This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ;एनद्ध 04/0007/2003—05 REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05 प्राध्किार से प्रकाशित PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY साप्ताहिक WEEKLY

सं. 39] नई दिल्ली, सितम्बर 20—सितम्बर 26, 2015, शनिवार/भाद्र 29—अश्विन 4, 1937

No. 39] NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 20—SEPTEMBER 26, 2015, SATURDAY/BHADRA 29—ASVINA 4, 1937

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड ;iiद्ध

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्राालयों ;रक्षा मंत्राालय को छोड़करद्ध द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविध्कि आदेश और अध्सिूचनाएं

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

कार्मिक, लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC

GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग)

(Department of Personnel and Training)

नई दिल्ली, 18 सितम्बर, 2015

New Delhi, the 18th September, 2015

का॰आ॰ 1874.—दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) के नियम 24 के उप-नियम (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌्‌द्वारा विचारण न्यायालयों में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन (सीबीआई) द्वारा शुरू किए गए मुकदमों और अपीलों, कानून द्वारा किसी राज्य या संघ राज्य क्षेत्र में स्थापित इन मुकदमों से उत्पन्न होने वाले मामलों, जिन पर उपर्युक्त खण्ड के प्रावधन लागू होते हैं, का संचालन करने के लिए केन्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो के निम्नलिखित अभियोजन अध्किारियों को नियुक्त करती है।

1. श्री बृजेश कुमार यादव

S.O. 1874.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints the following Prosecuting Officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation as Special Public Prosecutors for conducting cases instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (C.B.I) in trial courts and appeals, revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate Courts, established by law in any State or Union territory to which the provisions of the aforesaid section apply:—

2. श्री वरूण कुमार द्विवेदी

1. Shri Brijesh Kumar Yadav

2. Shri Varun Kumar Dwivedi

3. श्री अभिलाष कुमार

3. Shri Abhilash Kumar

[फा॰ सं॰ 225/11/2015-एवीडी-II] अजीत कुमार, अवर सचिव

[F.No. 225/11/2015-AVD-II] AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.

3875 GI/2015

(3911)3912 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2015/ASVINA 4, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] नई दिल्ली, 24 सितम्बर, 2015

अध्सिूचना के तहत तीन महीनों की अवध् िके लिए बढ़ाया गया था। केन्द्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा समिति का कार्यकाल 31 अक्तूबर, 2015 तक बढ़ाती है।

[फा॰ सं॰ के-11011/37/2014-डीडी-II] एस॰ बी॰ प्रसाद, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT

का॰आ॰ 1875.—केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अध्निियम, 1946 (1946 का अध्निियम सं॰ 25) की धरा 6 के साथ पठित धरा 5 की उप-धरा (1) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, महाराष्ट्र सरकार, गृह विभाग, मुम्बई की पत्र/अध्सिूचना सं॰ एमआईएस 2015/सीआर-1413/पीओएल-11 दिनांक 18 सितम्बर, 2015 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से अपराध् संख्या 406/2015 अंतर्गत धरा 120-बी, 364, 302, 307, 328, 201, 202, 203 भा॰द॰सं॰, 1860 व धरा 3(25) शस्त्र अध्निियम, शीना बोरा की हत्या से सम्बन्ध्ति थाना खार, मुम्बई तथा उपर्युक्त अपराधें के संबंध् में या उससे सम्बद्ध प्रयास, दुष्प्रेरण तथा षड्‌यंत्र तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किये गये अथवा उन्हीें तथ्यों से उद्वूत किसी अन्य अपराध् या उपराधें का अन्वेषण करने के सम्बन्ध् में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और आध्किारिता व विस्तार सम्पूर्ण महाराष्ट्र राज्य पर करती है।

[फा॰सं॰ 228/45/2015-एवीडी-II] अजीत कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2015

S.O. 1875.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), New Delhi, the 18th September, 2015

S.O. 1876. —Vide Notification dated 27.02.2015, the Central Government had constituted a Committee to re- visit and re-draft the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and the rules made thereunder, as also to address the urban development of Delhi effectively and efficiently in the current context to play changing roles of facilitator and regulator along with developer. The Committee was mandated to submit the draft Act/Rules within three months from the date of its constitution for consideration of the Government. The tenure of the Committee was last extended for a period of three months, vide Notification dated 26.05.2015. The Central Government hereby extends the tenure of the Committee till 31st October, 2015.

[F.No. K-11011/37/2014-DD-II] S.B. PRASAD, Under Secy.

आयुष मंत्रालय

the Central Government with the consent of the State of

Government of Maharashtra, Home Department Mumbai,

vide Notification No. MIS 2015/CR-1413/POL-11 dated

18th Sept., 2015, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction

of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment

to the whole of the State of Maharashtra for investigation

of Khar Police Station Crime No. 406/2015 U/s 120-B, 364,

302, 307, 328, 201, 202, 203 IPC and u/s 3 (25) of Arms Act

relating to the murder of Sheena Bora and the abetment नई दिल्ली, 14 सितम्बर, 2015

का॰आ॰ 1877.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम 1976 (यथा संशोध्ति 1987) के नियम 10 के उप-नियम (4) के अनुसरण में, आयुष मंत्रालय के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाध्ीन निम्नलिखित कार्यालय, जिसके 90 प्रतिशत अध्किारियों/कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाध्क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को एतद्‌द्वारा अध्सिूचित करती हैः—

1. ''राष्ट्रीय आयुर्वेद आहार विज्ञाान अनुसंधन, बंगलुरू''

and conspiracy in relation to the above mentioned offences.

[F. No. 228/45/2015-AVD-II]

AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.

[सं॰ ई॰-11018/1/2013-आयुष (रा॰भा॰)] कुंदन सिंह टंगणियां, संयुक्त निदेशक (रा॰भा॰)

MINISTRY OF AYUSH

शहरी विकास मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 18 सितम्बर, 2015

New Delhi, the 14th September, 2015

S.O. 1877.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies the following office under the administrative control of the Ministry of AYUSH, were 90% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:

1. "National Ayurveda Dietetics Research

Institute, Bengaluru".

का॰आ॰ 1876.—केन्द्र सरकार ने दिनांक 27.02.2015 की अध्सिूचना के तहत प्रवर्त्तक सहित सुविधप्रदाता और नियामक की परिवर्तित भूमिका अदा करने के वर्तमान सन्दर्भ में दिल्ली का प्रभावी और कुशलता से शहरी विकास करने के लिए दिल्ली विकास अध्निियम, 1957 और इसके अन्तर्गत बनाए गए नियमों पर पुनर्विचार करने और इनका पुनः प्रारूप तैयार करने के लिए एक समिति गठित की थी। इस समिति को इसके गठन की तारीख से तीन महीनों के अन्दर सरकार के विचारार्थ प्रारूप अध्निियम/नियम प्रस्तुत करने का अध्दिेश दिया गया था। समिति का कार्यकाल अंतिम बार दिनांक 26.05.2015 की [No. E-11018/1/2013-AYUSH (O.L.] KUNDAN SINGH TANGANIYA, Jt. Director (O.L.)[भाग II—खण्ड 3 (ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2015/आश्विन 4, 1937 3913

स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय

(स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2015

का॰आ॰ 1878.—भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद अध्निियम, 1956 (1956 का 102) की धरा 11 की उप-धरा (2) द्‌वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार, भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद से परामर्श करने के पश्चात्‌ उक्त अध्निियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोध्न करती है, अर्थात्‌ः—

उक्त अनुसूची मेंः—

(क) ''के आई आई टी विश्वविद्‌यालय, भुवनेश्वर, ओडिशा'' के सामने 'मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता' [इसके बाद कालम (2) के रूप में सन्दर्भित] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि तथा उससे संबंध्ति प्रविष्टि के बाद 'पंजीकरण के लिये संक्षिप्त रूप' [इसके बाद कालम (3) के रूप में संदर्भित] शीर्षक के तहत निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा, अर्थात्‌ः—

''डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (पैथोलॉजी)'' एम॰डी॰ (पैथोलॉजी)

(यह वर्ष 2014 में या उसके बाद कलिंग आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान, भुवनेश्वर, ओडिशा में प्रशिक्षित किये जा रहे छात्रों के संबंध् में के आई आई टी विश्वविद्‌यालय, भुवनेश्वर, ओडिशा द्‌वारा प्रदान की गई मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी।)

''डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन एम॰डी॰ (माईक्रोबायोलॉजी) (माईक्रोबायोलॉजी)'' (यह वर्ष 2014 में या उसके बाद कलिंग आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान, भुवनेश्वर, ओडिशा में प्रशिक्षित किये जा रहे छात्रों के संबंध् में के आई आई टी विश्वविद्‌यालय, भुवनेश्वर, ओडिशा द्‌वारा प्रदान की गई मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी।)

''डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन एम॰डी॰ (सामुदायिक चिकित्सा) (सामुदायिक चिकित्सा)'' (यह वर्ष 2014 में या उसके बाद कलिंग आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान, भुवनेश्वर, ओडिशा में प्रशिक्षित किये जा रहे छात्रों के संबंध् में के आई आई टी विश्वविद्‌यालय, भुवनेश्वर, ओडिशा द्‌वारा प्रदान की गई मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी।)

''डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन/ एम॰डी॰/एमएस (एनाटॉमी) मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी (यह वर्ष 2014 में या उसके बाद कलिंग आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान, भुवनेश्वर, ओडिशा में प्रशिक्षित किये जा रहे छात्रों के संबंध् में के आई आई टी विश्वविद्‌यालय, भुवनेश्वर, ओडिशा द्‌वारा प्रदान की गई मान्यता (एनाटॉमी)'' प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी।)

''डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन एम॰डी॰ (जैव रसायन) (जैव रसायन)'' (यह वर्ष 2014 में या उसके बाद कलिंग आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान, भुवनेश्वर, ओडिशा में प्रशिक्षित किये जा रहे छात्रों के संबंध् में के आई आई टी विश्वविद्‌यालय, भुवनेश्वर, ओडिशा द्‌वारा प्रदान की गई मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी।)

''डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन एम॰डी॰ (फार्माकोलॉजी) (फार्माकोलॉजी)'' (यह वर्ष 2014 में या उसके बाद कलिंग आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान, भुवनेश्वर, ओडिशा में प्रशिक्षित किये जा रहे छात्रों के संबंध् में के आई आई टी विश्वविद्‌यालय, भुवनेश्वर, ओडिशा द्‌वारा प्रदान की गई मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी।)

सभी के लिये नोटः—

1. डिग्री प्रदान करने के लिए स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्‌यक्रम को तथाकथित प्रदत्त मान्यता अध्कितम 05 वर्ष की अवध् िके लिए होगी जिसके बाद उसका नवीकरण करना होगा।

2. मान्यता को 'नवीकरण' की पद्धति उसी प्रकार होगी जिस प्रकार मान्यता प्रदान करने के लिए लागू होगी।

3914 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2015/ASVINA 4, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

3. उप-खण्ड-(4) में यथापेक्षित अनुसार समय पर मान्यता का नवीकरण न होने पर संबंध्ति स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्‌यक्रम में दाखिला निरपवाद रूप से रूक जाएगा।

[सं॰ यू॰ 12012/468/2015-एम॰ई॰ (पी-II)] सुध्ीर कुमार, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 10th July, 2015

S.O. 1878.—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 "KIIT University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha" 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 (Pathology)" MD (Pathology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by KIIT

University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha in respect of students being trained at

Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, on or after

2014.

''Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)" MD (Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by KIIT

University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha in respect of students being trained at

Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, on or after

2014.

''Doctor of Medicine (Community Medicine)" MD (Community Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by KIIT

University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha in respect of students being trained at

Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, on or after

2014.

''Doctor of Medicine/ MD/MS (Anatomy) Master of Surgery (Anatomy)" (This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by KIIT

University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha in respect of students being trained at

Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, on or after

2014.

''Doctor of Medicine (Biochemistry)" MD (Biochemistry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by KIIT

University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha in respect of students being trained at

Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, on or after

2014.

''Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)" MD (Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by KIIT

University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha in respect of students being trained at Kalinga

Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, on or after 2014.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3 (ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2015/आश्विन 4, 1937 3915

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. The procedure for 'Renewal' of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award of recognition.

