5345 GI/2015

(1)

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- 1]

ubZ fnYyh] fnlEcj 27] 2015—tuojh 2] 2016] 'kfuokj@ikS"k 6—ikS"k 12] 1937

No. 1]NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 27, 2015—JANUARY 2, 2016, SATURDAY/ PAUSA 6—PAUSA 12, 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)

वत मंालय

(वतीय सेवाएं वभाग)

नई दल, 27 नवबर, 2015

का.आ. 1.—बककार व नयमन अ"ध नयम, 1949 (1949 का 10) क$ धारा 53 %वारा &दत शि)तय* का &योग

करते हुए, भारत सरकार, भारतीय .रजव0 बक क$ 1सफा.रश पर एत4वारा, यह घोषणा करती है 9क उ)त अ"ध नयम क$

धारा 10 क$ उप-धारा (1) के ख<ड (ग) के उप-ख<ड (i) के उपबंध आईडीबीआई बक 1ल. पर लागू नहं ह*गे, जहां तक इसका

संबंध बक के &बंध नदेशक एवं मु@य काय0पालक अ"धकार Aी 9कशोर पी. खरात को आईडीबीआई फेडरल लाइफ

इंBयोरCस कंपनी 1ल1मटेड के बोड0 मC नदेशक ना1मत करने से है ।

[ फा. सं. 13/8/2015-बीओ-I]

वजय महोा, अवर स"चव

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2015

S.O. 1.—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

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2016/PAUSA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

sub-clauses (i) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the said Act shall not apply to IDBI Bank Ltd in so far as

it relates to the nomination of Shri Kishor P. Kharat, MD & CEO, IDBI Bank Ltd. as Director on the Board of IDBI

Federal Life Insurance Company Ltd.

[F. No. 13/8/2015-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

नई दल, 14 दस बर, 2015

का.आ. 2.—राIJयकृत बक (&बंध एवं &क$ण0 उपबंध) Lक$म, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड (1) के साथ पठत

बककार कंपनी (उपOम* का अज0न एवं अंतरण) अ"ध नयम, 1970/1980 क$ धारा 9 क$ उप-धारा 3 के खंड (ख) %वारा

&दत शि)तय* का &योग करते हुए, केPQय सरकार, एत4वारा, नीचे द गई सारणी के कॉलम (2) मC व नद0Iट Sयि)त

को उ)त सारणी के कालम (3) मC व नद0Iट Sयि)त के Lथान पर कॉलम (1) मC व नद0Iट बक मC तकाल &भाव से और

अगले आदेश* तक, सरकार ना1मती नदेशक ना1मत करती हैः-

केनराबक

Aीपंकजजैन, संयु)तस"चव,

वतीय सेवाएं वभाग

डॉ. रजतभाग0व

[ फा. सं. 7/2/2012-बीओ-I]

वजय महोा, अवर स"चव

New Delhi, the 14th December, 2015

S.O. 2.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) 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 of The

Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby

nominate the person specified in column (2) of the table below as Government Nominee Director of the Banks specified

in column (1) thereof, in place of the persons specified in column (3) of the said Table, with immediate effect and until

further orders:-

(1)

(2)

(3)

Canara Bank

Shri Pankaj Jain, Joint Secretary, Department of Financial

Services

Dr. Rajat Bhargava

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

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

नई दल, 15 दस बर, 2015

का.आ. 3.—राIJयकृत बक (&बंध एवं &क$ण0 उपबंध) Lक$म, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड (1) और ख<ड 8 के

उप-खंड (1) के साथ पठत, बककार कंपनी (उपOम* का अज0न एवं अंतरण) अ"ध नयम, 1970/1980 क$ धारा 9 क$

उपधारा (3) के खंड (क) %वारा &दत शि)तय* का &योग करते हुए, केPQय सरकार, एत4वारा, ओ.रयंटल बक आफ

कामस0 के महा&बंधक Aी अरवPद कुमार जैन (जPम त"थ 13.01.1957) को उनके पदभार Vहण करने क$ तारख से

31.01.2017 तक अथा0त अ"धवष0ता क$ आयु &ाWत करने क$ तारख तक अथवा अगले आदेश* तक, जो भी पहले हो,

65,000-78,000/-Xपए के वेतनमान मC पंजाब एंड 1संध बक के काय0पालक नदेशक के पद पर नयु)त करती है।

[ फा. सं. 4/5/2013-बीओ-I]

वजय महोा, अवर स"चव

New Delhi, the 15th December, 2015

S.O. 3.—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 and

sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980,

the Central Government, hereby appoints Shri Arvind Kumar Jain (DoB: 13.01.1957), GM, Oriental Bank of Commerce,

as Executive Director in Punjab & Sind Bank in the scale of pay of Rs. 65000-78000/- with effect from the date of his

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 2] 2016@ikS"k 12] 1937

taking over the charge of the post and upto 31.01.2017 i.e. the date of his attaining the age of superannuation or until

further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

नई दल, 17 दस बर, 2015

का.आ. 4.—बककार व नयमन अ"ध नयम, 1949 (1949 का 10) क$ धारा 53 %वारा &दत शि)तय* का &योग

करते हुए, भारत सरकार, भारतीय .रजव0 बक क$ 1सफा.रश* पर एत4वारा, यह घोषणा करती है 9क उ)त अ"ध नयम क$

धारा 10 क$ उप-धारा (1) के ख<ड (ग) के उप-ख<ड (i) के उपबंध बक आफ इंYडया पर लागू नहं ह*गे, जहां तक इसका

संबंध बक के &बंध नदेशक एवं मु@य काय0पालक अ"धकार Aी एम. ओ. रेगो को बीओआई ए)सा इंवेLटमCट मैनेजस0 &ा.

1ल., Lटार यू नयन दाई ईची लाइफ इंBयोरCस कं. 1ल., एसटसीआई फाइनCस 1ल., एसटसीआई &ाइमर डीलर 1ल. और

इंडोजांZबया बक 1ल. के बोड0 मC गैर-काय0पालक नदेशक ना1मत करने से है।

[ फा. सं. 13/21/2015-बीओ-I]

वजय महोा, अवर स"चव

New Delhi, the 17th December, 2015

S.O. 4.—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 Bank of India in so far as it

relates to the nomination of Shri M.O. Rego, MD&CEO of the Bank as a Director on the Boards of BOI AXA

Investment Managers Pvt. Ltd., Star Union Dai Ichi Life Insurance Co. Ltd, STCI, Finance Ltd, STCI Primary Dealer

Ltd and Indo-Zambia Bank Ltd. as Non-executive Director.

[F. No. 13/21/2015-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

fons’k ea=ky;

¼lh

¼lh-ihihihih-ohohohoh- çHkkx½

çHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 21 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 5-&jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/kdkjh ¼'kiFk ,oa Qhl½ ds vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 41½ dh /kkjk 2 ds

[kaM ¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa oS/kkfud vkns'k A

,rn~}kjk] dsanz ljdkj Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] neldl esa Jh mekdkar 'kekZ] lgk;d dks fnukad 21 fnlEcj] 2015 ls

lgk;d dksalqyj vf/kdkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkf/kÑr djrh gS A

[la- Vh- 4330@01@2015]

izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 21st December, 2015

S.O. 5.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Umakant Sharma,

Assistant in Assistant as Assistant Consular Officer in Embassy of India, Damascus to perform the Consular services

with effect from 21 December, 2015.

[No. T. 4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2016/PAUSA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 6-&jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/kdkjh ¼'kiFk ,oa Qhl½ ds vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 41½ dh /kkjk 2 ds

[kaM ¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa oS/kkfud vkns'k A

,rn~}kjk] dsanz ljdkj Hkkjr ds mPpk;ksx] osfyaXVu esa Jh ;'kchj flag] lgk;d dks fnukad 18 fnlEcj] 2015 ls

lgk;d dksalqyj vf/kdkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkf/kÑr djrh gS A

[la- Vh- 4330@01@2015]

izdk”k pUn] mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½

New Delhi, the 18th December, 2015

S.O. 6.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Yashbeer Singh,

Assistant as Assistant Consular Officer in the High Commission of India, Wellington to perform the Consular services

with effect from 18 December, 2015.

[No. T. 4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

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

¼dkfeZd vkSj izf’k{k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 7-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 ¼1974 dk 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi/kkjk ¼8 ½ }kjk iznRr

“kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, O;kie ekeyksa ds fopkj.k ds fy, ukfer e/; izns”k ds fofHkUu U;k;ky;ksa esa O;kie ?kksVkys ls

lacaf/kr ekeyksa ds fopkj.k dk lapkyu rFkk mu ekeyksa ls mRiUu izklafxd vU; ekeyksa esa vihy] iqujh{k.k gsrq fuEufyf[kr

ckjg vf/koDrkvksa dks fo”ks’k yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gS%

Jh vo/ks“k dqekj “kekZ

Jh c`t fd”kksj dqyJs’B

Jh eukst HkkxZok

Jh lqeu ik.Ms

Jh Hkjr Hkw’k.k ‘kekZ

Jh panz izrki flag

Jh jke ikBd

Jh dkS“ky fd“kksj feJk

Jh lkSjo oekZ

10-

Jh jktdqekj caly

11- Jh fueZy dqekj “kekZ

12-

Jh jk?kosUnz flag rksej

[Qk- la- 225@21@2015&,-oh-Mh-&II]

eks- unhe] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2015

S.O. 7.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints the following twelve, Advocates as Special Public

Prosecutors to conduct the trial of cases related to VYAPAM scam in the different Courts of Madhya Pradesh,

designated for trial of VYAPAM cases, appeals, revisions and other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto:

Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Sharma;

Sh. Brij Kishor Kulshreshta

Sh. Manoj Bhargava

Sh. Suman Pandey

Sh. Bharat Bhushan Sharma

Sh. Chandra Pratap Singh

Sh. Ram Pathak

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 2] 2016@ikS"k 12] 1937

Sh. Kaushal Kishor Mishra

Sh. Sourabh Verma

10.

Sh. Raj Kumar Bansal

11.

Sh. Nirmal Kumar Sharma

12.

Sh. Raghvendra Singh Tomar

[F. No. 225/21/2015-AVD-II]

Md. NADEEM, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2015

dkdkdkdk-vkvkvkvk- 8.—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 ¼1974 dk 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi/kkjk ¼8 ½ }kjk iznRr ‘kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, e/; izns’k ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk la- ,Q-ua- 1@5@96@XX-ch ¼,d½@2220@2015 fnukad 28 tqykbZ] 2015 ds ek/;e ls

vf/klwfpr fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa O;kie }kjk lapkfyr fofHkUu ijh{kkvksa ds laca/k esa fnYyh fo’ks”k iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1946 ds v/khu

dsUnzh; vUos”k.k C;wjks }kjk Hkz”Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 dh /kkjk 3 esa oxhZd`r vijk/kksa ds ekeys dh tkap esa vfHk;kstu dk lapkyu

djus rFkk mu ekeyksa ls mRiUu izklafxd vU; ekeyksa esa vihy] iqujh{k.k gsrq fuEufyf[kr bDdhl vf/koDrkvksa dks fo’ks”k yksd vfHk;kstd

ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gS%

Jh HkqisUnz dqekj JhokLro

Jh jkt dqekj jeukuh

Jh eukst dqekj nwcs

Jh vk’kh”k cxZys

Jh pUnz ‘ks[kj xqtZj

Jh d`”.kk dkar ijk’kj

Jh vfer etwenkj

Jh jkts’k xksXys

Jh vo/ks”k ‘kekZ

10-

Jh :i flag ;kno

11-

Jh jkts’k f=osnh

12-

Jh vYds’k HkkxZo

13-

Jh ftrsUnj dqekj xqIrk

14-

Jh nhusUnz flag

15-

Jh jktsUnz dqekj xqIrk

16-

Jh iadt [kjs

17-

Jh vkyksd dqekj JhokLro

18-

Jh izrh’k tSu

19-

Jh lq/khj dqekj ‘kekZ

20-

Jh iadt dqekj jkBksj

21-

Jh vfer iqjksfgr

[Qk- la- 225&22&2015&,-oh-Mh-&II]

eks- unhe] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2015

S.O. 8.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints the following twenty-one, Advocates as Special Public

Prosecutors for conducting prosecution in the Trial courts, notified by the Government of Madhya Pradesh vide

Notification No. F. N. 1/5/96/XX-B(one)/2220/2015, dated the 28^th July, 2015, to try the cases relating to the offences

specified under section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in relation to various examination, conducted by

Vyapam and investigated under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 by the Central Bureau of

Investigation, appeals, revisions and other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto:—

[F. No. 225/22/2015-AVD-II]

Md. NADEEM, Under Secy.

