1851GI/2016

(1369)

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- 18]

ubZ fnYyh] vizSy 24— vizSy 30] 2016] 'kfuokj@ oS'kk[k 4—oS'kk[k 10] 1938

No. 18]

NEW DELHI, APRIL 24—APRIL 30, 2016, SATURDAY/ VAISAKHA 4—VAISAKHA 10, 1938

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)

गृह

गृह मंालय

मंालय

(पी एफ-2 डे क)

नई द ली, 21 अ ैल, 2016

का.आ.

का.आ. 694.

694.

694.- के ीय सरकार सरकारी थान (अ ािधकृत अिधभोिगय क बेदखली) अिधिनयम, 1971 (1971

का 40) क धारा-3 %ारा द& शि(य का योग करते )ए, यूिनट कमा- डर उप महािनरी2क, केन् ीय औ5ोिगक सुर2ा

बल यूिनट, सरकारी भवन सुर2ा (जीबीएस), नई द ली को, जो भारत सरकार का राजपि9त अिधकारी है, उ: त अिधिनयम

के योजन के िलए स; पदा अिधकारी के <प म= िनयु: त करती है तथा उ: त अिधकारी, थानीय सीमा> के भीतर और

केऔसुब प?रसर- %ारका, मिहपालपुर, छतरपुर, नई द ली म= के ीय औ5ोिगक सुर2ा बल के िनयं9णाधीन अथवा उसके

अिधभोग के अधीन सरकारी थान के संबंध म=, उ: त अिधिनयम %ारा अथवा उसके अधीन स; पदा अिधकारी को द&

शि(य का योग करेगा और उस पर अिधरोिपत कतCव् य का पालन करेगा।

[फा. सं. II-27011/09/2014-पीएफ-II]

Eेसी जे; स, अवर सिचव

1370

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :APRIL 30, 2016/ VAISAKHA 10, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

(PF.II Desk)

New Delh, the 21st April, 2016

S.O. 694.– In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised

Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints the Unit Commander DIG, CISF Unit,

Government Building Security (GBS), New Delhi being a gazetted officer of the Government of India, to be the estate

officer for the purposes of the said Act, and the said officer shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties

imposed, on estate officer by or under the said Act, within the local limits and in respect of the Public premises under the

control or occupation of the Central Industrial Security Force at CISF Complex, Dwarka, Mahipalpur, Chhatarpur New

Delhi.

[F. No. II-27011/09/2014-PF-II]

GRACY JAMES, Under Secy.

िव

िव मंालय

मंालय

(िवीय

िवीय

िवीय सेवाएं

सेवाएं

सेवाएं िवभाग

िवभाग

िवभाग)

नई दली, 15 फरवरी, 2016

का.आ.

का.आ. 695

695

695.— धान मं9ी मुा योजना (पीएमएमवाई) के अंतगCत दए गए ऋण को गारंटी दान करने के िलए ऋण

गारंटी िनिध थािपत करने के संबंध म= मंि9मंडल के अनुमोदन (मामला सं. 11/1/2016) के अनुसरण म= िनिध के ‘M यव थापक’

के <प म= यह िवभाग एतारा िनिध क बंधन सिमित क िनयुि: त करता है, िजसम= िन; निलिखत शािमल हN:

(i)

सिचव, सूPम, लघु एवं मRयम

उ5म मं9ालय (एमएसएमई)

- अR य2 (पदेन)

(ii) संयु: त सिचव (आईएफ),

िवS तीय सेवाएं िवभाग

- सद य

(iii) अRय2, मुा (िसडबी) बNक

- सद य

(iv) मुTय कायCपालक अिधकारी,

मुा (िसडबी) बNक

- सद य

(v) मुTय कायCपालक अिधकारी,

राUीय ऋण गारंटी

- सद य

यासी कंपनी िल.