3. 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. 12012/468/2015-ME (P-II)]

SUDHIR KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 26 जुलाई, 2015

का॰आ॰ 1879.—केंद्र सरकार भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद अध्निियम, 1956 (1956 का 102) की धरा 11 की उप-धरा (2) द्‌वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद से परामर्श करने के बाद एतदद्‌वारा उक्त अध्निियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोध्न करती है, अर्थात्‌ः—

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची मेंः—

(क) ''गुरु गोबिंद सिंह इंद्रप्रस्थ विश्वविद्‌यालय, नई दिल्ली'' के सामने और शीर्षक ''मान्यता-प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता'' [इसके बाद कॉलम (2) में यथा सन्दर्भित] के अंतर्गत ''अंतिम प्रविष्टि'' के बाद और शीर्षक ''पंजीकरण के लिये संक्षिप्त रूप'' [इसके बाद कॉलम (3) में यथा संदर्भित] के अंतर्गत उससे संबंध्ति प्रविष्टि में निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा, नामतः—

(2)

(3)

''डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन एमडी (एसपीएम/कम्युनिटी मेडीसिन) (सामाजिक और निवारक (यह एक मान्यता-प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जो वर्ध्मान महावीर चिकित्सा कॉलेज एवं स्नातकोत्तर संस्थान, सफदरजंग अस्पताल, नई दिल्ली में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे छात्रों के संबंध् मेडिसिन)'' में गुरु गोबिंद सिंह इंद्रप्रस्थ विश्वविद्‌यालय, नई दिल्ली द्‌वारा 2013 में अथवा उसके पश्चात्‌ प्रदान की गई हो)।

सभी के लिए टिप्पणीः

1. किसी स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्‌यक्रम को ऐसी मान्यता अध्कितम 5 वर्ष की अवध् िके लिए होगी जिसके उपरांत इसका नवीकरण किया जाएगा।

2. मान्यता के 'नवीकरण' की प्रक्रिया मान्यता प्रदान करने के लिए लागू शर्त के अनुसार होगी। 3. उप-खंड-4 में अपेक्षित अनुसार मान्यता को समय पर नवीकरण नहीं कराने के फलस्वरूप संबंध्ति स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्‌यक्रम में दाखिला निरपवाद रूप से बन्द हो जाएगा।

[सं॰यू॰ 12012/468/2015-एम॰ई॰ (पी-II)]

सुध्ीर कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 26th July, 2015

S.O. 1879.—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 ''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:—

(2)

(3)

''Doctor of Medicine MD (SPM/Community Medicine) (Social & Preventive Medicine)'' (This shall be a recognised 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 2013.

3916 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2015/ASVINA 4, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

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. The procedure for 'Renewal' of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award of recognition.

3. 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. 12012/468/2015-ME (P-II)] SUDHIR KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 26 जुलाई, 2015

का॰आ॰ 1880.—भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद अध्निियम, 1956 (1956 का 102) की धरा 11 की उप-धरा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार, भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद से परामर्श करने के पश्चात्‌ एतद्‌द्वारा उक्त अध्निियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में और निम्नलिखित संशोध्न करती है, अर्थात्‌ः

उक्त अनुसूची में—

(क) 'पं॰ बी॰डी॰ शर्मा स्नातकोत्तर आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान, रोहतक, हरियाणा' के सामने 'मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता [आगे कॉलम (2) के तौर पर उल्लिखित] शीर्ष के अंतर्गत, अंतिम प्रविष्टि के बाद और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप' [आगे कालम (3) के तौर पर उल्लिखित] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा, अर्थात्‌ः—

(2)

(3)

मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी (नेत्र विज्ञान) एमएस (नेत्र विज्ञान)

(यह 2013 में अथवा उसके बाद कमांड अस्पताल, चंडी मंदिर, हरियाणा में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे छात्रों के संबंध् में पं॰ बी॰डी॰ शर्मा स्नातकोत्तर आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान, रोहतक, हरियाणा द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी।)

(ख) 'गुरु गोविंद सिंह इंद्रप्रस्थ विश्वविद्यालय, नई दिल्ली' के सामने 'मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता' [आगे कॉलम (2) के तौर पर उल्लिखित] शीर्ष के अंतर्गत, अंतिम प्रविष्टि के बाद और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप' [आगे कालम (3) के तौर पर उल्लिखित] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा, अर्थातः—

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (न्यूरोलॉजी) डीएम (न्यूरोलॉजी)

(यह 2013 में अथवा उसके बाद स्नातकोत्तर आयुर्विज्ञान शिक्षा एवं अनुसंधन संस्थान, डॉ॰ आर॰ एम॰एल॰ अस्पताल, नई दिल्ली में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे छात्रों के संबंध् में गुरु गोविंद सिंह इंद्रप्रस्थ विश्वविद्यालय, नई दिल्ली द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी।)

(ग) 'मीनाक्षी विश्वविद्यालय, चेन्नई, तमिलनाडु' के सामने 'मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता' [आगे कॉलम (2) के तौर पर उल्लिखित] शीर्ष के अंतर्गत, अंतिम प्रविष्टि के बाद और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप' [आगे कालम (3) के तौर पर उल्लिखित] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा, अर्थात्‌ः—

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (चर्मरोग विज्ञान) एमडी (चर्म रोग विज्ञान)

(यह 2012 में अथवा उसके बाद मीनाक्षी मेडिकल कॉलेज एवं अनुसंधन संस्थान, कांचीपुरम, तमिलनाडु में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे छात्रों के संबंध् में मीनाक्षी विश्वविद्यालय, चेन्नई, तमिलनाडु द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी।)

मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी (आटो-राइनो- डीएम (ईएमटी) लैरिंगोलॉजी) (यह 2014 में अथवा उसके बाद मीनाक्षी मेडिकल कॉलेज एवं अनुसंधन संस्थान, कांचीपुरम, तमिलनाडु में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे छात्रों के संबंध् में मीनाक्षी विश्वविद्यालय, चेन्नई, तमिलनाडु द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी।)[भाग II—खण्ड 3 (ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2015/आश्विन 4, 1937 3917 (घ) 'विक्रम विश्वविद्यालय, उज्जैन, मध्य प्रदेश' के सामने 'मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता' [आगे कॉलम (2) के तौर पर उल्लिखित] शीर्ष के अंतर्गत, अंतिम प्रविष्टि के बाद और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप' [आगे कालम (3) के तौर पर उल्लिखित] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा, अर्थात्‌ः—

(2)

(3)

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन/मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी एमडी/एमएस (एनाटोमी) (एनाटोमी) (यह 2014 में अथवा उसके बाद रुक्मणीबेन दीपचंद गर्दी मेडिकल कॉलेज, उज्जैन, मध्य प्रदेश में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे छात्रों के संबंध् में विक्रम विश्वविद्यालय, उज्जैन, मध्य प्रदेश द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी।)

(ङ) 'प॰ बंगाल स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, कोलकाता' के सामने 'मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता' [आगे कॉलम (2) के तौर पर उल्लिखित] शीर्ष के अंतर्गत, अंतिम प्रविष्टि के बाद और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप' [आगे कालम (3) के तौर पर उल्लिखित] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा, अर्थात्‌ः—

(2)

(3)

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (रेडियो थेरेपी) एमडी (रेडियो थेरेपी)

(यह 2014 में अथवा उसके बाद आर॰जी॰ कर मेडिकल कॉलेज, कोलकाता में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे छात्रों के संबंध् में प॰ बंगाल स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, कोलकाता द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी।)

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (भौतिक मेडिसिन एमडी (भौतिक मेडिसिन एवं पुनर्वास)

एवं पुनर्वास) (यह 2014 में अथवा उसके बाद आर॰जी॰ कर मेडिकल कॉलेज, कोलकाता में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे छात्रों के संबंध् में प॰ बंगाल स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, कोलकाता द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी।)

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (संज्ञाहरण विज्ञान) एमडी (संज्ञाहरण विज्ञान)

(यह 2014 में अथवा उसके बाद मेडिकल कॉलेज, कोलकाता में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे छात्रों के संबंध् में प॰ बंगाल स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, कोलकाता द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी।)

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (न्येरोलॉजी) एमडी (न्यूरोलॉजी)

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (फिजियोलॉजी) एमडी (फिजियोलॉजी)

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (मनश्चिकित्सा) एमडी (मनश्चिकित्सा)

(यह 2014 में अथवा उसके बाद कोलकाता राष्ट्रीय मेडिकल कॉलेज, कोलकाता में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे छात्रों के संबंध् में प॰ बंगाल स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, कोलकाता द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी।)

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (माइक्रोबायोलॉजी) एमडी (माइक्रोबायोलॉजी)

(यह 2014 में अथवा उसके बाद कोलकाता राष्ट्रीय मेडिकल कॉलेज, कोलकाता में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे छात्रों के संबंध् में प. बंगाल स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, कोलकाता द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी)3918 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2015/ASVINA 4, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] (2)

(3)

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (चर्म रोग, यौन रोग एमडी (डीवीएल)

एवं कुष्ठ रोग) (यह 2014 में अथवा उसके बाद नील रत्न सरकार मेडिकल कॉलेज, कोलकाता में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे छात्रों के संबंध् में प॰ बंगाल स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, कोलकाता द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी।)

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (न्यूरोलॉजी) डीएम (न्यूरोेलॉजी)

(यह 2014 में अथवा उसके बाद नील रत्न सरकार मेडिकल कॉलेज, कोलकाता में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे छात्रों के संबंध् में प॰ बंगाल स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, कोलकाता द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी।)

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन एमडी (क्लिनिकल फारमेकोलॉजी)

(क्लिनिकल फारमेकोलॉजी) (यह 2014 में अथवा उसके बाद स्कूल ऑफ ट्रोपिकल मेडिसिन, कोलकाता में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे छात्रों के संबंध् में प॰ बंगाल स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, कोलकाता द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी।)

सभी के लिए नोटः

1. किसी स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्‌यक्रम को इस प्रकार प्रदत्त मान्यता अध्कितम 5 वर्ष की अवध् िके लिए होगी और उसके बाद उसका नवीकरण करना होगा।

2. उप-खण्ड-4 में यथापेक्षित समय पर मान्यता का नवीकरण न होने पर संबंध्ति स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्‌यक्रम में दाखिला रुक जाएगा।

[सं॰ यू॰ 12012/468/2015-एमई (पी-II)]

सुध्ीर कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 26th July, 2015

S.O. 1880.—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 ''Pt. B.D. Sharma Postgraduate Institute of Medical 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:—

(2)

(3)

"Master of Surgery (Ophthalmology)" MS (Ophthalmology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Pt. B.D. Sharma Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak, Haryana in respect of students being trained at Command Hospital, Chandimandir, Haryana on or after 2013).

(b) 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 (Neurology)" DM (Neurology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi in respect of students being trained at Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Dr. R.M.L. Hospital, New Delhi on or after 2013).

(c) against ''Meenakshi University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu'' 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:—

[भाग II—खण्ड 3 (ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2015/आश्विन 4, 1937 3919

(2)

(3)

"Doctor of Medicine (Dermatology)" MD (Dermatology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Meenakshi University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu in respect of students being trained at Meenakshi Medical College & Research Institute, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu on or after 2012).

"Master of Surgery MD (ENT) (Oto-Rhino-Laryngology)" (This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Meenakshi University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu in respect of students being trained at Meenakshi Medical College & Research Institute, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu on or after 2014).

(d) 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:—

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

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Vikram University, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh in respect of the students being trained at Ruxmaniben Deepchand Gardi Medical College, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh on or after 2014).

(e) against "West Bengal University of Health Schemces, Kolkata" 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 (Radiotherapy)" MD (Radiotherapy)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata in respect of students being trained at R.G. Kar Medical College, Kolkata on or after 2014).

"Doctor of Medicine (Physical Medicine MD (Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation)

& Rehabilitation)"

"Doctor of Medicine (Anaesthesiology)" MD (Anaesthesiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata in respect of students being trained at Medical College, Kolkata on or after 2014).

"Doctor of Medicine (Neurology)" DM (Neurology)

"Doctor of Medicine (Physiology)" MD (Physiology)

"Doctor of Medicine (Psychiatry)" MD (Psychiatry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata in respect of students being trained at Calcutta National Medical College, Kolkata on or after 2014).

3920 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2015/ASVINA 4, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

(2)

(3)

"Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)" MD (Microbiology)

"Doctor of Medicine (Dermatology, MD (DVL)

Venereology & Dermatology)" (This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata in respect of students being trained at Nilratan Sircar Medical College, Kolkata on or after 2014).

"Doctor of Medicine (Neurology)" DM (Neurology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata in respect of students being trained at Nilratan Sircar Medical College, Kolkata on or after 2014).

"Doctor of Medicine (Clinical DM (Climical Pharmacology)

Pharmacology)"

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata in respect of students being trained at School of Tropical Medicine, Kolkata on or after 2014).

