition of law that mere production and marking

of documents as exhibit by the court cannot be held to be

due proof of its contents. Its execution is to be proved by

admissible evidence. Situation is, however, different when

documents are produced and their genuineness is not

disputed by the opposite party when they are tendered in

evidence or when they are marked as exhibits. I am fortified

in my opinion from the case of RVE Venkatachala Gounder

versus A.V.V.P. Temples (AIR 2003 SC 4548). This was a

case where the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt at length with the

question of mode of proof and admissibility of documents

and after considering entire case law on the subject, it was

held as under:

"An objection to the admissibility of the document

should be raised before such endorsement is made and

the Court is obliged to form its opinion on the question

of admissibility and express the same on which opinion

would depend the document being endorsed as

admitted or not admitted in evidence. In the latter case,

the document may be returned by the Court to the

person from whose custody it was produced.

Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of evidence

should be taken when it is tendered and not

subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of

documents in evidence may be classified into two

classes:— (i) an objection that the document which is

sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence;

and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the

admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed

towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be

irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because

a document has been marked as ‘an exhibit’, an objection

as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to

be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or

revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken

before the evidence is tendered and once the document

has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit,

the objection that it should not have been admitted in

evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the

document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at

any stage subsequent to the marking of the document

as an exhibit.'

20. The same view appears to have been taken in the

case of Narbada Devi Gupta versus Birendra Kumar Jaiswal

(AIR 2004 SC 175). In view of the ratio of law discussed

above, it is clear in the present case that no objection was

taken by the management (i.e. opposite party) when

workman while appearing as WW1 tendered photocopy in

evidence. Now, it is too late in the day to urge that the

above document, original of which is obviously in

possession of the management, has not been proved in

accordance with law. Since at no point of time validity of

these document was questioned during the course of

evidence, as such, contention of the management deserves

to be rejected.

21. In view of the above evidence on record, it is held

that claimant herein was working as casual labour during

the period 1987 to 2005 in the establishment of the

management.

3578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

22. Now, the residual question is whether the claimant

has worked for 240 days in a calendar year so as to get the

benefit of the Scheme framed by Department of

Telecommunications regarding grant of temporary status

to the casual labourers. Sub clause 1 of Clause 5 of the

above Scheme clearly provides that temporary status would

be conferred on all casual labourers currently employed

and have rendered continuous service for one year in a

calendar year. Such casual labour will be designated as

temporary mazdoor. Clause 2 further provides that said

conferment of temporary status would be without reference

to the creation/availability of regular Group D posts.

23. As discussed above, perusal of certificate Ex. WW1/1

and Ex. WW1/2 as well as documents Ex. WW1/8 to Ex.

WW1/19 clearly shows that the claimant herein, from March

1978 till 2005, was in the employment of Department of

Telecommunications/BSNL. Thus, the workman herein is

liable to be given status of temporary mazdoor in view of

the Scheme for grant of temporary status.

24. It was argued with much vehemence by Shri Lokesh

Sukhwani, learned authorized representative of the

management, that most of the workman who are alleging

themselves to be employees of the management were in

fact never employed in accordance with any rules or

regulations nor there is any specific order regarding

employment of such workmen. Appointment of such

workman, in the contention of the authorized representative

of the management, is backdoor appointment and as such,

in view of the ratio of judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in

Secretary State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SC1,

claimant herein cannot claim to be regularized in derogation

of the rules, being back door entry in as much as their

appointment is totally illegal.

25. I have carefully gone through the ratio of the above

judgement and this plea of the management even did not

find favour with the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There are

observations that decision of Constitution Bench in Uma

Devi case is not attracted or applicable when the question

simply is regularization or mere grant of temporary status

to daily or casual labourers. Tribunal cannot ignore that

the claimant herein is doing the same kind of job and

performing same work which is being performed by workers

who are currently employed. The work in question not

contingent in nature and the same is perennial and still the

management is employing such workers, sometimes

through contractors for the performance of needful job.