सिचव/संयोजक

[फा.सं. 27/4/2015-आईएफ-II]

राजीव शमाC, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 15^th February, 2016

S.O. 695.—Pursuant to the Cabinet approval (Case No. 11/01/2016) for setting up of Credit Guarantee Fund for

providing guarantees to loans extended under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojna (PMMY), this Department as “Settler” of

the Fund hereby constitutes a Management Committee of the Fund consisting of the following :

(i) Secretary, Ministry of Micro,

Small and Medium

- Chairman (ex-officio)

Enterprises (MSME)

(ii) Joint Secretary (IF),

Department of Financial

Services

- Member

(iii) Chairman, MUDRA

(SIDBI) Bank

- Member

(iv) Chief Executive Officer,

MUDRA (SIDBI) Bank

- Member

(v) Chief Executive Officer,

National Credit Guarantee

- Member Secretary/ Convenor

[F. No. 27/04/2015-IF-II]

RAJIV SHARMA, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 30] 2016@oS'kk[k 10] 1938

1371

िवदेश

िवदेश मंालय

मंालय

(सी

सी

सी.पी

पी

पी.वी

वी

वी. . . . भाग

भाग

भाग)

नई द ली, 21 अ ैल, 2016

का.आ.

का.आ. 696

696

696.—राजनियक और कसुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फ स) के अिधिनयम, 1948 क धारा 2 के खंड (क) के

अनुसरण म= वैधािनक आदेश।

एतद् %ारा, क= सरकार भारत के दूतावास, ?रयाद म= Xी सैयद खुथुलाह, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी, Xी तुलसी

राम, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी, Xी िवनायक डी॰ वारंग, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी, Xी कैलाश चंद द?रया, सहायक

अनुभाग अिधकारी, Xी जयदीप मडल और Xी आर॰ एन॰ पी॰ कुशवाहा, सीिनयर सिचवालय सहायक को दनांक 21 अ ैल

2016 से सहायक कसुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर कसुलर सेवा> के िनवCहन के िलए ािधकृत करती है ।

[सं. टी. 4330/041/2016]

काश चद, उप सिचव (कसुलर)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 21st April, 2016

S.O. 696.—Statutory Order: In pursuance of 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 (1) Shri Khudrathulla, Assistant

Section Officer, (2) Shri Tulsi Ram, Assistant Section Officer, (3) Shri Vinayak D. Warang, Assistant Section Officer

(4) Shri Kailash Chand Dariya, Assistant Section Officer, (5) Shri Joydip Mondal, Assistant Section Officer and

(6) Shri R.N.P. Kushwaha, Senior Secretariat Assistant as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Riyadh to

perform Consular services with effect from 21 April 2016.

[No.T. 4330/01/2016]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

कामक

कामक, लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय

लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय

(कामक और िशण िवभाग)

नई द ली, 25 अ ैल, 2016

का.आ.

का.आ. 697

697

697.—के सरकार एतद%ारा द ली िवशेष पुिलस थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का अिधिनयम संT या

25) क धारा 6 के साथ प?ठत धारा 5 क उपधारा (1) %ारा द& शि(य का योग करते )ए उ&राखंड रा] य सरकार, गृह

अनुभाग-3 क अिधसूचना सं. 648/XX-3-2016-13(14)2016 दनांक 02.04.2016 %ारा ाa त सहमित से Xी हरक bसह

रावत, पूवC कबीना मं9ी, उ&राखंड सरकार %ारा माननीय रा]यपाल, उ&राखंड सरकार को भेजे गए ‘हॉस ेडग

हॉस ेडग

हॉस ेडग’ से

संबंिधत वीिडयो ?रकॉdडग सिहत िशकायत एवं किथत <प से Xी ह?रश रावत, तSकालीन मुTयमं9ी, उ&राखंड सरकार %ारा

बागी िवधायक तथा उनके प?रजन को धमक देने के साथ-साथ उह= पद व धन का ताव देने क जांच करने तथा उसी