Note to All:

1. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum priod 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. 12012/468/2015-ME(P-II)]

SUDHIR KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 23 सितम्बर, 2015

का॰ आ॰ 1881.—जबकि भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद (संशोध्न) अध्यादेश, 2013 की धरा 3क की उप-धरा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिनांक 06 नवंबर, 2013 को भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद का पुनर्गठन किया गया;

और जबकि केंद्र सरकार ने भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद अध्निियम, 1956 (1956 का 102) की धरा 2 की उपधरा (1) के खंड (ग) के अनुपालन में पंजीकृत मेडिकल स्नातक निर्वाचन क्षेत्र से निर्वाचन संचालित किया है और निम्नलिखित को इस अध्सिूचना के जारी होने की तिथि से चार वर्षों के लिए भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद के सदस्य के रूप में निर्वाचित किया गया हैः

अतः अब केंद्र सरकार एतद्‌ द्वारा, उक्त अध्निियम की धरा 3 की उप-धरा (1) में उल्लिखित प्रावधन के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के तत्कालीन स्वास्थ्य मंत्रालय के दिनांक 9 जनवरी, 1960 की अध्सिूचना सं॰ का॰आ॰ 138 में निम्नलिखित संशोध्न करती है, अर्थात्‌ः

भारत सरकार, स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय के दिनांक 06 नवम्बर, 2013 की अध्सिूचना सं॰ का॰ आ॰ 3324 (अ) में अंतिम प्रविष्टि और तत्संबंध्ी प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा, अर्थात्‌ः

क्र॰ सं॰ पंजीकृत मेडिकल स्नातक निर्वाचित सदस्य का विवरण

निर्वाचन क्षेत्र का नाम

निर्वाचन की प्रक्रिया

15. मध्य प्रदेश डा॰ राजेन्द्र ऐरन, मध्य प्रदेश आयुर्विज्ञान निर्वाचित

परिषद के पंजीकृत चिकित्सक, आवासीय पता-

109, नया बाजार, नीमुच।

[सं॰ वी-11013/04/2015-एमईपी] अमित बिश्वास, अवर सचिव

पाद टिप्पणीः मूल अध्सिूचना 9 जनवरी, 1960 के का.आ. सं. 138 द्वारा भारत के राजपत्र में प्रकाशित की गई थी और भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद (संशोध्न) द्वितीय अध्यादेश, 2013 (2013 का 11) के तहत इसमें पहले संशोध्न किया गया था।

[भाग II—खण्ड 3 (ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2015/आश्विन 4, 1937 3921

New Delhi, the 23rd September, 2015

S.O. 1881.—Whereas on 06th November, 2013, the Medical Council of India was re-constituted in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3A of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013;

And Whereas the Central Government in pursuance of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) as conducted the election from the Registered Medical Graduate Constituency and the following has been elected to be a member of the Medical Council of India for four years with effect from the date of issue of this notification.

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry of Health number S.O. 138 dated 9th January, 1960, namely:—

In the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare number S.O. 3324(E) dated 06th November, 2013, after the last entry and entry relating thereto, the following shall be inserted, namely:—

S.No. Name of the Registered Datails of the Elected Mode of Election

Medical Graduate Member Constituency

15. Madhya Pradesh Dr. Rajendra Airan, Registered Medical Elected

Practitioner of Madhya Pradesh Medical Council, R/o 109, Naya Bazar Neemuch

[No. V-11013/04/2015-MEP] AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.

Foot Note: The principal notification was published in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 138 dated the 9th January, 1960 and was last amended vide Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2013 (11 of 2013).

ANNEXURE

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 18 सितम्बर, 2015

Before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.

1 MUMBAI

Present

का॰आ॰ 1882.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत हैवी इलेक्ट्रिकल्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों ओर उनके कर्मकार के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण एव श्रम न्यायालय, 1 मुंबई के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं॰ सीजीआईटी-1/21 का 2014) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18/09/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

JUSTICE S. P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/21 OF 2014

Parties:

[सं॰ एल-42012/86/2014-आईआर(डीयू)]

पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अध्किारी Employers in relation to the management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 18th September, 2015

And

Their workman (Smt. Prithi D. Gawade)

Appearances:

      S.O.  1882.—In  pursuance  of  Section  17  of  the
Industrial  Disputes Act,  1947  (14  of  1947),  the  Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. CGIT-1/
21 of 2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal    For the first party/    :    Mr. Nisar Hyder,
Cum Labour Court No. 1, Mumbai now as shown in the           Management                   Senior Deputy General
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers                                  Manager
in  relation  to  the  management  of  the  Bharat  Heavy
Electricals Limited and their workmen, which was received    For the second party/   :    None present.
by the Central Government on 18/09/2015.                     Workman
                           [No. L-42012/86/2014-IR(DU)]      State                   :    Maharashtra
                        P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

3922 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2015/ASVINA 4, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Mumbai, dated the 14th day of August, 2015

AWARD

1. The present Reference has been made by the Central Government by its order dated 7.7.2014 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of Reference as per the Schedule to the said order are as under:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. BHEL over the issue of alleged illegal termination of service of Smt. Prithi D. Gawade w.e.f. 1.9.2012 and non-payment of bonus etc. is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. By the Order dated 30.7.2014, this Tribunal directed that Notices be issued to the parties, and the matter be put up on 9.9.2014. Notices were accordingly issued to the parties by Registered Post A.D.

3. Pursuant to the Order dated 30.7.2014, the case

was put up before the Tribunal on 9.9.2014.

5. Pursuant to the Order dated 9.9.2014, the case

was put up on 11.11.2014.

Mr. R.K. Mundra, manager (HR) was present for

the first party/Management No.1.

Mr. Rajendra D. Tawade, Partner of the first party/

Management No. 2 was also present.

Mr. J. Sawant, Advocate stated that he would be filing his Vakalatnama on behalf of the first party/Management No. 2 by the next date fixed in the matter.

Mr. Ramesh R. Shinde, Advocate was also present. He stated that even though earlier he had been instructed for putting in appearance on behalf of the second party/ Workman, but subsequently instructions were withdrawn and, therefore, he was no longer having any instructions for putting in appearance on behalf of the second party/ Workman and he would not be filing his Vakalatnama for the second party/Workman. In view of the statement made by Mr. Ramesh R. Shinde, Advocate, the Tribunal by its order dated 11.11.2014 directed that fresh notice be issued to the second party/Workman fixing the next date fixed in the matter, and the case was fixed for 26.12.2014.

8. Pursuant to the Order dated 11.11.2014, the case was put up on 26.12.2014. On the said date, i.e. 26.12.2014, Mr. Sonia Dalal Dhankar, Senior Executive (Human Resources) in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. was present for the first party/Management No. 1.

Mr. Rajendra D. Tawade, Partner of the first party/

Management No. 2 was also present.

Mr. J. Sawant, Advocate filed his Vakalatnama on

behalf of the first party/Management No. 2.

The Office informed that notice as per the directions given in the order dated 11.11.2014 had not so far been issued to the second party/Workman. In the circumstances, the Tribunal by order the dated 26.12.2014 directed that needful in this regard be done by the Office, and fixed 12.2.2015 for filing Statement of Claim on behalf of the second party/Workman.

9. Pursuant to the Order dated 26.12.2014, the case was put up on 12.2.2015. On the said date, i.e. 12.2.2015, Ms. Sonia Dalal Dhankar, Senior Executive (Human Resources) in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. was present for the first party/Management No. 1.

Mr. Rajendra D. Tawade, Partner of the first party/ Management No. 2 was also present. The Tribunal noted in its dated 12.2.2015 that as per the directions given in the order dated 26.12.2014, the Office issued notice to the second party/Workman by Registered Post AD fixing 12.2.2015, and that notice so sent had been duly served and the Aknowledgement Card had been received back. Shri Ramesh R. Shine, Advocate stated on the said date that he had been instructed to appear on behalf of the second party/Workman, and he would be filing his Vakalatnama by the next date fixed in the matter.

10. In the circumstances, the Tribunal by the order dated 12.2.2015 fixed 8.4.2015 for filing statement of Claim.

11. Pursuant to the Order dated 12.2.2015, the case was put up on 8.4.2015. On the said date, i.e. 8.4.2015, Mr. R.K. Mundra, Manager, Human Resources in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. was present for the first party/Management No. 1.

None was present for the first party/Management

No. 2.

None was also present on behalf of the second party/

workman.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3 (ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2015/आश्विन 4, 1937 3923

12. In the circumstances, the Tribunal by the Order dated 8.4.2015 adjourned the case to 8.6.2015 for filing Statement of Claim on behalf of the second party/workman.

13. Pursuant to the Order dated 8.4.2015, the case was put up on 8.6.2015. On the said date, i.e. 8.6.2015, Mr. R.K. Mundra, manager, Human Resource in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. was present for the first party/ Management No. 1.

None was present for the first party/Management No. 2.

None was also present on behalf of the second party/ Workman.

In its order dated 8.6.2015, the Tribunal noted the proceedings which had taken place on various dates and noted that on 8.4.2015, none was present on behalf of the second workman and no Vakalatnama on behalf of the second party/Workman was filed. The Tribunal in its order dated 8.6.2015 further noted that none was present on behalf of the second party/Workman on the said date (i.e. 8.6.2015) and no Vakalatnama on behalf of the second party/Workman was filed.

14. In the circumstances, the Tribunal by its order dated 8.6.2015 adjourned the case to 26.6.2015 for filing Statement of Claim on behalf of the second party/ Workman.

15. Pursuant to the Order dated 8.6.2015, the case was put up on 26.6.2015. On the said date, i.e. 26.6.2015, Mr. R.K. Mundra, Manager (HR) was present for the first party/Management No. 1.

Mr. Rajendra D. Tawade, Partner of the first party/ Management No. 2 was also present. However, none was present for the second party/Workman. No Vakalatnama on behalf of the second party/Workman was filed on the said date, i.e. 26.6.2015.

16. In the circumstances, the Tribunal by its Order dated 26.6.2015 adjourned the case to 14.8.2015 for filing Statement of Claim on behalf of the second party/ Workman.

17. Pursuant to the Order dated 26.6.2015, the case is put up today. Mr. Nisar Hyder, Senior Deputy General Manager (Law) is present for the first party/Management No. 1 is also present.

case has been repeatedly adjourned on account of absence on behalf of the second party/Workman. No Statement of Claim has so far been filed on behalf of the second party/ Workman.

19. In view of the above, it is evident that there is no pleading or evidence filed on behalf of the second party/ Workman in support of her Claim as contained in the aforesaid Reference.

20. In the circumstances, no relief can be granted to the second party/Workman.

21. The Reference made to this Tribunal is, therefore, answered by stating that no relief can be granted to the second party/Workman.

22. Award is passed accordingly.

JUSTICE S.P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 18 सितम्बर, 2015

का॰आ॰ 1883.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत हैवी इलैक्ट्रिकल्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकार के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय 1 मुंबई के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं॰ सीजीआईटी-1/22 का 2014) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18.09.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-42012/87/2014-आई आर (डीयू)] पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 18th September, 2015

S.O. 1883.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. CGIT-1/ 22 of 2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum-Labour Court No. 1, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 18.09.2015.

[No. L-42012/87/2014-IR(DU)] P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Mr. J. Sawant, learned counsel for the first party/ Management No. 2 is also present.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 MUMBAI

PRESENT

However, none is present for the second party/ Workman. No Vakalatnama on behalf of the second party/ Workman has been filed.

18. From the above narration of facts, it is evident that despite service of notice, none has put in appearance on behalf of the second party/Workman even though the JUSTICE S. P. MEHROTRA

Presiding Officer3924 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2015/ASVINA 4, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/22 OF 2014 Statement of Claim on behalf of the second party/Workman.

6. Pursuant to the Order dated 9.9.2014, the case was Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of Bharat

heavy Electricals Ltd.

And

Their workman (Smt. Vandana Surve)

put up on 11.11.2014.

Mr. R.K. Mundra, Manager (HR) was present for the

first party/Management No.1.

Mr. Rajendra D. Tawade, Partner of the first party/

Management No. 2 was also present.

Appearances:

For the first party/ : Mr. Nisar Hyder,

Management Senior Deputy General

Manager

For the second party/ : None present Workman

State : Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 14th day of August, 2015 Mr. J.Sawant, Advocate stated that he would be filling his Vakalatnama on behalf of the first party/ Management No. 2 by the next date fixed in the matter.

AWARD

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. D.M. Tawade a contractor engaged by M/s. BHEL over the issue of alleged illegal termination of service of Smt. Vandana Surve w.e.f. 1.9.2013 and non-payment of bonus etc. is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

3. Pursuant to the Order dated 30.7.2014, the case

was put up before the Tribunal on 9.9.2014.