Sh. Bhupendra Kumar Srivastava

Sh. Raj Kumar Ramnani

Sh. Manoj Kumar Dubey

Sh. Ashish Bargle

Sh. Chandra Shekhar Gurjar

Sh. Krishna Kant Parashar

Sh. Amit Mazumdar

Sh. Rajesh Gogle

Sh. Avadhesh Sharma

10.

Sh. Roop Singh Yadav

11.

Sh. Rajesh Trivedi

12.

Sh. Alkesh Bhargav

13.

Sh. Jitender Kumar Shukla

14.

Sh. Deenendra Singh

15.

Sh. Rajendra Kumar Gupta

16.

Sh. Pankaj Khare

17.

Sh. Alok Kumar Srivastava

18.

Sh. Pratish Jain

19.

Sh. Sudhir Kumar Sharma

20.

Sh. Pankaj Kumar Rathore

21.

Sh. Amit Purohit

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2016/PAUSA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 22 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 9-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tuojh] 2015 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh

mi&/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k iatkc jkT; ds

fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

Øekad

jktLo xzke dk uke

gncLr la[;k

Rkglhy

ftyk

dEeksektjk [kqnZ

Lkax:j

Ckhj ,loky

Lkax:j

[la- ,l&38013@93@2015&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2015

S.O. 9.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State Insurance

Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1^stJanuary, 2016 as the date on which the provisions

of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI (except

Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act

shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Punjab namely: -

Sr. No.

Name of the Village

Hadbast No.

Tehsil

Distt.

Kammomajra Khurd

Sangrur

Bir Aiswal

Sangrur

[No. S-38013/ 93 / 2015-S.S.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 22 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 10

1010

10-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tuojh] 2016 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks

mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh

mi&/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k mRrjk[k.M jkT; ds

fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

Ø-lalalala-

jktLo xzke dk uke

jktLo ijxuk

jkTkLo rglhy

ftyk

yDlj] izgykniqj] [ksMh eqckfjdiqj] xaxukSyh] vdcjiqj

Ån] jk;lh] dkusokyh jk;flag] Hkksokokyh] gchciqj dqMh]

uSrokyk lSnkcknA

yDlj

gfj}kj

[la- ,l&38013@94@2015&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2015

S.O. 10.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1^stJanuary, 2016 as the date on which the

provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI

(except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the

said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Uttarakhand namely: -

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 2] 2016@ikS"k 12] 1937

S.No.

Name of the Revenue Village

Revenue Pargana

Revenue

Tehsil

District

Laksar,

Prahladpur,

Khedi

Mubarikpur,

Gangnauli, Akbarpur Oud, Raysi, Kanewali-

Raysingh, Bhovawali, Habibpur Kudi, Naitwala-

Saidabar.

Laksar

Haridwar

[No. S-38013/ 94/ 2015-S.S.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 22 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 11

1111

11-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 fnlEcj] 2015 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh

mi&/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k vkU/kz izns”k jkT; ds

fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

^^vkU/kz izns”k ds xqaVqj ftys ds psczksyq dh lhek ds mixzke FkksVhikyse] ostsUnyk] iÙkkjsM~Mhikyse] eapkyk] xaqMkoje]

xksMko:Z vkSj oh- ,u- ikyse ds mixzke ,e- psczksyq eaMy esa vuarkoje ds mixzke ds v/khu okys lHkh jkTkLo xk¡o**

[la- ,l&38013@95@2015&,l-,l- 1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2015

S.O. 11.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1^st January, 2016, as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI (except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of

the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh namely:-

"ALL THE REVENUE VILLAGES FALLING WITHIN THE LIMITS OF CHEBROLU WITH HAMLET

THOTLAPALEM, VEIENDLA, PATHAREDDYPALEM, MANCHALA, GUNDAVARAM HAMLET OF

GODAVARRU AND V. N. PALEM HAMLET OF M. ANATAVARAM IN CHEBROLU MANDAL OF

GUNTUR DISTRICT IN ANDHRA PRADESH."

[No. S-38013/95/ 2015-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 22 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 12

1212

12-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tuojh] 2016 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh

mi&/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k vkU/kz izns”k jkT; ds

fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

^^vkU/kz izns”k ds izdk”ke ftys esa ts- iaxqyq: eaMy ds jktLo lhek ds mixzke vkMkadh ¼mÙkj½ ps:oqDdksEeqikyse]

tkjykikyse] ukxqyikMq] vkMkadh ¼nf{k.k½ osadViqje] osykeqfjikMq] foIikjkykokfjikyse] dksaxkikMq] cksEeukikMq]

pØk;kikyse] xksikykiqje] dksfVdykiqMh] frEekjsM~Mhikyse] daqdqikMq ds mi xzke] ekfudsLoje] vkMkadh eaMy ds

mixzke frEe;kikyse vkSj js.kkaxhoje] dkL;kiqje v/khu okys lHkh jkTkLo xk¡o**

[la- ,l&38013@96@2015&,l-,l- 1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2015

S.O. 12.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1^st January, 2016, as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI (except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of

the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh namely:-

"ALL THE REVENUE VILLAGES FALLING WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ADDANKI (NORTH) WITH

HAMLETS CHERUVUKOMMUPALEM, JASRLAPALEM, NAGULAPADU; ADDANKI (SOUTH) WITH

HAMLETS

VENKATAPURAM,

VELAMURIPADU,

VIPPARALAVARIPALEM,

KONGAPADU;

BOMMANAPADU, CHAKRAYAPALEM, GOPALAPURAM, KOTIKALAPUDI WITH HAMLET

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2016/PAUSA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

TIMMAREDDIPALEM; KUNKUPADU, MANIKESWARAM RAMAYAPALEM WITH HAMLET

THIMMAYAPALEM IN ADDANKI MANDAL AND RENANGIVARAM, KASYAPURAM IN

J.PANGULURU MANDAL OF PRAKASAM DISTRICT IN ANDHRA PRADESH."

[No. S-38013/96/ 2015-S.S. I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 22 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 13

1313

13-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tuojh] 2016 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh

mi&/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k vkU/kz izns”k jkT; ds

fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

^^vkU/kz izns”k ds iwoÊ xksnkojh ftys esa veykiqje eaMy ds mixzke FkaMkokyIkYyh] bfEefnojkIiMq] tkuqiYyh]

ukfMiqMh] iYykxqEeh] is::] ,-ohekoje] ldq:Z] th- vxzgkje] caMk:yadk] bUnqvkiYyh] HkkV~ukYyh] ,MjkikYyh]

uYykfeYyh] lkekulk] ch] fparyiqMh**

[la- ,l&38013@97@2015&,l-,l- 1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2015

S.O. 13.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1^st January, 2016, as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI (except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of

the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh namely:-

"ALL THE REVENUE VILLAGES WITH THEIR HAMLETS OF AMALAPURAM, THANDAVAPALLI

IMMIDIVARAPPADU, IANUPALLI NADIPUDDI PALLAGUMMI PERURU, A. VEMAVARAM,

SAKURRU. G. AGRAHARAM. BANDARULANKA, INDUAPALLI, BHATNAVALLI, EDARAPALLI,

NALLAMILLI, SAMANASA, V. CHINTALAPUDI IN AMALAPURAM MANDAL OF EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT IN ANDHRA PRADESH."

[No. S-38013/97/ 2015-SS. I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 22 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 14

1414

14-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tuojh] 2016 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh

mi&/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k vkU/kz izns”k jkT; ds

fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

^^vkU/kz izns”k ds xqaVqj ftys esa nqXxhjkyk eaMy ds eksjkeiqMh dh lhek ds eaphdykiqMh] fpyqoqyq] ,ekuh] fpaVykiqMh]

rqEekiqMh] nsokjkiYyh] vxzgkje vkSj is:dyiqMh ds mixzke ds lkFk pqDdiYyhokfjikyse dh lhek ds v/khu vkus

okys lHkh xk¡o**

[la- ,l&38013@98@2015&,l-,l- 1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2015

S.O. 14.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1^st January, 2016, as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI (except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of

the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh namely:-

"ALL THE REVENUE VILLAGES FALLING WITHIN THE LIMITS OF DUGGIRALA, MORAMPUDI

WITH HAMLET MANCHIKALAPUDI; CHILUVULU, EMANI, CHINTALAPUDI, TUMMAPUDI,

DEVARAPALLI AGRAHARAM AND PERUKALAPUDI WITH HAMLET CHUKKAPALLIVARIPALEM

OF DUGGIRALA MANDAL OF GUNTUR DISTRICT IN ANDHRA PRADESH."

[No. S-38013/98/ 2015-S.S.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 2] 2016@ikS"k 12] 1937

ubZ fnYyh] 22 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 15

1515

15-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi&/kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tuojh] 2016 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh

mi&/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k vkU/kz izns”k jkT; ds

fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

^^vkU/kz izns”k ds iwohZ xksnkojh ftys esa jkoyqikyse eaMy ds mckyadk] dksejktqyadk] jkoqyikyse] y{ehiksykoje]

osfnjsÜoje] iksMkxV~ykiYyh] tqfÙkxkiMq] nsojiYyh] bÙkdksVk] xksikykiqje] eqfEefMojIiMq ds mixzke vkSj jktLo lhek

ds v/khu vkus okys lHkh xk¡o**

[la- ,l&38013@99@2015&,l-,l- 1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2015

S.O. 15.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1^st January, 2016, as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI (except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of

the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh namely:-

"ALL THE REVENUE VILLAGES WITH THEIR HAMLETS OF UBALANKA, KOMARAJULANKA,

RAVULAPALEM, LAXMIPOLAVARAM, VEDIRESWARAM, PODAGATLAPALLE, JUTHIGAPADU,

DEVARAPALLE, ITHAKOTA, GOPALAPURAM, MUMMIDIVARAPPADU IN RAVULAPALEM

MANDAL OF EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT IN ANDHRA PRADESH."

[No. S-38013/99/2015-S.S. I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 22 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 16

1616

16-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi&/kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tuojh] 2016

01 tuojh] 2016

01 tuojh] 2016 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh

mi&/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k rfeyukMq

rfeyukMq

rfeyukMq jkT; ds

fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

dsUnz

{ks= ds varxZr vkus okys fuEu jkTkLo xk¡o

rqÙkqdqMh ftyk

fr:psUnwj rkyqd

fr:psUnwj {ks=

dh’k fr:psUnwj

esy fr:psUnwj

ohjikafM;iV~ue

vk:eqxusjh

vkrwj dLik

esy vkrwj

[la- ,l&38013@100@2015&,l-,l- 1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2015

S.O. 16.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1^stJanuary, 2016 as the date on which the

provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI

(except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the

said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Tamil-Nadu namely: -

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2016/PAUSA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

CENTRE

AREA COMPRISING THE REVENUE VILLAGES OF

Tiruchendur

Tiruchendur Taluk,

Tuticorin District

Keezha Tiruchendur

Mela Tiruchendur

Veerapandianpatnam

Arumuganeri

Authoor Kaspa

Mela Authoor

[No. S-38013/100/ 2015-S.S. I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 22 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 17

1717

17-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tuojh

01 tuojh

01 tuojh, 2016

2016

2016 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa uh;r djrh gS] ftudks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½

vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k dukZVd

dukZVd

dukZVd jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa

izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

Øe l

Øe l-

jktLo xzke dk uke

gkscyh

rkyqd

ftyk

ukxqougYyh@csyoM+h

dlok

JhjUxiVV~.kk

e.M+;k

ikygYyh

csyxksyk

JhjUxiVV~.kk

e.M+;k

[la- ,l&38013@101@2015&,l-,l- 1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2015

S.O. 17.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st January, 2016 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI (except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of

the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Karnataka namely: -

Sl. No.

