dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=ky;
¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 18 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1874.—n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 ¼1974 dk 2½
ds fu;e 24 ds mi&fu;e ¼8½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq, dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky;ksa esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl
LFkkiu ¼lhchvkbZ½ }kjk 'kq: fd, x, eqdneksa vkSj vihyksa] dkuwu
}kjk fdlh jkT; ;k la?k jkT; {ks= esa LFkkfir bu eqdneksa ls mRiUu gksus
okys ekeyksa] ftu ij mi;qZDr [k.M ds izkoèku ykxw gksrs gSa] dk
lapkyu djus ds fy, dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks ds fuEufyf[kr vfHk;kstu
vfèdkfj;ksa dks fu;qDr djrh gSA
1- Jh c`ts'k dqekj ;kno
2- Jh o:.k dqekj f}osnh
3- Jh vfHkyk"k dqekj
[Qkñ lañ 225@11@2015&,ohMh&II]
vthr dqekj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC
GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 18th September, 2015
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:—
1. Shri Brijesh Kumar Yadav
2. Shri Varun Kumar Dwivedi
3. Shri Abhilash Kumar
[F.No. 225/11/2015-AVD-II]
AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.
jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 39]
ubZ fnYyh] flrEcj 20—flrEcj 26] 2015] 'kfuokj@Hkkæ 29—vf'ou 4] 1937
No. 39]
NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 20—SEPTEMBER 26, 2015, SATURDAY/BHADRA 29—ASVINA 4, 1937
bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
3875 GI/2015
(3911)
3912
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2015/ASVINA 4, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1875.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl
LFkkiuk vfèfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vfèfu;e lañ 25½ dh èkjk 6
ds lkFk ifBr èkjk 5 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] egkjk"Vª ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] eqEcbZ dh i=@vfèlwpuk
lañ ,evkbZ,l 2015@lhvkj&1413@ihvks,y&11 fnukad 18 flrEcj]
2015 }kjk izkIr lgefr ls vijkè la[;k 406@2015 varxZr èkjk
120&ch] 364] 302] 307] 328] 201] 202] 203 Hkkñnñlañ] 1860 o
èkjk 3¼25½ 'kL= vfèfu;e] 'khuk cksjk dh gR;k ls lEcfUèr Fkkuk
[kkj] eqEcbZ rFkk mi;qZDr vijkèksa ds lacaè esa ;k mlls lEc) iz;kl]
nq"izsj.k rFkk "kM~;a= rFkk mlh laO;ogkj ds vuqØe esa fd;s x;s vFkok
mUghas rF;ksa ls m}wr fdlh vU; vijkè ;k mijkèksa dk vUos"k.k djus
ds lEcUè esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa
vkSj vkfèdkfjrk o foLrkj lEiw.kZ egkjk"Vª jkT; ij djrh gSA
[Qkñlañ 228@45@2015&,ohMh&II]
vthr dqekj] voj lfpo
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),
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
and conspiracy in relation to the above mentioned offences.
[F. No. 228/45/2015-AVD-II]
AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.
'kgjh fodkl ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 18 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1876.—dsUnz ljdkj us fnukad 27-02-2015 dh
vfèlwpuk ds rgr izoÙkZd lfgr lqfoèkiznkrk vkSj fu;ked dh
ifjofrZr Hkwfedk vnk djus ds orZeku lUnHkZ esa fnYyh dk izHkkoh
vkSj dq'kyrk ls 'kgjh fodkl djus ds fy, fnYyh fodkl vfèfu;e]
1957 vkSj blds vUrxZr cuk, x, fu;eksa ij iqufoZpkj djus vkSj
budk iqu% izk:i rS;kj djus ds fy, ,d lfefr xfBr dh FkhA bl
lfefr dks blds xBu dh rkjh[k ls rhu eghuksa ds vUnj ljdkj ds
fopkjkFkZ izk:i vfèfu;e@fu;e izLrqr djus dk vfèns'k fn;k x;k
FkkA lfefr dk dk;Zdky vafre ckj fnukad 26-05-2015 dh
vfèlwpuk ds rgr rhu eghuksa dh vofè ds fy, c<+k;k x;k FkkA
dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk lfefr dk dk;Zdky 31 vDrwcj] 2015 rd
c<+krh gSA
[Qkñ lañ ds&11011@37@2014&MhMh&II]
,lñ chñ izlkn] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
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.