4. On 9.9.2014, it was noted in the Order passed on the said date that Notices issued to the parties had been served, and the respective Acknowledgement Cards had been received back. Mr. Nisar hyder, Senior Deputy General Manager (Law) filed Authority issued in his favour by the first party/Management No. 1, Mr. Rajendra D. Tawade, Partner of the second party/Management No. 2 was also present. Mr. Ramesh R. Shinde, Advocate made a statement before the Tribunal that he had received instructions for putting in appearance on behalf of the second party/ Workman, and he would be filing his Vakalatnama by the next date fixed in the matter. On prayer made by Mr. Ramesh R. Shinde, Advocate, the Tribunal by its order dated 9.9.2014 adjourned the case to 11.11.2014 for filing Mr. Ramesh R. Shinde, Advocate was also present. He stated that even though earlier he had been instructed for putting in appearance on behalf of the second party/ Workman, but subsequently instructions were withdrawn and, therefore, he was no longer having any instructions for putting in appearance on behalf of the second party/ Workman and he would not be filing his Vakalatnama for the second party/Workman. In view of the statement made by Mr. Ramesh R. Shinde, Advocate, the Tribunal by its order dated 11.11.2014 directed that fresh notice be issued to the second party/Workman fixing the next date fixed in the matter, and the case was fixed for 26.12.2014.

Mr. Rajendra D. Tawade, Partner of the first party/

Management No. 2 was also present.

Mr. J. Sawant, Advocate filed his Vakalatnama on

behalf of the first party/Management No. 2.

The Office informed that notice as per the directions given in the order dated 11.11.2014 had not so far been issued to the second party/Workman. In the circumstances, the Tribunal by the order dated 26.12.2014 directed that needful in this regard be done by the Office, and fixed 12.2.2015 for filing Statement of Claim on behalf of the second party/Workman.

Mr. Rajendra D. Tawade, Partner of the first party/ Management No. 2 was also present. The Tribunal noted in its order dated 12.2.2015 that as per the directions given in the order dated 26.12.2014, the Office issued notice to the second party/Workman by Registered Post AD fixing 12.2.2015, and that notice so sent had been duly served and the Aknowledgement Card had been received back. Shri Ramesh R. Shinde, Advocate stated on the said date that he had been instructed to appear on behalf of the[भाग II—खण्ड 3 (ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2015/आश्विन 4, 1937 3925 second party/Workman, and he would be filing his Vakalatnama by the next date fixed in the matter.

10. In the circumstances, the Tribunal by the order dated 12.2.2015 fixed 8.4.2015 for filing statement of Claim.

None was present for the first party/Management

No. 2.

None was also present on behalf of the second party/

workman.

12. In the circumstances, the Tribunal by the Order dated 8.4.2015 adjourned the case to 8.6.2015 for filing Statement of Claim on behalf of the second party/ workman.

13. Pursuant to the Order dated 8.4.2015, the case was put up on 8.6.2015. On the said date, i.e. 8.6.2015, Mr. R.K. Mundra, Manager, Human Resource in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. was present for the first party/ Management No. 1.

None was present for the first party/Management

No. 2.

None was also present on behalf of the second party/

Workman.

In its order dated 8.6.2015, the Tribunal noted the proceedings which had taken place on various dates and noted that on 8.4.2015, none was present on behalf of the second party/workman and no Vakalatnama on behalf of the second party/Workman was filed. The Tribunal in its order dated 8.6.2015 further noted that none was present on behalf of the second party/Workman on the said date (i.e. 8.6.2015) and no Vakalatnama on behalf of the second party/Workman was filed.

14. In the circumstances, the Tribunal by its order dated 8.6.2015 adjourned the case to 26.6.2015 for filing Statement of Claim on behalf of the second party/ Workman.

15. Pursuant to the Order dated 8.6.2015, the case was put up on 26.6.2015. On the said date, i.e. 26.6.2015, Mr. R.K. Mundra, Manager (HR) was present for the first party/Management No. 1.

16. In the circumstances, the Tribunal by its Order dated 26.6.2015 adjourned the case to 14.8.2015 for filing Statement of Claim on behalf of the second party/Workman.

17. Pursuant to the Order dated 26.6.2015, the case is put up today. Mr. Nisar Hyder, Senior Deputy General Manager (Law) is present for the first party/Management No. 1.

Mr. J. Sawant, learned counsel for the first party/

Management No. 2 is also present.

However, none is present for the second party/ Workman. No Vakalatnama on behalf of the second party/ Workman has been filed.

18. From the above narration of facts, it is evident that despite service of notice, none has put in appearance on behalf of the second party/Workman even though the case has been repeatedly adjourned on account of absence on behalf of the second party/Workman. No Statement of Claim has so far been filed on behalf of the second party/ Workman.

19. In view of the above, it is evident that there is no pleading or evidence filed on behalf of the second party/Workman in support of her Claim as contained in the aforesaid Reference.

20. In the circumstances, no relief can be granted to

the second party/Workman.

21. The Reference made to this Tribunal is, therefore, answered by stating that no relief can be granted to the second party/Workman.

22. Award is passed accordingly.

JUSTICE S.P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 21 सितम्बर, 2015

का॰आ॰ 1884.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार स्कूटर्स इंडिया लिमिटेड के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजका— और उनके कर्मकार के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण एव श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं॰ 14/2010) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18.09.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-42012/13/2010-आईआर (डीयू)]

पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 21st September, 2015

S.O. 1884.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 14/2010) 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 the3926 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2015/ASVINA 4, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] management of the Scooters India Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18.09.2015.

[No. L-42012/13/2010-IR(DU)] P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 14/2010

Ref. No. L-42012/13/2010-IR(DU) dated 15.04.2010

BETWEEN

Mr. Vindhyachal Ram S/o Late Kapoor Chandra

Village-Kagzipur, Post-Shekhanpur

Ghazipur

AND

1. The Chairman & Managing Director

Scooters India Limited

Sarojini Nagar

Lucknow

was fully satisfied. It has further pleaded that under Bihar Scheme, for publicity purposes "VIKRAM" were distributed to several employees, with the direction that the sale price was to be paid in installments, certificate has also been enclosed, one Vikram auto was given to the workman with the condition of repayment of sum in 6 installments but after some time installments was enhanced from 6 months to 24 months, but the workmen were pressurized to make payment in 18 installments only with the warning that if the payment was not made as desired, his services would be terminated, thereafter, the workman contacted the management on several occasion for making payment with the request that permission be granted to work and for adjustment of the remaining sum with his salary but the management did not accept his request and orally terminated his services on 05.11.1995; it was utter violation of the departmental rules as well as unfair labour practice under Industrial Disputes Act. 1947.

AWARD

1. By order No. L-42012/13/2010-IR(DU) dated 15.04.2010 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 Mr. Vindhyachal Ram S/o Late Kapoor Chandra, Village Kagzipur, Post Shekhanpur, Ghazipur and the Chairman & Managing Director, Scooters India Ltd. Lucknow for adjudication to CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. Later the Ministry vide their order of even number dated 17.06.2010, transferred the present industrial dispute to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether The Action of the Management of Scooters India Limited in Terminating the Services of their Workman Sri Vindhyachal Ram w.e.f. 05.11.1995 is legal and Justified? If not, what Relief the Workman is Entitled to?"

3. As per the claim statement the brief facts are as herein under. It has been pleaded that the workman was employed on 22.10.1973, as casual labour, he was regularized on the post of permanent workman as Artisan-E on 06.12.1974, since then he has been working continuously till 04.11.1995 but the management illegally removed him from services on 05.11.1995. In the year 1995 the workman was getting salary Rs. 4500/- p.m. as salary, during his service he was very sincere in his duties and his employer 4. In the claim statement, it has also been pleaded that several applications were moved by the workman for his reinstatement, registered letter dated 26.06.1999 was not also sent but the management did not send any reply to his representation/application nor he was permitted to resume his duties, compelling thereafter to move to the court. The workman has stated that before termination of services on 05.11.1995, no prior retrenchment notice, wages in lieu of notice, charge sheet, departmental enquiry report was provided, neither any opportunity was given to adduce his defence the management has violated the relevant provision of the I.D. Act, it deliberately violated the standing order as well as principles of natural justice were also not followed. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement w.e.f. 05.11.1995 and for payment of his salary & dues along with back wages etc. Along with claim statement certain document have also been enclosed therewith.

5. The management has filed written statement M- 8 wherein the main allegation of the claim statement has been denied. The opposite party has pleaded that the matter has been raised after lapse of 13 years from the alleged cause of action and even after attainment of the age of superannuation on (31.03.2006), therefore the order of reference is totally wrong, misconceived, and baseless and bad in law. The management ahs mentioned that the workman joined the company as casual worker on 22.10.1973 and remained as such up to 05.12.1974. He was regularized on 06.12.1974 as unskilled worker (Artisan- E), as per the documents, his date of birth was 13.03.1948 he completed his probation on 06.09.1975. He was promoted as Artisan-D w.e.f. 01.04.1979.

6. It has further been stated in the written statement that M/s. Scooters India Ltd. was facing acute problem of surplus manpower and financial constraints since inception, however, with a view to improve production and[भाग II—खण्ड 3 (ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2015/आश्विन 4, 1937 3927 8. The management has emphasized that the workman was informed vide letter dated 11.01.1997 that he had neither resumed his duties, nor sent any reply, therefore for unauthorized absence from his duties w.e.f. 06.11.1995 his services were terminated vide letter dated 11.01.1997.

9. The opposite party has submitted that initially the period of installment was six months which was subsequently extended to 18 months to all concerned workmen under the said scheme all the workmen till at par in the scheme, the threat allegations etc. has been denied by the opposite party so called oral termination of 05.11.1995 has also been denied in the written statement.

10. The opposite party pleaded that it is not case of retrenchment requiring any notice pay retrenchment compensation etc. Rather the services of workman were terminated vide letter dated 11.01.1997, because of continuous unauthorized absence of the workman from the duty without any application/information or sanctioned leave. The opposite party has prayed that the workman is not entitled to any relief.

11. Thereafter rejoinder W-10 has been filed with the strong denial of the allegations levelled in the written statement, reiterating the pleas taken the claim statement.

productivity though creating good will and to generate new market to cope up with the competition and utilize the surplus manpower, it was necessary for the management of Scooters India Ltd. as well as the employees to introduce such a scheme that may reduce the loss of the Company. Further, with a view to cope up with the situation, the company introduced a scheme "Bihar Sales Promotion Scheme" vide circular No. SIL:PER:NC: 10/94 dated 10.03.1994 to enhance the sale of Vikram-3 wheeler in the State of Bihar. Under this scheme the applications were invited from the desirous workmen of the company belonging to the state of Bihar on the terms and conditions mentioned hereinafter. Vide letter dated 05.05.1994 Sri Vindhyachal Ram was sent to Patna w.e.f. 06.05.1994 under the Sales promotion scheme from 06.05.1994 onwards he shall be on special leave for a period of 6 months till 05.11.1994. On 06.11.1994, he had the option to pay the balance amount (against the vehicle) payment by him to the company and to resume normal working. If he is not in a position to repay the payment amount on 06.11.1994 the employee shall be treated on 'Leave without Pay' till the time he obtains clearance from Marketing/Finance/ personnel. Against this scheme Sri Vindhyachal Ram submitted his application for purchase of 3-wheeler. Vide circular No. SIL:PER:NC:69/94 dated 19.11.1994, the workman concerned has to run a 3-wheeler as a taxi and need to deposit the cost of 3-wheeler on installment basis in the minimum of Rs. 4000/ per month. After the payment of cost of 3-wheeler, he was supposed to be the owner of the vehicle.

12. Copy of the award dated 20.12.2004 passed in I.D. No. 61/95 and several other connected IDs has been filed. The management along with list M-11 has filed certain documents viz.

7. It has further been stated that initially the paid scheme for 6 months vide letter dated 10.03.1994 was subsequently extended upto 18 months which ended on 05.11.1995 vide circular No. SIL:PER:NC:69/94 dated 19.11.1994. During the period of 18 months, Shri Vindhyachal Ram was entitled to full wages and all allowances as per circular No. SIL:PER:NC:69/94 dated 19.11.1994 and further during the period of 18 months no interest was liable to be levied on him. The workman concerned did not deposit the full amount with the company against the cost of 3-wheeler even after the period of 18 months. After the completion of his period of agreement, he was advised several times both orally and in writing also a return the balance amount of Rs. 26,913.10 to the company to settle the dues. In this connection a show cause notice dated 14/21 August, 1996 was served to the concerned workman at his local as well as permanent address through registered post but the concerned workman neither joined his duties nor sent any reply to the same. Vide letter dated 11.01.1997 the workman concerned was informed that he had neither resumed his duties nor sent any reply and therefore, for being continuously unauthorized absence from his duties w.e.f. 06.11.1995, his services were terminated vide letter dated 11.01.1997.