26. During the course of arguments, reliance was also

placed upon judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in

Maharashtra State Road Transport and another Vs.

Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karamchari Sanghatana (2009)

8 SCC 556. In the said case, Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with

the question of unfair labour practice and specific reference

was made to Uma Devi Case (2006) 4 SCC and it was held

as under:

"34. It is true that the case of Dharwad District PWD

Literate Daily Wage Employees Association Vs. State

of Karnataka (1990 2 SCC 396) arising out of industrial

adjudication has been considered in Umadevi (3) (2006

(4) SCC1) and that decision has been held to be not

laying down the correct law but a careful and complete

reading of decision in Umadevi (3) leaves no manner of

doubt that what this Court was concerned in Umadevi

(3) was the exercise of power by the High Courts under

Article 226 and this Court under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India in the matters of public employment

where the employees have been engaged as contractual,

temporary or casual workers not based on proper

selection as recognized by the rules or procedure and

yet orders of their regularization and conferring them

status of permanency have been passed.

35. Umadevi (3) is an authoritative pronouncement for

the proposition that Supreme Court (Article 32) and High

Courts (Article 226) should not issue directions of

absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of

temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad-hoc

employees unless the recruitment itself was made

regularly in terms of constitutional scheme.

36. Umadevi (3) does not denude the Industrial and

Labour Courts of their statutory power under Section

30 read with Section 32 of MRTU & PULP Act to order

permanency of the workers who have been victim of

unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under

item 6 of Schedule IV where the posts on which they

have been working exists. Umadevi (3) cannot be held

to have overridden the powers of Industrial and Labour

Courts in passing appropriate order under Section 30 of

MRTU & PULP Act, once unfair labour practice on the

part of the employer under item 6 of Schedule IV is

established."

27. In UP State Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra

Pandey and Others 2007 (12) Scale 304, the Hon'ble Apex

Court has held that the judgement in Uma Devi case cannot

be applied mechanically without seeing the facts of a

particular case. There are clear observations in the above

judgement that ratio of Uma Devi (supra) is not attracted to

a case where simply temporary status or regularization has

been sought in pursuance of Article 14 of the Constitution.

28. Yet, in another judgement, Hon'ble Apex Court, in

the case of Ajaypal Singh Vs. Haryana Warehousing

Corporation (2015) 6 SCC 321 dealt with almost similar

question as to whether a workman employed in an industry

who had completed more than 240 days of service in

preceding calendar year, but his services were terminated

with effect from 01.07.1988 without one month's notice or

pay in lieu thereof in terms of Section 25F of the ID Act. On

a reference to the Labour Court, it was held by the Labour

Tribunal that termination of services of the worker was

illegal and he was entitled to be reinstated with full back

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3579

wages. This award was challenged by the employer before

the High Court in a writ petition and the High Court held

that appointment of the worker was made in violation of

Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, the workman was held not to be entitled to be

reinstated. However, compensation was awarded to the

workman. Aforesaid order was affirmed by Division Bench

of the High Court. When the matter was taken by the

workman to the Hon'ble Apex Court, plea of irregular or

illegal appointment being in violation of Article 14 and

Article 16 of the Constitution was outrightly rejected by

the Hon'ble Apex Court by observing as under:

"When no such plea is taken by the employer in the

order of retrenchment that the workman was appointed

in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution or

in violation of any statutory rule or his appointment

was a back door appointment, while granting relief, it is

not open to the employer of a public industrial

establishment and undertaking to take a plea that initial

appointment of such workman was made in violation of

Articles 14 and 16 or the workman was a back door

appointee, in absence of a reference made by the

appropriate Government for determination of question

whether the initial appointment of the workman was in

violation of Articles 14 and 16 or statutory rules. Only if

such reference is made, a workman is required to lead

evidence to prove that he was appointed by following

procedure prescribed under the Rules and his initial

appointment was legal.