संeवहार म= कए गए या/तथा उही तfय से उS प न कसी अ य अपराध या अपराध क जांच करने के िलए द ली िवशेष

पुिलस थापना के सद य क शि(य और 2े9ािधकार का सम त उ&राखंड रा] य म= िव तार करती है ।

[फा. सं. 228/11/2016-एवीडी-II]

मो. नदीम, अवर सिचव

1372

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :APRIL 30, 2016/ VAISAKHA 10, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel And Training)

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2016

S.O.697 .—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No.25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Uttarakhand, Home Section-3 vide notification No.648/XX-3-2016-13(14)2016 dated 02.04.2016,

hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the

State of Uttarakhand for the investigation of the complaint by Shri Harak Singh Rawat, former cabinet minister,

Uttarakhand Government sent to the Hon’ble Governor, State of Uttarakhand along with video recording related to

“Horse Trading” and threatening to dissident MLAs and their family members besides offering office and money to

them, allegedly by Shri Harish Rawat, the then Chief Minister, Uttarakhand Government and any other offence or

offences committed in the course of same transaction or/and arising out of the same facts.

[F.No. 228/11/2016-AVD-II]

Md. NADEEM, Under Secy.

वािणय और उ"ोग मंाल

वािणय और उ"ोग मंालय

( ( ( ( वािणय िवभाग )

वािणय िवभाग )

नई दली, 21 अ ैल, 2016

का.आ

का.आ. 698.

698.

698.—केीय सरकार, िनयाCत (गुणव&ा िनयं9ण एवं िनरी2ण) िनयमावली, 1964 के िनयम 12 के

उपिनयम (2) के साथ प?ठत िनयाCत (गुणव&ा िनयं9ण एवं िनरी2ण) अिधिनयम, 1963 (1963 का 22) क धारा 7 क

उपधारा

(1) %ारा द& शि(य का योग करते )ए, एतद%ारा मैससC ईटालैब (गोवा) ाइवेट िलिमटेड, मकान नं. 197, रेडी सुकल

भh, पो ट रेडी, तालुका वैगंiला, िजला bसधुदुगC, महाराj k - 416517 को इस अिधसूचना, के काशन क तारीख से तीन

वषC क अविध के िलए भारत सरकार वािण]य मं9ालय, क दनांक 20 दस;बर, 1965 क अिधसूचना सं. का.आ. 3975

क अनुसूची म= िविनlदm खिनज और अयक के िनरी2ण, ( Eुप-I ), अथाCत् लौह अय क, खिनज और ब: साइट को िनयाCत से

पूवC िनnिलिखत शतo के अRयधीन रेडी, करनपानी, बNकोट, साखरी, केलासी, जयगढ़ पोटC पर उ: त खिनज और अय क के

िनरी2ण करने के िलए एक अिभकरण के <प म= मायता देती है, अथाCत् :

( i ) मैससC ईटालैब (गोवा) ाइवेट िलिमटेड, मकान नं. 197, रेडी सुकल भh, पो ट रेडी, तालुका वैगंiला, िजला bसधुदुगC,

महाराj k - 416517, खिनज और अयक Eुप -। िनयाCत (िनरी2ण) िनयमावली, 1965 के िनयम 4 के अधीन उनके %ारा

अपनाई गई िनरी2ण क पpित क जांच करने के िलए, इस िनिम& िनयाCत िनरी2ण प?रषद् %ारा नामिनlदm अिधका?रय

को पयाCq सुिवधाएं देगी; और

( ii ) मैससC ईटालैब (गोवा) ाइवेट िलिमटेड, मकान नं. 197, रेडी सुकल भh, पो ट रेडी तालुका वैगंiला, िजला

bसधुदुगC, महाराj k – 416517, इस अिधसूचना के अधीन अपने कायo का िनjपादन करने म= िनदेशक (िनरी2ण एवं गुणव&ा

िनयं9ण), िनयाCत िनरी2ण प?रषद, %ारा समय-समय पर िलिखत <प म= दए गए िनदrश से आबp हगे।