1. Joining Letter dated 06.12.1974

2. Attestation Form and Scholar's Register and

Transfer Certificate

3. Probation Completion letter dt. 09.09.1995

4. Promotion letter dt. 20.10.1981

5. 3-Wheeler Sales Promotion Scheme vide circular No. SIL:PER:NC:10/94 dated 19.11.1994

6. Application of Sh. Vidhyachal Ram for Sales

Promotion Scheme

7. Deputation to Patna under the Sales Promotion

Scheme dt. 05.05.1994

8. 3-Wheeler Sales Promotion Scheme vide circular No. SIL:PER:NC:69/94 dated 19.11.1994.

9. Show cause notice No. SIL:PER:IR/01659/96

dated 14/21.08.1996

10. Show cause notice dated 14.08.1996 displayed

on the Notice Board on 20.09.19963928 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2015/ASVINA 4, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 11. Termination letter No. SIL:PER:ESTT:01659

dated 11.01.1997

12. Clearance-cum-Payment Voucher dt. 04.04.1998

13 A letter No. SIL:PER:ESTT:01659 dt. 10.04.98 along with two sets of application for payment of Gratuity etc.

13. The workman has filed his affidavit W-13 in evidence, he was duly cross examined by the opposite party, on behalf of the management affidavit of Shri A.K. Chatterjee M-16 was filed and he was duly cross examined by the workman.

14. Arguments of both the parties have been heard

at length and record has been perused thoroughly.

15. The workman has relief upon 2000 (85) V.P. Ahuja and State of Punjab and others FLR page 197 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) and 1990 (61) Punjab Land Development Bank and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and others page 73 (Hon'ble Supreme Court). Learned AR for opposite party has submitted that the aforesaid rulings do not help the workman in the present industrial dispute case.

16. The authorized representative of the workman has submitted that the workman was a regular employee of the opposite party who was given a three wheeler "Vikram" under 'Bihar Yojna' of the opposite parties and was sent to Patna under the scheme. It is submitted by the authorized representative of the workman that the workman had initially been given 6 months to repay the cost of vehicle but subsequently it was extended to 24 months; but the workman was pressurized to make payment in 18 months, failing which he was threatened to get terminated. It has further been submitted that subsequent to threat the workman approached, time and again, to the employers for repayment of the cost of the Vikram with request that the cost may be adjusted from his salary; but the management did not heed to his request and terminated his services orally w.e.f. 05.11.1995 without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25 F of the Act. He has also argued that the management also violated the principles of natural justice as no inquiry has been conducted before terminating his services; and he was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself.

17. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the Scooter's India Limited has argued that the workman not even failed to pay the price of three wheeler nor did he turn up to join duties even after issuance of several notices and show cause notice, resulting into termination of his services in terms of para 09.03.12 of the Certified Standing Orders. He has submitted that before terminating the services of the workman he was adequately issued notice through several registered letters but the workman absconded from duties therefore, his termination was not in violation to any of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

18. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned authorized representatives of the parties and scanned entire evidence on record in light thereto.

19. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman, Vindhyachal Ram had been given a three wheeler vehicle, "Vikram" under 'Bihar Sales Promotion Scheme' vide circular dated 10.03.1994 to enhance the sale of Vikram- three wheeler in the State of Bihar. Accordingly, the workman was sent to Patna under the Sales Promotion Scheme w.e.f. 06.05.1994 and from said date he was on Special Leave for a periof of 6 months, the stipulated time for repayment of the cost of the three wheeler. Later this period of six months was extended to 18 months, which according to the management ended on 05.11.1995.

Now the case of the management is that the workman neither paid the cost of the three wheeler nor did he turn up to join the duties in spite of several notices and show cause notice, resulting into this termination under Para 09.03.12 of the Certified Standing Orders for his unauthorized absence from 06.11.1995 to 11.01.2007.

Per contra, the case of the workman is that it was hard to earn through the 'three wheeler' provided by the management, therefore, he was unable to pay the cost of the three wheeler from earnings of three wheeler, therefore, he approached to the management with offer to adjust the cost of the three wheeler from his salary but the management did not pay any heed to his request and terminated his services in utter violation to the principles of natural justice, without giving him any notice, charge sheet or affording him any opportunity to defend himself before any formal inquiry.

20. The management has pleaded that it issued notice dated 14/21st August, 1996 to the workman at his local as well as permanent address through registered post. The management has also come up with a case that the notices issued to the workman had been received back in the office, unserved. Accordingly, the management has filed photocopy of the letters and their envelops. The management has failed to file their original (envelops) in spite of the fact that the same perhaps have been received back in their office; hence the photocopies filed by them are not reliable more so the paper No. 11/20, which is purported to be the envelop does not not bear address of the workman. It was duty casted upon the management to come with cogent and reliable evidence in support of its pleadings; but it failed altogether in this regard that it made all reasonable efforts and issued notices to the workman to join his duties and they were sufficiently served upon the workman.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3 (ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2015/आश्विन 4, 1937 3929

21.The workman in his pleadings has specifically pleaded that he has not received any notice or charge sheet before illegal termination of his services. However, the scheme vide circular dated 10.11.1994, through which the workman had been given three wheeler its self contain the provision for disciplinary proceedings against a workman/ employee who fails to comply with the conditions given in the letter. The para 6 of the said circular is worthwhile and is reproduced hereunder:

''यदि कर्मचारी उपरोक्त विनिर्दिष्ट दशाओं का उल्लंघन करता है, तथा अपने लिए निर्धरित क्षेत्र के बाहर गाड़ी चलाता है तो उसे पैरा 5 के अनुसार देय वेतन और भत्तों का भुगतान रोक दिया जाएगा, तथा प्रमाणित स्थायी आदेशों की धराओं के अंतर्गत अनुशासनिक कार्यवाही की जा सकती है।''

A bare perusal of the above provision shows that on failure of the workman either to pay the amount or when was assumed to absconding his services, as claimed by the management, the management was required to institute disciplinary proceedings; but the management simply terminated his services in wake of provisions 9.3.12 of the Standing Orders. The management witness, Shri A.K. Chatterjee in his cross-examination stated that the workman was absconding therefore; departmental inquiry could not be conducted. He further stated that no charge sheet was issued for the same reasons. This goes to show that the management did not observe the provisions contained in the circular dated 10.11.1994, which was the basis of the whole issue. The management simply terminated the services of the workman under provisions 9.3.12 of the Certified Standing Orders, which reads as under:

''Any workman who remains absent from duty without leave or in excess of the period of leave originally sanctioned or subsequently extended for more than 10 consecutive days, he shall be deemed to have left the services of the Company of his own accord, without notice, thereby terminating his contract of service with the Company and his name will accordingly be studk off the rolls."

A reading of above provision goes to show that the same was applicable to be persons who were got engaged with the Company through some contract; but in the instant case, the workman was a regular employee and should have been dealt with differently or he should have been issued a charge sheet and be given a chance to put his defence before a formal inquiry. The management cannot not escape his liabilities just by stating that no charge sheet could be issued or any disciplinary proceedings could not be conducted just for the reasons that the workman was absconding. Had it be true then the management should have conducted an ex-parte inquiry against the workman; but in present case the management did not adopt this procedure, causing prejudice to the workman.

22. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Badrawati Shikshan Sanstha & another Vs. Hashib Pasha & others 2015 (144) FLR 1059 where the services of the respondent has been terminated by the petitioners got long absence, observed as under:

''The petitioners have not placed any document on the record to show that they had given any notice to the respondent No. 1 requiring him to report on duty. In view of these facts, I am not inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent No. 1 had abandoned his service by remaining absent for a long period without giving any application for grant of leave. The submission made on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that the action of the petitioners amounts of otherwise termination of his service and it is not sustainable in law, is worth consideration. Therefore, I hold that the termination of the services of the respondent No. 1 is on 17th February, 2001 is not according to law and is not sustainable in law.''

In present case, although the management has made a very specific pleading but they have failed to prove the same through cogent evidence.

23. Also, although the workman has pleaded that he approached the management with request that he may be allowed to join and the price of the three wheeler be adjusted from his salary; but he too failed to prove the same through some cogent documentary evidence; whereupon it supports the version of the management that the workman was unauthorisedly absent w.e.f. 6.11.1995 and his services have been terminated w.e.f. 11.01.1997.

Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Dr. P.L. Singia 2009 (121) FLR 770(SC), dealing with unauthorized absence, has stated thus:

''Unauthorized absence (or overstaying leave), is an act of indiscipline. Wherever there is a unauthorized absence by an employee, two courses are open to the employer. The first is to condone the unauthorized absence by accepting the explanation and sanctioning leave for the period of the unauthorized absence in which event the misconduct stood condoned. The second is to treat the unauthorized absence as a misconduct, hold an enquiry and impose a punishment for the misconduct."

The court further, while dealing with the concept of

punishment ruled as follows:

"Where the employee who is unauthorizedly absent does not report back to duty and offer any satisfactory explanation, or where the explanation3930 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2015/ASVINA 4, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] offered by the employee is not satisfactory, the employer will take recourse to disciplinary action in regard to the unauthorized absence. Such disciplinary procedings may lead to impostion of punishment ranging from a major penalty like dismissal or removal from service to a minor penalty like withholding of increments without cumulative effect. The extent of penalty will depend upon the nature of service, the position held by the employee, the period of absence and the cause/explanation for the absence."

24. In Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and another Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and other 2009(15) SSC 620, Hon'ble Apex Court, after analyzing the doctrine of proportionality at length, ruled thus:

''19. The doctrine of proportionality is, thus, well- recognized concept of judicial review in our jurisprudence. What is otherwise within the discretionary domain and sole power of the dicisionmaker to quantify punishment once the charge of misconduct stands proved, such discretionary power is exposed to judicial intervention if exercised in a manner which is out of proportion to the fault. Award of punishment which is grossly in excess to the allegations cannot claim immunity and remains open for interference under limited scope of judicial review.

20. One of the tests to be applied while dealing with the question of quantum of punishment would be: would any reasonable employer have imposed such punishment is like circumstances? Obviously, a reasonable employer is expected to take into consideration measure, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other relevant circumstances and exclude irrelevant matters before imposing punishment.''

Hon'ble Apex Court in the above case directed for reinstatement of the delinquent for the proved charges of unauthorized absence for a period of more than six months, being the punishment of removal unduly harsh and grossly in excess to the allegations; but withheld the back wage by the way of punishment for proved misconduct of unauthorized absence. The Court observed as under:

''21. In a case like the present one where the misconduct of the delinquent was unauthorized absence from duty for six months but upon being charged of such misconduct, he fairly admitted his guilt and explained the reasons for his absence by stating that he did not have any intention nor desired to disobey the order of higher authority or violate any of the Company's rules and regulations but the reason was purely personal and beyond his control and as a matter of fact, he sent his resignation which was not accepted, the order of removal cannot be held to be justified, since in our judgement, no reasonable employer would have imposed extreme punishment of removal in like circumstance. The punishment is not only unduly harsh but grossly in excess to the allegations."

25. In the instant case, the workman had been unauthorizedly absent w.e.f. 06.11.1995 without prior intimation to the high authorities and approval of the Competent Authority. The workman in his evidence has stated that he requested the management to adjust the cost of three wheeler from his salary and be given duties; but the management terminated his services. There is no allegation from management that the workman was a habitual absentee and also there is no iota of evidence before this court that the workman was ever issued any other charge sheet for unauthorized absence.

26. Therefore, under the facts and the circumstances of the case and considering the law, it comes out that the punishment, imposed by the management upon the workman for unauthorized absence is not only unduly harsh but grossly in excess to the allegations made. Also, there is neither any pleading, on behalf of the management, that the workman was a habitual absentee nor there is any evidence on the record to the effect. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law cited hereinabove, I am considered opinion that the termination of the services of the workman, Vindhyachal Ram w.e.f. 05.11.1995 is illegal and injudstified; and the same is liable to be set aside; and the management is directed to reinstate the workman, Vindhyachal Ram, with all consequential benefits, exept the 50% back wages from the date of termination until reinstatement, by the way of punishment for his unauthorized absence. However, the management is at liberty to adjust the cost of three wheeler, if due on the workman, from the back wages.

27. Award as above.

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

LUCKNOW 14th September, 2015

नई दिल्ली, 24 सितम्बर, 2015

का॰आ॰ 1885.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स साउथ इंडिया माईन्स एण्ड मिनरल इंडस्ट्रीज प्रा॰ लि॰ के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 72/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18.09.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-29012/13/2014-आईआर(एम)] नवीन कपूर, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2015

S.O 1885.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 72/2014)[भाग II—खण्ड 3 (ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2015/आश्विन 4, 1937 3931 of the Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. South India Mines and Mineral Industries Pvt. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18.09.2015.