Name of the Revenue Village or

Municipal Limits

Hobli

Taluk

District

Naguvanahalli/Belwadi

Kasaba

Srirangapatna

Mandya

Palahalli

Belagola

Sriangapatna

Mandya

[No. S-38013/101/ 2015-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 22 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 18

1818

18-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tuojh

01 tuojh

01 tuojh, 2016

2016

2016 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftudks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh

mi&/kkjk ¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k vaMeku ,oa fudksckj

vaMeku ,oa fudksckj

jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

Øe

jktLo xzke dk uke

jktLo xzke dk uke*

iVokjh ldZy

la[;k

gncLr

la[;k@gkscyh

la[;k@gkscyh*

Rkglhy o rkyqd

Rkglhy o rkyqd*

ftyk

vcjnhu xkao

iksV~ Cys;j rglhy

nf{k.k vaMeku

vcjnhu xkao

iksV~ Cys;j rglhy

nf{k.k vaMeku

gÌks

iksV~ Cys;j rglhy

nf{k.k vaMeku

Pkre n~ohi

iksV~ Cys;j rglhy

nf{k.k vaMeku

cqfu;knkckn

iksV~ Cys;j rglhy

nf{k.k vaMeku

Tkaxyh?kkV

iksV~ Cys;j rglhy

nf{k.k vaMeku

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 2] 2016@ikS"k 12] 1937

[la- ,l&38013@102@2015&,l-,l- 1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2015

S.O. 18.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st January, 2016 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI (except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of

the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in UT of Andaman & Nicobar namely:—

Sl. No.

Name of the Village/Area*`

Patwari Circle No.

Tehsil/Taluk*

District

Aberden Village

Port Blair Tehsil

South Andaman

Aberdeen Bazar

Port Blair Tehsil

South Andaman

Haddo

Port Blair Tehsil

South Andaman

Chatham island

Port Blair Tehsil

South Andaman

Buniyadabad

Port Blair Tehsil

South Andaman

Junglighat

Port Blair Tehsil

South Andaman

Phoneix Bay

Port Blair Tehsil

South Andaman

Shadipur

Port Blair Tehsil

South Andaman

South Point

Port Blair Tehsil

South Andaman

10.

Goodwil Estate

Port Blair Tehsil

South Andaman

11.

Nayagaon

Port Blair Tehsil

South Andaman

12.

Dudhline

Port Blair Tehsil

South Andaman

13.

Carbyn’s Cove

Port Blair Tehsil

South Andaman

14.

Minnie Bay

Port Blair Tehsil

South Andaman

15.

Lamba Line

Port Blair Tehsil

South Andaman

16.

School Line

Port Blair Tehsil

South Andaman

17.

Pahargaon

Port Blair Tehsil

South Andaman

18.

Dollygunj

Port Blair Tehsil

South Andaman

Austinabad

Port Blair Tehsil

South Andaman

20.

Brookshabad

Port Blair Tehsil

South Andaman

21.

Brichgunj

Port Blair Tehsil

South Andaman

22.

Garacharama

12(A)

Port Blair Tehsil

South Andaman

23.

Prothrapur

12(B)

Port Blair Tehsil

South Andaman

24.

Calicut

Port Blair Tehsil

South Andaman

[No. S-38013/102/ 2015-S.S.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

fQfuDl [kkM+h

iksV~ Cys;j rglhy

nf{k.k vaMeku

“kknhiqj

iksV~ Cys;j rglhy

nf{k.k vaMeku

LkkmFk IokbaV

iksV~ Cys;j rglhy

nf{k.k vaMeku

10-

xqMfoy bLVsV

iksV~ Cys;j rglhy

nf{k.k vaMeku

11-

Uk;kxkao

iksV~ Cys;j rglhy

nf{k.k vaMeku

12-

nw/kykbu

iksV~ Cys;j rglhy

nf{k.k vaMeku

13-

dkfcZUl dkso

iksV~ Cys;j rglhy

nf{k.k vaMeku

14-

feUuh cs

iksV~ Cys;j rglhy

nf{k.k vaMeku

15-

yEck ykbu

iksV~ Cys;j rglhy

nf{k.k vaMeku

16-

Ldwy ykbu

iksV~ Cys;j rglhy

nf{k.k vaMeku

17-

IkgkM+xkao

iksV~ Cys;j rglhy

nf{k.k vaMeku

18-

MkWyhxat

iksV~ Cys;j rglhy

nf{k.k vaMeku

19-

vkWLVhukckn

iksV~ Cys;j rglhy

nf{k.k vaMeku

20-

Ck`{kkckn

iksV~ Cys;j rglhy

nf{k.k vaMeku

21-

cz{kxat

iksV~ Cys;j rglhy

nf{k.k vaMeku

22-

Xkjpkjke

12(A)

iksV~ Cys;j rglhy

nf{k.k vaMeku

23-

izksFkjkiqj

12(B)

iksV~ Cys;j rglhy

nf{k.k vaMeku

24-

dkyhdV

iksV~ Cys;j rglhy

nf{k.k vaMeku

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2016/PAUSA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 21 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 19

1919

19-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

chlhlh,y

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky;] u0 1] /kuckn

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky;] u0 1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k 18/2008) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 21/12/2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012/31/2008–vkbZ- vkj- (lh,e-1)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st December, 2015

S.O. 19.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1, Dhanbad (Ref. No.

18 of 2008) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of

M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 21.12.2015.

[ No. L-20012/31/2008-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act, 1947

Ref. No. 18 of 2008

Employer in relation to the management of Lodna Area M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present:- Shri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers : - Shri S.N.Ghosh, Advocate

For the workman : - Shri R.R.Ram, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry :- Coal

Dated 19/11/ 2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/31/2008-IR (CM-I), dated. 28/04/2008, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of Bagdigi Colliery of M/S. BCCL in not providing dependent

employment to Sh. Bhola Bhuia, S/O Late Ganauri Bhuia, Loader , under the provision of NCWA is

justified and legal? If not, to what relief is the dependent son of Late Ganauri Bhuia entitled ?”

This Case is received from the Ministry of Labour & Employment on 05.05.2008. After receipt of reference ,

both parties are noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written statement on 24.09.2008. The management files their

written statement on 16.07.2009. One witnesses has been examined from both side.

The short point to be decided in this reference is , whether the dependent of the concerned workman is entitled

for service on compassionate Ground or not.

The workman has claimed for job in place of his father who died while in job. He submits that his name found

place in service exerts and he was minor when the service exerts prepared.

On the other hand the management though not disputing the identity of the workman, submits he filed claim

delayedly.

When a earning member of family dies prematurely, the family will be thrown to the street, and now a days to

get all connected documents, is not easy due to official bottle neck.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 2] 2016@ikS"k 12] 1937

Considering the facts and circumstance of this case, I hold that the management should provide job to the

workman in place of his father on compassionate ground.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 20

2020

20-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

chlhl

chlhlh,y

h,y

h,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] u0 1] /kuckn

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] u0 1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k 166/2000) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 21/12/2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y& 20012/169/1999–vkbZ- vkj- (lh-1)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st December, 2015

S.O. 20.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1, Dhanbad (Ref. No.

166 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of

M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 21.12.2015.

[ No. L-20012/169/1999-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Ref. No. 166 of 2000

Employer in relation to the management of Sijua Area M/S BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present:- Shri Ranjan Kumar Saran,

Presiding Officer.

Appearances :

For the Employers : - Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman : - Shri Prabodh Kumar, Advocate.

State : Jharkhand

Industry :- Coal

Dated 19/11/2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/169/99-IR (C-I), dated 24/08/1999 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercie of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub–section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the union to regularise Shri Baleshwar Rajwar & 14 others (as per list

enclosed) in service and for paying category -I wages is justified? If yes, what relief there workmen are entitled

to ?” Whether the termination of there workmen by the management is justified. If not what relief they are

entitled to and from what date?”

List of workmen

Rajo Rajwar S/o Baleshwar Rajwar, Vill- Chiri, P.o- Tarma, P.S-Fatehpur, District- Gaya

Sukesh Kumar S/O Chandrika Kol, Vill-& P.O- Kachnama, P.S-Makhdumpur, District- Jahanabad.

Subhash Kumar S/O-Bijay Prasad, Vill-Loyabad, P.O- Bansjora, P.S- Loyabad, Dist-Dhanbad.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2016/PAUSA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sushant Kumar, S/O Srikant Sharma, Vill+P.O- Achuara, P.S- Barh, Dist- Patna.

Madan Mohan S/O- Ram Pratap Singh, Vill &P.O- Rampur, P.S-Makhdumpur ,Dist-Jahanabad.

Sunil Kumar, S/O-Ram Das Mahato Vill-Sawadigha, P.O& P.S- Kurtha, Dist- Jahanabad.

Rajiv Ranjan Choudhary, S/O- Balmiki Choudhary , Vill-Baukhara, P.O- Parsando, P.S- Kharagpur,

Dist- Munger.

Niranjan Kumar, S/O- Babulal Singh, Vill-Makhmilpur, P.O- Shankarpur Imamganj, P.S- Kinjar, Dist- Jahanabad.

Ratanesh Gandhi S/O Bijay Prasad, Vill- Loyabad, P.O-Bansjora, P.S- Loyabad, Dist- Dhanbad.

10. Chhotalal S/O- Krishna Prasad, Tatarama, P.O- Tatarama, P.S- Manpur, Dist- Nalanda (BiharSarif)

11. Sukhdeo Yadav S/O- Barju Yadav Vill-Gulli, P.O- Pitij, P.S-Itkhori, Dist-Chatra.

12. Bachu Rajwar S/O- Sarjug Rajwar, Vill- Ghiri, P.O- Ratma, Dist- Gaya.

13. Dhananjay Prasad Chaurisia, S/O- Laxman Prasad Chaurasia , Vill- Loyabad More,P.O- Bansjora, P.S- Loyabad,

Dist- Dhanbad.

14. Mathura Prasad Gupta, S/o- Parmeshwar Saw Vill- + P.O& P.S-- Haidarnagar, Dist- Palamu

15. Nandu Choudhary S/O- Laxman Choudhary, Vill- Parari Tola Baburiya Bigha, P.O- Sohagi, P.S- Nasariganj, Dist-

Rohtas.

2. This Case is received from the Ministry of Labour & Employment on 26.06.2000. After receipt of reference , both

parties are noticed. The workman files their written statement on 13.12.2000. After long delay the management files

their written statement on 24.04.2002. One witnesses has been examined from both side And document of the

Management is marked as M-1 to M-3/1.

The case of the workman is that, the concerned workmen had been working as mazdoor for supply of

domestic Coal to the staff of Mudidih Colliery under Sijua Area of M/S BCCL Since long under the Dangal head of

Sri Baleshwar Rajwar. It is also submitted that the concerned workman had been performing the said job within the

premises of the said colliery and giving services to the management, and it is under the supervision and control of the

said management, the said work is to be performed by departmental workman and when such jobs are performed by

contractor workman through other agency , the said workmen are to be regularised.