[फा. सं. 4/3/2016 - िनयाCत िनरी2ण]

संतोष कुमार सारंगी, संयु( सिचव

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 30] 2016@oS'kk[k 10] 1938

1373

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 21^st April, 2016

S.O. 698.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control

and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection)

Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/s Italab (Goa) Private Limited, H. No. 197, Redi Sukal Bhat,

Post Redi, Taluka Vengurla, Jilla Sindhudurga, Maharashtra- 416 517, as an agency for a period of three years from the

date of publication of this notification, for inspection of Minerals and Ores (Group- I), namely, Iron ore and Bauxite,

specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce vide

number S.O. 3975, dated the 20th December 1965, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores at Redi, Kiranpani,

Bankot, Sakhri, Kelshi and Jaigarh ports subject to the following conditions, namely: -

(i)

that M/s Italab (Goa) Private Limited, H. No. 197, Redi Sukal Bhat, Post Redi, Taluka Vengurla, Jilla

Sindhudurga, Maharashtra- 416 517, shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export

Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in carrying out the

inspection under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores, Group-I (Inspection) Rules, 1965 and;

(ii)

that M/s Italab (Goa) Private Limited, H. No. 197, Redi Sukal Bhat, Post Redi, Taluka Vengurla, Jilla

Sindhudurga, Maharashtra- 416 517, in the performance of their function under this notification shall be bound by

such directions as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give in writing

from time to time.

[F.No. 4/3/2016 – Export Inspection]

SANTOSH KUMAR SARANGI, Jt. Secy.

मानव संसाधन िवकास मंालय

(उ च

उ च

उ चतर िशा िवभाग

तर िशा िवभाग

तर िशा िवभाग)

(राजभाषा यूिनट

राजभाषा यूिनट

राजभाषा यूिनट)

नई द ली, 25 अ ैल, 2016

का

का.आ. 699

699

699.—के ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासक य योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के

उप िनयम 4 के अनुसरण म=, मानव संसाधन िवकास मं9ालय (उu चतर िश2ा िवभाग और कूल िश2ा एवं सा2रता िवभाग)

के अंतगCत िन# न

िन# न

िन# निलिखत

िलिखत

िलिखत कायालय$

कायालय$

कायालय$ को, ऐसे कायाCलय के <प म=, िजनके 80 ितशत से अिधक कमCचारी-वृ द ने िह दी का

कायCसाधक wान ाa त कर िलया है, अिधसूिचत करती है:-

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय पूवx गोदावरी, आंy देश 533437

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय कृj णा, आंy देश 521110

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय महबू बनगर, आंy देश 509203

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय काशम- I, आंy देश 523001

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय काशम- II, आंy देश 523241

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय Xीकाकुलम, आंy देश 532458

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय बे लारी, कनाCटक 583126

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय बीजापुर, कनाCटक 586201

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय िचकमगलूर, कनाCटक 577112

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय दावणगेरे, कनाCटक 577213

1374

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :APRIL 30, 2016/ VAISAKHA 10, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय धारवाड, कनाCटक 580007

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय गुलबगाC- II, कनाCटक 585312

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय हावेरी, कनाCटक 581104

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय दि2ण क नडा, कनाCटक 574153

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय उडुपी, कनाCटक 576112

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय उS तर क नडा, कनाCटक -581346

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय बागलकोट, कनाCटक -587155

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय क नूर, केरल 670692

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय इदुक, केरल-685601

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय को लम, केरल 691531

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय कोhायम, केरल 686010

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय मलa पुरम, केरल 676519

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय ब तर, छS तीसगढ़ 494005

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय िबलासपुर, छS तीसगढ़-495551

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय दंतेवाडा, छS तीसगढ़-494441