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 72/2014 and issued notices to both sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel and have filed their claim and counter statement respectively. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder in reply to the Counter Statement.

3. the averments in the Claim Statement filed by the [No. L-29012/13/2014-IR(M)] NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

petitioner in brief are these:

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 8th September, 2015

Present:

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 72/2014

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1974(14 of 1947), between the Management of South India Mines and Mineral Industries Pvt. Ltd. and their workman)

BETWEEN

Shri E. Sivan : 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Executive Director : 2nd Party/Respondent The South India Mines & Minerals Industries Ltd. 315, Narayana Nagar, Sankar Nagar PO Talaiyuthu R.S., Tiruneveli Distt. Tirunelveli-627357

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/       :  Ms. S. Girija, Advocate
Peitioner
For the 2nd Party/       :  Shri K. Krishnamoorthy,
Respondent                  Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment vide its Order No. L-29012/13/2014-IR(M) dated 01.09.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the Management of M/s. South India Mines & Mineral Industries Pvt. Ltd., Sankar Nagar in termination the service of Shri E. Sivan is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

The petitioner joined the services of the Respondent as daily wager in 1972. He was serving as Office Peon and as Driver. In 2005 he was deputed to Nellai Transport. In 2006 the deputation was extended until further orders. Deputation was without the consent of the petitioner. The Standing Orders of the Respondent do not permit any such deputation. Though the petitioner was not driving heavy vehicles he was asked to drive heavy vehicle loaded with quarry stones in Nellai Transport. The petitioner had been submitting representation again and again to re-transfer him to the Respondent Company. While so, an order of suspension dated 17.12.2012 had been issued on the petitioner. A charge memo dated 28.01.2013 had been issued to him alleging that he trespassed into the house of Venkateswaran, Office Coordinator of the Respndent on 23.06.2012 and 14.12.2012 and threatened him with dire consequences and that he was under the influence of alcohol on those occasions, that he had contacted Seenivasagam, the Manager of the Nellai Transport over phone also. The petitioner never indulged in such intimidation and threatening. The petitioner is not a drunkard. He had submitted explanation to the charges alleged against him. Venkateswaran was owner of alorry which got involved in an accident resulting in injuries to one Karuppusamy and Karuppusamy had died later. Venkateswaran had agreed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the family of the victim but he had not paid the amount. The petitioner went to the residence of Venkateswaran on the night of 14.12.2012 demanding compensation alongwith one Vincent. Since Venkateswaran was not at the house they had returned. Because of this Venkateswaran had hatched conspiracy to put an end to the service of the petitioner in the Respondent Company where he was working as Coordinating Officer. The Charge Memo is an offshoot of the above incident. The Respondent ordered inquiry based on the Charge Memo and the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges. The enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of the natural justice. The Disciplinary Authority removed the petitioner from service on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer. There is no justification for the order. An order may be passed directing the Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.

3932 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2015/ASVINA 4, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as below:

The petitioner was working as Driver in the Respondent organization from 1982. From 2005 onwards he was deputed to M/s. Nellai Transports. However, his name remained in the payroll of the Respondent, the parent organization. The petitioner was suspended from service by order dated 17.12.2012 and a charge sheet had been issued to him on 28.01.2013. Since the explanation offered by the petitioner to the charge sheet was found unsatisfactory, domestic enquiry had been initiated. The enquiry was conducted in a transparent manner, upholding the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges against the petitioner was proved. Based on the enquiry report the Management removed the petitioner from service. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

5. The petitioner has filed rejoinder reiterating his case in the Claim Statement and denying the allegations in the Counter Statement.

6. The evidence in the case consists of documents marked as Ext. W1 to Ext. W23 and Ext. M1 to Ext. M12. No oral evidence was adduced by either side.

7. In view of the contention raised by the petitioner that enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, this was heard as a Preliminary issue and I have entered a finding that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner. While arguing the case on merits the petitioner's counsel has argued that the copy of report of the domestic enquiry has not been given to the petitioner or his explanation sought before the Disciplinary Authority decided to dismiss him from service. He was referred to the legal pronouncements regarding the consequence of failure to furnish copy of the enquiry report also. This contention was not raised when the matter was argued initially. I have already entered a finding that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner. So I am not dealing with the decisions on this aspect referred to by the counsel.

consent and against the Standing Orders of the Company. According to him, though he had a heavy vehicles license he was not used to driving heavy vehicles as he was regularly driving a light vehicle, a jeep only in the Respondent establishment According to him, in spite of this, he was made to drive tipper lorry filled with quarry stones in Nellai Transport.

10. The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 17.12.2012. Soon after this he was served with a Charge Memo for the misconducts allegedly committed by him. The charges alleged against him are:

(i) He trespassed into the residence of R. Venkateswaran, an Officer of the Respondent establishment on the nights of 23.06.2012 and 14.12.2012;

(ii) He abused Venkateswaran and Seenivasagam, another Officer in obscene language accusing them of changing shifts at their will and pressure; and

(iii) He threatened Venkateswaran and his son with

dire consequences.

It is stated in the Charge Memo that the above acts of the petitioner are misconducts under Clauses 8, 9, 12 and 15 of Clause-17 of the Standing Order of the Company.

11. The charge memo was prepared and served on the petitioner on the basis of an oral complaint said to have been given by Venkateswaran. Complaint was not made to the establishment regarding the incident of 23.6.2012 immediately. However, Venkateswaran is said to have lodged a complaint to the concerned Police Station on the next day itself seeking for protection, as he apprehended danger to his life. The incident of 23.06.2012 also was brought to the notice of Respondent establishment after the alleged incident of 14.12.2012 consequent to which charge has been laid regarding this incident also.

8. The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the action of the Respondent in terminating the service of the petitioner is justified?

(ii) What if any is the relief to which the petitioner

is entitled?

12. Ext.M3 is the explanation dated 14.02.2013 given by the petitioner. In this he has denied the entire incident. He has stated in the explanation that since he resigned his membership from the association which is favouring the Management the management has been attempting to remove him from service in connivance with the association. His explanation was found unsatisfactory and domestic enquiry was conducted accordingly.

The Points

9. The petitioner was charge sheeted while he was working under deputation with M/s. Nellai Transport, though he continued to be the employee of the Respondent Company. It is seen from the Claim Statement itself that the petitioner was not satisfied with the arrangement of deputation which according to him was made against his 13. The case of the petitioner is that no incident alleged has occurred at all. The petitioner himself has given evidence before the Enquiry Officer. What he has stated at that time is this: Venkateswaran examined as MW1 was having a tipper lorry. This lorry had met with an accident injuring one Karuppusamy. He was informed of this by Isakki Muthu who had been examined as the[भाग II—खण्ड 3 (ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2015/आश्विन 4, 1937 3933 second witness MW1, Venkateswaran had wanted to settle the incident without going to the Police Station and had agreed to pay Rs. 20,000/- and the petitioner had quaranteed the amount. However, subsequently Venkateswaran had failed to pay the amount agreed upon. Rather than paying the amount he is said to have threatened the petitioner that he would make him lose his employment. On 14.12.2012 the petitioner is said to have gone to the house of Venkateswaran alongwith Vincent examined as the first witness. However, Venkateswaran was not there and both of them had returned. Thus according to the petitioner he had gone to the house of Venkateswaran on the night of 14.12.2012, but the incident as alleged had not occurred.

14. The Management had examined Venkateswaran as MW1, his wife as MW2, his sone as MW3 and Seenivasagam as MW4. Venkateswaran had stated that he was not in the house when the incident happened on 14.12.2012. According to him, in his absence the petitioner had been to the house and told his son that his father had been changing his shift according to his wish and he would be chopped off. MW1 has also stated that he came to know that the petitioner was in inebriate condition at the time. Then this witness had referred to the previous incident which occurred on 23.06.2012. On this date MW1 is said to have pacified him and told him to see him at the office to sort out his problem. He then stated that he had reported the matter to the Police. MW1 had been elaborately cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner. He had admitted during cross-examination that he had a tipper lorry at an earlier time. However, he denied the case of accident and offer of payment of compensation set up by the petitioner. The extract of the Crime Service Register regarding the complaint given by MW1 to the Police Station also is seen submitted during the enquiry proceedings. However, no document is seen produced to show that a complaint was registered or any action was taken.

15. MW2, wife of MW1 stated that the petitioner had been to their house by 0830 pm on 14.12.2012 when herself and her son only were there. There was no power supply at that time. The petitioner had reached the premises and had scolded her husband loudly. He is said to have shouted at her son that he will finish off his father and it is better that he be cautious. Her son got inside the house. The petitioner continued to shout for some more time and then left the place. She has stated that the petitioner was smelling of liquor at the time. She has also referred to the previous incident in which the petitioner had shouted at his husband. Her husband had told him that it was an office matter and could be sorted out at the office. She stated that she had occasion to see the petitioner only during the two incidents referred to by her. MW3, the son had also given evidence in tune with the evidence of MW2.

16. There is also the evidence of MW4. This witness has stated that on 14.12.2012 around 0800 the petitioner had called him by his mobile phone and asked why he is changing shifts frequently. According to the witness, he had replied that whenever Venkateswaran required the vehicle the shift would change and he himself could not take any decision in the matter. The petitioner had told him that he would be meeting Venkateswaran and speaking to him. According to the witness, the petitioner was speaking in an agitated and an aggressive tone and so he has disconnected the phone.

17. One Vincent is examined as first witness on the side of the petitioner. Much could not be made out from the evidence itself. However, if read alongwith the evidence of the petitioner, the evidence seems to be that Isakki Muthu had met the petitioner at the Bazar and had accused that he had embezzled the money that was collected as compensation from MW1 and accordingly the petitioner and Vincent had gone to the house of MW1. MW1 had been not in the house. They are said to have returned immediately. There is the evidence of Isakki Muthu examined as the second witness for the petitioner. He has also given the version regarding the incident and the offer of MW1 to pay compensation.

18. The case of accident and the offer to pay compensation set up by the petitioner is difficult to be delivered. If there was an accident there would have been some document pertaining to the same. It was not even stated on which date the accident involving the vehicle of MW1 and what had Isakki Muthu got to do with it. Apart from this, in the explanation given by the petitioner there is no reference to the demand made by the petitioner to MW1 for compensation. His case in the explanation is only that the association in which he was earlier a member had been trying to smoke him out of the establishment with the help of the Management.

19. on analyzing the evidence of Management witnesses especially MW2 and MW3 I do not find any reason to disbelieve the case that an incident had taken place as alleged. It is admitted even by the petitioner himself that on 14.12.2012 he had been to the house of MW1. It is very much clear from the pleadings that the petitioner was very much dissatisfied with his deputation and particularly he was aggrieved that his shift was being changed frequently without keeping any regularity and he was attributing the cause of this to MW1. There is the evidence given by MW4 that immediately before the petitioner went to the house of MW1 he had been questioning MW4 for the change in the shift. What is to be assumed from the evidence of MW2 and MW3 is that the petitioner was in an inebriate state. This might have given him the courage to go to the house of MW1 and challenge him.

3934 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2015/ASVINA 4, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

benefits within a month of publication of the award. He will not be entitled to any backwages.

The reference is answered accordingly.

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Patty/Petitioner      :       None
For the 2nd Party/Management      :       None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

20. The counsel for the petitioner had been arguing that there is no sufficient evidence to show that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor at the time when he went to the house of MW1. He has argued that in the absence of a blood test drunkenness cannot be determined. This Tribunal is not dealing with a criminal case attributing drunkenness on the petitioner. Both MWs 2 and 3have stated that the gait of the petitioner was irregular and his speech was incoherent. They have even noticed that the petitioner was smelling of liquor. Even assuming that the petitioner's drinken state is not proved it is clear that he was behaving in a riotous and disorderly manner.