It is also submitted that the workman had been paid their wages by the management through voucher and by

cash granted and sanctioned from the Area Office by the concerned department, and they have put more than 240 days

attendance in every year and they have been doing the said work continuously. But the concerned workman were

stopped from their services from 14.03.1998. without any prior notice or any intimation.

On the other hand , the case of the management is that no employer and employee relationship exists between

the management and the concerned workman., and the management never issued any work order to the concerned

workman for carrying coal on their baskets their head and shoulders and supplying fuel coal at mudidih colliery.

It is also submitted by the management that Sri Baleshwar Rajwar & 14 others were never deployed by the

management of Mudidih Colliery for the purpose of distributing coal for domestic purpose. Accordingly the demand of

Sponsoring Union to regularise the concerned workman are false.

7. The short point is to be decided that whether the demand of the union to regularise the concerned workman Sri

Baleshwar Rajwar & 14 others is legal or not.

The workman concerned as stated by them were supplying domestic coal to the quarters of the BCCL

employees. They say that their work was continuous and perennial nature of job. They also produced some vouchers and

work orders of BCCL , but the workmen concerned stated that their attendance was maintained by BCCL . But no such

attendance sheet have been filed before this Tribunal.

Mere omnibus statement they were supplying coal to the quarters of BCCL employee, itself will not prove

that they worked for 240 days in calendar year. And they also not filed any I.D card or gate pass etc to prove the

workman of BCCL or contractor.

10. Therefore this Tribunal unable to grant any relief in this reference, thus reference answered in negative.

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the demand of the union to regularise Shri

Baleshwar Rajwar & 14 others (as per list enclosed) in service and for paying category -I wages is not legal justified.

Hence they are not entitled to get any relief.

This is my award

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 2] 2016@ikS"k 12] 1937

ubZ fnYyh] 21 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 21

2121

21-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

chlhlh,y

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsdsdsdsUnzh; ljdkj

Unzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] u0 1] /kuckn

Je U;k;ky;] u0 1] /kuckn

Je U;k;ky;] u0 1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k 32/2009) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 21/12/2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012@28@2009&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st December, 2015

S.O. 21.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1, Dhanbad (Ref. No.

32 of 2009) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of

M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 21.12.2015.

[No. L-20012/28/2009-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) OF I.D.ACT, 1947

Ref. No. 32 of 2009

Employers in relation to the management of Kustore Area, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present :- Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :- Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman :- Shri S.C.Gourr, Advocate

State :- Jharkhand

Industry :-Coal

Dated 6/11/2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/28/2009-IR-(CM-I), dated 29/30.04.2009, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub–section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Kustore Area of M/S BCCL in not regularising Shri Bharat

Dhari as Driver in Cat-V from April 1999 is justified and legal? (ii) To what relief is the workman

concerned entitled?”

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 28.05.2009. After receipt of reference, both parties are

noticed, the Sponsoring Union files their written statement on 15.06.2009. And the management files their written

statement -cum-rejoinder on 20.01.2010. Therefore rejoinder and document filed by the parties. One witness examined

on behalf of the workman and Document of workman also marked as Ext. W-1 & W-2.

The case of the workman is that the concerned workman was appointed as piece rated Loader, having valid

Driving License for Driving Heavy Vehicles, besides he was read upto Class VIII. It is also submitted by the workman

that in the year 1990 the management inviting application for the post of Heavy vehicles Driver, and trade test, the

concerned workman files all relevant paper as desired for the Trade Test and subsequently found fit for the post of

Driver (Heavy) in the year 1991 thereafter given letter to Drive heavy vehicle in the colliery, from 1991 he is still

performing the duty of heavy driver with satisfaction, but the concerned workman was paid cat-I wages with designation

as Driver (Trainee) from 1991 to 2002.

It is also submitted that the cadre scheme for Driver is for engagement of Driver (Trainee) for one year only

with cat-II wages but on completion of Training period satisfactorily, to be confirmed as Driver in Cat-V. But the

employers did not follow the cadre scheme for promotion of Driver, the workman is entitled for cat-II as Trainee Driver

from 1991 and Cat-V with designation as Driver from April 1999. But the management did not comply the cadre

scheme the reference case arose.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2016/PAUSA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5. The management's case is that there is not provision for regularisation of any employee in particular category from

the particular date. It is also submitted that the Sponsoring Union has no locus standi to raise Industrial Dispute on

behalf of the workman as the Sponsoring Union is not functioning in the establishment of Auto workshop. The

management has to follow the provision of Art. 14 and 16 of the constitution of India, and the promotion of its employee

will be considered by DPC duly constituted by the Cadre Controlling Authority.

The DPC recommend the name of eligible candidates for promotion in higher category after scrutinizing CR of the

concerned employee , their requisite educational qualification and merit decided by Trade Test subject to availability of

Vacancy. The workman concerned has been promoted as Driver in Category-V on the recommendation of the

Committee, but the promotion is the prerogative of the management. The demand of promotion from an earlier date

cannot be a subject matter of Industrial Dispute.

7. Short point to be decided in this reference that Sri Bharat Dhari is to be regularised as Driver Cat-V. Case of the

workman is that the workman working as minor Loader under the management as per advertisement circulated to the

post of driver, the workman appeared and cleared the test and thereafter he was regularised as driver (Trainee) Cat-I as

per the order dated 22.03.1991 vide document Ext-W-1.

8. Thereafter the case of the workman is be continued to work as such and vide office order dated 29.07.2002/

02.08.2002 marked as Ext-W-2 . The workman concerned was regularised in the post of Cat-V and the order was

issued by The Dy. Chief Personnel Manager & it was communicated to all concerned.

9 This being the situation for the entitlement of regularisation as Driver Cat-V from April 1999. for which he has also

not filed any document to justify the claim and he has also admitted in his evidence that he does not have any document

to prove his claim. Therefore demand is refused.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the action of the management of Kustore Area of

M/S BCCL in not regularising Shri Bharat Dhari as Driver in Cat-V from April 1999 is justified. Hence he is not

entitled to get any relief.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 22

2222

22-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

chlhlh,y

hlhlh,y

hlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnz

dsUnz

dsUnzh; ljdkj

h; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] u0 1] /kuckn

Je U;k;ky;] u0 1] /kuckn

Je U;k;ky;] u0 1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k 53/2013) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 21-12-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la ,y&20012/66/2013–vkbZ- vkj- (lh-1)]

,e- ds- flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st December, 2015

S.O. 22.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 53 of 2013) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 21.12.2015.

[No. L-20012/66/2013-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Reference: No. 53/2013

Parties: Employer in relation to the management of B.T.A M/S BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present: Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers

: Sri Ganesh Prasad,, Advocate

For the workman

: Sri U.P.Sinha, Advocate

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated:- 5/11/2015

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 2] 2016@ikS"k 12] 1937

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/66/2013/ IR (CM-I), dated 06-12-2013, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bhuli Town Administration of BCCL in not regularising Sri

Umesh Lal in post of Havildar is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

2. This case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 27-12-2013, After receipt of the reference, both parties are

noticed. The sponsoring Union files their written statement on 04-03-2014, and the management files their written

statement-cum-rejoinder on 11-07-2014. Thereafter rejoinder and document filed by the parties. One witness from each

side has been examined and document of the management marked as M-1 to M-8 and workman's document marked as

Ext. W-1 to W-10.

3. The case of the workman is that the concerned workman Sri Umesh Lal is a permanent workman in B.T.A of M/S

BCCL. He is Matriculate and designated as Security Guard placed in T&S Crade-G w.e.f 17.05.1990. In the meantime

vacancy of Head Secrurity Guard/Havildar occurred due to transfer of the regular Security Guard/Havildar, the

concerned workman Sri Umesh Lal was authorised to work as Head Security Guard/Havildar in the year 1999 .

4. In August 2003, note Sheet was initiated by the personnel manager (Admn.) vide No. 654 dated 07.08.2003 and

another reminder note sheet vide letter No. BCCL/BTA/(Admn) /2004/574 dated 3/5.08.2004 for regularisation of Sri

Umesh Lal as Head Security Guard/Havildar and one another Note Sheet No. BCCL/BTA/07/3162 dated 30.01.2007/

07.02.2007 initiated by Dy. Chief Security Officer of BTA requesting the authority `to regularise the workman as

Havildar.

5. Since the demand of the workman by his verious applications and his demand has not been fulfilled and he had been

posted and placed in T&S Grade-F instead of T&S Grade-E an Industrial Dispute was raised before the ALC©

Dhanbad , One Tripartite Settlement under Section 12(3) of I.D.Act arrived, according to which it was agreed by the

management that the workman has been working as Head Security Guard/Havildar from the year 1999. However it was

agreed that a difference of wages of Grade-E will be paid to the workman w.e.f. 05.02.2007 but the dispute of

regularisation as Head Security Guard/Havildar is remain pending and the dispute arose as reference.

6. The case of the management is that Sri Umesh Lal was appointed as General Mazdoor Cat-I and posted as Katras

Area and transferred to BTA in the year 1997 as Security Guard in T&S Grade-G and he was upgraded from Grade G to

Grade F under SLU on 20.06.2003 and since than he is continuing in Grade F as Security Guard.

7. It is admitted by management that Sri Umesh Lal was authorised to work as Havildar by CSO/BTA on 05.02.2007

but which was without approval of the competent Authority. The Dy. CSO/BTA is not empowered to authorized, and the

authorization was not proper and without locating number of the BTA Office . It is also admitted that a tripartite

settlement between the management of BTA of M/S BCCL and workman representative was held on 30.03.2011, in

which it was agreed to pay difference of wages working as Havildar for the period he was authorised to work as

Havildar w.e.f. 05.02.2007 and it was paid from 5.02.2007 to 30.03.2011.

8. It is also submitted by the management that concerned workman Shri Umesh Lal has already been paid the

difference of wages for the authorised period from 05.02.2007 to 30.03. 2011. Thereafter the Illegal authorisation

which was given by Dy. CSO was withdrawn vide office order No. BCCL/KB/Adm/2011/702 dated 27.08.2011 hence

the question for regularisation of Sri Umesh Lal as Havildar does not arise at all.

9. It is also mentioned that no vacancy of T&S Grade is there and as per service excerpt of Sri Umesh Lal filed and

signed by the workman, in which the qualification has mentioned as “Non-Matric” and in note sheet dated 20.08.2003

it has neen mentioned as Matriculate which creates doubt.

10. The short point that is to be decided in the reference is whether Umesh Lal, who is a Security Guard working for a

long period as Head Security Guard/havildar is to be regularised or not.

11. Admittedly Sri Umesh Lal is rendering the service of Havildar, who is a higher post than Security Guard. It was

recommended from the Area Office that he be regularised as Havildar.

12. A settlement was arrived to protect his pay as of a havildar. As it was not materialised, he raised the dispute. The

workman has admitted in his evidence, that at the time he was working as havildar was receiving the difference of wages

of Havildar from 2007. But subsequently he says that on his representation, the authorisation was withheld . He further

admits that till withdrawal of authorisation, he got his dues.

13. In cross examination of Tapas Kr. Gupta (MW-1) stating that, it is a fact that if a person of lower category will

work in higher grade continuously for a period of 3 years he is to be regularized in that post. It is also submited that if a

lower category of workman works in higher category, he will be paid differential wages if ordered.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2016/PAUSA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14. Considering the fact and circumstances of this case, I hold that, if the workman is working as havildar after

30.03.2011 regularly for 3 years or more, he either be regularised in his post or he be paid the difference of wages as he

is entitled as per NCWA.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 23

2323

23-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

chlhlh,y

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky;] u0 1] /kuckn

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky;] u0 1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k 146/2000) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 21-12-2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012/500/1999–vkbZ vkj (lh-1)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st December, 2015

S.O. 23.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 146 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 21.12.2015.