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय छमतरी, छS तीसगढ़-493663

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय दुगC, छS तीसगढ़-491002

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय कबीरधाम, छS तीसगढ़-491445

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय कांकेर, छS तीसगढ़-494335

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय कोरबा, छS तीसगढ़-495445

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय को?रया, छS तीसगढ़-496331

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय महासमुंद, छS तीसगढ़-493558

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय अशोक नगर, मR य देश-473335

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय बड़वानी, मR य देश 451550

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय बुरहानपुर, मR य देश-45334

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय bडडोरी, मR य देश-481879

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय मंदसौर, मR य देश-458990

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय सागर, मR य देश-470117

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय सतना, मR य देश-485446

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय ~ योपुर, मR य देश-476337

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय उम?रया, मR य देश-484661

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय बालासोर, मR य देश-756045

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय बरगढ़, ओिडशा-768039

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 30] 2016@oS'kk[k 10] 1938

1375

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय भक, ओिडशा-756125

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय बोलंगीर, ओिडशा-767026

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय बोp, ओिडशा-762026

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय देवगढ़, ओिडशा-867108

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय कालाहांडी, ओिडशा-766100

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय खुदाC, ओिडशा-752055

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय मलकानिगरी-I , ओिडशा-764048

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय मलकानिगरी-II , ओिडशा-764048

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय मयूरभंज, ओिडशा-757029

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय नबरंगपुर, ओिडशा-764085

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय नयागढ़, ओिडशा-752070

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय फुलबनी, ओिडशा-762002

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय पुरी, ओिडशा-752111

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय रायगढ़, ओिडशा-765019

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय संबलपुर, ओिडशा-768025

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय सोनपुर, ओिडशा-767016

जवाहर नवोदय िव5ालय सुदरगढ़, ओिडशा-770072

[सं. 11011-2/2015-रा.भा.ए.]

सुखबीर bसह संधु, संयु: त सिचव

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education)

(O.L. UNIT)

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2016

S.O.699 .—In pursuance of sub. rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the Ministry of Human

Resource Development, (Department of Higher Education & Department of School Education & Literacy) as office,

whose more than 80% members of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:-

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA POORVI GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH 5333437

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA KRISHNA, ANDHRA PRADESH 521110

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA MEHBOOB NAGAR, ANDHRA PRADESH 5092203

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA PRAKASHAM-I, ANDHRA PRADESH 523001

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA PRAKASHAM-II, ANDHRA PRADESH 523241

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SHRIKAKULAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 532458

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA BELLARI, KARANATAKA 583126

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA BEEJAPUR, KARANATAK 586201

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA CHIKMAGLUR, KARNATAKA 577112

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA DAVANGERE, KARNATAKA 577213

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA DHARWAD, KARNATAKA 580007

1376

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :APRIL 30, 2016/ VAISAKHA 10, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA GULBARGA-II, KARNATAKA 585312

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA HAVERI, KARNATAKA 581104

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SOUTH KANNADA, KARNATAKA 574153

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA UDUPI, KARNATAKA 576112

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA NORTHA KANNADA, KARANATAKA 581346

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA BAGALKOT, KARNATAKA 587155

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA KANNOOR, KERALA 670692

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA IDOOKI, KERALA 685601

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA KOLLAM, KERALA 691531

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA KOTTAYAM, KERALA 686010

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA MALAPPURAM, KERALA 676519

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA BASTAR, CHHATTISGARH 494005

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH 495551

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA DANTEVADA, CHHATTISGARH 494441

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA CHHAMTARI, CHHATTISGARH-493663

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA DURG, CHHATTISGARH 491002

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA KABIRDHAM, CHHATTISGARH 491445

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA KANKER, CHHATTISGARH 493345

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA KORBA, CHHTTISGARH 495445

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA KORIYA, CHHATTISGARH 496331

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA MAHASAMUNDRA 493558

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA ASHOK NAGAR 473335

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA BADWANI, MADHYA PRADESH 451550

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA BURHANPUR, MADHYA PRADESH 45334

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA DINDORI, MADHYA PRADESH 481879