29. Yet, in another case, i.e. ONGC vs Petroleum Coal

Labour Union (2015) Lab. IC 2483, Hon'ble Apex Court dealt

with the question of non-regularization of the workmen

who were alleged to be not recruited in accordance with

the rules/regulations or by following due procedure under

the law. In the said case also, the workmen were initially

employed as security guards and security supervisors

through a contractor. Later on, due to settlement between

the workers union and the management, their services were

utilized by ONGC through Co-operative Society to meet its

security requirements. Later on, due to decision taken by

the Corporation, security work was entrusted to Central

Industrial Security Force (CISF) to protect their installation.

Matter was taken by the employees union before the High

Court on the grounds that this amounts to breach of

settlement already arrived at between the parties and

Corporation took the stand that workers were not entitled

for retention and regularization as their recruitment was

not as per norms. Though the employees union lost the

case before Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court, but

later on when the matter went to Supreme Court, it was

held as under:

'Even though due procedure was not followed by the

Corporation for the appointment of the concerned

workmen in the post of 'ward and watch security, this

does not disentitle them of their right to seek

regularization of their services by the Corporation under

the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders, after

they have rendered more than 240 days of service in a

calendar year from the date of the memorandum of

appointment issued to each one of the concerned

workmen in the year 1988. The alleged "policy decision"

to appoint CISF personnel to the security post is on

deputation basis and cannot be called appointment

perse. Whereas, the concerned workmen have acquired

their right to be regularized under the provision of Clause

2(ii) of the 'Certified Standing Orders .

Further, the concerned workmen have clearly completed

more than 240 days of services subsequent to the

memorandum of appointment issued by the Corporation

in the year 1988 in a period of twelve calendar months,

therefore, they are entitled for regularization of their

services into permanent posts of the Corporation as per

the Act as well as the Certified Standing Orders of the

Corporation."

30. In the case in hand also, it is not the case of the

management that initial appointment of the workman herein

is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of

India. Rather management has come with the plea that the

workman herein was never employed in the year 1987 and

was directly working under the contractor.

31. There is no merit in the contention of the management

that workman herein is an employee of the contractor. There

is nothing on record to suggest as to who was the

contractor to whom the management had given the work in

question. IT was incumbent upon the management to have

brought on record all the relevant documents, which show

that contractor was awarded contract for employment of

casual labourers who were otherwise working for the

benefit of the management. Even name of such contractor

has not been disclosed by the management. Accordingly,

it is held workman herein is/was in the employment of the

management.

32. Since this Tribunal has already held that the

workman herein was working under the Department of

Telecommunication/Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. right from

the year 1987 till the end of 2005, as such workman is held

to be in the employment of the respondent management.

As a sequel to the above, workman herein is also entitled

to be given temporary status in view of the Scheme of

'Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme.

33. So far as question of regularization of service of the

workman is concerned, it is clear from record that no rules

or regularization or standing order governing the procedure

to be followed for regularization of such temporary

employees have been filed by either of the parties.

Moreover, law is very clear that grant of regularization is

not a matter of course and it depends on the facts and

3580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2015/SRAVANA 31, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

circumstances as well as rules and regulations governing

such matters. Equally settled is the law that there cannot

be any regularization dehors the rules.

34. Consequently, it is held that the workman herein

would be duly considered for regularization if the rules or

regulations applicable in this regard entitle the workman

for such regularization. If similarly situated employees

working in the management of the respondent, have been

regularized, in that eventuality, workman herein would also

be duly considered for such absorption or regularization.

Hence, Reference is answered accordingly. Hence, an award

is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the

appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated: July 28, 2015

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1686-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj dfe'uj] ukFkZ

MsYgh E;qfufliy dkjiksjs'ku ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

lañ 52@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2015

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42011@145@2014&vkbZñvkjñ ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2015

S.O. 1686.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 52/2015) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court No. 1,

Delhi now shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

the Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 19/08/2015.