vk;q"k ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1877-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e 1976 ¼;Fkk la'kksfèr 1987½ ds
fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa] vk;q"k ea=ky; ds
iz'kklfud fu;a=.kkèhu fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;] ftlds 90 izfr'kr
vfèdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k
gS] dks ,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrh gS%—
1- ^^jk"Vªh; vk;qosZn vkgkj foKkku vuqlaèku] caxyq:**
[lañ bZñ&11018@1@2013&vk;q"k ¼jkñHkkñ½]
dqanu flag Vaxf.k;ka] la;qDr funs'kd ¼jkñHkkñ½
MINISTRY OF AYUSH
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".
[No. E-11018/1/2013-AYUSH (O.L.]
KUNDAN SINGH TANGANIYA, Jt. Director (O.L.)
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 26] 2015@vkf'ou 4] 1937
3913
LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky;
¼LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 10 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1878-—Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn vfèfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh èkjk 11 dh mi&èkjk ¼2½ n~okjk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq, dsanz ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ mDr vfèfu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa fuEufyf[kr vkSj la'kksèu djrh
gS] vFkkZr~%—
mDr vuqlwph esa%—
¼d½ ^^ds vkbZ vkbZ Vh fo'ofon~;ky;] Hkqous'oj] vksfM'kk** ds lkeus ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [blds ckn dkye ¼2½ ds :i
esa lUnfHkZr] 'kh"kZd ds varxZr vafre izfof"V rFkk mlls lacafèr izfof"V ds ckn ^iathdj.k ds fy;s laf{kIr :i* [blds ckn dkye
¼3½ ds :i esa lanfHkZr] 'kh"kZd ds rgr fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%—
^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu ¼iSFkksykWth½**
,eñMhñ ¼iSFkksykWth½
¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn dfyax vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] Hkqous'oj] vksfM'kk esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs
Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa ds vkbZ vkbZ Vh fo'ofon~;ky;] Hkqous'oj] vksfM'kk n~okjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr
fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½
^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu
,eñMhñ ¼ekbZØksck;ksykWth½
¼ekbZØksck;ksykWth½**
¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn dfyax vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] Hkqous'oj] vksfM'kk esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs
Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa ds vkbZ vkbZ Vh fo'ofon~;ky;] Hkqous'oj] vksfM'kk n~okjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr
fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½
^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu
,eñMhñ ¼lkeqnkf;d fpfdRlk½
¼lkeqnkf;d fpfdRlk½**
¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn dfyax vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] Hkqous'oj] vksfM'kk esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs
Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa ds vkbZ vkbZ Vh fo'ofon~;ky;] Hkqous'oj] vksfM'kk n~okjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr
fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½
^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu@
,eñMhñ@,e,l ¼,ukVkWeh½
ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh
¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn dfyax vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] Hkqous'oj] vksfM'kk esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk
¼,ukVkWeh½**
jgs Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa ds vkbZ vkbZ Vh fo'ofon~;ky;] Hkqous'oj] vksfM'kk n~okjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk
izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½
^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu
,eñMhñ ¼tSo jlk;u½
¼tSo jlk;u½**
¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn dfyax vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] Hkqous'oj] vksfM'kk esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk
jgs Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa ds vkbZ vkbZ Vh fo'ofon~;ky;] Hkqous'oj] vksfM'kk n~okjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk
izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½
^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu
,eñMhñ ¼QkekZdksykWth½
¼QkekZdksykWth½**
¼;g o"kZ 2014 esa ;k mlds ckn dfyax vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] Hkqous'oj] vksfM'kk esa izf'kf{kr fd;s tk jgs
Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa ds vkbZ vkbZ Vh fo'ofon~;ky;] Hkqous'oj] vksfM'kk n~okjk iznku dh xbZ ekU;rk izkIr
fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½
lHkh ds fy;s uksV%—
1-
fMxzh iznku djus ds fy, LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe dks rFkkdfFkr iznÙk ekU;rk vfèdre 05 o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, gksxh ftlds ckn
mldk uohdj.k djuk gksxkA
2-
ekU;rk dks ^uohdj.k* dh i)fr mlh izdkj gksxh ftl izdkj ekU;rk iznku djus ds fy, ykxw gksxhA
3914
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2015/ASVINA 4, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
3-
mi&[k.M&¼4½ esa ;Fkkisf{kr vuqlkj le; ij ekU;rk dk uohdj.k u gksus ij lacafèr LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe esa nkf[kyk fujiokn
:i ls :d tk,xkA
[lañ ;wñ 12012@468@2015&,eñbZñ ¼ih&II½]
lqèhj dqekj] voj lfpo
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.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 26] 2015@vkf'ou 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.
ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1879-—dsanz ljdkj Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn vfèfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh èkjk 11 dh mi&èkjk ¼2½ n~okjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn ,rnn~okjk mDr vfèfu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa fuEufyf[kr vkSj
la'kksèu djrh gS] vFkkZr~%—
mDr izFke vuqlwph esa%—
¼d½ ^^xq# xksfcan flag banzizLFk fo'ofon~;ky;] ubZ fnYyh** ds lkeus vkSj 'kh"kZd ^^ekU;rk&izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk** [blds ckn dkWye
¼2½ esa ;Fkk lUnfHkZr] ds varxZr ^^vafre izfof"V** ds ckn vkSj 'kh"kZd ^^iathdj.k ds fy;s laf{kIr :i** [blds ckn dkWye ¼3½
esa ;Fkk lanfHkZr] ds varxZr mlls lacafèr izfof"V esa fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] uker%—
(2)
(3)
^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu
,eMh ¼,lih,e@dE;qfuVh esMhflu½
¼lkekftd vkSj fuokjd
¼;g ,d ekU;rk&izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tks oèZeku egkohj fpfdRlk dkWyst ,oa
esfMflu½**
LukrdksÙkj laLFkku] lQnjtax vLirky] ubZ fnYyh esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds lacaè
esa xq# xksfcan flag banzizLFk fo'ofon~;ky;] ubZ fnYyh n~okjk 2013 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~
iznku dh xbZ gks½A
lHkh ds fy, fVIi.kh%
1-
fdlh LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe dks ,slh ekU;rk vfèdre 5 o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, gksxh ftlds mijkar bldk uohdj.k fd;k tk,xkA
2-
ekU;rk ds ^uohdj.k* dh izfØ;k ekU;rk iznku djus ds fy, ykxw 'krZ ds vuqlkj gksxhA
3-
mi&[kaM&4 esa visf{kr vuqlkj ekU;rk dks le; ij uohdj.k ugha djkus ds QyLo:i lacafèr LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe esa nkf[kyk
fujiokn :i ls cUn gks tk,xkA
[lañ;wñ 12012@468@2015&,eñbZñ ¼ih&II½]
lqèhj dqekj] voj lfpo
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.
ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1880.—Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn vfèfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh èkjk 11 dh mi&èkjk ¼2½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq, dsaæ ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ,rn~}kjk mDr vfèfu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa vkSj fuEufyf[kr
la'kksèu djrh gS] vFkkZr~%
mDr vuqlwph esa—
¼d½ ^iañ chñMhñ 'kekZ LukrdksRrj vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] jksgrd] gfj;k.kk* ds lkeus ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk [vkxs dkWye ¼2½ ds
rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZ ds varxZr] vafre izfof"V ds ckn vkSj ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* [vkxs dkye ¼3½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZd
ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%—
(2)
(3)
ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh ¼us= foKku½
,e,l ¼us= foKku½
¼;g 2013 esa vFkok mlds ckn dekaM vLirky] paMh eafnj] gfj;k.kk esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs
Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa iañ chñMhñ 'kekZ LukrdksRrj vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] jksgrd] gfj;k.kk }kjk
Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½
¼[k½ ^xq# xksfoan flag baæizLFk fo'ofo|ky;] ubZ fnYyh* ds lkeus ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vkxs dkWye ¼2½ ds rkSj ij
mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZ ds varxZr] vafre izfof"V ds ckn vkSj ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* [vkxs dkye ¼3½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr]
'kh"kZd ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr%—
MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu ¼U;wjksykWth½
Mh,e ¼U;wjksykWth½
¼;g 2013 esa vFkok mlds ckn LukrdksRrj vk;qfoZKku f'k{kk ,oa vuqlaèku laLFkku]
MkWñ vkjñ ,eñ,yñ vLirky] ubZ fnYyh esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa xq# xksfoan flag
baæizLFk fo'ofo|ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½
¼x½ ^ehuk{kh fo'ofo|ky;] psUubZ] rfeyukMq* ds lkeus ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vkxs dkWye ¼2½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr]
'kh"kZ ds varxZr, vafre izfof"V ds ckn vkSj ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* [vkxs dkye ¼3½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZd ds
varxZr fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%—
MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu ¼peZjksx foKku½
,eMh ¼peZ jksx foKku½
¼;g 2012 esa vFkok mlds ckn ehuk{kh esfMdy dkWyst ,oa vuqlaèku laLFkku] dkaphiqje] rfeyukMq
esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa ehuk{kh fo'ofo|ky;] psUubZ] rfeyukMq }kjk Lohd`r fd,
tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½
ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh ¼vkVks&jkbuks&
Mh,e ¼bZ,eVh½
ySfjaxksykWth½
¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn ehuk{kh esfMdy dkWyst ,oa vuqlaèku laLFkku] dkaphiqje] rfeyukMq
esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa ehuk{kh fo'ofo|ky;] psUubZ] rfeyukMq }kjk Lohd`r fd,
tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 26] 2015@vkf'ou 4] 1937
3917
¼?k½ ^foØe fo'ofo|ky;] mTtSu] e/; izns'k* ds lkeus ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vkxs dkWye ¼2½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZ
ds varxZr] vafre izfof"V ds ckn vkSj ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* [vkxs dkye ¼3½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZd ds varxZr
fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%—
(2)
(3)
MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu@ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh ,eMh@,e,l ¼,ukVkseh½
¼,ukVkseh½
¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn #De.khcsu nhipan xnhZ esfMdy dkWyst] mTtSu] e/; izns'k esa
izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa foØe fo'ofo|ky;] mTtSu] e/; izns'k }kjk Lohd`r fd,
tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½
¼³½ ^iñ caxky LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] dksydkrk* ds lkeus ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vkxs dkWye ¼2½ ds rkSj ij
mfYyf[kr] 'kh"kZ ds varxZr] vafre izfof"V ds ckn vkSj ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i* [vkxs dkye ¼3½ ds rkSj ij mfYyf[kr]
'kh"kZd ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%—
(2)
(3)
MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu ¼jsfM;ks Fksjsih½
,eMh ¼jsfM;ks Fksjsih½
¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn vkjñthñ dj esfMdy dkWyst] dksydkrk esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs
Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa iñ caxky LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] dksydkrk }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij
ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½
MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu ¼HkkSfrd esfMflu
,eMh ¼HkkSfrd esfMflu ,oa iquokZl½
,oa iquokZl½
¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn vkjñthñ dj esfMdy dkWyst] dksydkrk esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs
Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa iñ caxky LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] dksydkrk }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij
ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½
MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu ¼laKkgj.k foKku½ ,eMh ¼laKkgj.k foKku½
¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn esfMdy dkWyst] dksydkrk esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds lacaè
esa iñ caxky LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] dksydkrk }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk gksxhA½
MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu ¼U;sjksykWth½
,eMh ¼U;wjksykWth½
¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn esfMdy dkWyst] dksydkrk esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds lacaè
esa iñ caxky LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] dksydkrk }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk gksxhA½
MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu ¼fQft;ksykWth½
,eMh ¼fQft;ksykWth½
¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn esfMdy dkWyst] dksydkrk esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=ksa ds lacaè
esa iñ caxky LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] dksydkrk }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk gksxhA½
MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu ¼euf'pfdRlk½
,eMh ¼euf'pfdRlk½
¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn dksydkrk jk"Vªh; esfMdy dkWyst] dksydkrk esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk
jgs Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa iñ caxky LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] dksydkrk }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij
ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½
MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu ¼ekbØksck;ksykWth½ ,eMh ¼ekbØksck;ksykWth½
¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn dksydkrk jk"Vªh; esfMdy dkWyst] dksydkrk esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs
Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa i- caxky LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] dksydkrk }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij
ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½
3918
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2015/ASVINA 4, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
(2)
(3)
MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu ¼peZ jksx] ;kSu jksx ,eMh ¼Mhoh,y½
,oa dq"B jksx½
¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn uhy jRu ljdkj esfMdy dkWyst] dksydkrk esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs
Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa iñ caxky LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] dksydkrk }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij
ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½
MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu ¼U;wjksykWth½
Mh,e ¼U;wjksykWth½
¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn uhy jRu ljdkj esfMdy dkWyst] dksydkrk esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs
Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa iñ caxky LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] dksydkrk }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij
ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½
MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu
,eMh ¼fDyfudy QkjesdksykWth½
¼fDyfudy QkjesdksykWth½
¼;g 2014 esa vFkok mlds ckn Ldwy vkWQ Vªksfidy esfMflu] dksydkrk esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs
Nk=ksa ds lacaè esa iñ caxky LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] dksydkrk }kjk Lohd`r fd, tkus ij
ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½
lHkh ds fy, uksV%
1- fdlh LukrdksRrj ikB~;Øe dks bl izdkj iznRr ekU;rk vfèdre 5 o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, gksxh vkSj mlds ckn mldk uohdj.k
djuk gksxkA
2- mi&[k.M&4 esa ;Fkkisf{kr le; ij ekU;rk dk uohdj.k u gksus ij lacafèr LukrdksRrj ikB~;Øe esa nkf[kyk #d tk,xkA
[lañ ;wñ 12012@468@2015&,ebZ ¼ih&II½]
lqèhj dqekj] voj lfpo
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:—
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 26] 2015@vkf'ou 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)"
(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 (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)
(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 (Physiology)"
MD (Physiology)
(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 (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)]
"Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)"
MD (Microbiology)
(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).
"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.
ubZ fnYyh] 23 flrEcj] 2015
dkñ vkñ 1881-—tcfd Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn ¼la'kksèu½ v/;kns'k] 2013 dh èkjk 3d dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq, fnukad 06 uoacj] 2013 dks Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn dk iquxZBu fd;k x;k(
vkSj tcfd dsanz ljdkj us Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn vfèfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh èkjk 2 dh mièkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼x½ ds
vuqikyu esa iathd`r esfMdy Lukrd fuokZpu {ks= ls fuokZpu lapkfyr fd;k gS vkSj fuEufyf[kr dks bl vfèlwpuk ds tkjh gksus dh frfFk ls
pkj o"kks± ds fy, Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn ds lnL; ds :i esa fuokZfpr fd;k x;k gS%
vr% vc dsanz ljdkj ,rn~ }kjk] mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 3 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ esa mfYyf[kr izkoèku ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjr ljdkj ds
rRdkyhu LokLF; ea=ky; ds fnukad 9 tuojh] 1960 dh vfèlwpuk lañ dkñvkñ 138 esa fuEufyf[kr la'kksèu djrh gS] vFkkZr~%
Hkkjr ljdkj] LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky; ds fnukad 06 uoEcj] 2013 dh vfèlwpuk lañ dkñ vkñ 3324 ¼v½ esa vafre izfof"V
vkSj rRlacaèh izfof"V ds ckn fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%
Øñ lañ
iathd`r esfMdy Lukrd
fuokZfpr lnL; dk fooj.k
fuokZpu dh
fuokZpu {ks= dk uke
izfØ;k
15-
e/; izns'k
Mkñ jktsUnz ,sju] e/; izns'k vk;qfoZKku
fuokZfpr
ifj"kn ds iathd`r fpfdRld] vkoklh; irk&
109] u;k cktkj] uheqpA
[lañ oh&11013@04@2015&,ebZih]
vfer fc'okl] voj lfpo
ikn fVIi.kh% ewy vfèlwpuk 9 tuojh] 1960 ds dk-vk- la- 138 }kjk Hkkjr ds jkti= esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh vkSj Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku
ifj"kn ¼la'kksèu½ f}rh; v/;kns'k] 2013 ¼2013 dk 11½ ds rgr blesa igys la'kksèu fd;k x;k FkkA
(2)
(3)
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 26] 2015@vkf'ou 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).
