4646 GI/2015

(4441)

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- 46]

ubZ fnYyh] uoEcj 8—uoEcj 14] 2015] 'kfuokj@dk£rd 17—dk£rd 23] 1937

No. 46]

NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 8—NOVEMBER 14, 2015, SATURDAY/KARTIKA 17—KARTIKA 23, 1937

bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds

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

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

fofofofoÙk ea=ky;

k ea=ky;

¼fofofofoÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx

kh; lsok,a foHkkx

kh; lsok,a foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 27 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2160

2160

2160.—Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad vf/kfu;e] 1955

¼1955 dk 23½ dh /kkjk 19 ds [k.M ¼[k½ vkSj /kkjk 20 dh

mi&?kkjk ¼1½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,]

dsUæh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds mi&izca/k

funs”kd Jh izoh.k dqekj xqIrk ¼tUe frfFk 13&03&1960½

dks Jh ih- iznhi dqekj ¼tks fnukad 31&10&2015 dks

lsokfuo`Ùk gksaxs½ ds fjDr gq, in ij fnukad 01&11&2015

dks ;k mlds i”pkr~ muds }kjk inHkkj xzg.k djus dh

rkjh[k ls 31&03&2020 rd] Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad eas izca/k&

funs”kd fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 2@7@2013&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 27th October, 2015

S.O.2160.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (b) of Section (19) and Sub-section (1) of Section

20 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the

Central Government, hereby appoints Shri Parveen

Kumar Gupta (DoB: 13-03-1960), Deputy Managing

Director, State Bank of India as Managing Director,

State Bank of India against the vacancy of Shri P.

Pradeep Kumar (who will superannuate on 31-10-2015),

from the date of his taking over the charge of the post on

or after 01-11-2015 and upto 31-03-2020 i.e. the date of

his attaining the age of superannuation or until further

orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 2/7/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2161

2161

2161.—cSaddkjh fofu;eu vf/kfu;e] 1949

¼1949 dk 10½ dh /kkjk 53 }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx

djrs gq,] Hkkjr ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad dh flQkfj'k

ij ,rn~}kjk] ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mä vf/kfu;e dh

/kkjk 10 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼x½ ds mi&[k.M ¼i½ ds

mica/k iatkc uS”kuy cSad ij ykxw ugha gksaxs] tgka rd

bldk laca/k cSad dhs çca/k funs'kd ,oa eq[; dk;Zikyd

vf/kdkjh Jherh vuarlqczef.k;u dks ih,uch eSVykbQ

bafM;k ba”;ksjsal daiuh fyfeVsM ds cksMZ esa funs”kd ¼xSj&

dk;Zikyd½ ukfer djus ls gSA

[Qk- la- 13@20@2015&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

4442

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2015/KARTIKA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 29th October, 2015

S.O.2161.— In exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of

1949), the Government of India on the recommendations

of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declare that the

provisions of sub-clauses (i) of clause (c) of sub-section

(1) of Section 10 of the said Act shall not apply to Punjab

National Bank in so far as it relates to the nomination of

Shri Usha Ananthasubramanian, Managing Director &

Chief Executive Officer of the Punjab National Bank as a

Director (no-executive) on the Board of PNB Metlife

India Insurance Company Limited.

[F. No. 13/20/2015-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 30 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2162

2162

2162.—Hkkjrh; fjt+oZ cSad vf/kfu;e] 1934

¼1934 dk 2½ dh /kkjk 8 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼?k½ }kjk

çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] dsUæh; ljdkj] ,rn}kjk]

Jh “kfDrdkar nkl] lfpo] vkÉFkd dk;Z foHkkx] foÙk

ea=ky; dks rRdky çHkko ls vkSj vxys vkns'kksa rd]

Jh vt; R;kxh ds LFkku ij Hkkjrh; fjt+oZ cSad ds dsUæh;

cksMZ esa funs'kd ukfer djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 7@2@2012&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2015

S.O. 2162.— In exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, (2 of 1934), the

Central Government hereby nominates Shri Shaktikanta

Das, Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs,

Ministry of Finance, to be a Director on the Central

Board of Directors of Reserve Bank of India with

immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri Ajay

Tyagi.

[F. No. 7/2/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 2 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2163

2163

2163.—jk"Vªh;—r cSad ¼çca/k ,oa çdh.kZ

mica/k½ Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi[kaM ¼1½ vkSj

[k.M 6 vkSj [k.M 8 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr]

cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vf/kfu;e]

1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½ }kjk

çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] dsUæh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh;

fjt+oZ cSad ls ijke”kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk] nsuk cSad

ds dk;Zikyd funs'kd Jh jfo Ñ’.k VDdj ¼tUe frfFk

15&01&1959½ dks muds inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls

rhu o’kZ dh vof/k ds fy, vFkok mudh vf/kof"kZrk dh

rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks]

75]500&80]000@& #i, ds osrueku esa ;wdks cSad ds izca/k

funs'kd ,oa eq[; dk;Zikyd vf/kdkjh ds in ij fu;qä

djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 4@6@2015&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 2nd November, 2015

S.O.2163 .—In exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The

Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of

Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub clause (1)

of clause 3, clause 6 and sub clause (1) of clause 8 of

The

Nationalized

Banks

(Management

and

Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the

Central Government, after consultation with the Reserve

Bank of India hereby appoints Shri Ravi Krishan Takkar

(DoB: 15-01-1959), ED Dena Bank as MD & CEO, UCO

Bank in the scale of pay of Rs. 75,500-80,000/- for a

period of three years from the date of his taking over the

charge of the post or till the date of his superannuation or

until further orders, whichever is earliest.

[F. No. 4/6/2015-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 2 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2164

2164

2164.—jk"Vªh;—r cSad ¼çca/k ,oa çdh.kZ

mica/k½ Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi[kaM ¼1½ vkSj

[k.M 6 vkSj [k.M 8 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr]

cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vf/kfu;e]

1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½ }kjk

çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] dsUæh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh;

fjtoZ cSad ls ijke”kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk] ;wdks cSad

ds dk;Zikyd funs”kd Jh t; dqekj xxsZ ¼tUe frfFk

10&01&1960½ dks 01&02&2016 dks ;k mlds i'pkr~

inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls rhu o’kZ dh vof/k ds fy,

vFkok mudh vf/kof"kZrk dh rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys

vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] 75]500&80]000 #i, ds

osrueku esa dkiksZjs”ku cSad ds izca/k funs'kd ,oa eq[;

dk;Zikyd vf/kdkjh ds in ij fu;qä djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 4@6@2015&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 2nd November, 2015

S.O.2164.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The

Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of

Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1)

of clause 3, clause 6 and sub clause (1) of clause 8 of The

Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous

Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government,

after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby

appoints Shri Jai Kumar Garg (DoB: 10-01-1960), ED,

UCO Bank as MD & CEO, Corporation Bank in the scale

of pay of Rs. 75,500-80,000 for a period of three years

from the date of taking over the charge of the post on or

after 01-02-2016 or till the date of his superannuation or

until further orders, whichever is earliest.

[F. No. 4/6/2015-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 2 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2165

2165

2165.—jk"Vªh;—r cSad ¼çca/k ,oa çdh.kZ

mica/k½ Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi[kaM ¼1½ vkSj

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 14] 2015@dk£rd 23] 1937

4443

[k.M 6 vkSj [k.M 8 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr]

cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vf/kfu;e]

1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½ }kjk

çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] dsUæh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh;

fjt+oZ cSad ls ijke”kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk] bafM;u

cSad ds dk;Zikyd funs”kd Jh egs”k dqekj tSu ¼tUe frfFk

05&05&1961½ dks muds inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls

rhu o’kZ dh vof/k ds fy, vFkok mudh vf/kof"kZrk dh

rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks]

75]500&80]000 #i, ds osrueku esa bafM;u cSad ds

izca/k&funs'kd ,oa eq[; dk;Zikyd vf/kdkjh ds in ij

fu;qä djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 4@6@2015&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 2nd November, 2015

S.O.2165.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The

Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of

Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1)

of clause 3, clause 6 and sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The

Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous

Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government,

after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India,

hereby appoints Shri Mahesh Kumar Jain (DoB: 05-05-

1961), ED Indian Bank as MD & CEO, Indian Bank in

the scale of pay of Rs. 75,500-80,000 for a period of

three years from the date of taking over the charge of the

post or till the date of his superannuation until further

orders, whichever is earliest.

[F. No. 4/6/2015-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 2 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2166

2166

2166.—jk"Vªh;—r cSad ¼çca/k ,oa çdh.kZ

mica/k½ Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi[kaM ¼1½ vkSj

[k.M 6 vkSj [k.M 8 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr]

cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vf/kfu;e]

1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½ }kjk

çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] dsUæh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh;

fjt+oZ cSad ls ijke”kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk] vksfj;aVy

cSad vkWQ dkelZ ds dk;Zikyd funs”kd Jh lqjs”k ,u- iVsy

¼tUe frfFk 25&12&1957½ dks muds inHkkj xzg.k djus dh

rkjh[k ls 31&12&2017 rd vFkkZr~ mudh vf/kof"kZrk dh

rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks]

75]500&78]000 #i, ds osrueku esa vkU/kzk cSad ds

izca/k&funs'kd ,oa eq[; dk;Zikyd vf/kdkjh ds in ij

fu;qä djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 4@6@2015&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 2nd November, 2015

S.O.2166.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The

Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of

Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1)

of clause 3, clause 6 and sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The

Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous

Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government,

after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby

appoints Shri Suresh N. Patel (DoB: 25-12-1957),

ED Oriental Bank of Commerce as MD & CEO, Andhra

Bank in the scale of pay of Rs. 75,500-80,000 from the

date of his taking over the charge of the post or till the

date of superannuation i.e. on 31-12-2017 or until further

orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/6/2015-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

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

¼miHkksäk ekeys foHkkx½

¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½

ubZ fnYyh] 2 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2167

2167

2167.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼çek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh;

ekud C;wjks ,rn}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Loh—r dj fn, x, gSa %&

vuqlwph

Ø-

la-

ykblsal la

Loh—r djus

dh frfFk

o"kZ@ekg

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZ Hkk- ek- la-

¼Hkkx@

vuqHkkx½ : o"kZ

6500009105

20151013

eSllZ tosjh czknlZ TosylZ

38@39]fcx csy d‚EIysDl

106] Mh- ch- jksM] vkj- ,l- iqje]

dks;EcÙkwj – 641 002

pk¡nh ,oa pk¡nh

feJ/kkrq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

f'kYidkjh – 'kq)rk ,oa

eqgjkadu

IS 2112 : 2003

4444

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2015/KARTIKA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6500009206

20151016

eSllZ eyckj xksYM çk;osV fyfeVsM

njoktk la 28] Vh- la- 771]

M‚ jktsUæk çlkn jksM] lkÅFk

bafM;u cSad ds ikl] xk¡/khiqje]

dks;EcÙkwj – 641 012

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

feJ/kkrq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

f'kYidkjh – 'kq)rk ,oa

eqgjkadu

IS 1417 : 1999

6500009307

20151028

eSllZ vEek bathfu;fjax

la 6] nwljk lM+d]

,e- ds- iky;e if'pe]

mfIiyhiky;e]

dks;EcÙkwj – 641 015

fuEetuh; iEilsV

IS 8034 : 2002

6500009509

20151029

eSllZ /kuJh , ,l ,e raxkekfyxS

239] /kuJh ,oU;w]

dkejktj lkyS] cjxwj jksM] vfUr;wj]

Hkokuh –638 501

Lo.kZ

,oa

Lo.kZ

feJ/kkrq,a]

vkHkw"k.k@

f'kYidkjh – 'kq)rk ,oa

eqgjkadu

IS 1417 : 1999

6500009610

20151029

eSllZ ds vks ch esfMdy VsDLVkbYl

çk;osV fyfeVsM ,l ,Q 29 & 30]

is#eiyh] lsfEeiky;e xk¡o]

ds ,u iqje iksLV f=ph jksM]

iYyMe – 641 662

bykfLVd csUMst

IS 16111 :

2013

6500009408

20151029

eSllZ , ,l ,e Tosyjh

21] jktk LVªhV] vfUr;wj]

Hkokuh&638 501

Lo.kZ

,oa

Lo.kZ

feJ/kkrq,a]

vkHkw"k.k@

f'kYidkjh – 'kq)rk ,oa

eqgjkadu

IS 1417 : 1999

6500009711

20151030

eSllZ pDdjh baMLVªh

208@1] byUxks uxj]

lhjdkyhvEeu dksfoy ds lkeus]

vkokjeiky;e]

dks;EcÙkwj–641 006

xgjs dqvksa ds fy,

fuEetuh; iEilsV

IS 14220 :

1994

[la- lh ,e Mh@13%11]

,e- lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa çeq[k

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 2nd November, 2015

S.O. 2167.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

(Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of

which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No.

Licence No.

Grant

Date

Name and Address (Factory) of the Party

Title of the Standard

IS No. Part/

Sec. Year

6500009105

20151013

M/s. Zaveri Bros Jewellers

38/39,Big Bell Complex,

106 D.B.Road,R.S.Puram,

Coimbatore – 641 002

Silver

and

Silver

Alloys,

Jewellery/

Artefacts - Fineness

and Marking

IS 2112 : 2003

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 14] 2015@dk£rd 23] 1937

4445

6500009206

20151016

M/s. Malabar Gold Pvt. Ltd.

Door No. 28, T.No. 771,

Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,

Near South Indian Bank, Gandhipuram,

Coimbatore – 641 012

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/ Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 1999

6500009307

20151028

M/s. Amma Engineering

No.6, 2nd Street,

M. K. Palayam West, Uppilipalyam,

Coimbatore – 641 015

Submersible Pumpsets

IS 8034 : 2002

6500009509

20151029

M/s. Dhansri ASM Thangamaligai

239, Dhansri Avenue,

Kamarajar Salai, Bargur Road, Anthiyur,

Bhavani – 638 501

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/ Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 1999

6500009610

20151029

M/s. KOB Medical Textiles Pvt. Ltd.