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA MANDSAUR, MADHYA PRADESH 458990

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAGAR, MADHYA PRADESH 470117

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SATNA, MADHYA PRADESH 485446

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SHYOPUR, MADHYA PRADESH 476337

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA UMARIYA, MADHYA PRADESH 484661

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA BALASOR, MADHYA PRADESH

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA BARGARH, ODISHA 768039

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA BHADRAK, ODISHA 756125

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA BOLANGIR, ODISHA 767026

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA BODDH, ODISHA 762026

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA DEVGARH, ODISHA 867108

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 30] 2016@oS'kk[k 10] 1938

1377

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA KALAHANDI, ODISHA 766100

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA KHURDA, ODISHA 752055

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA MALKANGIRI-I, ODISHA 764048

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA MALKANGIRI-II, ODISHA 764048

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA MAYURBHANJ, ODISHA 752070

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA NABRANGPUR, ODISHA 764085

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA NAYAGARH, ODISHA 752070

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA, ODISHA 762002

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA PURI, ODISHA 752111

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA RAYGARH, ODISHA 765019

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMBALPUR, ODISHA 768025

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SONPUR, ODISHA 767016

JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SUNDARGARH, ODISHA 770072

[No. 11011-2/2015-O.L.U.]

SUKHBIR SINGH SANDHU, Jt. Secy.

foKku vkSj

foKku vkSj izkS|ksfxdh

izkS|ksfxdh

izkS|ksfxdh ea=ky;

ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 27 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk-700

700

700-& dsaUnzh; ljdkj] ljdkjh LFkku ¼vizkf/kd`r vf/kHkksfx;ksa dh csn[kyh½ vf/kfu;e] 1971 ¼1971 dk 40½ dh

/kkjk 3 }kjk iznRr “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, vkSj Hkkjr ljdkj dh iwoZ dk;Z] vkokl vkSj iznk; ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk

la[;k dk- vk- 360] rkjh[k 7 Qjojh] 1959 dh mu ckrksa ds flok; tgka rd mudk laca/k Hkkjrh; losZ{k.k foHkkx dh

Øela[;k 35 ls gSa] vf/kØkar djrs gq,] ftUgsa ,sls vf/kØe.k ls igys fd;k x;k gS ;k djus dk yksi fd;k x;k gS]

fuEufyf[kr lkj.kh ds LraHk ¼1½ esa of.kZr vf/kdkfj;ksa dks dsanzh; ljdkj ds jktif=r vf/kdkjh gksrs gq, mDr vf/kfu;e ds

iz;kstuksa ds fy, laink vf/kdkjh fu;qDr djrh gS] tks iznRr “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djsaxs vkSj mDr lkj.kh ds LraHk ¼2½ esa

rRLFkkuh izfof"V;ksa esa fofufnZ"V lkoZtfud ifjljksa ds laca/k esa muds viuh&viuh vf/kdkfjrk dh LFkkuh; lhekvksa ds Hkhrj

mDr vf/kfu;e ds }kjk ;k ds v/khu ;k laink vf/kdkfj;ksa ij vf/kjksfir drZO;ksa dk ikyu djsaxs] vFkkZr~ %&

vf/kdkfj;ksa dk inuke

vf/kdkfjrk dh LFk

vf/kdkfjrk dh LFkkuh; lhek,a

kuh; lhek,a

¼1½

¼2½

1- ^{v/kh{k.k losZ{k.k] e/;izns”k ft;ks Lis”ky MSVk}

lsaVj] Hkkjrh; losZ{k.k foHkkx] tcyiqj

Hkkjrh; losZ{k.k foHkkx ds iz”kklfud fu;a=.k ds v/khu mudh

viuh&viuh vf/kdkfjrk dh LFkkuh; lhekvksa ds Hkhrj vofLFkr

LFkku

2- ^{v/kh{k.k losZ{k.k] egkjk’Vª vkSj xksok ft;ks Lis”ky}

MSVk lsaVj] Hkkjrh; losZ{k.k foHkkx] iq.ks

v/kh{k.k losZ{k.k] iatkc] gfj;k.kk vkSj paMhx<+

ft;ks Lis”ky MSVk lsaVj] Hkkjrh; losZ{k.k foHkkx]