[No. L-20012/500/1999-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Ref. No. 146 of 2000

Employer in relation to the management of Pootki Colliery M/S BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present:- Shri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers : - Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman : - Shri S.N.Goswami, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry :- Coal

Dated 18-11-2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/500/99-IR (C-I), dated 01-03-2000, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercie of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub–section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh to designate Sri Bharat Sharma as

Loading supervisor is proper and justified? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled and with what

consequential benefits and from what date?”

2. This Case is received from the Ministry of Labour & Employment on 13.03.2000. After receipt of reference, both

parties are noticed. But after long delay the Sponsoring Union files their written statement on 19.03.2004. And the

management files their written statement on 25.07.2006. One witness has been examined on behalf of the workman.

And document of the workman is marked as W-1 to W-13.

3. The case of the workman is that the concerned workman working for few years efficiently and successfully, the

management felt necessity of engaging as Loading supervisor for the purpose of bringing improvement of the standard

and quality of loading appreciating his merit and efficiency which he showed during his continuous employment of

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 2] 2016@ikS"k 12] 1937

several years and started to take the work of Loading supervisor from him from 1988 and since then Shri Bharat Sharma

has been continuously working as Loading Supervisor putting in attendance on all working days of each year in 1988

and thereafter.

4. It is also stated that after starting to work as Loading Supervisor, from 1988 the concerned workman was issued a

copy of letter dated 25.7.88 which was sent to the manager of Pootki Colliery of M/S BCCL to Commercial Manager,

S.E.Rly Adra . By this letter the concerned workman amongst others was cautioned against over loading of wagons at

Pootki Colliery Depot to be sent to Bhojudih Coal Washery. The concerned workman is in the capacity of Loading

Supervisor and directed by the management to collect details of weightment of wagons.

5. It is also stated that after being diverted from the post of Mining Sirdar from 1988 to work as Loading Supervisor,

the concerned workman was stopped payment of underground allowance and charge allowance for quite a long time,

putting him to heavy loss, but when he prayed, the management did not pay heed to his requests, for which Industrial

disputes for regularisation is arose.

6. On the other hand the case of the management is that on the basis of his Mining sardarship Certificate, he was

promoted as a Mining Sardar in Technical & Supervisory Grade-C and he was accordingly paid salary of Mining Sardar

in Technical & Supervisory Grade-B on the basis of his designation and requests, he was upgraded in Techinical &

Supervisory Grade -B as per NCWA.

7. It is also stated that the concerned workman never worked or employed as Loading Supervisor and as such the

demand of the Union to designate the workman as Loading Supervisor is false.

8. The short point is to be decided in this reference that whether the concerned workman is regularised as Loading

Supervisor or not.

9. The workman who is a mining Sardar claiming that he be given the post of Loading Supervisor as he is working as

such. There is no valid document, to prove that the workman has been appointed as Loading Supervisor for which he

went to High Court did not get any desired relief.

10. In this reference Sri Bharat Sharma examined as WW-1. In which he also stated in his cross-examination that :

“ It is fact that I refused to work as Mining sirdar, when I was asked to work a mining sirdar. A Mining sirdar

got underground allowance. A Mining sirdar after passing mining sirdarship examination gets promotion to

overman”.

“I filed case before Hon'ble High Court . The hon'ble High It Court did not pass any order regarding my

regularisation. I did not go to work as Mining Sardar though it was ordered by the management. I do not

know about cadre post. I do not know in which cadre I am working.”

11 This being his own admission, thus Tribunal unable to give the workman the designation of Laoding Supervisor.

Hence his claim is regretted.

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the demand of the Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor

Sangh to designate Sri Bharat Sharma as Loading supervisor is not proper. Hence he is not entitled to get any relief.

This is my award

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 24

2424

24-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZbZbZbZLdks

Ldks

fyfy

fy- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kd

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ua

j.k@Je U;k;ky;] ua

j.k@Je U;k;ky;] ua- 1] /kuckn

1] /kuckn

1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k 34/1995) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 21/12/2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012/467/1994–vkbZ- vkj- (lh-1)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st December, 2015

S.O. 24.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 34 of 1995) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. IISCO Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

21.12.2015.

[ No. L-20012/467/1994-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2016/PAUSA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act, 1947

Reference: No. 34 of 1995

Employer in relation to the management of Chasnall Colliery of M/s IISCO Limited

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT: Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers

: None

For the workman .

: None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry- Coal

Dated- 4-11-2015

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/467/1994/IR (C-1)) dated 05/04/1995, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Union for regularization by the principal employer viz. management of Chasnalla

Colliery of M/s IISCO Ltd of Shri Bhola Bouri and 13 others (as per list enclosed) employment through

contractors is legal and justified in the light of S.C. Judgment in Dina Nath Case? If so, to what relief these

workmen are entitled and from which date?”

NAME OF WORKMEN

1. Lagan Bouri

2. Amrit Bouri

3. Bholu Bouri

4. Md. Enam

5. Anand Mahato

6. Naresh Rajak

7. Munaph Kaan

8. Shambhu Gope

9. Md. Khalil

10. Rajendar Ram

11. Inderdev Manjhi

12. Md. Ismayel

13. Tarun Mahato

14. Ram Prasad Mahato

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently.

Case remain pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No

Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 25

2525

25-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZbZbZbZLdks

Ldks

fyfy

fy- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] uauauaua- 1] /kuckn

1] /kuckn

1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k 25/1997) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 21/12/2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012/468/1995–vkbZvkj (lh-1)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 2] 2016@ikS"k 12] 1937

New Delhi, the 21st December, 2015

S.O. 25.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1, Dhanbad (Ref. No.

25 of 1997) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of

M/s. IISCO Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 21.12.2015.

[No. L-20012/468/1995-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 25/1997

Employer in relation to the management of Chasnalla Colliery

AND

Their workmen

Present: Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

: None

For the workman .

: Sri D.K. Verma Advocate

State : Jharkhand.

Industry- Coal

Dated- 5-12-2015

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /468/1995-IR(C-1) dated 14/01/1997, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of Chasnalla Colliery of M/S IISCO Ltd. In not granting promotion to

Shri Abdul Mojib, Turner. Category-VI of Chasnalla Colliery while granting promotion to his junior co- worker

is justified? If not, to what relief is the said workman entitled?

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently on

behalf of the workman. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 26

2626

26-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

lhlh,y

lhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsdsdsdsUnzh; ljdkj

Unzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]

Je U;k;ky;]

Je U;k;ky;] uauauaua- 1] /kuckn

1] /kuckn

1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k 24/1995) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 21/12/2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012/252/1993–vkbZ- vkj- (lh-1)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st December, 2015

S.O. 26.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1, Dhanbad (Ref. No.

24 of 1995) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of

M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 21.12.2015.

[No. L-20012/252/1993-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2016/PAUSA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 24/1995

Employer in relation to the management of CCL, Darbhanga house, Ranchi

AND

Their workmen

Present: Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers

:- None

For the workman .

:- None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal

Dated : 19-11-2015

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /252/1993-IR(C-1) dated 12/01/1995, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub–section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the workmen employed by the management of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd at Gandhi Nagar

Hospital are entitled for payment of overtime wages at double the rate of normal wages for performing

duties beyond normal duty hours, paid holidays, weekly off day, Sunday w.e.f 01/01/1987 when the

workmen employed at Naisarai Hospital are paid overtime wages at the rate of double the normal wages? If

not to what relief the workmen are entitled to and from what date ?”

2. After receipt of the reference , both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently.

Case remain pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No

Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 27

2727

27-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

chlhlh,y

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsdsdsdsUnzh; ljdkj

Unzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]

Je U;k;ky;]

Je U;k;ky;] uauauaua- 1] /kuckn

1] /kuckn

1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k 262/1994) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 21/12/2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012/369/1993–vkbZ- vkj- (lh-1)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st December, 2015

S.O. 27.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No.

262 of 1994) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of

M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 21.12.2015.

[No. L-20012/369/1993-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 2] 2016@ikS"k 12] 1937

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Reference: No. 262 of 1994

Employer in relation to the Management of Amlabad Project of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present: Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

:- Sri U.N. Lal Advocate

For the workman

:- Sri S.C. Gour Advocate

State : Jharkhand. Industry: Coal

Dated: 9/11/2015

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/369/1993/IR (C-1)) dated 10/11/1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub–section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of management of Amlabad Project of M/S BCCL, Bhowra Area in not regularizing

S/Shri Anirudh Bhar, Damodar Naiyak, Sunderlal Das and Gauripada Das as Winding Engine Driver in

Category- IV w.e.f. 14/01/1991 is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference , both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates, Ld Counsel for the

workman submits that workman is not interested to contest the case. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have

been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 28

2828

28-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

chlhlh,y

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky;]

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@ Je U;k;ky;] uauauaua- 1] /kuckn

1] /kuckn

1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k 35/1997) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 21/12/2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012/454/1995–vkbZ- vkj- (lh-1)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st December, 2015

S.O. 28.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1, Dhanbad (Ref. No.

35 of 1997) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of

M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 21.12.2015.

[No. L-20012/454/1995-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 35 of 1997

Employer in relation to the management of Amlabad Colliery of M/s BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

:- Sri U.N. Lal Advocate

For the workman

:- Sri S.C. Gour Advocate

State : Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal

Dated : 9/11/2015

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2016/PAUSA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/454/1995/IR (C-1)) dated 14/01/1997, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub–section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Amlabad Colliery of M/s BCCL in non-payment of wages to

Shri Anandi Saw Driver from 02/07/1993 to 21/07/1993 is justified? If not, to what relief is the said

workman entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference , both parties are noticed. Both parties appeared. But appearing for certain dates, Ld

Counsel for the workman submits that workman is not interested to contest the case. It is felt that the disputes between

the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 29

2929

29-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

chlhlh,y

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] u0 1] /kuckn

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] u0 1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k 240/1994) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 21/12/2015 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la0 ,y&20012/337/1992–vkbZ- vkj- (lh-1)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st December, 2015

S.O. 29.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 240 of 1994) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 21.12.2015.

[No. L-20012/337/1992-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act, 1947

Reference: No. 240/1994

Employer in relation to the management of Akashkinari Colliery M/S BCCL

And

Their workmen

Present: Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

: - None

For the workman

: - None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry- Coal

Dated- 2-11-2015

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /337/1992-IR(C-1) dated 19/10/1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Ranjendra Path Dhanbad against the

management of the General manager, Govindpur Area No. III of M/S BCCL P.O. Sonardih Dist. Dhanbad

for the regularization of the services of Shri Mathura Mistry and 11 others (as per list enclosed) is justified?

If so, the what relief the workmen are entitled and from which date ?”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 2] 2016@ikS"k 12] 1937

LIST OF WORKMEN WITH DESIGNATION

1. Mathura Mistry

Blacksmith.

2. Manki Mistry

Blacksmith.

3. Lachuman Mistry

Blacksmith.

4.Ramchandra Viswakarma

Hammer man.

5. Baiznath Mistry

Helper.

6. Ramprasad viswakarma

Helper.

7. Birbal Harizan

Helper.

8. Ramdin Mistry

Hammer man.

9. Ramji Viswakarma

Hammer man.

10. Rambali Prasad

Hammer man

11. Bijay Bishnu Upadhayay

Helper

12. Umesh Chand Pandey

Helper

2.. After receipt of the reference , both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently.

Case remain pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No

Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 30303030-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

ई.सी.आई.एल, हैदराबाद ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vkS|ksfxd

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,o

vf/kdj.k ,o

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;

Je U;k;ky;

Je U;k;ky;] हैदराबाद ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

¼lanHkZ

¼lanHkZ L.C No. 52/2006) dks izdkf”kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22/12/2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42025/03/2015-vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

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

New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2015

S.O. 30.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (L.C No.52/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the E.C.I.L., Hyderabad and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

22/12/2015.