SF-29 & 30, Perumpali, Semmipalayam Village,

K. N. Puram Post, Trichy Road,

Palladam—641662

Elastic Bandage

IS 16111 : 2013

6500009408

20151029

M/s. Sri ASM Jewellery

21, Raja Street, Anthiyur,

Bhavani-638501

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 1999

6500009711

20151030

M/s. Chakkra Industry.

208/1, Elango Nagar,

Opp. Seerkaliamman Kovil, Avarampalayam,

Coimbatore – 641 006

Openwell Submersible

Pumpsets

IS 14220 : 1994

[No. CMD/13: 11]

M. SADASIVAM, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 2 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2168

2168

2168.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼çek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;eu 5 ds mifofu;eu ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa

Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZbZ xbZ rkjh[k ls

jí@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gS %&

Ø-

la-

ykblsal

la lh

,e@

,y&

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

LFkfxr fd, x, jí fd, x, ykblsal ds

varxZr oLrq@çØe lEc) Hkkjrh; ekud dk

'kh"kZd

jí gksus dh

frfFk

vDVwcj 2015 & 'kwU;

[la- lh ,e Mh@13%13]

,e- lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa çeq[k

New Delhi, the 2nd November, 2015

S.O.2168.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

(Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which

are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No.

Licence No.

CM/L-

Name & Address of the Licensee

Article/ Process with relevant

Indian Standard covered by the

licence cancelled/ suspension

Date of

Cancellation

OCTOBER 2015 - NIL

[No. CMD/13: 13]

M. SADASIVAM, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

4446

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2015/KARTIKA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ijek.kq ÅtkZ foHkkx

¼lkekU; lsok laxBu½

rfeyukMq] 14 vDrwcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2169

2169

2169.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] fnukad 23&02&2015 ds iwoZ vf/klwpuk la[;k GSO/17(27)/2014-R/21/724 dk

vf/kØe.k djrs gq, vkSj yksd ifjlj ¼vçkf/kÑr vf/kHkksxh ds fu’dklu½ vf/kfu;e] 1971 ¼1971 dk 40oka½ ds /kkjk 3 }kjk

çnÙk “kfDr;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk uhps lkj.kh ds dkWye ¼1½ esa n”kkZ, vf/kdkjh dks] ljdkj ds

jktif=r vf/kdkjh gksus ds ukrs] mDr vf/kfu;e ds mís”;ksa ds fy, laink vf/kdkjh ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gS] tks çnÙk

“kfDr;ksa dk ç;ksx djsaxs vkSj mDr vf/kfu;e ds }kjk vFkok varxZr laink vf/kdkjh ij vf/kjksfir drZO;ksa dk] mDr lkj.kh ds

dkWye ¼2½ esa fofuÆn’V yksd ifjljksa gsrq muds {ks=kf/kdkj ds LFkkuh; lhekvksa ds Hkhrj] fu’iknu djsaxs A

lkj.kh

dkWye ¼1½

vf/kdkjh dk inuke

dkWye ¼2½

yksd ifjljksa dh Jsf.k;k¡ vkSj {ks=kf/kdkj dh LFkkuh; lhek,a

Jh Vh- ,l- ckyklqczef.k;u] iz”kklfud vf/kdkjh& III]

lkekU;

lsok

laxBu]

ijek.kq

ÅtkZ

foHkkx]

dYikDde&603102] dkaphiqje ftyk] rfeyukMq

Hkkjr ljdkj] ijek.kq ÅtkZ foHkkx dk vFkok mlds

fu;a=.kk/khu dYikDde ,oa v.kqiqje ifjlj] fr#DdkyqdqUMªe

rkyqd] dkaphiqje ftyk] rfeyukMq

[lanHkZ lklsla@17¼27½@2015&vkj@3142]

ih- Vh- eksgu] iz”kklfud vf/kdkjh&III

DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY

(General Services Organisation)

Tamil Nadu, the 14th October, 2015

S.O.2169.—In supersession of earlier Notification

No. GSO/17(27)/2014-R/21/724 dated 23-02-2015 and in

exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)

Act 1971 (40 of 1971) the Central Government hereby

appoints the Officer mentioned in column (1) of the

Table below, being a Gazetted Officer of the

Government, to be Estate Officer for the purposes of the

said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and

perform the duties imposed on Estate Officer by or under

the said Act, within the local limits of his jurisdiction in

respect of the public premises specified in column (2) of

the said Table;

TABLE

Column (1)

Designation of the

Officer

Column (2)

Categories of

Public Premises &

local limits of

jurisdiction

Shri. T.S. Balasubramanian

Administrative Officer-III

General Services

Organisation Department

of Atomic Energy

Kalpakkam - 603 102

Kancheepuram District

Tamil Nadu

Premises in Kalpakkam

and

Anupuram,

Thirukkalukundram taluk,

Kancheepuram

District,

Tamil Nadu Belong to or

under

the

control

Department

Atomic

Energy, Government of

India.

[Ref. GSO/17(27)/2015-R/3142]

P.T. MOHAN, Administrative Officer-III

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 6 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2170

2170

2170-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

जल एवं िवुत परामश सेवा (इंिडया) ) ) ) िलिमटेड, , , , नई दली

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

vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;-1 दली ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la- 64/2012) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 06/11/2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y.-42012/125/2011-vkbZvkj (Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] डेक अिधकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 6th November, 2015

S.O.2170 .— in pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government

hereby

publishes

the

award

(I.D

No.64/2012) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, No.1, Delhi now as shown

in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Water &

Power Consultancy Service (India) Ltd., New Delhi and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 06/11/2015.

[ No.L-42012/125/2011-IR(DU)]

P.K.VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 14] 2015@dk£rd 23] 1937

4447

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND

DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT NO.1, DELHI

ID No.64/2012

Shri Pyare Lal,

S/o late Shri Shishram,

R/o 30/45, Trilokpuri Extension,

Delhi

…Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Water & Power Consultancy Service (India) Ltd.,

(Wapcos Limited), 5^th Floor, Kailash Building,

26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi – 110 001

…Management

AWARD

Brief facts giving rise to the present reference are that the

claimant Shri Pyare Lal was working with the

management since 28.04.1978 as safaiwala/ messenger

and was drawing a salary of Rs.8867.00 per month. As

per averments contained in the statement of claim, he was

performing his duties without any complaint from the

management and he was never issued any memorandum

or charge sheet during his entire career.

2.On 28.03.2003, management all of a sudden, issued a

false and concocted charge sheet and claimant filed reply

to the said charge sheet on 02.04.2003. He never

accepted the charges leveled against him. Resultantly,

Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the

allegations contained in the charge sheet. Claimant is an

illiterate person. He was neither apprised of the

procedure nor the nature of charges leveled against him.

Entire enquiry was sham and bogus and the Enquiry

Officer acted as a puppet of the management.

Proceedings were never recorded fairly. The Enquiry

Officer, Shri S. Vijay Rao, submitted his report holding

that two charges have been proved and one charge was

found to be partly proved against the claimant. He

further alleged that he never misbehaved with any

person.

3.There was also another employee, Shri Harinder Singh

was also charge sheeted on 28.03.2003 on the same

charges and he was dismissed on 29/31.03.2004,

alongwith the claimant. Shri Harinder Singh was later on

reinstated by the management on 24.07.2006 with effect

from 01.04.2004. Charges leveled against Shri Harinder

Singh were more severe that the charges leveled against

the claimant. Thereafter, the claimant filed a case before

the Conciliation Officer. Management appeared before

the Conciliation Officer. However, no settlement could

be arrived at. Resultantly, reference was made by the

Union Government to this Tribunal vide letter No.L-

42012/125/2011-IR(DU) dated 23.02.2012 and the same

is as under:

“Whether the action of the management of

Water and Power Consultancy Service (India)

Ltd., New Delhi in terminating the services of

the workman, Shri Pyare Lal, is legal and just?

What relief the workman is entitled to?”

4.Reply to the claim statement was filed by the

management wherein a stand was taken that the claimant

frequently remained unauthorizedly absent and he was

found to be in a drunken condition in the premises of the

office. He also misbehaved with the Security Guard on

29.11.2002 and a memo was issued to the claimant,

resulting into institution of the enquiry. The claimant

was informed vide memorandum dated 28.03.2003 to file

reply/defence within 10 days. The claimant, in his

statement, acceded to the charges, except the charge of

being drunk in the office premises. Ultimately, out of the

three charges, two charges were held to be proved

entirely against the workman. Third charge was held to

be partly proved against the claimant. Consequently, the

claimant was dismissed from service vide order dated

29/31.03.2004

the

Disciplinary

Authority.

Management has denied the other allegations contained

in the statement of claim.

5.Against

this

factual

background,

learned

predecessor framed the following issues:

(i)

Whether the enquiry conducted by the

management was fair and proper?

(ii)

Whether the punishment of dismissal

awarded to the claimant commensurate to

his misconduct?

(iii)

As in terms of reference

6.Issue no.(i) was treated as preliminary issue and the

parties were asked to adduce evidence on the above issue.

7.Management, in support of its case, examined Shri

W.A. Siddique, Vigilance Officer as MW1, whose

affidavit is Ex.MW1/A and he has tendered in evidence

documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/6. This witness has

clarified that he was not associated with the enquiry in

any manner. Witness was also given opportunity by this

Tribunal to trace the record mentioned in the affidavit.

8.The claimant examined himself as WW1 and tendered

in evidence his affidavit, Ex.WW1/A. He has denied the

material averments in respect of the allegations contained

in the charge sheet and tried to support the case as put

forth in the statement of claim.

9.I have heard Shri Devender Sharma, A/R for the

claimant and Shri Jitender Yadav, A/R for the

management.

10.It was urged on behalf of the management that since

the claimant has admitted Charge No.1 and 2 before the

Enquiry Officer, as such it does not lie in the mouth of

the claimant to urge that he was not given a fair

opportunity to rebut the charges. Admission/confession

of guilt is substantive proof of the allegations contained

4448

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2015/KARTIKA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

in the charge sheet; as such, no further evidence was

required to be led by the management to prove the

charges. Punishment imposed upon the claimant was

held to be proper keeping in view the gravity of the

allegations.

11.Per contra, Shri Devender Sharma, authorized

representative appearing on behalf of the claimant refuted

the submissions made on behalf of the management and

strongly urged that there is no evidence on record to

prove that any opportunity was given to the workman to

cross examine the witness examined by eh management.

There is also nothing on record to show that the claimant

has admitted/confessed the first two charges contained in

the charge sheet. The learned counsel proceeded to argue

that the report of the Enquiry Officer is in violation of the

principles of natural justice and the Enquiry Officer has

acted as a puppet of the management so as to dismiss the

claimant.

12.After hearing the learned counsels of the parties and

careful appraisal of the record, I am of the considered

view that the enquiry conducted in the present case is not

at all fair and the same is in violation of principles of

natural justice. It is clear from perusal of the memo of

charge sheet dated 28.03.2003, Ex.MW1/1, claimant

herein was asked to submit reply within 10 days in

respect of allegations contained in the charge sheet.

There is an office order Ex.MW1/2 dated 29.03.2004

which clearly shows hat the Disciplinary Authority

imposed major penalty under Rule 11 of the Civil

Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rule 1965

whereby the claimant herein was removed from service

with immediate effect. Extract of the above order is as

under:

“Whereas disciplinary proceedings as per major

penalty proceedings was initiated against Shi

Pyare Lal, Safaiwala by issuing charge sheet vide

Memorandum

No.WAP/GM/(P&A)/13/3/Coord

dated 28.03.2003 for misconduct found on his

part.

Whereas an inquiry against the said Shri Pyare

Lal, Safaiwala under Rule 14 of the Civil Services

(Classification, Control and Appeal, Rule 1965) as

made applicable to employees of the WAPCOS

was held against him.

Whereas Shri Pyare Lal submitted his written

statement of confession accepted the charges

leveled against him for gross misconduct in as

much as he remained on frequent leave thus lack

of devotion to duties and misbehaved with the

Security Staff, Headquarters Office, Kailash

Building.

Whereas Disciplinary Authority (Chairman &

Managing Director) on consideration of the entire

case, including charge sheet, inquiry report,

Confession statement and relevant records of the

disciplinary proceedings has concluded that the

Charges of Gross Misconduct inasmuch as he

remained on frequent leave thus lacking in

devotion to duties and misbehaved with the

Security Staff at Headquarters office, Kailash

Building have been proved against the said Shri

Pyare Lal, Safaiwala.

Now, therefore, Disciplinary Authority (Chairman

& Managing Director) hereby imposes the major

penalty No.(viii) under Rule 11 of the

Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1965,

i.e. removal from services with immediate effect

on Shri Pyare Lal, Safaiwala for his aforesaid

misconduct. Accordingly, he is removed from

services with immediate effect and his name is

struck off the rolls of the Company.”

13.It is clear from perusal of the above that order of

removal was passed in view of the written statement of

confession made by the claimant herein. However, there

is no such document or statement on record to show that

on which date the claimant herein has confessed or

admitted his guilt in respect of the first two charges.

Though the Enquiry Officer in his report dated

23.05.2004 has referred to the confession made by the

claimant herein, but as discussed above, confessional

statement has not at all been recorded by the Enquiry

Officer so as to show that the workman has confessed his

guilt or accepted the charges leveled against him.

Production of confession statement and proof of the same

was essential so as to appreciate the contention of the

management that the workman has confessed his guilt.

Further, law requires that confession statement is to be

shown to be made by the workman voluntarily and

without any duress or pressure etc. Since the

confessional statement so made by the claimant has not

been produced or proved in accordance with law, as such,

it has dealt a crippling blow to the enquiry conducted by

the Enquiry Officer, Shri Vijay Rao. There is nothing on

record to show that any opportunity was given to the

workman to cross examine the witness/es examined by

the

management

support

the

charges.

Consequently, it is held that the enquiry report dated

23.05.2004 Ex.MW1/6 has been vitiated, being in

violation of principles of natural justice and having been

conducted in an unfair manner. Issue No.1 is answered

accordingly.