paMhx<+

v/kh{k.k losZ{k.k] es?kky; vkSj v#.kkpy izns”k

ft;ks Lis”ky MSVk lsaVj] Hkkjrh; losZ{k.k foHkkx]

f”kykax

1378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :APRIL 30, 2016/ VAISAKHA 10, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5- ^{v/kh{k.k losZ{k.k] mM+hlk ft;ks Lis”ky MSVk lsaVj]}

Hkkjrh; losZ{k.k foHkkx] Hkqous”oj

6- ^{v/kh{k.k losZ{k.k] >kj[kaM ft;ks Lis”ky MSVk lsaVj]}

Hkkjrh; losZ{k.k foHkkx] jkaph

7- ^{v/kh{k.k losZ{k.k] dukZVd ft;ks Lis”ky MSVk lsaVj]}

Hkkjrh; losZ{k.k foHkkx] caxykSj

8- ^{v/kh{k.k losZ{k.k] ft;ksMSfVd ,aM fjlpZ czkap]}

Hkkjrh; losZ{k.k foHkkx] nsgjknwu

9- ^{v/kh{k.k losZ{k.k] bafM;u bafLVV~;wV vkWQ losZbax}

,aM eSfiax] Hkkjrh; losZ{k.k foHkkx] gSnjkckn

10- ^{v/kh{k.k losZ{k.k] eSi vkjdkbo ,aM fMl,feus”ku}

lsaVj] Hkkjrh; losZ{k.k foHkkx] nsgjknwu

11-

v/kh{k.k losZ{k.k] mRrjk[kaM vkSj if”peh mRrj

izns”k ft;ks Lis”ky MSVk lsaVj] Hkkjrh; losZ{k.k

foHkkx] nsgjknwu

Hkkjrh; losZ{k.k foHkkx ds iz”kklfud fu;a=.k ds v/khu elwjh dh

LFkkuh; lhekvksa ds Hkhrj vofLFkr LFkku

12-

v/kh{k.k losZ{k.k] xqtjkr] neu vkSj nh;w ft;ks

Lis”ky MSVk lsaVj] Hkkjrh; losZ{k.k foHkkx] xka/kh

uxj

[Qk- la- ,l,e@28@16@2015]

Ckh- ,l- jkor, la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

New Delhi, the 27^th April, 2016

S.O.700.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorized

Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry

of Works, Housing and Supply number S.O. 307, dated the 7^th February, 1959 in so far as it relates to serial number 35 relating

to Survey of India, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government

hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column (1) of the following table, being gazetted officers of the Central Government,

to be estate officers for the purposes of the said act, who shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed on

estate officers by or under the said Act within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction in respect of the public premises

specified in the corresponding entries in column (2) of the said TABLE namely:-

Designation of officers

Local limits of jurisdiction

(1)

(2)

Superintending Surveyor, Madhya Pradesh Geospatial Data

Centre, Survey of India, Jabalpur.

Premises under the administrative control of

Survey of India Department situated within

the

local

limits

their

respective

jurisdiction.

Superintending Surveyor, Maharashtra and Goa Geospatial Data

Centre, Survey of India, Pune.

Superintending Surveyor, Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh

Geospatial Data Centre, Survey of India, Chandigarh.

Superintending Surveyor, Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh

Geospatial Data Centre, Survey of India, Shillong.

Superintending Surveyor, Orissa Geospatial Data Centre, Survey

of India, Bhubaneswar.

Superintending Surveyor, Jharkhand Geospatial Data Centre,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 30] 2016@oS'kk[k 10] 1938

1379

Survey of India, Ranchi.