[F. No. L-42025/03/2015-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Kishori Ram,

Presiding Officer Incharge

(Authorized for adjudication)

Dated the 22^nd day of September, 2015

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 52/2006

Between :

Sri M. Bhaskarachary,

S/o M. Sriharichary,

H. No. 40-69,

Kasturibanagar,

Moulali, Hyderabad – 500 040

..….Petitioner

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2016/PAUSA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

Director Personnel,

E.C.I.L. Post ECIL

Hyderabad – 500 062.

….Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

M/s. V.R. Balachary & P. Prabhakar Rao, Advocates

For the Respondent

M/s. P. Nageswar Sree, K. Raghuram Reddy & Ch. Venkata Raju, Advocates

AWARD

This is a petition filed under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 filed on 9.3.2006 by Sri M.

Bhaskarachary, the workman, who worked as (who will be referred to as workman) an Asst. Consultant against the

management of E.C.I.L., for his reinstatement in the service of the management with continuity of service and all

attendant benefits.

2. The case of the Petitioner is that he worked as an Asst. Consultant with the Executive Engineer since his

appointment directly to attend the work entrusted to him. He was qualified in I.T.I.(Electronics) and was so appointed

in the year 2001, for attending the work of Electronics accompanied by the Executive Engineer of the Respondent.

He used to work not only within the twin cities but also he was sent to other states i.e., Bombay, Delhi, Chennai and

U.P. to work on the basis of the identity card issued by the Respondent to him as the employee of the E.C.I.L., for

repairing the electronic machines of Nuclear Power Control System installed by the Respondent in various states.

Further he got his identity cards renewed for the period from 10.1.2001 to 31.3.2005. He worked continuously for

more than 240 days under the Respondent. Police verification as per the letter of the Senior Manager/Section Incharge,

C.A.D., to the Dy. General Manager was also done about the Petitioner as a regular work for the repairs under the

company in various States and accordingly he was also allotted Serial No.1650 by management. He had no adverse

remarks in performance of his duty. But the Respondent instead of regularising his service orally retrenched him

unilaterally without any order as required under Sec.25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, even without holding any

regular enquiry. This retrenchment by the Respondent without any notice for payment of compensation under the

provision of Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is illegal, invalid and liable to be set aside. Moreover, the

Petitioner is over 32 years and has no scope for any alternative employment at this stage. Hence, the Petitioner asked for

his reinstatement in service with full back wages and attendant benefits.

3. Whereas counter case of the Respondent challenging the maintainability of the industrial dispute in Law and on

facts is that the petition under Sec.2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 being incorporated by the A.P.

Amendment Act 32 of 1987 is ultravires, as the State Government owns no power to amend said section of the Act

which was passed by the Central Government. Thus, it being violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India is

liable to be struck down as null and void, because it is being beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal/Labour Court and

it stands beyond the adjudication. The Director (Personnel) is the Officer in the Electronics Corporation of India

Limited. So he can not have any grievance against the said officer in his individual capacity. Therefore, the Respondent

is not a party to the instant proceeding. Moreover, the Petitioner was never employed by the Respondent, rather he

appears to have been engaged by the contractor M/s. Vision Management Consultants, employer of the Petitioner, but

the said contractor has not been made a party to it. Hence, the present proceedings suffers from misjoinder or the non-

joinder of the necessary parties. M/s. Electronics Corporation of India Limited (for short E.C.I.L.) had entered into a

contract with M/s. Vision Management Consultants (for short VMC), as per the purchase order No. B-6124 dated

20.6.2002 for providing consultants to ECIL subject to the various terms and conditions. M/s. VMC in pursuance of

that provided persons to ECIL and in turn ECIL paid the amounts agreed as per the aforesaid terms and conditions. The

instant Petitioner herein was one of such consultants who was deputed by the same contractor. The Petitioner

accordingly worked for on behalf of the contractor. The aforesaid M/s. VMC (Contractor) as per its letter dated

4.4.2005 informed the ECIL that they have terminated the services of their consultants six in number w.e.f. 1.4.2005

(including the Petitioner) by name :- 1. D. Hemalatha, 2. Ch. Kutumba Rao, 3. Ch L Narsimham, 4. M Bhaskara Chary

(Petitioner herein), 5. D. Ramachandraiah and 6. K. Bhagya Rekha. Under these circumstances the Petitioner is not a

workman of the ECIL under Sec.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as he was neither employed nor engaged

directly at any time, nor paid any remuneration to him by the ECIL. As such neither the Petitioner has any locus standi

to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal nor this Tribunal has any jurisdiction to entertain it for adjudication. As it is

beyond the ambit of the said Act. There was no relationship of jural relationship between employer and employee

between the instant Petitioner and the ECIL.

4. Further specifically but totally denying the allegations of the Petitioner as stated in his petition, it has been alleged

on behalf of the Respondent that the Executive Engineer in the organization has no jurisdiction to appoint any

employee in any category, so he never made any such appointment. The Petitioner was deputed by the aforesaid

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 2] 2016@ikS"k 12] 1937

contractor as a consultant in the ECIL which in turn had availed the consultancy services of the Petitioner in its

exigencies. So far as issuance of the identity card is concerned, it was issued to the Petitioner only for his entry into the

office premises as a consultant, but it does not confer on him any right for employment on any post in the ECIL, and

the such Identity cards were issued by the ECIL to the Petitioner as long as he was deputed as a consultant by the same

contractor. The allegation of the Petitioner about his continuous work in the employment for more than 240 days is

totally incorrect. The Petitioner never attended to any skilled, unskilled, manual, clerical, technical, operational work.

The police verification in respect of the consultants deputed to the ECIL by the said contractor was effective, so the

Petitioner cannot claim for the status of workman in ECIL on that score, and for that very purpose of police

verification, the serial number was allotted, identity card issued to the Petitioner, which can not give any status of a

workman to the Petitioner. In such circumstances, the Respondent had neither terminated nor retrenched the Petitioner

from any allotted service in violation of Sec.25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Rather the Petitioner and five

others were terminated by their aforesaid contractor, M/s. VMC, so there is no retrenchment nor any violation of

Sec.25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him. Thus, the

petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed in limine.

5. In view of the pleaded facts of both the parties, the main question in issue arises for due consideration is, “Whether

the Petitioner was retrenched or terminated from his service under the provisions of Sec.25-F of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947?”

Finding with the reasons:

6. Mr. V. R. Balachary, the learned Advocate for Petitioner, Mr. M. Bhaskarachary, has submitted that Petitioner

though had initially worked as a casual labourer under the Respondent, yet was interviewed and he was selected as

Consultant of the company; thereafter he continuously worked for five years, on account of that, the Chief of the

company had recommended for his regularization on the satisfaction of his work. Further it has been submitted on

behalf of the Petitioner that admittedly the workman was issued his identity card and he was also sent to different States

for his work as per the documents concerned(Ex. W7 & W8); inspite of all the aforesaid facts, the Petitioner was orally

but illegally terminated without any compensation to him, as there was a solid relationship of employer and employee

between both the parties. Relying up the authority: AIR 2000 SC 1080, VP Ahuja Vs. State of Punjab in reference to

Arts. 40, 16 of the Constitution of India, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has emphatically submitted that the

termination of the service of a probationer on the ground of his unsatisfactory work was held to be arbitrary and

punitive without complying with the principles of natural justice (para 7); as such the Petitioner is alleged to have been

entitled to reinstatement in his service with its continuity and full back wages and attendant benefits.

7. Though no Learned Counsel for the Respondent had appeared twice for arguments in this case; in view of the

oldest case, the case was earlier taken up for final disposal in view of the material as adduced on behalf of both the

parties. Later on, despite allowing the I.A. No. 01/2015 in the I.D. filed by the Petitioner/Respondent , Learned Counsel

Mr. Venkata Raju for the Respondent did not appear on 21^st September, 2015 for argument either oral or writer; hence,

so it was reserved for an award. On perusal and consideration of the material available on the case records, I find that

the instant issue relates to the claim of the Petitioner for his regularization in the service under the Respondent. But it

needs the consideration of the prime issue;

“Whether any jural relationship of the workman (Petitioner) with the Director, Personnel of the ECIL,

Hyderabad (Respondent) exists at the relevant time between both the parties?”

8. From the perusal of the case record, I find that the Petitioner had neither any proof of his appointment by the

Respondent management as a consultant in the company nor any proof for direct appointment by his salary paid to him

by the Respondent for any point of time during the relevant period. Admittedly the Petitioner was never sponsored by

the Employment Exchange for his employment or even on the basis of any publication in the daily for any application

for the post of consultant candidature. The Petitioner could not be able to establish the matter of his interview for the

post. But admission of the Petitioner about his working as software consultant in the year 2001 for 2 to 3 years and his

termination along with the five other persons by the M/s. VMC from their service in the year 2005 evidently indicate

that all his documents filed by the Petitioner in his instant case as consultant. The status of the workman stands

established as contractual workman in the Respondent company because the Respondent company had entered into a

contract with M/s. VMC by placing a purchase order No. B-6124 dated 20.6.2002 (Ex.M2) for providing consultants

(including the Petitioner) for employment of contractual work in the premises of the Respondent as well as at various

sites across the country subject to the terms and conditions of the same purchase order. The conformity statement of

MW2 Sri K. Mallikarjuna Rao, the CEO of the aforesaid M/s. VMC, Hyderabad establishes the Petitioner and other

similar five persons who were engaged by their establishment for accomplishing the work of the Respondent as per the

aforesaid purchase order were terminated from the service of the consultants w.e.f. 1.4.2005 as per their order dated

4.4.2005 (Ex. M3) which was addressed to the Dy. General Manager of the Respondent company. MW2 Sri K.

Mallikarjuna Rao, the CEO of the contractor M/s. VMC management, Hyderabad appears to have fully established the

Petitioner along with the other five persons namely, 1. D. Hemalatha, 2. Ch. Kutumba Rao, 3. Ch. L. Narasimham,

4. D. Ramachandraiah and 5. K. Bhagya Rekha was engaged as consultant for their placement in the companies

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2016/PAUSA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

concerned including the Respondent as per the terms and conditions between them for 2 or 3 years; following the

contract period over, he (MW2) got not other work for him. The affirmative statement of MW2 that the Petitioner was

neither engaged nor paid any salary for his consultant work by the Respondent clearly indicates the Petitioner was not

an employee of the Respondent. It also appears that on enquiry, all the candidates including the Petitioner by the

contractor were interacted with the Respondent which was never any interview for him/them. The company used to

address letters to the Police for the verification of the antecedents of the contractual workmen including the Petitioner

prior to sending them to other States for assigning work as per the terms and conditions of the purchase order.

Temporary workers of the aforesaid contractor were issued only their causal entry permits (Exs. W1, W2 & W3) by the

security Department, and thereafter their punching cards i.e., access cards which clearly indicate the temporary workers

of the contractor including the Petitioner. They are not connected with the management as an employee in any way. It

is also undisputed that as per the terms of the purchase order (Ex. M2) of the Respondent company from the

intermediary contractor M/s. VMC (Ex.M2) under the clause 11 specifies the instruction to be given by the contractor

for the execution of the work. In such situation, the letters/applications for out door visit to Karnataka, the BARC, or for

Police verification cannot be a solid ground for the claim of the Petitioner for his regularization in the service.

9. On perusal and consideration of the material as adduced and made available on the case record, I find that workman

Petitioner Sri M. Bhaskarachary was engaged as a contract labourer, along with five others namely, D. Hemalatha,

Ch. Kutumba Rao, Ch.L.Narasimham, D. Ramachandraiah and K. Bhagya Rekha by the contractor M/s. Visiion

Management Consultants by Virtue of the contract with the OP/management of M/s Electronics Corporation of Indian

Ltd., (E.C.I.L.) as per the purchase order No.B-6124 dt. 20.6.2006 for providing consultants to E.C.I.L., subject to the

various terms and conditions. The Petitioner accordingly worked as one of such consultants on behalf of the contractor.