14.Management was afforded an opportunity to adduce

evidence on merits as the domestic enquiry was found to

be in violation of principles of natural justice etc. Since

none appeared on behalf of the management nor did the

management take the plea in their pleadings to adduce

evidence on merits, in case enquiry is ultimately decided

against the management, as such, evidence of the

management was closed. Since in the case in hand, no

evidence has been adduced by the management after

findings have been given by the Tribunal on preliminary

issue that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Enquiry

Officer is not fair or bad in law, in such a situation, this

Tribunal is left with no choice except to set aside the

order of ‘Removal from services with immediate effect’

dated 29/31.03.2004(Ex.MW1/2). Resultantly, charges

contained in the charge sheet Ex.MW1/1 are held to be

not proved against the workman herein. As such, order of

‘Removal from service with immediate effect’ passed by

the competent authority is, hereby, set aside.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 14] 2015@dk£rd 23] 1937

4449

11. As a corollary to the above, it is held that the

workman herein is also entitled for reinstatement with

immediate effect and payment of salary as well as all

consequential benefits to which he is/was otherwise

entitled had he been in service. An award is accordingly

passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate

Government, as required under Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

Dated : October 30, 2015

ubZ fnYyh] 6 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2171

2171

2171-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vk;qDr] fnYyh uxj fuxe ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 35@2013½ dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-11-2015 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@56@2011&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th November, 2015

S.O.2171.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government

hereby

publishes

the

award

(I.D

No.35/2013) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, No.1, Delhi now as shown

in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the

Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and their

workmen,

which

was

received

the

Central

Government on 06/11/2015.

[No. L-42011/56/2011-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND

DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT NO.1, DELHI

ID No.35/2013

The General Secretary,

Municipal Employees Union,

Aggarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road,

Tis Hazari,

Delhi – 110 054

...Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi,

Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,

Delhi 110006

…Management

AWARD

1. Shri Naresh Kumar, was working as Survey

khalasi in Town Planning Department with Municipal

Corporation of Delhi with effect from 10.03.1990 as a

daily rated/casual/muster roll worker. His services was

terminated on 13.08.1983 without any rhyme or reason.

An industrial dispute was raised before Shri R.K. Tiwari,

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No.III, who vide

award dated 06.02.1999 held the action of the

management to be illegal and directed the management to

reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits

with 50% back wages. Management challenged the

award before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi bearing

CWP No.1015/2000 and the Hon’ble High Court stayed

operation of the above award. During pendency of

dispute, Shri Naresh Kumar breathed his last on

30.07.1995.

2. Shri Naresh Kumar was survived by his widow,

Ms.Shashi and two sons, Shri Harsh and Shri Chetan.

Ms.Shashi, widow of the deceased presented an

application for appointment on compassionate grounds,

but the management did not pass any speaking order in

this regard, which is totally bad and malafide as family of

the deceased was totally dependent on the deceased for

their livelihood. Smt. Shashi is eligible for appointment

on compassionate grounds on any suitable Class IV post

as she fulfils all requirements for the said post, in

accordance with the conditions laid down under the

scheme. In similar circumstances, the dependents of

other deceased employees have been given employment

on compassionate grounds. . The union raised a dispute

before the Conciliation Officer. Since the Corporation

contested the claim, conciliation proceedings ended into a

failure, hence, the appropriate Government referred the

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order No.L-

42011/56/2011-IR(DU) New Delhi dated 18.02.2013,

with following terms:

“Whether action of the management of Municipal

Corporation of Delhi in denial of appointment on

compassionate grounds to Smt. Shashi, W/o late Shri

Naresh Kumar, Ex-employee of MCD is justified or not?

If not, what relief will be given to Smt. Shashi, W/o late

Shri Naresh Kumar and from which date?”

3. After consideration of statement of claim of the

workman, matter was listed for filing written statement

on behalf of the management, who filed written

statement, taking preliminary objections inter alia, non-

espousal, delay/laches, non-service of demand notice etc.

and that it has been referred by the Central Government

without application of mind. It is also averred that the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has already held that the

cases of employment on compassionate grounds cannot

be cannot be entertained by Industrial Tribunals as the

applicants are not covered under the definition of

‘workman’ as given under Section 2(s) of the Act.

Scheme for compassionate appointment has been devised

by Department of Personnel and Training vide OM

No.14014/6/94-Estt(D) dated 09.10.1998 for Government

servant appointed on regular basis. Shri Naresh Kumar

was a daily wager khalasi, hence does not fall within the

category of Government servant. Further, more than

4450

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2015/KARTIKA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

eight years have elapsed since the death of Shri Naresh

Kumar and the family has survived all these eight years

on its own. Had they been living in destitute, they would

have approached the court much earlier.

4. It transpires from the records that on the basis of

pleadings of the parties, no issue, other than those

referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication,

was framed by this Tribunal.

5. Claimant, in support of her claim, examined

herself as WW1 and Shri Surender Bhardwaj as WW2.

Thereafter, matter was listed for evidence of the

management.

6. In the meanwhile, the claimant desired to

withdraw the present petition as an industrial dispute

regarding regularization of the concerned workman

(claimant’s husband) was pending before the Conciliation

Officer. Since the claimant did not want to pursue the

petition before this Tribunal, as such statement of the

claimant regarding withdrawal of the case was separately

taken.

7. In view of the averments made by the claimant,

Ms.Shashi, she is permitted to withdraw the present

petition, with liberty to file a fresh case at a later stage.

Hence, an award is accordingly passed. Let this award be

sent to the appropriate Government, as required under

Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for

publication.

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

Dated : October 30, 2015

ubZ fnYyh] 12 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2172

2172

2172-&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

fnYyh] uxj fuxe] 16 jktiqjk] fnYyh ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky;-2] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 58@2014) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-11-2015 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@52@2014&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th November, 2015

S.O.2172.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government

hereby

publishes

the

award

(I.D

No.58/2014) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, No.II, Delhi now as shown

in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the

Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 16, Rajpura Road, Delhi

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 06/11/2015.

[No.L-42011/52/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT – II, DELHI

Present:- SHRI HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA

ID.No. 58/2014

The General Secretary,

Jagritri Labour Union (Regd.),

Branch Officer X – 1 A, Civil Side,

New Tis Hazari Court,

Delhi.

…..Workman

Versus

The Dy. Commissioner,

MCD,

16, Rajpura Road,

Delhi.

…… Management

Ex- Parte AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide

notification No. L-42011/52/2014 IR (DU) dated

25.07.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication:-

“Whether non regulation of service of Sh. Rajbir Singh

S/o Sh. Kunwar Sen & other in Municipal Corporation

of Delhi is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the

workman concerned are entitled to?”

On 06.08.2014 reference was received in this

Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 58/2014 and

claimant union was called upon to file claim statement

with in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which

was required to be accompanied with relevant documents

and list of witnesses.

After service of notice claim statement has been filed on

behalf of workmen Sh. Rajbeer Singh, Sh. Shankar,

Sh. Mukesh S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand, Sh. Sunil,

Sh. Krishan Kumar, Sh. Pramod Kumar, Sh. Balram,

Sh. Mukesh S/o Sh. Dharampal and Sh. Vijay Kr.

On the basis of contents of claim statement they prayed

for relief of awarding of status of permanent employees

of management with direction to implement the order

passed by this Tribunal in this respect.

In respect of service on management. Management has

not filed its written statement.

Perusal of schedule of reference order dated 25.07.2014

makes it crystal clear that Ministry of Labour directed to

this Tribunal to adjudicate following question of

determination:-

“Whether non regulation of service of Sh. Rajbir Singh

S/o Sh. Kunwar Sen & other in Municipal Corporation

of Delhi is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the

workman concerned are entitled to?”

Workmen in support of their case filed affidavit of Sh.

Rajbeer Singh, Sh. Pramod Kumar, Sh. Anokha Lal, Sh.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 14] 2015@dk£rd 23] 1937

4451

Sunil , Sh. Mukesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand, Sh.

Mukesh S/o Sh. Dharampal, Sh. Balram, Sh. Sankar, Sh.

Vijay alongwith Photostat copies of certain documents

and they tendered their affidavit alongwith Photostat

copies of annexed documents on which they placed

reliance.

case

proceeded

ex-parte

against

management. None came on behalf of management to

cross-examine them.

Workmen filed detailed written arguments in their

favour. Through which they claim for relief as claimed

by them in their claim statement.

In the light of contentions mentioned in written

arguments of workman I perused the pleadings and

evidence of workmen on record.

My issue wise question of determination finding is as

follows:-

Finding on question of determination / issue no. 1.

Which is as follows:-“ Whether non regulation of service

of Sh. Rajbir Singh S/o Sh. Kunwar Sen & other in

Municipal Corporation of Delhi is just, fair and legal?”.

Burden to prove issue no.1/ question of determination no.

1 lies on management but in the instant case management

has not filed written statement. So, its right of filing of

written statement has been closed by this Tribunal on

4.2.2015

and

case

proceeded

ex-parte

against

management. In want of evidence of management and

reliable and credible evidence of workmen this Tribunal

has no option except to decide question of determination/

issue No. 1 in favour of workman and against

management. Which is accordingly decided and claim

statement is liable to be allowed. Which accordingly

allowed but nature of relief shall be discussed in issue

No. 2.

Finding on question of determination/issue No. 2 :

Issue no. 2 is as follows:-

“If not, what relief the workman concerned are entitled

to?”

Burden to prove this lies on workmen. Through, their

reliable and credible evidence workmen have proved that

they were entitled to permanent but instead of making

them permanent management illegally terminated their

services on 26.11.2011. On this ground they claim relief

for setting aside their illegal termination and their

reinstatement with back wages etc. but as per settled law

of Hon’ble Supreme Court even in case of illegal

termination of workmen they cannot be re-instated

alongwith back wages etc. They are entitled only for

compensation only.

In the light of contentions and counter contentions I

perused the settled law of Hon’ble Supreme court on the

point of reinstatement and grant of back wages. Which

shows that reinstatement is not a necessary consequence

wherever termination is held illegal. Depending upon the

facts of each case a suitable compensation can be

awarded.

Assistant

Engineer,

Rajasthan

Dev.

Corporation and Anr Vs. Gitam Singh, (2013)II LLJ 141

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that reinstatement of

workman with continuity of service and 25% back wages

was not proper in the facts and circumstances of the case

and the compensation of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand

Only) shall meet the ends of justice. In Jagbir Singh Vs.

Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr AIR

2009 Supreme Court 3004, Hon’ble Supreme Court held

thus “the award of reinstatement with full back wages in

a case where the workman has completed 240 days of

work in a year preceding the date of termination

particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper

by this Court and instead compensation has been

awarded.” In catena of Judgments, Hon’ble Supreme

Court has taken a view that reinstatement is not

automatic, merely because the termination is illegal or in

contravention of S-25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act. In

Talwara Co-operative credit and service society Limited

Vs. Sushil Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 486, Hon’ble Supreme

Court held thus,” grant of relief of reinstatement, it is

trite, is not automatic. Grant of back wages is also not

automatic.”

Thus reference is liable to be decided in favour workman

and management and claim statement is liable to be

allowed with direction to management to pay

compensation to workman. Which is accordingly

decided.

So, in the instant case relief of compensation of Rs.

50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) is awarded to each

workman for their illegal termination dated 26.11.2011.

Management is directed to pay aforesaid compensation to

workman after period of limitation of available remedy

against award.

Ex-parte Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-5.10.2015

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2173

2173

2173-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

O;kse VsyhdkWe baÝk izkbosV lhfer ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 23 / 2015) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08.11.2015dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40011@09@2015&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th November, 2015

S.O.2173.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D Reference

No.23 of 2015) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

4452

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2015/KARTIKA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

employers in relation to the management of the Welkin

Telecom Infra Private Ltd and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 08/11/2015.

[No. L-40011/09/2015-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 23 of 2015

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of

M/s. Welkin Telecom Infra Pvt. Ltd.

AND

Their workmen.

Present: JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, PRESIDING

OFFICER

Appearance: On behalf of the : Mr. Tirthankar Ghosh,

Management

District Coordinator of

the Company.

On behalf of the : Mr. Partha Mukherjee,

Workmen

Ld. Counsel

State: West Bengal Industry: Telecommunication.

Dated: 30th October, 2015.

A W A R D

By Order No.L-40011/09/2015-IR(DU) dated

05.05.2015 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour

in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A)

of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the

following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of

M/s Welkin Telecom Infra Pvt.

Ltd., contractor of

M/s Indus Towers Limited is justified by terminating the

service of Sri Ramkrishna Pal and is it legal and/or

justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled

to?”

When the case is taken up for hearing today, Ld.

Counsel appearing for the workman and the authorized

representative of the management submit that the matter

has been settled amicably between the parties out of the

Tribunal and they have filed a joint petition of

compromise/settlement. They pray for an Award in terms

of the said joint petition of compromise/settlement.

On careful consideration of the said joint petition

of compromise/settlement it appears that the terms and

conditions of the compromise/settlement are fair,

reasonable and the same are made for the interest of the

parties.

the

said

joint

petition

compromise/settlement and pass an Award in terms of

the said joint petition of compromise/settlement which do

form part of this Award as Annexure – A.

Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Kolkata,

Dated: 30th October, 2015

ANNEXURE - A

Memorandum of Settlement

(U/s.2(P) read with section 18(3) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947)

Name of the parties: (1) M/s WelKin Telecom Infra

Pvt. Ltd. 76/1, Golaghata Road, VIP

Road,

Kolkata-

700

048.

(2)

Paschim

Medinipur

Zilla

security & Allied Services Union,

Mir Bazar Mednipur, Dist- Paschim

Medinipur.

Representing the (1) Mr. K. K. Roy Head H.R &

Company

Administration.

Representing the (1) Sri Manoj Dhar General Secretary

Union:

of the Union.

(2)

Sri

Ramkrishna

Paul,

the

concerned workman.

Short Recital of the case:

Whereas the company under reference is engaged as

contractor by M/s Indus Tower Ltd. for operation and

maintenance of Mobile Towers owned by said Indus

Tower Ltd; situated at Medinipur West District.

Whereas one contract labour Ramkrishna Paul was

working under the contractor as named hereinabove and

he was terminated from service w.e.f. 1st June , 2014 Sri

Paul was working as Technician in the company.

Whereas being aggrieved over the termination of service

the union under reference raised one Industrial Dispute

which has been referred by Ministry of Labour, Govt. of

India before the C.G.I.T. and the case has been registered

bearing reference No. 23 of 2015.