Ex. No. Date Description

21. As per the Charge Memo the petitioner had
committed offences under Clause 8, 9, 12 and 15 of Ex. W1 17.09.2005 Orders deputing the petitioner
Clause-17 of the Standing Orders. He was riotous and to Nellai Transport for 1 year.
disorderly as stated in Sub-Clause-8 and he was insolent Ex. W2 16.09.2006 Extention orders of deputation
and rude as stated in Sub-Clause-9. He has even threatened
Ex. W3 17.12.2012 Order of Suspension
his Superior Officer, though in his absence.
Ex. W4 17.12.2012 Suspension order issued in
22. The counsel for the petitioner has been arguing
Tamil Version
that in any case the punishment imposed on the petitioner
is not at all called for as it is disproportionate to the Ex. W5 31.12.2012 Reply given by the Petitioner
offences alleged. He has argued that such conduct on the with ID Proof
part of the workman could be attributed only to his social Ex. W6 28.01.2013 Charge Memo
background and is not intended to have any actual injury
Ex. W7 30.01.2013 Representation of the petitioner
to the affected person. The counsel has referred to the
seeking Tamil version of the
decision of the Madras High Court in MANAGEMENT,
Charge Memo
RAMATHAPURAM COOP. SPINNING MILLS VS.
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, MADURAI Ex. W8 28.01.2013 Charge Memo issued in Tamil
AND ANOTHER reported in 2012 1 LLJ 257 in this version
respect. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court Ex. W9 14.02.2013 Objection cum representation
reported in year 1982 2 SC 1552 the Court has held that requesting basic report for the
unskilled workers culture is that they would raise their charges to given explanation to
voice while making their grievance. The petitioner was the Charge Memo
perhaps aggrieved that he was retained on deputation
Ex. W10 06.03.2013 Calling letter to enquiry
against his will and was further aggrieved when he had to
work in different shifts without notice. It is seen from Ex. W11 12.03.2013 Representation requesting
the evidence of MW2 itself that actually there was change assistance of one Mr. T.
in the shift without previous notice. The conduct of the Subramaniam, Distt. Secretary
petitioner is to be attributed to the above facts. Certainly (AICCTU)
the conduct is not one that can be unjustified even in the Ex. W12 16.03.2013 Representation seeking
circumstances. But the grave punishment of denying the translation copy of the
petitioner of his entire livelihood by dismissing him from Standing Orders
the service was not called for when the circumstances
Ex. W13 17.08.2013 Written Submission filed before
are considered. Any other punishment other than depriving
the Enquiry Officer
him of his livelihood would have been sufficient. The
petitioner has been going without wages from the date of Ex. W14 30.10.2013 Order of dismissal
his removal from service. It would be sufficient
Ex. W15 09.11.2013 Objections given to the order
punishment. if he is deprived of the backwages. I find that
of dismisal.
the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service, but
without backwages. Ex. W16 12.11.2013 Proceedings of the
management
23. Accordingly an award is passed as follows:
Ex. W17 14.11.2013 Objection given by the
The Respondent is directed to reinstate the
petitioner
petitioner in service with continuity of service and other

[भाग II—खण्ड 3 (ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2015/आश्विन 4, 1937 3935

Ex. W18 21.11.2013 Proceedings of the management enclosing the copy of the enquiry report

Ex. W19 23.11.2013 Objection given by the

petitioner

Ex. W20 24.12.2013 Claim Statement filed before the Assistant Commissioner, Madurai

Ex. W21 08.02.2014 Reply Statement of the

Management

Ex. W22 10.03.2014 Rejoinder filed by the petitioner

Ex. W23 31.05.2014 Failure report of the Regional Labour Commissioner, Madurai नई दिल्ली, 24 सितम्बर, 2015

का॰आ॰ 1886.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं॰ 101/2015) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18.09.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-30011/20/2015-आईआर(एम)]

नवीन कपूर, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2015

On the Management's side

Ex. No. Date Description

Ex. M1 - Suspension order dated 17.12.2012 issued to the petitioner

Ex. M2 - Charge Sheet dated 28.01.2013

issued to the petitioner

Ex. M3 - Explanation dated 14.02.2013 S.O. 1886.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 101/ 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 18.09.2015.

[No. L-30011/20/2015-IR(M)] NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

offered by the petitioner BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT Ex. M4 - Inquiry Officer's appointment - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

05.03.2013 and 02.07.2013

Ex. M5 - Copies — Notes of the inquiry

proceedings

Ex. M6 - Copies — Depositions in

respect of all witnesses

Ex. M7 - Copies — Brief of the final

arguments

Ex. M8 - Findings of the Inquiry Officer Monday, the 7th September, 2015

Present :

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 101/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Oil Corporation and two others and their workmen)

BETWEEN

reported dated 22.10.2013

Ex. M9 - Removal order dated 30.10.2013

Ex. M10 - Reply statement dated 08.02.2014 furnished to the RLC

Ex. M11 - Final Reported dated 31.05.2014 from the Regional Labour Commissioner

Ex. M12 - Standing Orders of the

Company

The General Secretary : 1st Party/Petitioner Union

IOCE HMS Union, 193/B Railway Colony

Gandhi Irwin Road,

Egmore, Chennai-600008

AND

1. The General Manager, : 2nd Party/1st Respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Lube Blending Plant Tondiarpet, Chennai-6000813936 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2015/ASVINA 4, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] Therefore, the reference is answered against the

petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

2. The Executive Director (HR) : 2nd Party/2nd Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Respondent Marketing Division, Southern Region 139, Indian Oil Bhawan Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600034

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union : None

For the 2nd Party/1st, 2nd & 3rd : None Management

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner's side

3. Sri T. Krishna Kumar 2nd Party/3rd M/s. Vishal Testing and Services Respondent Engineers Consultant & Contractors 1/623, PGN Apartments Muttukadu Road, Kottivakkam, Chennai-600041

Ex. No. Date Description

Appearance:

Nil

On the Management's side

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : Absent Union

Ex. No. Date Description

For the 2nd Party/           :    M/s. T.S. Gopalan &
1st & 2nd Management              Co. Advocates
                                                                                  Nil
For the 2nd Party/           :    Absent
3rd Management                                                            नई दिल्ली, 24 सितम्बर, 2015

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-30011/20/2015-IR (M) dated 23.06.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The Schedule mentioned that order is:

"Whether the action of the Contractor M/s. Vishal Testing and Service in not revising the wages and allowances of workmen engaged in haulage and house-keeping at IOC Lube Plant, Tondiarpet citing the settlement dated 09.06.2011 is valid? If not, to what relief are the working entitled?

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 101/2015 and issued notices to both sides. On receipt of notice the Respondents have entered appearance through the counsel and the petittioner in person.

का॰आ॰ 1887.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स टीएएमआईएन के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 85/2015) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18.09.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-29011/6/2015-आईआर(एम)] नवीन कपूर, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2015

S.O. 1887.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 85/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. TAMIN and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18.09.2015.

[No. L-29011/6/2015-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Friday, the 4th September, 2015

Present:

3. The case was being repeatedly posted for filing Claim Statement and documents. Only once the petitioner has been represented but no authorization is seen filed on behalf of the petitioner. When the case was called on the last hearing date, the petitioner was absent and there was no representation on his behalf also. Today also the petitioner is absent. There is nobody to represent as well. In the circumstance the only conclusion to be drawn is that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the case. In the absence of any material the reference is to be answered against the petitioner.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 85/2015[भाग II—खण्ड 3 (ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2015/आश्विन 4, 1937 3937

Witnesses Examined :

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of TAMIN and their workmen) For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union : None

For the 2nd Party/Management : None

BETWEEN

The Secretary : 1st Party/Petitioner Union

Tamilnadu Kanima Niruvanam Uzhiyar Sangam

No. 27, Mosque Street, Chepauk,

Chennai-600005

AND

The Managing Director : 2nd Party/Respondent

TAMIN, Kamarajar Salai

Chepauk

Chennai-600005

Documents Marked: On the Petitioner's side Ex. No. Date Description

Nil

On the Management's side

Ex. No. Date Description

Nil

नई दिल्ली, 24 सितम्बर, 2015

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/ : M/s. V. Ajoy Khose, Advocates

Petitioner Union

For the 2nd Party/ : Sri T.R. Sathiyamohan, Management : Advocate

का॰आ॰ 1888.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स लाईफ इंश्योरेन्स कार्पोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 25/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18.09.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-17012/1/2007-आई आर (एम)]

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-29011/6/2015-IR (M) dated 25.05.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The Schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the Management of TAMIN, Chennai in respect of denial of bonus at the rate of 25% for the Financial Year 2009-2010 is justifiable or not? If not, to what relief the workers are entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 85/2015 and issued notices to both sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel.

नवीन कपूर, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2015

S.O. 1888.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.25/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 18.09.2015.

[No. L-17012/1/2007-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

3. The petitioner has entered appearance through his lawyer on the first date of hearing itself. Thereafter, three more postings were given for filing Claim Statement and documents. But the petitioner has not so far filed any Claim Statement. He seems to be not interested in pursuing the case. In the absence of any material in support of the case of the petitioner, the reference is only to be answered against the petitioner.

Therefore, the reference is answered against the RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 25/2007

Ref. No. L-17012/1/2007-IR(M) dated 06.06.2007

BETWEEN

petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer Sri Sri Anurag Tiwari S/o Sri Ram Ajore,3938 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2015/ASVINA 4, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] R/o 200A Gandhi Nagar Uparhava Akbarpur, Distt Ambedkar Nagar (U.P.)

AND

The Sr. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corpn. of India, Divisional Office, LIC Building, Mall Road Kanpur (U.P.)

days in an year, mostly up to 300 days in an year. But in vouchers some breaks were shown even though the payment was made through cash.

6. It has further been stated that in the year 1997 the workman was given payment @ Rs. 45 per days and in total he received Rs. 15,166 for different periods. He was informed that his records were being sent to the central office and from there the regularization of the service would be made.

AWARD

1. By order No. L-17012/1/2007-IR(M) dated 06.06.2007 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 Sri Anurag Tewari S/o Sri Ram Ajore, Ambedkar Nagar and the Sr. Divisional Manager, Life Corporation of India, Kanpur for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the termination of the Sh. Anurag Tiwari w.e.f. 04.02.1998, a contract workman appointed as clerk at the branch office of LIC, Akbarpur, Distt. Ambedkar Nagar is legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to"

3. As per the claim statement the workman has stated that in pursuance of the examination conducted by the LIC after an advertisement, he was selected vide letter dated 01.05.1993, and he was informed that initially the post was of temporary nature and on continuation for a term of 40 days, he shall be considered for regularization for the post of Clerk-cum-Typist.

4. The workman started working on the post of ckerk- cum-typist and his work and conduct was good. The workman was told that his working was good, therefore, the workman was allowed to continue without giving any further appointment letter. The workman was told that the workers were kept in pursuance to the service rules of the Corporation. Therefore they are treated regular on their own and no further appointment letter was required.

5. The worker was issued the certificate regarding the good conduct and working. The certificate was issued by the Branch Manager dated 22.07.1993. The workman continued to work as clerk-cum-typist and was given salary/wages regularly. Initially the certificate was given to the applicant but subsequently he was told that the vouchers ensure that the applicant was working, hence the same were also not required. The workman was made to work regularly even on Sundays, he was performing the work without break except on national holidays and major religious festivals, thus working for much more than 240 7. It is further stated that within the Life Insurance Corporation, Branch office at Tanda, the working place of the applicant/workman throughout his tenure had different departments. The different departments were; insurance service, sales, Accounts, office New Business departments. The Branch Manager used to allot the work to all the persons including the workman. The workman worked in the different departments in the Branch office of Tanda, on the allotment made by the Branch Manager.

8. It is further stated that the workman had completed five years in service and had put in all labour and effort in working continuously without breaks even on Sundays and only on paper was shown and still workman was being paid the wages as in the start. Hence the workman had preferred a representation for regularization of his service in January, 1988 and also approched the Branch Manager for the grant of same explaining that right at the begining he was told that the workman's services shall be regularized. The workman was told to work the way he was doing but since no result came out he represented in writing and then on 04.02.1998 the workman was not allowed to enter the premises of the office i.e. orally terminated. The termination of services of the workman was without issuing any show- cause notice nor the mandatory one month notice. The applicant had never misbehaved nor any notice to this effect was ever given to the workman throughout the nearly five years of service. The Life Insurance Corporation comes within the definition of 'Industry'. The application comes within the definition of 'workman' as defined under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

9. The workman has pleaded that he had worked from 1993 to 1998 at the branch office, Tanda, District Faizabad/Ambedkar Nagar continuously without break in service and was piad wages but his services were terminated orally on 04.02.1998 and he has become unemployed. He was preferred writ petition 1758 (S/S) of 1998 before Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow bench which was decided on 18.04.2006, Hon'ble High Court directed him to move the Labour Court. The workman has emphasized that his termination without giving any notice, is illegal unjust, improper. He has requested for reinstatement and for payment of regular wages with interest and consequential benefits.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3 (ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2015/आश्विन 4, 1937 3939

10. Along with claim statement several document

have also been filed by the workman.