Thereafter, the aforesaid contractor M/s. VMC as per its letter dt. 4.4.2005 informed the OP/ECIL of the termination of

the services of their aforesaid consultants including the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.4.2005. At the point, it is settled law as

held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Vs. N.V. Water Front Workers reported in

2001 LAB.I.C. 3656(CB)(I) as such:

“It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in

connection with the work of an establishment, the relationship of master and servant is created between the

principal employer and the contract labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms ‘contract

labour’ establishment and ‘workman’ does not show that a legal relationship between a person employed in an

industry and the owner of the industry is created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such

relationship. The word ‘workman’ is defined in wide terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a

species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms ‘establishment’ and ‘workman’ shows that a workman

engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of mater.

But what is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. When the provisions of the Act neither

contemplate creation of direct relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and the

contract labour nor can such relationship be implied from the provisions of the Action issuing notification

under S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act A fortiori much less can such a relationship be found to exist from the Rules

and the Forms made thereunder.”(Paras 101, 114,117)

10. In view of the aforeseen finding it stands clear that since there was no jural relationship of employer and employee

between the OP/Principal Employer and the contract labourer, so no question of retrenchment or termination of the

Petitioner from his service under the provisions of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 arises. Hence, the

Petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 22^nd day of

September, 2015.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri M. Bhaskara Chary

MW1: Sri K. Srinivasa Rao

MW2: Sri K. Mallikarjuna Rao

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 2] 2016@ikS"k 12] 1937

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1:

Photostat copy of identity card

Ex.W2:

Photostat copy of another identity card

Ex.W3:

Photostat copy of another identity card

Ex.W4:

Photostat copy of another identity card

Ex.W5:

Photostat copy of punching card

Ex.W6:

Photostat copy of extra work permission issued by NPP 5 & Detectors

Ex.W7:

Photostat copy of lr. issued by Respondent to the Petitioner to enter into Rajasthan NPP site dt.

21.7.2001

Ex.W8:

Photostat copy of tour bill

Ex.W9:

Photostat copy of tour bill

Ex.W10:

Photostat copy of permission slip dt. 7.9.2001

Ex.W11:

Photostat copy of lr. by Respondent dt. 27.10.2001 to work on Sunday.

Ex.W12:

Photostat copy of Guest staying bill

Ex.W13:

Photostat copy of tour settlement bill

Ex.W14:

Photostat copy of Departmental advance lr. by Respondent

Ex.W15:

Photostat copy of lr. extending entry permit validity

Ex.W16:

Photostat copy of lr. to work extra hours

Ex.W17:

Photostat copy of lr. showing statement of attendance of consultants working on consultancy for the

m/o April, 2002

Ex.W18:

Photostat copy of permission lr. dt. 21.8.2002

Ex.W19:

Photostat copy of temporary entry permit lr. dt. 21.10.02

Ex.W20:

Photostat copy of temporary entry permit lr. dt. 28.7.02

Ex.W21:

Photostat copy of lr. dt. 28.12.08 to work on sunday

Ex.W22:

Photostat copy of lr. to do extra work

Ex.W23:

Photostat copy of lr. to do extra work

Ex.W24:

Photostat copy of lr. to proceed to Delhi and advance of Rs.2500/-

Ex.W25:

Photostat copy of settlement of account

Ex.W26:

Photostat copy of attendance statement

Ex.W27:

Photostat copy of lr. dt. 4.9.03 to Sri PA Pillai to allow the Petitioner to work at their place

Ex.W28:

Photostat copy of lr. on official duty

Ex.W29:

Photostat copy of lr. asking the Petitioner to proceed to Karnataka

Ex.W30:

Photostat copy of tour settlement bill

Ex.W31:

Photostat copy of stay bill at Karnataka

Ex.W32:

Photostat copy of overstay permission letter

Ex.W33:

Photostat copy of Tour advance bill

Ex.W34:

Photostat copy of lr. dt. 26.9.2008

Ex.W35:

Photostat copy of attendance statement

Ex.W36:

Photostat copy of permission to FAG accounts

Ex.W37:

Photostat copy of tour advance letter

Ex.W38:

Photostat copy of attendance statement

Ex.W39:

Photostat copy of extra hours permission letter

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2016/PAUSA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.W40:

Photostat copy of on duty permission slip

Ex.W41:

Photostat copy of BARC entry pass

Ex.W42:

Photostat copy of tour settlement bill

Ex.W43:

Photostat copy of BARC guest house bill

Ex.W44:

Photostat copy of lr. to go to BARC on official duty

EX.W45:

Photostat copy of attendance statement

Ex.W46:

Photostat copy of lr. to Police Station for verification of Petitioner’s conduct for entry to BARC

Ex.W47:

Photostat copy of lr. about visit to BARC

Ex.W48:

Photostat copy of claim of TA & DA

Ex.W49:

Photostat copy of claim of TA & DA

Ex.W50:

Photostat copy of BARC entry pass

Ex.W51:

Photostat copy of BARC entry pass

Ex.W52:

Photostat copy of tour settelement bill

Ex.W53:

Photostat copy of late hours stay permit letter

Ex.W54:

Photostat copy of lr. for accommodation to Sri S. Basu, Project Director, Kalpakkam

Ex.W55:

Photostat copy of tour advance application

Ex.W56:

Photostat copy of lr. for grant of TA & DA

Ex.W57:

Photostat copy of permission lr to proceed to Kalpakkam

EX.W58:

Photostat copy of work completion letter

EX.W59:

Photostat copy of tour extension letter

EX.W60:

Photostat copy of tour settlement bill

Ex.W61:

Photostat copy of guest house bill

EX.W62:

Photostat copy of official permission lr. to go to ETDC

Ex.W63:

Photostat copy of settlement of Departmental advance

Ex.W64:

Photostat copy of request for Departmental advance

Ex.W65:

Photostat copy of tour advance application

Ex.W66:

Photostat copy of tour settlement bill

Ex.W67:

Photostat copy of guest house staying bill

Ex.W68:

Photostat copy of late hours permission letter

Ex.W69:

Photostat copy of lr. to work on 26.1.2005

Ex.W70:

Photostat copy of late hours permission and statement

Ex.W71

Ex.W83:

Photostat copies of late hours permission letters

Ex.W84:

Photostat copy of attendance statement

EX.W85:

Photostat copy of lr. for late hours stay permission

Ex.W86:

Photostat copy of paper notification

Ex.W87:

Photostat copy of paper notification

Ex.W88:

Photostat copy of schedule of training programme of the securities

Ex.W89:

Photostat copy of attendance

Ex.W90:

Photostat copy of permission letter

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 2] 2016@ikS"k 12] 1937

Ex.W91:

Photostat copy of list of candidates sent for safety training

Ex.W92:

Photostat copy of list of candidates sent for safety training

Ex.W93:

Photostat copy of list of candidates to work on Sundays

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1:

Authorization letter dt. 4.9.2013

Ex.M2:

Photostat copy of purchase order dt. 20.6.2002

Ex.M3:

Photostat copy of termination order of services dt. 4.4.2005

ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 31

3131

31-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj caSd vkWQ

caSd vkWQ

bfM;k

bfM;k ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] जबलपुर ds iapkV (lanHkZ la

lanHkZ la

lanHkZ la- 20/2000) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

23.12.2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012/225/ 99-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2015

S.O. 31.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India

and their workman, received by the Central Government on 23/12/2015.

[No. L-12012/225/99- IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/20/2000

General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan,

Hardev Niwas, 9, Sanver Road,

Ujjain.

…..Workman/Union

Versus

Regional Manager,

Bank of India,

Zonal Office, 22,

Yashwant Niwas Road,

Indore

……Management

AWARD

Passed on this 19^th day of November, 2015

1. As per letter dated 28/12/99 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/225/99/IR(B-

II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in denying regularization and terminating the services of

Shri Yogesh Mishra, Ex-sepoy w.e.f. 30-8-97 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the disputant concerned

entitled to?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at Page

3/1 to 3/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was engaged as permanent peon on daily wages by 2^nd party at Rau

Branch Indore from 1-7-92. He worked with devotion. He was working under Branch Manager Shri P. D. Dodi and

R.K.Menon, he was not paid bonus for the period. Muster roll/ diary was maintained about their attendance. Workman

was signing diary in token of his attendance. Bank Manager was paying his wages in cash. He was paid bonus for the

period 1992-93 to 1994-95. During 1992-93, he worked for 253 days, in 1994-95- for 258 days. He worked more than

240 days during each of the year. In main branch, he worked under different Branch Managers. He filed Writ Petition

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2016/PAUSA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

before High Court, Indore bench for regularization of his service. During pendency of Writ Petition, his services were

terminated on 30-8-97. That he is covered as employee under Section 25 B of ID Act as he worked more than 240 days

during each of the year. His services were terminated without notice. Retrenchment compensation was not paid to him.

termination of his service is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act and para 507, 524 of Sastry Award. The violation of

Section 25-G, N of ID Act is committed by management as policy of last come first go was not followed. After

termination of his service, he is unemployed. Overlooking he worked more than 240 days, his services were terminated.

He was not provided re-employment, thereby management violated Section 25 H of ID Act. He was not paid bonus for

1995-96, 96-97 under Section 8 of payment of Bonus Act. On such contentions, workman prays for his reinstatement

with backwages.

3. 2^nd party management filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/5 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party raised

preliminary objection that employer employee relationship doesnot exist between parties. There was no question of

terminating services of workman. Union was not in existence in organization of 2^nd party. Union has no locus-standi to

raise the dispute.

4. That workman has raised dispute contending that his services are terminated in violation of provisions of ID Act.

Reference is misconceived. Workman was not employee of the Bank. Therefore dispute deserves to be rejected. Casual

labour engaged on basis of day to day requirement by Branch Manager. Such engagement comes to end after end of the

day. The dis-engagement of such worker is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act. 2^nd party contends that workman

was entitled for payment of bonus for the year 1992 to 1996, he was paid bonus for those respective years. Workman

had not completed 240 days continuous service during any of the year. There was no question of illegal retrenchment of

workman. When person is engaged on daily wages, the contract of engagement starts in morning and ends at end of the

day. That 1st party is covered as employee under Section 25 B of ID Act. The selection process as per the directions of

Central Government was not followed. Workman was not sponsored through Employment Exchange. Employment in

2^nd party Bank being public employment is covered under State and Article 16 of the constitution. That Employment

Exchange is only agency. Any person seeking employment could register himself guaranteeing equality of opportunity

of employment. That person engaged on temporary basis on stop gap arrangement without proper procedure has no right

for permanent appointment. That workman was engaged on day to day basis as per requirement without following

prescribed procedure by Branch Manager on consolidated wages. 2^nd party reiterated that workman had not completed

240 days service during 12 months preceding his termination. His claim for regularization is not justified. there was no

question of terminating services of workman as there was no employer employee relationship between parties. Violation

of Section 25-F,G,N,H of ID Act is denied. Workman is not entitled to protection under ID Act. On such contentions,

2^nd party prays for rejection of claim.

5. Ist party workman filed rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/5 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

6. Though application under Section 36(3)(4) of ID Act is filed, it appears that the application was not pressed at the

time of recording evidence of both parties.

7. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in denying

regularization and terminating the services of Shri Yogesh Mishra, Ex-sepoy

w.e.f. 30-8-97 is legal and justified?

In Affirmative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

8. Workman is challenging termination of his service for violation of Section 25-F, G, N of ID Act. he also contends

violation of Section 25-H of ID Act. Management of 2^nd party has opposed the claim filing Written Statement. Workman

filed affidavit of his evidence. In his affidavit, workman says he was engaged as Badli Sepoy from 1-7-92 by Branch

Manager shri J.B.Kulkarni in Rau branch. He worked satisfactorily in said branch till 30-8-97. Then he was transferred

to Satha bazaar branch, Indore. He resumed duty in said branch on 15-3-89. He continuously worked till 1992 to 1997.