Whereas during the pendency of Dispute before C.G.I.T.

Kolkata negotiations were held on the issue pending

before C.G.I.T. and after protected discussions it is

agreed between the parties as under.

1. That the contractor company has agreed and

accordingly the concerned workman has been

reinstated in service without any back wages on

and from 1.9.2015.

2. That in view of instant agreement the concerned

workman and the union have no more dispute in

the issue pending before the Hon’ble Tribunal.

3. That it has been agreed by and between the

parties to file the instant memorandum of

settlement before C.G.I.T. Kolkata with a prayer

to pass necessary award in terms of this

settlement with a view to drop the proceeding

fully and finally since pending dispute does not

exists further in terms of this settlement.

In witness hereof, the parties have signed this

agreement on 15th September, 2015.

Sd. Illegible

Sd. MANOJ DHAR

Sd. RAMKRISHNA PAL

For and on behalf of

For and on behalf of Union as

named herein above

M/s. Welkin Telecom Infra

Pvt. Ltd.

WITNESSES:-

Sd. Tirthankar Ghosh.

Sd. Illegible.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 14] 2015@dk£rd 23] 1937

4453

ANNEXURE - A

Memorandum of Settlement

(U/s. 2(P) read with the section 18(3) of Industrial

disputes Act, 1947)

Name of the parties :

(1) M/s. Welkin Telecom Infra

Pvt. Ltd. 76/1, Golaghata Road,

VIP Road, Kolkata-700048.

(2) Paschim Medinipur Zilla

Security

Allied

Services

Union, Mir Bazar Mednipur,

Distt.- Paschim Medinipur.

Representing the Company : (1) Mr. K. K. Roy Head

H.R. & Administration.

Representing the Union : (1) Sri Manoj Dhar General

Secretary of the Union.

(2) Sri Ramkrishan Paul, the

concerned workman.

Short Recital of the case :

Whereas the company under reference is engaged

as contractor by M/s. Indus Tower Ltd. For operation and

maintenance of Mobile Towers owned by said Indus

Tower Ltd.; situated at Medinipur West District.

Whereas one contract labour Ramkrishan Paul was

working under the contractor as named hereinabove and

he was terminated from service w.e.f 1^st June, 2014

Sri Paul was working as Technician in the company.

Whereas being aggrieved over the termination of

service the union under reference raised one Industrial

Dispute which has been referred by Ministry of Labour,

Govt. of India before the C.G.I.T. and the case has been

registered bearing reference No. 23 of 2015.

Whereas during pendency of Dispute before

C.G.I.T. at Kolkata negotiations were held on the issue

pending before C.G.I.T. and after protected discussions it

is agreed between parties as under :

1. That the contractor company has agreed and

accordingly the concerned workman has been reinstated

in service without any backwages on and from 1.9.2015.

2. That in view of instant agreement the concerned

workman and the union have no more dispute in the issue

pending before this Hon’ble Tribunal.

3. That it has been agreed by and between the

parties to fill the instant memorandum of settlement

before C.G.I.T. Kolkata with a prayer to pass necessary

award in terms of this settlement with a view to drop the

proceeding fully and finally since pending dispute does

not exist further in terms of this settlement.

In witness hereof, the parties have signed this

agreement on 15th September, 2015.

Sd/-

Illegible

MANOJ DHAR

Sd/-

RAMKRISHNA PAL

For and on behalf of

Union as named hereinabove

WITNESSES :

1. Trithankar Ghosh

District Co-ordinator.

15.9.2015

2. Sd/- (Illegible)

ubZ fnYyh] 12 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2174

2174

2174-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

bZekunkj lqj{kk lsok ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;

dksydkrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 73 of 2014) dks izdkf”kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08.11.2015dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&13011@03@2014&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th November, 2015

S.O. 2174.—in pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D Reference

No.73 of 2014) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Upright

Security Service and their workmen, which was received

by the Central Government on 08/11/2015.

[No. L-13011/03/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 73 of 2014

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

M/s. Upright Security Service

AND

Their workmen

Present: JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY,

Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the

: None.

Management

On behalf of the

: None

Workman

State: West Bengal.

Dated: 28th October, 2015

A WA R D

By Order No.L-13011/03/2014-IR(DU) dated

17.11.2014 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour

in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A)

of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the

following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Zila

Sainik Board & M/s. Upright Security Service, contractor

of Zoological Survey of India in depriving the workmen

the minimum wages fixed by the Central Govt. is legal

and justified? If not, what relief the workmen are

entitled to? Whether the action of management of

Zoological Survey of India by terminating the contract of

M/s. Zila Sainik Board resulting unemployment of

contractual workmen is legal and/or justified? If not,

what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

When the case is taken up for hearing today, none

appears on behalf of any of the parties in spite of service

4454

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2015/KARTIKA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of notice. It appears from the record that the union at

whose instance the present reference case has been

initiated, never turned up before this Tribunal.

Considering the facts and circumstances it appears

that the union is not interested to proceed with this case.

So, no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping the

matter pending.

In view of the above facts and circumstances,

present reference is disposed of by passing a “No Dispute

Award”.

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

The 28th October, 2015.

ubZ fnYyh] 12 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2175

2175

2175-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

dsUnzh; e`nk ,oa ty laj{k.k vuqla/kku ,oa izf”k{k.k laLFkku

vuqla/kku dsUnz] nsgjknwu ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;-2 paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 887@2005) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-11-2015 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@82@99-vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th November, 2015

S.O.2175.—in pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government

hereby

publishes

the

award

(I.D

No.887/2005) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, No.II, Chandigarh now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of the

Central Soil and Water Conservation Research and

Training Institute Research Centre, Dehradun and their

workmen,

which

was

received

the

Central

Government on 08.11.2015.

[No.L-42011/82/99-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 887/2005

Registered on 12.9.2005

Workmen of Central Soil and

Water Conservation, Research

and Training Institute Research

Centre, Sector 26, Madhya Marg,

Chandigarh working at its Research

Farm, Mansa Devi, Distt.

Panchkula through their

Research Farm Worker

Union, Mansa Devi,

Distt. Panchkula.

…Petitioners

Versus

The Director, Central Soil

and Water Conservation

Research and Training

Institute Research Centre,

218, Kolagarh Road Dehradun.

The Officer In charge Central Soil &

Water Conservation Research &

Training Institute, Research Centre,

Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. …Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. Ashwani Bakshi Adv.

For the Management

Sh. S.K. Gupta Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 14.10.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-

42011/82/ 99/IR(DU) Dated 10.2.2000, by exercising its

powers under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and

Sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the

following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this

Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of Officer In-charge Central Soil &

Water Conservation Research & Training Institute,

Research Centre, Chandigarh in denying the under

mentioned three demands of Research Farm Workers

Union, Mansa Devi is justified?

Conferment of permanent status upon 25 workers of

Research Farm Mansa Devi who were granted

temporary status by management vide letter dated

February 1st 1995.

Grant of benefit of casual leaves, medical leave and

minter/summer

uniform

temporary

status

workers.

Grant of benefit of compensatory leaves to

permanent/regular workers w.e.f. 1.1.91 onwards.

If not to what relief the workmen are entitled?”

In response to the notice, the workman filed statement of

claim pleading that respondent management conferred

‘temporary status’ on 25 workmen in pursuance of the

letter of Government of India dated 10.10.1993. That

respondent management has not framed any rules

regulating the condition of service of the workmen and

the workmen who were granted ‘temporary status’ are

entitled to be made ‘permanent’.

The 25 workmen are also eligible for the benefit of

casual leave, earned leave, national holidays etc. It is

further alleged that all the workers at Mansa Devi are

entitled to compensatory leave w.e.f. 1.1.1991.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 14] 2015@dk£rd 23] 1937

4455

Respondent

management

filed

written

pleading that workmen cannot claim status of permanent

employee as a matter of right and the same is to be

conferred as per the Rules and that too depending on the

post, qualification eligiblity etc. That the workmen are

being given the benefits of earned leave, compensatory

leave and national holidays and the letter dated

10.10.1993 is fully implemented.

Parties were given opportunities to lead evidence.

Sh. Munna Lal appeared in the witness box on

behalf of workmen and filed his affidavit reiterating the

asseration as made in the statement of claim.

On the other hand, the management has examined

Sh. S.S. Chauhan who supported the case of the

management in its affidavit.

I have heard Sh. Ashwani Bakshi, counsel for the

workmen and Sh. S.K. Gupta, counsel for the

management and also perused the written submissions

submitted by the parties.

It was argued that the workmen were conferred

‘temporary status’ in view of letter dated 10.10.1993 of

the Government of India but they were not made

permanent and they are entitled for the same.

Para 4(iv) of the Scheme circulated by letter dated

10.10.1993 read as follow:-

“Such casual labourers who acquired temporary

status will not, however, be brought on to the permanent

status/establishment unless they are selected through

regular selection process for group ‘D’ posts.”

Thus the scheme itself clears that casual labourers who

are given ‘temporary status’ can only be made permanent

through the regular selection process and as such the

employees cannot claim the status of ‘permanance’

simply because they were granted ‘temporary status’.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary State of

Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in AIR 2006 S.C. has

categorically held that employees who are not appointed

by observing regular procedure and rules are not entitled

to regularization of their services. In view of this

pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well the

rules itself, the workmen cannot seek that they be made

permanent and therefore they are not entitled to the relief

of ‘permanent status’.

So far as the other demands are concerned, there is

nothing on the file that the workmen were denied the

benefits of casual leave, earned leave, compensatory

leave etc. and rather the management has specifically

pleaded that the said benefits are being given to the

workmen as per letter dated 10.10.1993. Thus the

workmen are not entitled to any relief in the present

reference.

In result, the reference the reference is answered against

the workmen holding that they are not entitled to any

relief.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2176

2176

2176.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 527/2005) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-11-2015 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@85@2002-vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th November, 2015

S.O.2176.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government

hereby

publishes

the

award

(I.D

No.527/2005) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, No. II, Chandigarh now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of the

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on

08.11.2015.

[No. L-40012/85/2002-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. No. 527/2005

Registered on 22.8.2005

Smt. Santro Devi, H.No.706/11

Bapu Dham Colony, Sector 26,

Chandigarh. …Petitioner

Versus

The Chief General Manager

Telecom, Punjab Circle, (BSNL),

Sector 34, Chandigarh.

The Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Telephone Deptt.,

Sector 18A, Chandigarh. ...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. R.K. Sharma, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. Anish Babbar, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 24.9.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-

40012/85/2002- IR(DU)) Dated 13.9.2002, by exercising

its powers under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d)

4456

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2015/KARTIKA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and Sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the

following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this

Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of

Telecom in terminating the services of Smt.

Santro Devi, Ex Part time frash is just and legal?

If so, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

In response to the notice, the workman appeared

and submitted statement of claim pleading that she was

engaged as part time sweeper by the respondent

management where she worked continuously from

28.7.1987 to 2.3.1999 for three hours daily. That she is

entitled to regularization of services as per instructions of

the department. Instead of doing the needful, her

services were terminated on 2.3.1999 in violation of the

provisions of the Act. That she is entitled to be reinstated

with continuity of service along with back wages.

Respondent

management

filed

written

admitting that the workman worked with it from 17th

July, 1987 to 28.2.1995. It is pleaded that the department

imposed a partial ban on 30.3.1985 and complete ban on

22.6.1988 for appointment of casual labour and in view

of the said ban, the workman was working on contract

basis w.e.f. 1.3.1995. She was not engaged under the

service rules. That application filed by her before the

CAT was dismissed vide order dated 28.9.2000. It has

also been pleaded that the management has not been

maintaining any service record of contract labour or part

time labour and the workman was engaged for doing the

petty jobs on contract basis. She was not entitled to be

considered for regularization of her services. The

representation made by her was considered and rejected.

That the claim be dismissed.

Parties were given opportunity to lead their

evidence.

In support of its case, the workman appeared in the

witness box and filed her affidavit reiterating the case as

set out in the claim petition.

On the other hand, management examined Sh.

Mohinder Pal who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand

taken by the management in the written statement.

I have heard Sh. R.K. Sharma, counsel for the

workman as well as Sh. Anish Babbar, counsel for the

management and have also gone through the written

arguments filed on behalf of the workman.

It was argued by the learned counsel for the

workman that termination of services of other co-workers

were set aside by the Court by passing an award and their

services were regularized as per the policy framed by the

department and as such the present workman is also

entitled to regularization of services.

It may be added that workman filed OA

No.968/CH/95 before the Hon’ble CAT seeking

directions for regularization and grant of temporary status

to her and the same was dismissed vide order dated

28.9.2000. She filed a representation before the

competent authority for regularization of her services and

the same was also dismissed. It may also be added that

the question whether the workman is entitled to

regularization of services is not to be decided in the

present reference wherein, the only controversy involved

is whether the termination of the services of the workman

is legal and valid; and therefore, cases of other co-

workers even if is decided in their favour; have no

bearing on the present case.

The workman has pleaded in para 1 of the

statement of claim that she worked as a part time sweeper

from 28.7.1987 to 2.3.1999 and this fact was admitted by

the respondent management in the written statement.

The management has further pleaded in para 2 of the

written statement that she worked on contract basis but

there is no cogent evidence on the file to prove that she

ever worked on contract basis or through the contractor.

In view of the admission of the respondent management,

it is to be concluded that she was part time employee of

the respondent management and worked as sweeper from

28.7.1987 to 2.3.1999 and was doing duty as sweeper for

three hours daily.

It is not the case of the management that she was

paid any retrenchment compensation at the time of

termination of her services. The department imposed a

ban vide order dated 22.6.1988 for engaging a labour

directly or through contractor on daily or monthly wages

and again vide order dated 12.2.1999 placed on the file,

it was ordered that the Accounts Officer was not

competent authority to make the payments to such

workers. The workman worked from 28.7.1987 to

2.3.1999 continuously and her services were terminated

in violation of Section 25F of the Act and no

retrenchment compensation was paid to her. In view of

the orders of the department vide which ban was imposed

for engaging casual workers, the reinstatement of the

workman cannot be ordered. However she is to be given

compensation for terminating her services illegally.