[No. L-42011/145/2014-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT

COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No. 52/2015

Shri Lakhpat Singh and Yoginder,

Through Delhi Udhiyan Sangharsh Union,

B-5, Ram Gali, North Ghonda,

New Delhi-110 053

...Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

North Delhi Municipal Corporation

9th Floor, Civic Centre,

Minto Road,

New Delhi-110 002

...Management

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No. L-42011/145/2014-

IR(DU) dated 19.01.2015, referred the following industrial

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the appointment of the workmen Shri Lakhpat

Singh, S/o Shri Babu Ram and Shri Yogender, S/o Shri

Shankar on the post of Nala Beldar with effect from

01.04.2006 instead of Beldar is just, fair and legal? If not,

to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?

2. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to

the workman as well as the management. None appeared

on behalf of the claimant. At such, this Tribunal ordered

issuance of fresh notice to the workman on 18.03.2015 and

23.06.2015. Neither the postal articles, referred above, were

received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that

postal services remained affected in the period, referred

above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the

fact that the above notices were served upon the claimants.

Despite service of these notices, claimants opted to abstain

away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed

on their behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not

interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.

3. Since the workmen have neither put in their appearance

nor have they led any evidence so as to prove their cause

against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with

no choice, except to pass a 'No Dispute/Claim' award. Let

this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as

required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, for publication.

Dated: August 13, 2015

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1687-—jk"Vªifr] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.kµlgµJe U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds fyad vf/kdkjh ds

:i esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd&lg&Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh Jh Hkjr ik.Ms dks fnukad 01-07-2015 ls vxys

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 22] [email protected] 31] 1937

3581

N% ekg dh le;kof/k rd vFkok fu;fer in/kkj.k dh fu;qfDr gksus

rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks rc rd ds

fy, vfrfjDr dk;ZHkkj c<+krs g®aA

[lañ ,µ11016@03@2015&lhñ,yñ,lñµII]

larks"k dqekj flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th August, 2015

S.O. 1687.—The President is pleased to extend the

additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Courts, Ahmedabad to Shri Bharat Pandey, Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jaipur for a period of six months w.e.f. 01.07.2015 or till

appointment of a regular incumbent or until further orders,

whichever is the earliest.

[No. A-11016/03/2015-CLS-II]

S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 18 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1688-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948

dk 34½ dh /kkjkµ1 dh mi /kkjkµ¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 flrEcj] 2015 dks ml rkjh[k

ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44

o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6

¼/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjkµ¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds

flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k mÙkjk[kaM jkT; ds

fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%µ

Øñlañ jktLo xzke dk uke

jktLo

ftyk

ijxuk

rglhy

etjh xzkaV]

MksbZokyk

MksbZokyk nsgjknwu

yky rIiM]

ykyrIiM etjkA

[lañ ,lµ38013@86@2015&,l,l&1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th August, 2015

S.O. 1688.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1st September, 2015 as the date on

which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44

and 45 which have already been brought into force) and

Chapter-V and VI (except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and

Sections 77, 78 79 and 81 which have already been brought

into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the

following areas in the State of Uttarakhand namely:—

Name of the

Revenue

Revenue District

No.

Revenue Village

Pargana

Tehsil

Majri Grant,

Doiwala

Dehradun

Lal Tappar,

Lal Tappar Majra

[No. S-38013/86/2015-S.S. I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 18 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1689-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948

dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 flrEcj] 2015 dks ml rkjh[k

ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44

o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6

¼/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds

flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds

fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

jsosU;q foYyst dq:Eikyk] rkyqd vMwj] ftyk&iÙkuefrëkA

[lañ ,l&38013@84@2015&,l-,l- 1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th August, 2015

S.O. 1689.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1st September, 2015 as the date on

which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44

and 45 which have already been brought into force) and

Chapter-V and VI (except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and

Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought

into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the

following areas in the State of Kerala namely:—

Revenue Village of Kurumpala in Adoor Taluk, of

Pathanamthitta District.

[No. S-38013/84/2015-S.S. I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.