He completed more than 240 days continuous service. He was paid bonus for the year1989 to 1995. Bonus for the year

96-97 was not paid. His services were terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. In his

cross-examination, workman says he passed 8^th standard. He was engaged by Branch Manager Shri Kulkarni. He did not

see advertisement in newspaper. He received information about vacancy from persons acquainted working in Bank. His

name was not sponsored through Employment Exchange. No written test or interview was taken. He has submitted

application in writing. Appointment letter was not given to him. He was paid wages by Branch Manager obtaining

signature on voucher. He was unable to tell his working days during the period 1992 to 1997. He was paid bonus from

1992 to 1996. He denies that he did not work for 240 days during any of the year.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 2] 2016@ikS"k 12] 1937

9. Management’s witness Subhash Kulkarni Branch Manager filed affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions in

Written Statement of 2^nd party. His affidavit is devoted about the vacancies in subordinate staff are required to be

notified to Employment Exchange. The vacancies are also filed from other sources if Employment Exchange gives non-

availability certificate. That Union is not functioning in the Bank. Any regular staff is not member of Union. His

affidavit is also devoted after verification of character and antecedents of the candidates in subordinate cadre as per

circular dated 1-10-91. That workman not completed 240 days continuous service during 1987 to 30-8-97. In his cross-

examination, management’s witness says Circular Exhibit M-1 doesnot apply to temporary employees. He had

discussed about matter with Branch Manager Shri Oswal. Shri Oswal may have been working in Satta Bazar branch

during 1993-94. He was not sure. When other employees were on leave, daily wage employees were engaged. There

muster roll were not maintained. Branch Manager was paying wages. The amount was reimbursed to him. He was

unable to tell documents in that regard are produced in the case. He claims ignorance about documents of payment of

bonus. Workman was not served notice. Retrenchment compensation was not paid to him as he was engaged as daily

wager.

10. Management’s witness Shri Vishwanath Pandey filed affidavit of his evidence. Management’s witness says Branch

Manager has no authority to appoint any person in subordinate cadre. There was no sanction of permission of

competent authority to provide employment. Branch Manager had to make necessary arrangement for miscellaneous job

of work. Workman had not completed 240 days service. In his cross-examination, management’s witness says he was

posted in main branch Indore during 1996-97. Attendance Register was not maintained, appointment letter was not given

to him. permission of Controlling Authority was not taken before engagement of workman. Workman was paid wages

by Branch Manager. Amount was reimbursed to him. Witness claims ignorance whether workman was issued notice,

retrenchment compensation was paid. He also claims ignorance about payment of bonus to workman.

11. Ist party workman has not examined any other witness in support of his claim completing 240 days continuous

service during each of the year.

12. Turning to documentary evidence, Exhibit W-5 to W-8 pertains to prohibition of engagement of casual labour in

the Bank. Management produced Copy of chart about payment of bonus for the year 1994-95 is produced in which

working days of workman are shown 259 in 1994-95 and 245 working days in 1995-96.

13. 2^nd party submitted notes of argument emphasizing that workman had not completed 240 days continuous service.

Workman was unable to tell about his working days in any of the year.

14. Learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in case between Surendranagar District

Panchayat versus Dahyabhai Amarsingh reported in 2005(8)SCC-750. Their Lordship dealing with Section 25-F, 25 B

of ID Act held facts must be proved by workman to claim protection under Section 25-F are that (i) there exists

relationship of employer and employee, (ii) he is a workman under Section 2(s), (iii) establishment in which he is

employed is an Industry within meaning of the Act and (iv) he has put in not less than one year of continuous service as

defined in Section 25 B under the employer. That onus to prove 240 days continuous service lies on workman.

The evidence discussed above has failed to establish that he completed 240 days continuous service.

In Case between Karnataka State road Transport Corporation and another versus S. G. Kotturappa and another reported

in 2005-II-LLJ- 462 by Rajasthan High court, 2009-17-SC-473, 2001-LLR-971 judgment by MP High Court, 2007-1-

SCC-408, AIR 2005-SCC-1790, AIR-2007-SC-1166, 2007-3-LLJ-163, 2006-II-SCC-716. Ratio in all those cases needs

no detailed discussion as from evidence of Ist party workman. workman completed more than 240 days in 1995-96 and

not 12 months preceding termination of his service on 30-8-97.Shri A.K.shashi on the point relies on ratio held by

Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Writ petition No. 4093/96 in case between Prem Singh versus Presiding Officer, Labour

Court No. V & another. In Para 5 of the judgment, his Lordship considering evidence of management’s witness No. 2,

the petitioner worked only for 131 ½ days in 1981, 249 days in 1982, 194 days in 1983, 270 days in 1984. Following

ratio held in case of Mohanlal that on principle and on precedent it must be held that Section 25 B(2) comprehends a

situation where a workman is not in employment for a period of 12 calendar months but has rendered service for a

period of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date

i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the

purpose of Section 25 B and Chapter VA.

15. Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 workman has not established his claim for regularization in

service, termination of service are not in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Therefore workman is not entitled to any

relief. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.

16. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The action of the management of Bank of India in denying regularization and terminating the services of

Shri Yogesh Mishra, Ex-sepoy w.e.f. 30-8-97 is legal and proper.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2016/PAUSA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 32

3232

32-—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nsuk

nsuk

nsuk caSd

caSd

ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k 42/07) dk izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23.12.2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012/82/2006-vkbZ vkj (ch--II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2015

S.O. 32.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/07) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Dena Bank and their workman, received

by the Central Government on 23/12/2015.

[No. L-12012/82/2006- IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/42/07

Shri Manoj Kumar Patel,

S/o Shri Umesh Singh Patel,

Village Somni,

Tahsil and distt. Rajnandgaon CG)

……Workman

Versus

Regional Manager,

Dena Bank, Regional Office,

Rukmini Bhawan,

Near Jai Ram Complex,

Raipur (CG)

……Management

AWARD

Passed on this 23^rd day of November 2015

1. As per letter dated 28-5-07 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/82/2006-

IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Dena Bank, Raipur, Regional Office, Raipur in terminating the services of

the workman/Ex.Messenger Shri Manoj Kumar Patel, S/o Shri Umesh Singh Patel w.e.f. 6-5-04 is legal or justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled?’

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman failed to file statement of claim.

Workman was proceeded exparte on 13-5-15. 2^nd party management filed Written Statement . case of 2^nd party is

employer employee relationship between parties is denied. There is no industrial dispute between parties. That Ist party

is not covered as workman under section 2(s) of ID Act. That appintment in 2^nd party is preceded by written test,

interview in the selection process. Any person who is employed is included in the muster roll of industry. Workman not

produced any documents in support of his claim regarding employment in the Bank. The reference order is illegal. The

Branch Manager engaging any person when there is temporary increase in work of casual nature. The persons so

engaged are paid fair amount. Branch Manager is not Appointing authority. Regional Manager with prior approval of

Ministry is competent to appoint sub staff. The workman M.K.Patel was engaged by Branch Manager on somni branch

for certain miscellaneous jobs of casual nature. He was paid proportionately. Bank has to follow reservation policy and

required through Employment Exchange. Educational qualifications for the post of subordinate cadre. Daily wager

doesnot hold any post. He works subject to availability. Workman accepted engagement on daily wage basis. He cannot

have any grievance about his disengagement. Workamn had not completed 240 days during any of the calendar year.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 2] 2016@ikS"k 12] 1937

3. The points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each

of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of Dena Bank, Raipur, Regional Office,

Raipur in terminating the services of the workman/Ex.Messenger Shri Manoj Kumar

Patel, S/o Shri Umesh Singh Patel w.e.f. 6-5-04 is legal or justified?

In Affirmative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Workamn is not entitled to any

relief.

REASONS

4. As stated above, workamn has failed to participate in reference proceeding. No statement of claim is filed by him.

In exparte Written Statement filed by 2^nd party, employer employee relationship is denied. It is contented that 1st party

is not covered under section 2(s) of ID Act. Workamn not completed 240 days continuous service. He was engaged by

Branch Manager for casual nature of work.

5. Management filed affidavit of Shri Shriram covering contentions in Written Statement. As workman failed to

participate in reference and cross-examine management’s witness, I donot find reason to discard evidence of

management’s witness. Workman has failed to substantiate his contentions about illegal termination of his services

therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

6. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The action of the management of Dena Bank, Raipur, Regional Office, Raipur in terminating the services of the

workman/Ex.Messenger Shri Manoj Kumar Patel, S/o Shri Umesh Singh Patel w.e.f. 6-5-04 is legal and proper.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 33

3333

33-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj caSd vkWQ

caSd vkWQ

bafM;k

fM;k

fM;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?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k 19/2000) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

23.12.2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012/224/99---vkbZ vkj (ch--II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèkdkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2015

S.O. 33.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India and

their workman, received by the Central Government on 23/12/2015.

[No. L-12012/224/99- IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/19/2000

General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan,

Hardev Niwas, 9, Sanver Road,

Ujjain.

….Workman/Union

Versus

Regional Manager,

Bank of India,

Zonal Office, 22,

Yashwant Niwas Road,

Indore

……Management

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2016/PAUSA 12, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed on this 19^th day of November, 2015

1. As per letter dated 28/12/99 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/224/99/IR(B-II).

The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in denying regularization and terminating the services of

Shri Deepak, Ex-sepoy w.e.f. 30-8-97 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the disputant concerned

entitled to?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at Page

3/1 to 3/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was engaged as permanent peon on daily wages by 2^nd party at Rau

branch Indore from 1-7-87. He worked with devotion. From 14-3-89, he was transferred to main branch, Indore. He was

working under Branch Manager Shri P.D.Dodi and R.K.Menon, he was not paid bonus for the period 1-10-87 to 14-3-89.

He joined at main branch, Indore on 15-3-89. Muster roll/ diary was maintained about their attendance. Workman was

signing diary in token of his attendance. Bank Manager was paying his wages in cash. He was paid bonus for the period

1992-93 to 1994-95. During 1992-93, he worked for 253 days, in 1994-95- for 258 days. He worked more than 240 days

during each of the year. In main branch, he worked under different Branch Managers. He filed Writ Petition before High

Court, Indore Bench for regularization of his service. During pendency of Writ Petition, his services were terminated on

30-8-97. That he is covered as employee under Section 25 B of ID Act as he worked more than 240 days during each of

the year. His services were terminated without notice. Retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. Termination of

his service is in violation of section 25-F of ID Act and para 507, 524 of Sastry Award. The violation of section 25-G, N

of ID Act is committed by management as policy of last come first go was not followed. After termination of his

service, he is unemployed. Overlooking he worked more than 240 days, his services were terminated. He was not

provided re-employment, thereby management violated Section 25 H of ID Act. He was not paid bonus for 1995-96,

96-97 under Section 8 of payment of Bonus Act. On such contentions, workman prays for his reinstatement with

backwages.

3. 2^nd party management filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/5 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party raised

preliminary objection that employer employee relationship doesnot exist between parties. There was no question of

terminating services of workman. Union was not in existence in organization of 2^nd party. Union has no locus-standi to

raise the dispute.

4. That workman has raised dispute contending that his services are terminated in violation of provisions of ID Act.

reference is misconceived. Workman was not employee of the Bank. Therefore dispute deserves to be rejected. Casual

labour engaged on basis of day to day requirement by Branch Manager. Such engagement comes to end after end of the

day. The dis-engagement of such worker is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act. 2^nd party contends that workman

was entitled for payment of bonus for the year 1992 to 1996, he was paid bonus for those respective years. Workman

had not completed 240 days continuous service during any of the year. There was no question of illegal retrenchment of

workman. When person is engaged on daily wages, the contract of engagement starts in morning and ends at end of the

day. That Ist party is covered as employee under Section 25 B of ID Act. The selection process as per the directions of