No evidence has come on file to prove the salary of

the workman. In the circumstances, some guess work is

to be done for awarding compensation. Since she worked

for a period of about 12 years and her services were only

for three hours daily as sweeper and considering the

totality of the circumstances, she is awarded Rs.75,000/-

as compensation on account of termination of her

services.

In result, it is held that termination of the services

of the workman was not legal and the workman is

entitled to compensation of Rs.75000/-. The management

shall pay the awarded amount within three months of the

publication of the award failing which she will be entitled

to the interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the

awarded amount from the date of the award till

realization. The reference is accordingly answered in

favour of the workman. Let hard and soft copy of the

award be sent to the Central Government for further

necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 14] 2015@dk£rd 23] 1937

4457

ubZ fnYyh] 12 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2177

2177

2177.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

nwjlapkj foHkkx] paMhx<+ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 311@2005) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-11-2015 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@180@2003-vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th November, 2015

S.O. 2177.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Central Government hereby publishes the award

(I.D No. 311/2005) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, No.II, Chandigarh now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of the

Telecom Department, Chandigarh and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on

08.11.2015.

[No. L-40012/180/2003-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. No.311/2005

Registered on 22.6.2004

Smt. Bimla Devi,

H.No.355, Khuda Lahore,

PO Mullanpur, UT Chandigarh

…Petitioner

Versus

The Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Telephone Deptt.,

Sector-18A, Chandigarh.

…Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. R.K. Sharma, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. Anish Babbar, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 24.9.2014

Central

Government

vide

Notification

No.

L-40012/180/2003 IR (DU)) Dated 25.5.2004, by

exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub-section (1)

Clause (d) and Sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication

to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of

Telecom now known as BSNL in terminating the

services of Smt. Bimla Devi, Ex-Peon w.e.f. 28.2.99

without any notice and without complying with the

provisions of the ID Act, 1947 is just and legal? If not

to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and

from which date?”

In response to the notice, the workman submitted

statement of claim pleading that she was engaged as

Peon on 9.2.1998 through Contractor on daily wage

basis by the management and she served till 28.2.1999.

It is pleaded that she was a direct employee of the

department as the department has overall control and

supervision on her and the contract was just a

camouflage. That her services were terminated without

paying her retrenchment compensation and even the

persons junior to her were retained in service. That she

is also eligible for a temporary status of workman as per

scheme known as Casual Labourers (Grant of

Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1999.

That she filed OA 672/CH/99 before the Central

Administrative Tribunal who directed the department to

consider her case vide order dated 18.10.2001. That she

is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity of

service with back wages.

Respondent-management

filed

written

controverting the averments and pleaded that the

workman was never engaged by the management. That a

contract agreement was entered into with the contractor

for the supply of labour who used to send certain number

of labourers to the department. It is also denied that the

workman

has

completed

240

days

service

continuously. Since the workman is not an employee of

the department, she was not entitled to temporary status

as per the scheme of the department. That she is not

entitled to any relief.

Parties were given opportunity to lead their

evidence.

In support of her case workman appeared in the

witness box and filed her affidavit reiterating the case as

set in the claim petition.

On the other hand respondent management as

examined Sh. Jatinder Mahajan, who filed his affidavit

reiterating the case of the management.

I have heard Sh. R.K. Sharma, counsel for the

workman and Sh. Anish Babbar for the management and

have perused the written arguments filed on behalf of

workman.

A contention was raised that workman was actually

an employee of the management and the contractor was

introduced just to circumvent the provisions of law and in

fact, the management has the control and supervision on

the workman, and as such the workman is an employee

of the management and her services have been terminated

without payment of any retrenchment compensation and

she is entitled to be reinstated in service with back wages.

The definite case of the respondent management is

that it has given a contract to the contractor to supply

labour and the workman was never engaged by it. The

workman while appearing in the witness box has

4458

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2015/KARTIKA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

admitted during cross-examination that she was paid

wages by the contractor and she was not paid wages for

the off days. She has further stated that the labour

engaged through the contractor was disengaged when the

contract was over. She has not produced any

appointment letter issued by the management nor there is

any other evidence on the file to suggest that she was

actually working under the control and supervision of the

management except her own statement. Since she was

paid wages by the contractor and was not paid anything

during the off days, it cannot be said that she was an

employee of the management and in the circumstances, it

cannot be said that contract given to the contractor for

supply of labour was entered into just to circumvent the

provisions of the Act and the workman is actually an

employee of the management.

The workman and others filed OA No.672/CH/99

before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh

which was decided on 18.10.2001 and direction to was

issued to consider the case of the applicants for the grant

of temporary status. The department passed a detailed

order holding that the applicants were not directly

engaged or appointed by the department and actually they

were the workers of the contractor vide order dated

17.12.2002

Thus the worker has already agitated the matter

claiming herself to be an employee of the management

and her claim was not found to be genuine as in the

present case she has not proved to be the employee of the

management.

The workman has failed to prove that she is an

employee of the management and it cannot be said that

her services were terminated by the respondent

management and the workman is not entitled to any

relief. The reference is accordingly answered against the

workman. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to

the Central Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2178

2178

2178-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

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

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2]

paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 303@2005) dks izdkf”kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-11-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@146@2003-vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th November, 2015

S.O.2178.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No.

303/2005)

the

Central

Government

Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, No.II, Chandigarh now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of the

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on

08.11.2015.

[No. L-40012/146/2003-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. No.303/2005

Registered on 11.8.2005

Sh. Jarnail Singh,

H.No.1689, Sector 29B,

Chandigarh.

…Petitioner

Versus

The Principal General Manager,

Telecom (Bharat Sanchar

Nigam Limited), Sector 18A,

Chandigarh.

…Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman : Sh. R.K. Sharma, Adv.

For the Management : Sh. Anish Babbar, Adv

AWARD

Passed on 24.9.2014

Central

Government

vide

Notification

No.

L-40012/146/2003 IR (DU)) Dated 19.4.2004, by

exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub-section (1)

Clause (d) and Sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication

to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of

Telecom now known as BSNL in terminating the services

of Sh. Jarnail Singh, Ex-Peon w.e.f. 28.2.99 is just and

legal? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is

entitled to and from which date?”

In response to the notice, the workman appeared

and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was

engaged as Peon on 1.1.1997 through the contractor on

daily wage basis by the management. His services were

illegally terminated on 28.2.1999. That the contractor

was introduced only as a subterfuge to circumvent the

provisions of law and otherwise, he was working under

the supervision of the management. He was a direct

employee of the management. That his services were

terminated without paying him compensation and the

persons junior to him were retained in service. He was

also not given the temporary status of a casual labourer.

That termination of his services is illegal.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 14] 2015@dk£rd 23] 1937

4459

Respondent

management

filed

written

controverting the averments and pleaded that a contract

was given for the supply of labour and it was the

contractor who used to send the labour and the workman

is not a employee of the department. That he filed OA

No.672/CH/99 before the Hon’ble CAT, Chandigarh

which was decided on 18.10.2001 and the department

was directed to consider his case for a temporary status

of a casual labourer. That his claim was considered and

he was not found to be an employee of the management.

He also failed to prove his case before the Hon’ble High

Court of Delhi in CWP No.4511 of 2001 and decided on

30.10.2001. Since he is not an employee of the

respondent management, he is not entitled to claim any

relief.

Parties were given opportunities to lead their

evidence.

In support of his case, workman appeared in the

witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating his case as

set out in the claim petition.

On the other hand management has examined Sh.

S.R. Kataria, who filed his affidavit reiterating the case of

the respondent management.

I have heard Sh. R.K. Sharma, counsel for the

workman and Sh. Anish Babbar, counsel for the

management and have perused the written arguments

filed on behalf of workman.

It was argued by the learned counsel that the

workman

was

employee

the

respondent

management and the contractor has been introduced just

to avoid the provisions of the Act and since his services

were terminated in violations of the Act, he is entitled to

be reinstated in service.

I have considered the contention of the learned

counsel.

It is the case of the workman himself that he was

engaged through the contractor. He has stated during

cross-examination that he was paid wages by the

contractor and he was not paid wages for the off days.

He has further stated that the labour engaged by the

contractor was disengaged after the contract was over.

Thus, he was paid by the contractor and was not paid

anything for the off days and his services came to an end

when the contract was over and in the circumstances, he

cannot claim himself to be an employee of the respondent

management. There is nothing on the file to suggest that

he was appointed by complying with the rules and

regulations

of the

department dealing with the

appointment of workers and in the absence of this, it

cannot be said that he was ever engaged by the

department.

It may be added that he filed OA No.672/CH/99

which was decided on 18.10.2001 asking the department

to consider his case for grant of temporary status. The

department passed a detailed order dated 17.1.2002

holding that he was not engaged by the department and as

such he is not entitled to any relief. The fact that he was

ever engaged by the department is also not proved on the

file now also.

In the circumstances it cannot be said that he was

entitled to any retrenchment compensation or the

department was to comply with the other provisions of

the Act as his services, if any, were not terminated by the

respondent management. The reference is answered

accordingly and it is held that workman is not entitled to

any relief. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to

the Central Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2179

2179

2179-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947¼1947

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

foHkkx] paMhx<+ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2]

paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 304/2005) dks izdkf”kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08.11.2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@178@2003-vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th November, 2015

S.O.2179.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No.

304/2005)

the

Central

Government

Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, No.II, Chandigarh now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of the

Telecom Department, Chandigarh and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on

08.11.2015.

[No. L-40012/178/2003-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No.304/2005

Registered on 11.8.2005

Smt. Anju Bala,

H.No.1133-B,

Sector 41-B, AG Colony,

Chandigarh.

…Petitioner

Versus

The Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Telephone Deptt.,

Sector 18A, `Chandigarh.

…Respondents

4460

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2015/KARTIKA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

: Sh. R.K. Sharma, Adv.

For the Management

: Sh. Anish Babbar, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 24.9.2014

Central

Government

vide

Notification

No.

L-40012/178/2003 IR (DU) Dated 25.5.2004, by

exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub-section (1)

Clause (d) and Sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication

to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of

Telecom now known as BSNL in terminating the services

of Smt. Anju Bala, Ex-Typist w.e.f. 28.2.99 without any

notice and without complying with the provisions of the

ID Act, 1947 is just and legal? If not to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?”

In response to the notice, the workman appeared

and submitted statement of claim pleading that she was

engaged as Typist on 1.5.1997 through the contractor on

daily wage basis by the management. Her services were

illegally terminated on 28.2.1999. That the contractor

was introduced only as a subterfuge to circumvent the

provisions of law and otherwise, she was working under

the supervision of the management. She was a direct

employee of the management. That her services were

terminated without paying her compensation and the

persons junior to her were retained in service. She was

also not given the temporary status of a casual labourer.

That termination of her services is illegal.

Respondent

management

filed

written

controverting the averments and pleaded that a contract

was given for the supply of labour and it was the

contractor who used to send the labour and the workman

is not a employee of the department. That she filed OA

No.672/CH/99 before the Hon’ble CAT, Chandigarh

which was decided on 18.10.2001 and the department

was to consider her case for a temporary status of a

casual labourer. That her claim was considered and she

was not found to be an employee of the management.

She also failed to prove her case before the Hon’ble High

Court of Delhi in CWP No.4511 of 2001 and decided on

30.10.2001. Since she is not an employee of the

respondent management, she is not entitled to claim any

relief.

Parties were given opportunities to lead their

evidence.

In support of her case, workman appeared in the

witness box and filed her affidavit reiterating her case as

set out in the claim petition.

On the other hand management has examined Sh.

Jitender Mahajan, who filed his affidavit reiterating the

case of the respondent management.

I have heard Sh. R.K. Sharma, counsel for the

workman and Sh. Anish Babbar, counsel for the

management and have perused the written arguments

filed on behalf of workman.

It was argued by the learned counsel that the

workman

was

employee

the

respondent

management and the contractor has been introduced just

to avoid the provisions of the Act and since her services

were terminated in violations of the Act, she is not

entitled to be reinstated in service.

I have considered the contention of the learned

counsel.

It is the case of the workman herself that she was

engaged through the contractor. She has stated during

cross-examination that she was paid wages by the

contractor and she was not paid wages for the off days.

She has further stated that the labour engaged by the

contractor was disengaged after the contract was over.

Thus she was paid by the contractor and was not paid

anything for the off days and her services came to an end

when the contract was over and in the circumstances, she

cannot claim herself to be an employee of the respondent

management. There is nothing on the file to suggest that

she was appointed by complying with the rules and

regulations

of the

department

dealing with the

appointment of workers and in the absence of this, it

cannot be said that she was ever engaged by the

department.

It may be added that she filed OA No.672/CH/99

which was decided on 18.10.2001 asking the department

to consider her case for grant of temporary status. The

department passed a detailed order dated 17.1.2002

holding that she was not engaged by the department and

as such she is not entitled to any relief. The fact that she

was ever engaged by the department is also not proved on

the file now also. In the circumstances it cannot be said

that she was entitled to any retrenchment compensation

or the department was to comply with the other

provisions of the Act as her services, if any, were not

terminated by the respondent management. In the

circumstances, the reference is answered accordingly and

it is held that workman is not entitled to any relief. Let

hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central

Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2180

2180

2180-&&

&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] Qjhnkckn ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 323/2013)

dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08.11.2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40011@60@2013-vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th November, 2015

S.O.2180.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No.

323/2013)

the

Central

Government

Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, No. II, Chandigarh now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 14] 2015@dk£rd 23] 1937

4461

the employers in relation to the management of the

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Faridabad and their

workmen,

which

was

received

the

Central

Government on 08.11.2015.

[No. L-40011/60/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No.323/2013

Registered on 18.2.2014

Sh. Amar Singh,

S/o Sh. Bhule Ram,

Ex-Guard, C/o Sh. Hoob Lal Yadav,

Gen. Secretary,

Mercantile Employees Association,

530, Near Prem Public School,

Faridabad - 121007.

…Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager,

BSNL, Telephone Exchange,

Sector 15A, Faridabad.

…Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

: Ex parte.

For the Management

: Sh. Anish Babbar Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 28-10-2014

Central

Government

vide

Notification

No.