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 18 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1882.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr gSoh
bysfDVªdYl fyfeVsM ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vksj muds
deZdkj ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,o Je U;k;ky;] 1 eqacbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ
lhthvkbZVh&1@21 dk 2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 18@09@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@86@2014&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 18th September, 2015
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
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-42012/86/2014-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
Before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.
1
MUMBAI
Present
JUSTICE S. P. MEHROTRA,
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/21 OF 2014
Parties:
Employers in relation to the management of Bharat
Heavy Electricals Ltd.
And
Their workman (Smt. Prithi D. Gawade)
Appearances:
For the first party/
:
Mr. Nisar Hyder,
Management
Senior Deputy General
Manager
For the second party/
:
None present.
Workman
State
:
Maharashtra
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.
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 9.9.2014adjourned the case to 11.11.2014
for filing Statement of Claim on behalf of the second
party/Workman.
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.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 26] 2015@vkf'ou 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.
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
ubZ fnYyh] 18 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1883-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr gSoh
bySfDVªdYl fyfeVsM ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkj ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 1 eqacbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ
lhthvkbZVh&1@22 dk 2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 18-09-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@87@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh
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
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 MUMBAI
PRESENT
JUSTICE S. P. MEHROTRA
Presiding Officer
3924
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2015/ASVINA 4, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/22 OF 2014
Parties:
Employers in relation to the management of Bharat
heavy Electricals Ltd.
And
Their workman (Smt. Vandana Surve)
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
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. 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?"
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.
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
Statement of Claim on behalf of the second party/Workman.
6. 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
filling 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 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.
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 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
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 26] 2015@vkf'ou 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
ubZ fnYyh] 21 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1884-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LdwVlZ bafM;k
fyfeVsM ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdk— vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp
vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k ,o Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 14@2010½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-09-2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@13@2010&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh
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 the
3926
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
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
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.
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
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 26] 2015@vkf'ou 4] 1937
3927
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 20.09.1996
3928
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.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 26] 2015@vkf'ou 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:
^^;fn deZpkjh mijksDr fofufnZ"V n'kkvksa dk mYya?ku djrk
gS] rFkk vius fy, fuèkZfjr {ks= ds ckgj xkM+h pykrk gS rks
mls iSjk 5 ds vuqlkj ns; osru vkSj HkÙkksa dk Hkqxrku jksd fn;k
tk,xk] rFkk izekf.kr LFkk;h vkns'kksa dh èkjkvksa ds varxZr
vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh dh tk ldrh gSA**
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 explanation
3930
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
ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1885.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ lkmFk
bafM;k ekbZUl ,.M feujy baMLVªht izkñ fyñ ds izcaèra= ds lac)
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ
ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 72@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 18-09-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&29012@13@2014&vkbZvkj¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
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)
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 26] 2015@vkf'ou 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.
[No. L-29012/13/2014-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
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?"
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
petitioner in brief are these:
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 26] 2015@vkf'ou 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)]
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.
21. As per the Charge Memo the petitioner had
committed offences under Clause 8, 9, 12 and 15 of
Clause-17 of the Standing Orders. He was riotous and
disorderly as stated in Sub-Clause-8 and he was insolent
and rude as stated in Sub-Clause-9. He has even threatened
his Superior Officer, though in his absence.
22. The counsel for the petitioner has been arguing
that in any case the punishment imposed on the petitioner
is not at all called for as it is disproportionate to the
offences alleged. He has argued that such conduct on the
part of the workman could be attributed only to his social
background and is not intended to have any actual injury
to the affected person. The counsel has referred to the
decision of the Madras High Court in MANAGEMENT,
RAMATHAPURAM COOP. SPINNING MILLS VS.