11. The management has filed written statement M-17. It has been admitted that for appointment for little period selection was made for specific period for specific work, the selection was of formal nature. The term of appointment is self-explanatory and option was given to the workman to join the temporary post for temporary period. The workman had opted and accepted the term of appointment, there was no provision for regularization. The management has stated that for making stop-gap arrangement the branch manager is empowered to make appointment through Employment Exchange, the workman fraudulently obtained the alleged certificate with ulterior motive, authorities of LIC is not empowered to grant such type of certificate. The management has stressed that the petitioner was automatically relieved with lapse of time but for typing purposes it appears that he worked on the road and payment per page was provided to him not as employee of LIC but as market typist. Provisions of LIC Act have also been mentioned in the written statement, and certain provisions of the Constitution of India have been mentioned therein.

13. In the present case, the applicant admittedly was appointed on a temporary post of clerk/typist for a period of 40 days. The term of the appointment itself provides that this appointment is offered for the specific period of 40 days, on a contractual basis and it further provides the extension of the period but that too did not vest any right to the applicant. Admittedly, the offer was made by LIC with regard to a particular branch through the Employment Exchange and the offer was made to the applicant by the selection which related to temporary employment. The applicant accepted it but, later on, he alleged that he was permitted to continue for a longer period. It is added that none of the authorities of the LIC or the Branch Manager was empowered by the regulations to utilize the services of a temporary employee more than the period as is conferred to it. Therefore, this continuance is not only as breach of law but, as a matter of fact, is void. The attention is being invited that for proving the allegations, the applicant has filed the copy of the vouchers indicating the payment. Those vouchers do not say the payment of the salary or the payment of the salary or the payment for daily wages; rather it shows the cost of typing. It is further added that even if he alleged to have worked and the payment was made for that work, it does not confer any right to the applicant to prepare an instrument by playing a fraud with other employee of LIC. The respondents further state that if such a procedure is availed by virtue of this reference, the purpose of the law will not only be frustrated but it will encourage the illegality which amounts to the breach of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The ratio determined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is a law within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, therefore, it is also binding to this Tribunal.

14. The management has alleged that workman is habitual litigant, the previous I.D. are not applicable in this case and the management has requested to decide the case against the workman.

15. Thereafter rejoinder W-18 was filed by the workman, reiterating the pleadings taken in the claim statement with specific denial of the averments of the written statement. Certain annexures have been filed along with the rejoinder.

16. The workman Anurag Tewari evidence was recorded and he was cross-examined by the opposite party. Another witness Sri A.K. Singh was also adduced and cross-examined by the management witness Sri A.K. Singh filed certain documents as per list W-27. The management examined Sri S.K. Gupta and he was duly cross-examined on behalf of the workman. Further certain documents as per list W-30 were filed by the workman.

12. The management further stated that as indicated for the temporary appointment, no power is conferred to any authority to make the continuance in service for an indefinite period except as provided herein above. However, if the continuance is done this way or that way, it amounts to a fraud and it is illegal. Thus by virtue of such fraud or the illegality, the case is not covered under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The attention is being invited to this Tribunal that the matter has come in controversy before the Apex Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & other vs. Uma Devi & others. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reviewed its all previous judgments and has held that the daily wagers, casual wagers or contractual employees cannot seek permanent employment by invoking Article 12 of the Constitution of India. On looking to the words of the aforementioned judgment, the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that if the temporary or the casual employment does not confer any right by virtue of which the court may provide the benefit of their regulations in service i.e. a permanent employee. It has been held that if such a procedure is adopted, the eligible persons availing its appointment in accordance with Constitution of India and law, will be deprived of the guaranteed rights. The controversy had also come in consideration with regard to the ad-hoc employees of U.P. Mandi Parishad i.e. the industry within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act and the Hon'ble Supreme Court struck down the right of regularization of service. It is also submitted that the Apex Court had also held that the appointment on a temporary basis cannot be attracted under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. 1947.

17. Arguments of Learned AR of the parties have been heard at length and the record has been minutely perused.

3940 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2015/ASVINA 4, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

18. The learned authorized representative of the workman has argued that the workman had been appointed vide letter dated 01.05.1993 after following due procedure and was told by the Selection Committee that the appointment being made was initially of temporary nature and after completion of term of 40 days, the workman shall be considered for regularization against the post; but the management did not keep its promise and did not regularize his services even after working with it for 5 years regularly, for more that 240 days in a year. It is contended by the workman that the workman has been paid through payment vouchers; but in order to show break in service some payment has been made through cash. The authorized representative of the workman has contended vehemently that the services of the workman has been terminated orally w.e.f. 04.02.1998 without any reason, notice or notice pay in lieu thereof, in violation to the provisions contained in Section 25F of the Act.

19. In rebuttal, the learned authorized representative of the management of LIC has contended that the workman's services as clerk-cum-typist have been availed for a temporary period of 40 days. It is submitted that the recruitment in the LIC of India is conducted by its own regulations, therefore, the person can only be inducted in service following the due procedure prescribed by the Regulations, and by no way, any person can enter into the service claiming his right with one way or the other way. He has contended that since the workman has not undergone the due prescribed procedure, therefore, he cannot claim regularization under Rules. It is argued by the representative of the management that the workman was relieved automatically with lapse of time for which he was appointed, but for typing purposes, he worked on the road and had provided his service as private outsider typist to the branch for which he was paid per page basis. It is submitted that the workman never completed 240 days or more in a year; however he worked for 40 days only in the year 1993, therefore, the provisions of I.D. Act do not attract in his case.

20. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned authorized representatives of the parties and scanned the evidence available on record in light thereto.

21. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman had been appointed as temporary Assistant in the LIC Branch Office, Tanda for 40 days from the date of joining the post vide letter dated 01.05.93, which came to an end on 09.06.1993. The workman has come up with the case that he continued to work with the management of LIC even after 09.06.1993 and worked continually till oral termination of his services w.e.f. 04.02.1998 without any reason or rhyme, notice or notice pay in lieu thereof in violation to the provisions contained in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Per contra, the management has come up with case that the appointment of the workman automatically ceased with the expiry of his termed appointment of 40 days and thereafter he continued to work privately on the road and he was paid per page basis for the typing work taken by the LIC. The management of the LIC has emphatically denied of violation of any of the provisions of the Act.

22. In the instant case, the management pleads that the appointment of the workman was "termed appointment" and it came to an automatic end with the expiry of term. Moreover, it is also pleaded that the workman started working on the road outside the premises of the branch and his services were availed for typing on per page basis. On the contrary the workman has pleaded for continuous working for approximately for five years, ending to 'oral termination' of services without compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In Surenderanagar Panchayat and another vs. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai 2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC) Hon'ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that the workman could be entitled for the protection of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provided he is successful in establishing the fact that he had been in employment with the employer for a period of 240 days uninterruptedly. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in such cases, the scope of the enquiry before the Labour Court was confined only to 12 months preceding the date of termination to decide the question of the continuous service for the purpose of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:

"The claimant, apart his oral evidence has not produced any proof in the form of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or record of his appointment or engagement for that year to show that he has worked with the employer for 240 days to get the benefit under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is now well settled that it is for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he in fact worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination."

The workman has pleaded that his services have been terminated orally w.e.f. 04.02.98 without complying with the provisions of 25-F of the Act, therefore, the period for scrutiny, in view of above law, i.e. twelve calendar months preceding the dated of his alleged termination on comes to from 02.02.97 to 03.02.98.

23. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail. In the present case burden was on the workman to set out the grounds to challenge the validity of the oral termination order and to prove the termination order was illegal. It was the case of the workman that he had worked for more than[भाग II—खण्ड 3 (ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 26, 2015/आश्विन 4, 1937 3941 240 days in the year concerned. This claim has been denied by the management; therefore, it was for the workman to lead evidence to show that she had in fact worked up to 240 days in the year preceding his alleged termination. In Range Forest Officer vs. S.T. Hadimani (2002) 3 SCC 25 Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:

"It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that can not be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for that period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside.''

24. Analyzing its earlier decisions on the aforesaid point Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in R.M. Yellatti & Asstt. Executive Engineer 2006 (108) FLR 213 as follow :

''It is clear that the provisions of the evidence Act in terms do not apply to the proceedings under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying general principles and on reading the aforestated judgements we find that this Court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proff is on the claimant to show that he had worked 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily wages earner, there will be no letter of appointment or termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus, in most cases, the workman (claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the Court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case. The above decisions however make it clear that mere affidavits or self serving statements made by the claimant/workman will not suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden placed by law on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. The above judgments further lay down that mere non production of muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression by the claimant workman will not be the ground for the tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the management.''

25. In the present case the workman has stated that he has worked continuously for 240 days and in support thereto he has filed copy of working certificate for the period from 01.05.1993 to 09.06.1993 (40 days) and 13.06.93 to 19.07.93 (35 days). He also filed photocopy of as many as 17 payment vouchers from period 15.1.97 to 3.2.98 for different-different amount. From perusal of the vouchers it is clear that payment through all 17 vouchers have been made to the workman, Anurag Tiwari on account of typing work. The vouchers again do not show who this Anurag Tiwari is whether he is some official of LIC or some outsider. The vouchers show consolidated amount of payment but it does not cater the requirement towards counting the number of days of working as there is no mention on the vouchers that the payment borne by the different vouchers are for how many days of typing work; hence they cannot be taken into account that the workman worked continuously for the period from 02.02.97 to 03.02.98. Moreover, it is also pertinent to mention here that it is admitted fact on the part of the management that the workman used to type on the road and the LIC branch used to avail his services of typing and made payment accordingly. The aforesaid vouchers do not indicate that the payment was made to an LIC employee; and not to any private person. These documents do not support the case of the workman.

There is no, other reliable evidence on record which could show that, that the workman was in employment with the LIC, Tanda Branch and he worked continuously for 240 days in twelve calendar months preceding the date 04.02.98 and his services have been terminated in utter violation to the provisions of the I.D. Act. 1947.

26. Therefore, from the pleadings and evidence relied upon by the contesting parties it becomes clear that the workman, Anurag Tiwari had been appointed as temporary Assistant after summoning names from the Employment Exchange vide appointment letter dated 01.05.93 for 40 days only and accordingly, he worked for the period from 01.05.93 to 09.06.93; and thereafter he might have provided his services to the LIC for typing work in his private capacity and was paid for the same on per page basis. Thus, the workman failed to prove through cogent and reliable evidence that he is the person who actually worked with the management of LIC of India, Tanda Branch since 01.05.93 and his services have been terminated orally w.e.f. 04.02.98 in violation to the provisions contained in Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947. On the contrary the management has succeeded to prove its case.

27. Mere pleadings are no substitute for proof. Initial burden of establishing the fact of continuous work for 240 days in a year preceding the date of alleged termination was on the workman but he has failed to discharge the above burden. There is no reliable material for recording findings that the workman had worked for 240 days in the preceding year from the date of his alleged termination and the alleged unjust or illegal order of termination was passed by the management. Accordingly, I come to the conclusion that the workman, Sri Anurag Tiwari is not entitled to any relief.

3942 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2015/ASVINA 4, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

28. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

29. Award as above.

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer.

नई दिल्ली, 24 सितम्बर, 2015

AND

The Asstt. Manager : 2nd Party/Respondent

ONGC Limited Cauvery Asset

Karaikal, Puducherry State

Karaikal-609604

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/        :  Absent
Petitioner Union
For the 2nd Party/        :  M/s. A. Muralidharan,
Respondent                   Advocates

AWARD

का॰आ॰ 1889.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम 1947 (1947 का 14)की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स ओएनजीसी लिमिटेड के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 88/2015) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18/09/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-30011/12/2015-आई आर (एम)]

नवीन कपूर, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 24 September, 2015

S.O. 1889.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby published the award (Ref. No. 88/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. ONGC Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 18/09/2015.

[No. L-30011/12/2015-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-30011/12/2015-IR(M) dated 05.06.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the Union justified in demanding (i) transport allowance to the security employees (ii) enhancement of washing allowance (iii) payment of wages for weekly off is legal? If so, to what relief the Union is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 88/2015 and issued notices to both sides. The Respondent has entered appearance through counsel.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Friday, the 31st July, 2015

3. The petitioner, though received notice remained absent. In spite of his absence, the case has been postponed to enable the petitioner to appear and file his Claim Statement and documents. But still the petitioner has not appeared in Court. He seems to be not interested in pursuing the case. In the absence of any material the reference is to be answered against him and the ID is to be closed.

PRESENT:

K.P. PRASHANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Accordingly the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer.

Witnesses Examined:

Industrial Dispute No. 88/2015

For the 1st Party/Petitioner:

For the 2nd Party/Respondent : None

Documents Marked:

(In the matter of the dispute for ajudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of ONGC Ltd. and their workman) On the petitioner's side

BETWEEN :

The General Secretary : 1st Party/Petitioner Union

ONGC All Employees Union

Ex. No. Date Description

Nil

On the Management's side

No. 9, New Street

Vayola Garden, Nehru Nagar

Karaikal-609605

Ex. No. Date Description

Nil

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.