L-40011/ 60/2013 IR (DU) Dated 5.2.2014, by exercising

its powers under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d)

and Sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the

following Industrial Dispute for adjudication to this

Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) Faridabad, Haryana in

terminating the services of Sh. Amar Singh S/o Sh. Bhule

Ram Ex-Guard w.e.f. 1.9.2002 is legal and justified? To

what relief the workman is entitled to and what date?”

Notice was given to the workman who did not

appear and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order

dated 28.5.2014.

Since the workman was proceeded against ex-parte,

no statement of claim has been filed.

Since statement of claim has not been filed by the

workman and therefore the reference is answered as ‘no

claim’ reference and the workman is not entitled to any

relief.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2181

2181

2181-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] Qjhnkckn ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 324@2013)

dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-11-2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40011@62@2013&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th November, 2015

S.O.2181.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No.

324/2013)

the

Central

Government

Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, No. II, Chandigarh now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of the

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Faridabad and their

workmen,

which

was

received

the

Central

Government on 08.11.2015.

[No. L-40011/62/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 324/2013

Registered on 18.2.2014

Sh. Yad Ram, S/o Sh. Layak Ram,

Ex-Guard, C/o Sh. Hoob Lal Yadav,

Gen. Secretary,

Mercantile Employees Association,

530, Near Prem Public School,

Faridabad - 121007. …Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager,

|BSNL, Telephone Exchange,

Sector 15A, Faridabad. …Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Workman

: Exparte.

For the Management

: Sh. Anish Babbar Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 28.10.14

Central

Government

vide

Notification

No.

L-40011/62/2013 IR (DU) Dated 5.2.2014, by exercising

its powers under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d)

4462

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2015/KARTIKA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and Sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the

following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this

Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) Faridabad Haryana in

terminating the services of Sh. Yad Ram S/o Sh. Layak

Ram Ex-Guard w.e.f. 61.9.2009 is legal and justified?

To what relief the workman is entitled to and what

date?”

Notice was given to the workman who did not

appear and was proceeded against ex parte vide order

dated 28.5.2014.

Since the workman was proceeded against ex parte,

no statement of claim has been filed.

Since statement of claim has not been filed by the

workman and therefore the reference is answered as ‘no

claim’ reference and the workman is not entitled to any

relief.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2182

2182

2182-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

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

lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] Qjhnkckn ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 325@2013)

dks izdkf”kr djrh g]S tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-11-2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40011@68@2013&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th November, 2015

S.O.2182.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No.

325/2013)

the

Central

Government

Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, No. II, Chandigarh now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of the

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Faridabad and their

workmen,

which

was

received

the

Central

Government on 08.11.2015.

[No. L-40011/68/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sri KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 325/2013

Registered on 18.2.2014

Sh. Ishwar Singh, S/o Sh. Kanhaiya Lal,

Ex-Peon, C/o Sh. Hoob Lal Yadav,

Gen. Secretary,

Mercantile Employees Association,

530, Near Prem Public School,

Faridabad - 121007. …Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager,

BSNL, Telephone Exchange,

Sector 15A, Faridabad. … Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

: Exparte.

For the Management

: Sh. Anish Babbar Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 28.10.2014

Central

Government

vide

Notification

No.

L-40011/68/2013 IR (DU) Dated 5.2.2014, by exercising

its powers under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d)

and Sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the

following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this

Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) Faridabad Haryana in

terminating the services of Sh. Ishwar Singh, S/o Sh.

Kanhaiya Lal, Ex-Peon, w.e.f. 9.6.2012 is legal and

justified? To what relief the workman is entitled to and

what date?”

Notice was given to the workman who did not

appear and was proceeded against exparte vide order

dated 28.5.2014.

Since the workman was proceeded against exparte,

no statement of claim has been filed.

Since statement of claim has not been filed by the

workman and therefore the reference is answered as no

claim reference and the workmans not entitled to any

relief.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2183

2183

2183-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] Qjhnkckn ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 326@2013)

dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-11-2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40011@67@2013&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 14] 2015@dk£rd 23] 1937

4463

New Delhi, the 12th November, 2015

S.O.2183.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No.

326/2013)

the

Central

Government

Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, No. II, Chandigarh now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of the

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Faridabad and their

workmen,

which

was

received

the

Central

Government on 08.11.2015.

[No. L-40011/67/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sri KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 326/2013

Registered on 18.2.2014

Sh. Shiv Kumar, S/o Sh. Amilala,

Ex-Peon, C/o Sh. Hoob Lal Yadav,

Gen. Secretary, Mercantile Employees Association,

530, Near Prem Public School,

Faridabad - 121007. … Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager,

|BSNL, Telephone Exchange,

Sector 15A, Faridabad. …Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

: Ex parte.

For the Management

: Sh. Anish Babbar Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 28.10.2014

Central

Government

vide

Notification

No.

L-40011/67/2013

IR(DU))

Dated

5.2.2014,

exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub Section (1)

Clause (d) and Sub Section (2-A) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication

to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL) Faridabad Haryana in

terminating the services of Sh. Rampal S/o Sh. Ratan

Singh Ex-Lineman w.e.f. 9.6.2012 is legal and justified?

To what relief the workman is entitled to and what date?”

Notice was given to the workman who did not

appear and was proceeded against ex parte vide order

dated 28.5.2014.

Since the workman was proceeded against ex parte,

no statement of claim has been filed.

Since statement of claim has not been filed by the

workman and therefore the reference is answered as ‘no

claim’ reference and the workman is not entitled to any

relief.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2184

2184

2184-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] Qjhnkckn ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 329@2013)

dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-11-2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40011@61@2013&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th November, 2015

S.O.2184.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No.

329/2013)

the

Central

Government

Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, No. II, Chandigarh now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of the

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Faridabad and their

workmen,

which

was

received

the

Central

Government on 08.11.2015.

[No. L-40011/61/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sri KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. No. 329/2013

Registered on 18.2.2014

Sh. Hans Raj, S/o ShHari Ram Chandila,

Ex-Guard, C/o Sh. Hoob Lal Yadav,

Gen. Secretary,

Mercantile Employees Association,

530, Near Prem Public School,

Faridabad - 121007. …Petitioner

Versus

The General manager,

|BSNL, Telephone Exchange,

Sector 15A, Faridabad. …Respondent

4464

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2015/KARTIKA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

: Ex parte.

For the Management

: Sh. Anish Babbar Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 28.10.2014

Central Government vide Notification No.

L-40011/61/2013 IR (DU)) Dated 5.2.2014, by

exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub-sction (1)

Clause (d) and Sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication

to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) Faridabad Haryana

in terminating the services of Sh. Hans Raj S/o Sh. Hari

Ram Chandila, Ex-Guard w.e.f. 1.9.2012 is legal and

justified? To what relief the workman is entitled to and

what date?”

Notice was given to the workman who did not

appear and was proceeded against exparte vide order

dated 28.5.2014.

Since the workman was proceeded against

exparte, no statement of claim has been filed.

Since statement of claim has not been filed by

the workman and therefore the reference is answered as

‘no claim’ reference and the workman is not entitled to

any relief.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2185

2185

2185-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] Qjhnkckn ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 327@2013)

dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-11-2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40011@63@2013&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th November, 2015

S.O.2185.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No.

327/2013)

the

Central

Government

Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, No. II, Chandigarh now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of the

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Faridabad and their

workmen,

which

was

received

the

Central

Government on 08.11.2015.

[No.L-40011/63/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sri KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 327/2013

Registered on 18.2.2014

Sh. Sant Ram, S/o Sh. Kalua,

Ex-Guard, C/o Sh. Hoob Lal Yadav,

Gen. Secretary,

Mercantile Employees Association, …Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager,

BSNL, Telephone Exchange,

Sector 15A, Faridabad. … Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

Ex parte.

For the Management

Sh. Anish Babbar Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 28.10.2014

Central

Government

vide

Notification

No. L-40011/63/2013 (IR(DU)) Dated 5.2.2014, by

exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub-section (1)

Clause (d) and Sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication

to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL) Faridabad Haryana in

terminating the services of Sh. Sant Ram S/o Sh. Kalua

Ex-Guard w.e.f. 1.9.2009 is legal and justified? To what

relief the workman is entitled to and what date?”

Notice was given to the workman who did not

appear and was proceeded against exparte vide order

dated 28.5.2014.

Since the workman was proceeded against ex parte,

no statement of claim has been filed.

Since statement of claim has not been filed by the

workman and therefore the reference is answered as no

claim reference and the workmans not entitled to any

relief.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2186

2186

2186-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] Qjhnkckn ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 14] 2015@dk£rd 23] 1937

4465

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 330@2013)

dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-11-2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40011@53@2013&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th November, 2015

S.O.2186.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No.

330/2013)

the

Central

Government

Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, No. II, Chandigarh now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of the

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Faridabad and their

workmen,

which

was

received

the

Central

Government on 08.11.2015.

[No. L-40011/53/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sri KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. No. 330/2013

Registered on 18.2.2014

Sh. Shiv Kumar, S/o Sh. Amilala,

Ex-Peon, C/o Sh. Hoob Lal Yadav,

Gen. Secretary, Mercantile Employees Association,

530, Near Prem Public School,

Faridabad - 121007. … Petitioner

Versus

The General manager,

BSNL, Telephone Exchange,

Sector 15A, Faridabad. …Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman

: Ex parte.

For the Management

: Sh. Anish Babbar Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 28.10.2014

Central

Government

vide

Notification

No. L-40011/53/2013 (IR(DU)) Dated 5.2.2014, by

exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub Section (1)

Clause (d) and Sub Section (2-A) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication

to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL) Faridabad Haryana in

terminating the services of Sh. Shiv Kumar S/o Sh.

Amilala Ex-Peon w.e.f. 6.4.2012 is legal and justified?

To what relief the workman is entitled to and what date?”

Notice was given to the workman who did not

appear and was proceeded against ex parte vide order

dated 28.5.2014.

Since the workman was proceeded against ex

parte, no statement of claim has been filed.

Since statement of claim has not been filed by

the workman and therefore the reference is answered as

‘no claim’ reference and the workman is not entitled to

any relief.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2187

2187

2187-&&

&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 1017@2005½ dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08.11.2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@232@2003-vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th November, 2015

S.O.2187.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No.

1017/2005) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, No.II, Chandigarh now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of the

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on

08.11.2015.

[No. L-40012/232/2003-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. No.1017/2005

Registered on 17.9.2005

Sh. Gopal Singh,

C/o S/o Sh. D.R. Sharma/

M.M. Vats, 1646 Sector 7C,

Chandigarh.

…Petitioner

Versus

4466

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2015/KARTIKA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Divisional Engineer,

Telecom Project, BSNL Kataula Road,

Near Radha Swamy Satsangh Bhawan,

Mandi.

The Chairman and

Managing Director,

BSNL, Sanchar Bhawan,

New Delhi.

…Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

: Sh. Kailash Sharma Adv.

For the Management

: Sh. Sanjiv Sharma Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 19.9.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-

40012/232/2003 IR (DU) Dated 21.6.2004, by exercising

its powers under Section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d)

and sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the

following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this

Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of

Divisional Engineer,

Telecom Project, Mandi

terminating the services of Sh. Gopal Singh, Ex-Driver

w.e.f. 20.8.2003 even non-complying with the provisions

of the ID Act, 1947 is just and legal? If not, so what

relief the workman is entitled to?”

In response to the notice, the workman appeared

and filed statement of claim pleading that he joined with

the respondent as Driver on casual basis on 24th July,

2002 and he worked there till 20.8.2003 when his

services were terminated orally. He has challenged the

termination on the ground that he was not charge-sheeted

and no opportunity of personal hearing was given. That

his services were terminated in violation of the rules of

the Industrial Disputes Act. That Sh. Kishori Lal and Raj

Kumar were appointed as fresh Labourers in his place

showing that work was available with the management

and he was not asked to join the duty. Thus the

termination is illegal.

Respondent management filed reply pleading that

the workman was engaged as and when required on daily

wage basis and he did not complete 240 days of service.

Since he was appointed on daily wage basis, there was no

requirement to comply with the provisions of the Act.

Parties were given opportunity to lead their

evidence.

In support of its case the workman appeared in the

witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case set

out in the claim petition.

On the other hand the management has examined

Sh. R.K. Kalia who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand

as taken by the management in the written statement. He

has also placed on record vouchers Exhibit A1. He has

also placed on record ACC-7 Form Exhibit R2 and copy

of the Logbook Exhibit R3.

I have heard Sh. Kailash Sharma, counsel for the

workman and Sh. Sanjiv Sharma, counsel for the

management.

It was argued by the learned counsel for the

workman that as per statement of the management

witness and as per Logbook Exhibit R3, the workman

worked for 221 days which did not include the Sundays

and Gazetted holidays and as such it can be safely said

that workman continuously worked for more than 240

days, and the termination of his services without payment

of retrenchment compensation are illegal and the

workman be paid compensation.

I have considered the contention of the learned

counsel.

The workman has stated during cross-examination

that he was not given any appointment letter and no

termination order terminating his services was given to

him. Being so, it cannot be said that he was appointed on

regular basis. It is the definite case of the management

that the workman was engaged as and when required and

he worked intermittently. The photocopy of the logbook

Exhibit R3 on which the learned counsel for the

workman also rely, show that workman did not work

continuously from 24.7.2002 to 20.8.2003. A perusal of

the logbook shows that he did not work from 11.8.2000

to 22.8.2000, 7.9.2002 to 8.9.2002 and 29.9.2002 to

4.10.2002. Again there was a break in the service from

15.10.2002 to 18.10.2002 and again from 1.11.2002 to

11.11.2002; and from 12.12.2002 to 3.1.2003. Similarly,

there are also other days when he did not work for the

department.

Thus the logbook clinches the issue showing that

he was engaged as and when required and similarly the

vouchers placed on the file which are Exhibit R2 shows

that he was paid for the actual days he worked. These

documents clearly prove the case of the respondent

management that workman did not work continuously for

the department and he did not complete continuous

service for one year to attract the provisions of Section

25F of the Act. Since he was employed on need basis, he

cannot claim the benefit of the other provisions of the

Act.

In result, it can be safely held that the action of the

management in terminating the service of the workman is

just and legal and he is not entitled to any relief. The

reference is accordingly answered against the workman.

Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central

Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-2188

2188

2188-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

VsyhxzkQ] nwjlapkj foHkkx] HkhyokM+k ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 06@91) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-11-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-40012@88@90-vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 14] 2015@dk£rd 23] 1937

4467

New Delhi, the 13th November, 2015

S.O. 2188.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 06/91)

of the Industrial Tribunal, now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of the Telegraph, Telecom

Department, Bhilwara and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 10.11.2015.

[No. L-40012/88/90-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

vuqca/k

dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj

dsl ua

dsl ua- lh

lhlh

lh-vkbZ

vkbZ

vkbZ-VhVhVhVh- 06@1991

06@1991

jSQjSal%

jSQjSal% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh dk vkns'k

dzekad% ,y&40012@88@90-I.R.(D.U.) ubZ fnYyh]

fnukad 24-01-1991

prjukFk iq= Jh :xkukFk]

fuoklh lksusjk ekuiqjk]

ftyk&HkhyokMk ¼jktLFkku½

&izkFkhZ

cuk

cuke

lc fMfotuy vkWfQlj

VsyhxzkQ~l HkhyokMk

¼VsyhdkWe fMikVZesaV½ HkhyokMk

¼jktLFkku½

&vizkFkhZ

mifLFkr

mifLFkr % % % %

ihVklh

ihVklhu vf/kdkjh% Jh dsnkj yky xqIrk]

u vf/kdkjh% Jh dsnkj yky xqIrk]

vkj

vkj-,p

,p-tstststs-,l

,l-

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls %

Jh dku flag]

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls %

Jh czgekuUn lkanw]

fnukad % 21-8-2015

vf/kfu.kZ;

1- Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ea=ky; dh vkKk dzekad

,y&40012 @88@90 I.R.(U.D.) ubZ fnYyh] ls fuEu

vuqlwph dk fookn vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks fnukad

28-01-1991 dks bl vk'k; dk izkIr gqvk gS fd-Whether

the action of the management of Telecom Deptt. in

terminating the services of shri Chatra Nath, S/o Shri

Ruga Nath, Labourer w.e.f. 01.08.1983 is justified? If

not, what relief is the workman concerned entitled to?

2- izdj.k ntZ fd;k x;k vkSj izkFkhZ Jfed prjukFk

dh vksj ls fnukad 06-04-1991 dks LVsVeSaV vkWQ Dyse bl

vk'k; dk izLrqr fd;k fd vizkFkhZ fu;ksDrk }kjk mldh loZ

izFke fnukad 01-04-1982 dks fu;qfDr iznku dh] rc ls

yxkrkj fnukad 01-08-1983 rd og vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds

;gka dk;Zjr jgk gS] vkSj mls fnukad 01-08-1983 ds ckn ls

gh fu;kstd us lsok ls fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk, euekus

rjhds ls lsok,a lekIr dh xbZA bl rjg ls mlus fnukad

01-04-1982 ls 01-08-1983 rd vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds

v/khuLFk fujUrj fu;ksftr jgdj M~;wVh nhA vr% mls

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 25(b) dk

laj{k.k izkIr gS] vkSj mlds }kjk fuosnu djus ds ckotwn

Hkh lsok lekfIr dk vizkFkhZ us dksbZ dkj.k ugha crk;k] vkSj

mls lsok lekfIr dh u rks dksbZ lwpuk nh] vkSj u gh ,d

ekg dk vfxze osru fn;kA bl rjg ls vizkFkhZ fu;kstd us

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 25¼f½ dh ikyuk

fd, fcuk mldh lsok,a lekIr dh gSa] vkSj izkFkhZ ls dfu"B

Jfedksa dks fu;kstu iznku fd;k gS] tks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk

25¼g½ dk mYy?kau gS] vkSj izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ds ckn

nwljs O;fDr;ksa dks Hkh fu;kstu esa j[kk gSA izkFkhZ dks iqu%

fu;kstu dh dksbZ lwpuk ugha nhA bl rjg ls vf/kfu;e

dh /kkjk 25¼h½ dk vizkFkhZ us mYy?kau fd;k gS] vkSj vUr esa

izkFkZuk dh gS fd vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk izkFkhZ ds lsok

i`Fkddj.k vkns'k dks fof|fo:) o vuqfpr ?kksf"kr fd;k

tkdj mls in dh fujUrjrk cukrs gq, leLr osru o vU;

ikfj.kkfed ykHk fnyk, tkosaA

3- vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe dk

fnukad 14-06-1991 dks tokc izLrqr dj dFku fd;k gS fd

izkFkhZ dks viszy] 1982 ls dk;Z ij j[kk] vkSj mlus twu]

1982 rd vizkFkhZ ds ;gka 76 fnu rd dk;Z fd;k] vkSj og

tqykbZ o vxLr] 1982 rd dk;Z ij ugha vk;kA flrEcj]

1982 esa dk;Z ij vk;k] ml oDr foHkkx esa fo'ks"k dk;Z py

jgs Fks] bl dkj.k mls fo'ks"k dk;Z ij j[kk] vkSj mlus 40

fnu dk;Z fd;k] ysfdu uoEcj] 1982 esa vuqifLFkr gks x;k]

vkSj fnlEcj] 1982 esa fQj dke ij ykSVk] vkSj ebZ] 1983

esa 146 fnu dk;Z fd;k] fQj twu] 1983 esa vuqifLFkr gks

x;k] vkSj tqykbZ] 1983 esa dk;Z ij ykSVk] vkSj dsoy ek=

24 fnu dk;Z fd;kA mlds ckn fcuk dksbZ lwpuk fn,

vuqifLFkr jg x;kA bl rjg ls Jfed dk ;g dFku fd

mlus fnukad 01-04-1982 ls 01-08-1983 rd yxkrkj

vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds ;gka dk;Z fd;k] xyr vkSj fujk/kkj gSA

foHkkx esa pwafd fo'ks"k dk;Z py jgs Fks] blfy, Jfed dks

vkdfLed etnwjh ds fy, j[kk x;k Fkk] ysfdu Jfed

viuh ethZ ls dk;Z NksMdj x;kA fu;kstd us fyf[kr esa

Jfed dks lsok lekfIr dk dksbZ vkns'k ugha fn;kA Jfed

tc Hkh dk;Z djus ds fy, ykSVk] mls foHkkx }kjk dk;Z ij

fo'ks"k dk;Z pyus ds dkj.k j[kk x;kA vxj foHkkx }kjk

Jfed dks fudkyk x;k gksrk rks mls ,d&nks ekg ds

mijkUr Hkh okil dk;Z ij ugha j[kk tkrkA bl rjg ls

Jfed us yxkrkj fu;kstd ds ;gka dk;Z ugha fd;kA bl

dkj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼b½ ds izko/kku ykxw ugha gksrs

gSaA vr% fu;kstd }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsok,a lekIr fd, tkus

dk iz'u gh ugha gS] vkSj ,slh fLFkfr esa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk

25 ¼f½ ds izko/kku Hkh ykxw ugha gksrs gSaA izkFkhZ dks

vkdfLed Jfed ds :i esa fu;kstu esa j[kkA ml oDr

fo'ks"k dk;Z py jgs Fks] vkSj og Lo;a dk;Z ihNs ls NksMdj

pyk vk;k gS] vkSj lkFk gh ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k gS fd

izkFkhZ us tqykbZ] 1983 ds lkr lky ckn fnukad 06-08-1990

dks ,d i= fy[kk] og lkr lky rd D;k djrk jgkA vr%

;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd og csjkstxkj jgk gS] vkSj vUr

esa LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe [kkfjt djus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA

4468

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2015/KARTIKA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4- LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe ds leFkZu esa izkFkhZ us Lo;a dh

ekSf[kd lk{; fyfic) djokbZ gS rFkk izys[kh; lk{; esa

izn'kZ MCY;w&1 yxk;r izn'kZ MCY;w&4 nLrkostkr iznf'kZr

djok,A vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls ekSf[kd lk{; esa

Mh- M- 1 latho R;kxh dh ekSf[kd lk{; fyfic) djokbZ

gSA

5- mHk; i{kdkjku dh cgl lqudj bl vf/kdj.k

}kjk fnukad 29-05-1993 dks vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k] ftlls

O;fFkr gksdj vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk ,l- ch- flfoy fjV

fifV'ku uEcj 2653@1991 ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp

U;k;ky; ds ;gka izLrqr dh] ftldks ekuuh; jktLFkku

mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 09-07-2013 ds vkns'k }kjk

fuLrkfjr djrs gq, bl vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr vf/kfu.kZ;

fnukad 29-05-1993 dks fujLr dj ekeyk bl vf/kfdj.k dks

bl funsZ'k ds lkFk izfriszf"kr fd;k gS fd mDr fu.kZ; esa

vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa dks crk,uqlkj iqu% i{kdkjksa dks

lqudj vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr djsaA

6- Jfed ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd vf/kfu;e

dh /kkjk 25 ¼b½ ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj Jfed }kjk mldh

NaVuh ls Bhd iwoZ ,d dSys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd

dk;Z fd;k gSA bl laca/k esa vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk Jfed

dks izek.k i= izn'kZ McY;w&1 tkjh fd;k] ftlds vuqlkj

Jfed us flrEcj] 1982 ls tqykbZ] 1983 rd vizkFkhZ

fu;kstd ds ;gka 210 fnu okLrfod dk;Z fnolksa esa dk;Z

fd;k] vkSj bu fnuksa esa vxj jfookjh; vodk'k o vU;

jktif=r vodk'kksa dks tksMk tkos rks os 260 fnu gksrs gSaA

bl rjg ls Jfed }kjk mldh lsok lekfIr ls Bhd ,d

o"kZ iwoZ 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gS] ftlds laca/k esa

vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk mls u rks ,d ekg dk uksfVl fn;k

vkSj u gh bl uksfVl ds cnys ,d ekg dk osru fn;k gS]

vkSj mldh lsok lekfIr ls iwoZ mldks vkjksi i= Hkh ugha

fn;k gSA vr% vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25

(f) dk mYy?kau fd;k gSA vr% mlds lsok lekfIr ds

vkns'k dks voS| ?kksf"kr dj mls iqu% lsok esa fu;ksftr

ekudj vU; ikfj.kkfed ykHk fnyk, tkus dh izkFkZuk dh

gSA tcfd vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS

fd Jfed us ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa yxkrkj 240 fnu ;k

blls vf/kd fnol dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA mlds }kjk tqykbZ]

vxLr] uoEcj] 1982 o twu] 1983 esa dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA

fu;kstd }kjk Jfed dh lsok,a lekIr ugha dh xbZ gSa]

cfYd og Lo;a dk;Z NksMdj x;k gSA tc&tc Hkh Jfed

muds ;gka dk;Z djus vk;k] rc mls dk;Z ij j[kk x;kA

bl rjg ls Jfed us 01 viszy] 1983 ls Bhd ,d o"kZ iwoZ

yxkrkj 240 fnu dk;Z ugha fd;k gS] og Lo;a dk;Z NksMdj

x;k gSA fu;kstd us vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼f½ ds izko/kkuksa

dk mYy?aku ugha fd;k gSA vr% LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe [kkfjt

djus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA

7- LVsVsaV vkWQ DySe ds leFkZu esa Jfed prjukFk

dk dFku gS fd vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds ;gka og fnukad 01-04-

1982 ls 14@&:i;s nSfud etnwjh ij jgk gS] vkSj mlus

01-04-1982 ls yxkrkj viuh lsok,a nh] vkSj fnukad 01-08-

1983 ls ekSf[kd vkns'k ls lsok ls gVk fn;k x;kA bl

rjg ls fnukad 01-04-1982 ls 31-07-1983 rd fujUrj

vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds ;gka dk;Z fd;k gSA bl gsrq mls vizkFkhZ

fu;kstd us fnukad 23-02-1990 dks izek.k i= izn'kZ

McY;w&1 fn;k gS] mls fcuk dksbZ lwpuk fn, 01 vxLr]

1983 dks dk;Z ls gVk fn;k rFkk twu] 1982 esa dk;Z cUn

j[kk] vkSj mls iwjs ekg fcBk, j[kk] tqykbZ] vxLr] 1982 esa

mldk LokLF; [kjkc jgkA bl vof/k esa foHkkx esa mifLFkfr

ugha nhA uoEcj] 1982 esa foHkkx esa eLVªksy ugha gksus ls

dk;Z cUn jgk] ysfdu og mifLFkr jgk] vkSj mldh

mifLFkfr ugha yhA blh rjg ls twu] 1983 esa foHkkx us

dk;Z cUn j[kk] eLVªksy ugha gksus ds dkj.k mldh gkftjh

ugha yhA ftjg esa lk{kh dk dFku gS fd mlus 04@1982

ls 07@1982 rd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k gS] vkSj bl lq>ko

dks xyr crk;k gS fd 07@1982 vkSj 08@1982 esa dk;Z

ugha fd;k gks rFkk og ,d eghus chekj gksus ds dkj.k dk;Z

ij ugha x;k] vkSj bl lq>ko dks xyr crk;k gS fd

12@1982 ls 05@1983 rd gh dke ij x;k gksA bl rjg

ls Jfed prjukFk us vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds ;gka fnukad

01-04-1982 ls 31-07-1983 rd dk;Z djuk dgk gSA izfrj{kk

esa lat; R;kxh dk dFku gS fd Jfed }kjk eLVªksy ds

rgr vkdfLed etnwj ds rgr fnukad 01-04-1982 ls twu]

1982 rd 76 fnu dk;Z fd;kA mlds ckn og Lo;a dk;Z

ij ugha vk;kA blds ckn og tqykbZ] vxLr] 1982 esa dk;Z

ij ugha vk;kA ekg flrEcj] 1982 esa foHkkx esa fo'ks"k dk;Z

py jgs Fks] rc Jfed ykSVk vkSj mls dk;Z ij j[kk] vkSj

mlus 40 fnu dk;Z fd;k] fQj ugha vk;kA fnlEcj] 1982

esa iqu% dke ij ykSVk] vkSj mlus ebZ] 1983 rd eLVªksy ij

vkdfLed dk;Z fd;k] ysfdu twu] 1983 esa vuqifLFkr jgkA

tqykbZ] 1983 esa iqu% dke ij ykSVk] vkSj 01-08-1983 ds ckn

og Lo;a dke NksMdj pyk x;k] fQj okil ugha ykSVkA

bl rjg ls Jfed us fnukad 01-04-1982 ls 01-08-1983

rd yxkrkj 240 fnu ;k blls vf/kd fnol dk;Z ugha

fd;k gSA ftjg esa izn'kZ McY;w&1 fnukad 13-02-1990 dks

vius gLrk{kjksa ls tkjh djuk Lohdkj fd;k gS] ftl ij ,

ls ch Lo;a ds gLrk{kj cryk, gSaA

8- Jfed us vius LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe vkSj lk{; esa