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, MADURAI
AND ANOTHER reported in 2012 1 LLJ 257 in this
respect. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court
reported in year 1982 2 SC 1552 the Court has held that
unskilled workers culture is that they would raise their
voice while making their grievance. The petitioner was
perhaps aggrieved that he was retained on deputation
against his will and was further aggrieved when he had to
work in different shifts without notice. It is seen from
the evidence of MW2 itself that actually there was change
in the shift without previous notice. The conduct of the
petitioner is to be attributed to the above facts. Certainly
the conduct is not one that can be unjustified even in the
circumstances. But the grave punishment of denying the
petitioner of his entire livelihood by dismissing him from
the service was not called for when the circumstances
are considered. Any other punishment other than depriving
him of his livelihood would have been sufficient. The
petitioner has been going without wages from the date of
his removal from service. It would be sufficient
punishment. if he is deprived of the backwages. I find that
the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service, but
without backwages.
23. Accordingly an award is passed as follows:
The Respondent is directed to reinstate the
petitioner in service with continuity of service and other
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
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ex. W1
17.09.2005
Orders deputing the petitioner
to Nellai Transport for 1 year.
Ex. W2
16.09.2006
Extention orders of deputation
Ex. W3
17.12.2012
Order of Suspension
Ex. W4
17.12.2012
Suspension order issued in
Tamil Version
Ex. W5
31.12.2012
Reply given by the Petitioner
with ID Proof
Ex. W6
28.01.2013
Charge Memo
Ex. W7
30.01.2013
Representation of the petitioner
seeking Tamil version of the
Charge Memo
Ex. W8
28.01.2013
Charge Memo issued in Tamil
version
Ex. W9
14.02.2013
Objection cum representation
requesting basic report for the
charges to given explanation to
the Charge Memo
Ex. W10
06.03.2013
Calling letter to enquiry
Ex. W11
12.03.2013
Representation requesting
assistance of one Mr. T.
Subramaniam, Distt. Secretary
(AICCTU)
Ex. W12
16.03.2013
Representation
seeking
translation copy of the
Standing Orders
Ex. W13
17.08.2013
Written Submission filed before
the Enquiry Officer
Ex. W14
30.10.2013
Order of dismissal
Ex. W15
09.11.2013
Objections given to the order
of dismisal.
Ex. W16
12.11.2013
Proceedings
of
the
management
Ex. W17
14.11.2013
Objection given by the
petitioner
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 26] 2015@vkf'ou 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
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
offered by the petitioner
Ex. M4
-
Inquiry Officer's appointment -
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
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
ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1886-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bafM;u
vkW;y dkWjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ lañ 101@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
18-09-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&30011@20@2015&vkbZvkj¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th September, 2015
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
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
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
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-600081
3936
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 26, 2015/ASVINA 4, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
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
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
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
Absent
Union
For the 2nd Party/
:
M/s. T.S. Gopalan &
1st & 2nd Management
Co. Advocates
For the 2nd Party/
:
Absent
3rd Management
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.
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.
Therefore, the reference is answered against the
petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/1st, 2nd & 3rd
:
None
Management
Documents Marked:
On the Petitioner's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1887.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ
Vh,,evkbZ,u ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 85@2015½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-09-2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&29011@6@2015&vkbZvkj¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
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:
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 85/2015
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 26] 2015@vkf'ou 4] 1937
3937
(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)
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
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/ :
M/s. V. Ajoy Khose, Advocates
Petitioner Union
For the 2nd Party/ :
Sri T.R. Sathiyamohan,
Management
:
Advocate
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.
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
petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents Marked:
On the Petitioner's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1888.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ ykbZQ
ba';ksjsUl dkiksZjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 25@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 18-09-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&17012@1@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
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
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 25/2007
Ref. No. L-17012/1/2007-IR(M) dated 06.06.2007
BETWEEN
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.)
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
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.
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.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 26] 2015@vkf'ou 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.
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.
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.
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
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 26] 2015@vkf'ou 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.
ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2015
dkñvkñ 1889-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ vks,uthlh
fyfeVsM ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 88@2015½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@09@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&30011@12@2015&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
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.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Friday, the 31st July, 2015
PRESENT:
K.P. PRASHANNA KUMARI,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 88/2015
(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)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
: 1st Party/Petitioner Union
ONGC All Employees Union
No. 9, New Street
Vayola Garden, Nehru Nagar
Karaikal-609605
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
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.
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.
Accordingly the reference is answered against the
petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer.
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner:
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
:
None
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management's side
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.