;g dFku fd;k gS fd mls fnukad 01-08-1983 ls fu;kstd

}kjk dk;Z ij ugha j[kk] mldh lsok,a voS| :i ls lekIr

dhA bl laca/k esa vxj ge vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼b½ ds

izko/kkuksa dks ns[ksa rks blls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd Jfed dh

lsok lekfIr ls iwoZ Jfed us ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu

okLrfod :i ls dk;Z fd;k gksA orZeku ekeys esa Jfed

dk ;g dguk gS fd mldh lsok,a fnukad 01-08-1983 ls

lekIr gqbZA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa tqykbZ] 1983 ls vxLr]

1982 rd ds e/; Jfed }kjk dk;Z fd, x, fnolksa dh

x.kuk dh tkosxhA vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds lgk;d e.My

vf/kdkjh }kjk Jfed dks fnukad 13-02-1990 dks izek.k i=

tkjh fd;k gS] ftlds vuqlkj Jfed us fu;kstd ds ;gka

flrEcj] 1982 esa 21 fnu] vDVwcj] 1982 esa 19 fnu]

fnlEcj] 1982 esa 23 fnu] tuojh] 1983 es 27 fnu] Qjojh]

1983 esa 24 fnu] ekpZ] 1983 esa 24 fnu] viszy] 1983 esa 21

fnu] ebZ] 1983 esa 27 fnu] tqykbZ] 1983 esa 24 fnu bl

rjg ls dqy 210 okLrfod dk;Z fnol gh dk;Z fd;k gSA

blds voyksdu ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd Jfed us vxLr]

uoEcj] 1982 o twu] 1983 esa dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA Jfed

dk ;g dFku gS fd og ,d ekg chekj jgk] bl dkj.k

dke ij ugha x;k] ysfdu Jfed }kjk bl vof/k ds laca/k

esa viuh chekjh dk fu;kstd ds le{k ;k bl vf/kdj.k ds

le{k dksbZ izek.k i= izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA blls ,d ckr

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 14] 2015@dk£rd 23] 1937

4469

rks ;g Li"V gS fd Jfed Lo;a vxLr] 1982] uoEcj] 1982

o twu] 1983 esa dk;Z ij ugha vk;k gS] vkSj tc&tc Hkh

og fu;kstd ds ;gka dk;Z ij x;k] rc fu;kstd us mldks

dke ij j[kkA vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr gq, lk{kh lat;

R;kxh dk ;g dFku gS fd Jfed Lo;a 01-08-1983 ls dk;Z

ij ugha vk;k] vkSj og tqykbZ] 1983 ls Lo;a viuh bPNk

ls dk;Z NksMdj pyk x;kA bl dkj.k mls uksfVl ;k

NaVuh eqvkotk ;k fdlh izdkj dh {kfriwfrZ nsus dk iz'u gh

mRiUu ugha gksrk gSA blls ;gh yxrk gS fd Jfed Lo;a

fu;kstd ds ;gka ls dk;Z NksMdj x;k gS] vkSj tc&tc Hkh

og fu;kstd ds ;gka dk;Z djus ds fy, vk;k] rc mls

dk;Z ij j[kk x;k rFkk Jfed dks fu;ksDrk }kjk lsok ls

ugha gVk;k x;k] cfYd og Lo;a dk;Z NksMdj x;kA blds

vfrfjDr Jfed us ;g ekeyk djhc lkr o"kZ ls vf/kd

le; ckn mBk;k gSA okLro esa gh Jfed fu;kstd ds ;gka

dke djus dk bPNqd gksrk rks og fu;kstd ds ;gka dke

djus ds fy, tkrk ;k fu;kstd ds ;gka Lo;a dks dke ij

j[kus gsrq dksbZ vH;kosnu izLrqr djrk ;k 'kh?kz gh viuk

ekeyk mBkrkA ;s lc rF; ;g nf'kZr djrs gS fd Jfed

Lo;a fu;kstd ds ;gka dk;Z ij ugha x;k] vkSj og dk;Z

djus dk bPNqd ugha FkkA

9- Jfed ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd vxLr]

82 ls tqykbZ] 1983 dh vof/k esa Jfed us izek.k i= izn'kZ

McY;w&1 ds vuqlkj 210 okLrfod fnu dk;Z fd;k gS] vkSj

bl vof/k esa vxj jfookj o vU; vodk'kksa ds fnuksa dks

fxuk tkos rks os 240 fnu ls vf/kd gksrs gSaA bl laca/k esa

mudh vksj ls izLrqr fd, x, U;kf;d n`"Vkar AIR 1984

Supreme Court 500 Gammon India Limited Vs.

Nitanjan Dass ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us

;g fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd fdlh Jfed dh lsok,a dk;Z ugha

gksus ds dkj.k lekIr dh tkrh gS rks og NaVuh dh Js.kh esa

vkrk gS] vkSj vxj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 (f) dh ikyuk

ugha dh tkrh gS rks ,slh lsok lekfIr voS| gS] ftlls eSa

iw.kZr;k lger gw¡A

10- FJR (67) 1985 Supreme Court 379 H.D. Singh

Vs. Reserve Bank of India & Others ds ekeys esa ekuuh;

mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd tgka Jfed

dk uke fu;ksDrk }kjk jftLVj ls gVkuk mls lsok ls eqDr

djuk gS] vkSj tgka lk{; ls ;g lkfcr gksrk gS fd Jfed

}kjk ,d dyS.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gS

rks og vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼f½ dk ykHk izkIr djus dk

vf/kdkjh gSA

11. FJR (67) 1985 Supreme Court 189 Workmen

Of American Express International Banking Corporation

Vs American Express International Banking Corporation

ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g fu/kkZfjr

fd;k gS fd Jfed dks lsok lekfIr ls fiNys ,d o"kZ esa

okLrfod :i ls fu;ksDrk ds ;gka 240 fnu dk;Z djuk

pkfg,A okLrfod :i ls fu;ksDrk ds ;gka 240 fnu dk;Z

fd;k gS] bldk vk'k; ;g gS fd mu fnuksa ds fy,

fu;ksDrk }kjk lafonk dh 'krkasZ ds vuqlkj etnwjh dk

Hkqxrku fd;k gksA vFkkZr jfookj ;k vU; jktdh; vodk'k

ds fnu] ftuds laca/k esa etnwjh dk Hkqxrku fd;k gS] os Hkh

blesa lfEefyr gksaxsA ,slk gh fl)kUr ekuuh; jktLFkku

mPp U;k;ky; us RLR 1989 (2) 692 Chaggan Lal Vs.

Panchayat Samiti & anr., RLR 1999 (1) 793 Dhyan

Singh Vs. University of Raj., RLW 2006 (1) 287 Ram

Kishan Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan, RLR 1995 (1) 704

Chief Engineer, Irrigation Vs. Kamlesh & ors ds ekeyksa

esa izfrikfnr fd;k gSA

12- mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V

gS fd Jfed dh lsok eqfDr ls iwoZ ,d o"kZ esa mlds }kjk

240 fnu dh vof/k esa okLrfod :i ls fu;kstd ds v/khu

dke fd;k tkuk vko';d gS] ftlesa jfookj ;k vU;

jktdh; vodk'kksa ds fnu ftuds fy, etnwjh dk Hkqxrku

fd;k x;k gS] lfEefyr gSaA orZeku ekeys esa Jfed ds

dFku ds vuqlkj fu;kstd }kjk mldh 01-08-1998 dks

lsok,a lekIr dh xbZA vr% blls Bhd 12 ekg iwoZ vFkkZr

vxLr] 1982 ls tqykbZ] 1983 dh vof/k esa Jfed }kjk

nLrkost izn'kZ 1 ds vuqlkj 210 fnu gh dk;Z fd;k gS]

ftlesa vxLr] 1982] uoEcj] 1982 ,oa twu] 1983 esa dk;Z

ugha fd;kA vr% ,slk ugha yxrk fd Jfed us fnukad

01-08-1983 ls iwoZ 240 fnu ;k mlls vf/kd fnu dk;Z

fd;k gks o 240 fnu dk fu;ksDrk }kjk Jfed dks etnwjh

dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gksA

13- Jfed ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd mlls

dfu"B Jfedksa dks fu;kstd }kjk j[kk tkdj Jfed ds

ofj"B gksrs gq, mldh NVuh dh xbZA vr% fu;kstd us

vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼g½ ds izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku fd;k

gSA bl laca/k esa mudh vksj ls izLrqr fd, x, U;kf;d

n`"Vkar 1991 ¼1½ vkj- ,y- vkj- ist 577 tujy eSustj

uksFkZ jsYkos U;w fnYyh cuke~ tt lsUVªy b.MLVªh;y dksVZ ds

ekeys esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us ;g fu/kkZfjr

fd;k gS fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼g½ ds izko/kku vkKkid

ugha gksdj funsZ'kkRed gSaA vxj Jfed }kjk ;g lkfcr dj

fn;k tkrk gS fd mlls dfu"B Jfedksa dks j[kk tkdj

ofj"B dh NVuh fcuk fdlh dkj.k crk, dh xbZ gS rks ,slh

NVuh voS| gS] ftlls eSa iw.kZr;k lger gw¡WwaA orZeku ekeys

esa tSlk fd foospu fd;k x;k gS fd Jfed chp&chp esa

Lo;a dke ij ugha vk;k] vkSj mlds dke ij ugha vkus ds

dkj.k gh fu;kstd us mls dke ij ugha j[kkA blds

vfrfjDr Jfed us fnukad 01-08-1983 ds djhc lkr lky

ckn ;g fookn mBk;k gS] mlls ;g Li"V gS fd og Lo;a

dke ij ugha vk;k] vkSj mldh dke ij tkus dh bPNk Hkh

ugha FkhA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa Jfed tc Lor% dke ij ugha

vk;k rks mlls dfu"B fu;kstd ds ;gka Lor% gh dke ij

tkus ds dkj.k fu;ksftr jgsA vr% esjs fouez er esa Jfed

dk ;g ekeyk u rks NVuh dk gS] vkSj u gh mlds ofj"B

gksus ds dkj.k mldh voS| :i ls lsok,a lekfIr dk gSA

14- vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS

fd Jfed Lo;a dke ij ugha vk;k vkSj mlus ;g ekeyk

djhc lkr o"kZ ckn mBk;k gS] vkSj ml nsjh dk dksbZ

U;k;ksfpr Li"Vhdj.k izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA bl laca/k esa

mudh vksj ls izLrqr fd, x, U;kf;d n`"Vkar ,l-ch-

flfoy fjV fifV'ku uEcj 5853@1996 fu.kZ; fnukad

12-03-2010 jktLFkku LVsV os;jgkmflax dkWiksZjs'ku cuke~

b.MLVªh;y U;k;kf/kdj.k o vU; ds ekeys esa ekuuh;

jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us ;g fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd yEcs

le; ds ckn vxj fookn [kRe gks x;k gSA fdlh us mldks

thfor ugha j[kk gS] rc Jfed fdlh Hkh rjg dh lgk;rk

4470

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2015/KARTIKA 23, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS] ysfdu vxj fookn thfor

gS] vkSj yEcs le; ckn mBkus dk U;k;ksfpr Li"Vhdj.k

izLrqr fd;k gS rks nsjh ds dkj.k gh mls fujLr ugha fd;k

tk ldrkA orZeku ekeys esa tSlk fd foospu fd;k x;k gS

fd Jfed fnukad 01-08-1983 ls iwoZ Hkh vxLr] 1982]

uoEcj] 1982 ,oa twu] 1983 esa fu;kstd ds ;gka dke ij

ugha vk;k gS] vkSj mlds }kjk fnukad 01-08-1983 ds djhc

lkr o"kZ ls Hkh vf/kd le; ckn ;g ekeyk mBk;k gS] vkSj

bl nsjh dk dksbZ U;k;ksfpr Li"Vhdj.k izLrqr ugha fd;k gS]

vkSj blls ;gh yxrk gS fd Jfed dk ekeyk okLro esa

thfor gh ugha jgk gS] vkSj og fu;ksDrk ds ;gka dke djus

dk bPNqd ugha Fkk] Lo;a dke NksMdj x;kA vr% ,slh

fLFkfr esa esjs fouez er esa Jfed dk ekeyk NVuh dh Js.kh

esa ugha vkrk gSA mDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij vf/kfu;e dh

/kkjk 25 ¼f½ ;k 25 ¼g½ dk mYy?ku gqvk gks] ,slk izrhr

ugha gksrk gSA vr% mDr foospu ls ;g Li"V gqvk gS fd

okLro esa fu;kstd us fnukad 01-08-1983 dks Jfed dh

lsok,a lekIr ugha dh] cfYd og Lo;a dke ij ugha vk;k]

vkSj Jfed fdlh Hkh rjg dh lgk;rk jkf'k izkIr djus dk

vf/kdkjh ugha gSA mijksDr foospu ds QyLo:i izdj.k esa

fuEu vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS %&

vf/kfu.kZ;

15- Jfed prjukFk iq= Jh :xkukFk] fuoklh lksusjk

ekuiqjk] ftyk&HkhyokMk ¼jktLFkku½ dh vksj ls izLrqr

LVsVesaV vkWQ DySe vLohdkj fd;k tkdj [kkfjt fd;k

tkrk gSA vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk izkFkhZ prjukFk dks fnukad

01-08-1983 ls lsok eqDr fd;k tkuk gh lkfcr ugha gSA

vr% Jfed fdlh rjg dh jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA

dsnkj yky xqIrk] U;k;k/kh”k

Uoloaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054