Superintending Surveyor, Karnataka Geospatial Data Centre,

Survey of India, Bangalore.

Superintending Surveyor, Geodetic and Research Branch, Survey

of India, Dehradun.

Superintending Surveyor, Indian Institute of Surveying and

Mapping Survey of India, Hyderabad.

10.

Superintending Surveyor, Map Archive and Dissemination Centre,

Survey of India, Dehradun

11.

Superintending Surveyor, Uttarakhand and West Uttar Pradesh

Geospatial Data Centre, Survey of India, Dehradun.

Premises under the administrative control of

Survey of India Department situated within

the local limits of Mussorie.

12.

Superintending Surveyor, Gujarat, Daman and Diu Geospatial

Data Centre, Survey of India, Gandhinagar

[F. No. SM/28/16/2015]

B. S. RAWAT, Jt. Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vizSy] 2016

dk- vk

vkvk

vk- 701

701

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

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 38@2012½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 11@04@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012/81/2012–vkbZ vkj (lh,e-II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 11^th April, 2016

S.O. 701.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.38/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/04/2016.

[No. L-22012/81/2012 - IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 11^th day of February, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 38/2012

Between:

The Branch Secretary,

(Shri B. Saranga Pani),

Singareni Collieries Employees Union(CITU),

Shramika Bhavan, Karl Marx Colony,

1380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :APRIL 30, 2016/ VAISAKHA 10, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Bhupalapalli, Warangal Dist. – 506169.

….Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Bhupalapally Area, Bhupalapally,

Warangal Dist. – 506169.

….Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Party in person

For the Respondent :

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-22012/81/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 20.7.2012

referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman

under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Bhupalapalli Area, Warangal Dist., in allotting quarters to the juniors as per M.O.S. dated 3.6.2008 as one time

measure is justified or not? To what relief the applicant is entitled for?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 38/2012 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.

3. Inspite of availing several opportunities to file claim statement, the Petitioner was absent. Claim statement was not

filed, and there is no representation on behalf of the Petitioner. Inspite of receipt of notice the Petitioner is found

absent, which clearly indicates that the dispute of the Petitioner has already been settled. In the circumstances stated

above, it is felt that the Petitioner has got no claim to raise. Thus, a ‘No dispute’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 11^th day of

February, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 30] 2016@oS'kk[k 10] 1938

1381

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vizSy] 2016

dk- vk

vkvk

vk- 702

702

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

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 59@2006 dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

11@04@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@306@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th April, 2016

S.O.702.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.59/2006) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/04/2016.

[No. L-22012/306/2005 - IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 10^th day of March, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 59/2006

Between:

The Vice-President,

(Sri S. Satyanarayana)

Singareni Collieries Employees Union(CITU),

C-30, Bazar Area,

Bellampalli – 504251.

….Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri. Adilabad District.

….Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, K. Srinivas Rao, P. Sudha, T. Bal Reddy, M. Govind &

Venkatesh Dixit, Advocates

For the Respondent :

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

1382

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :APRIL 30, 2016/ VAISAKHA 10, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-22012/306/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 5.10.2006

referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman

under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in reducing two annual

increments with cumulative effect in respect of Sri Mallala Sammaiah, Supportman is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 59/2006 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. The Petitioner Union appeared before this Tribunal and filed claim statement on behalf of the workman. Respondent

management also appeared and filed their counter.

3. When the case stands posted hearing arguments, Respondent appeared but the Petitioner union found absent. This

Tribunal adjourned the case for several dates to secure the presence of the Petitioner union. But, inspite of several

adjournments the Petitioner union failed to attend the court to pursue their case which clearly indicates that the dispute

of the workman has already been settled and the Petitioner union has got nothing to raise any claim. Hence, a ‘No

dispute’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcried by her and corrected by me on this the 10^th day

of March, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN , Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vizSy] 2016

dk vk

vkvk

vk- 703

703

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

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 30@2008½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 11@04@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@24@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½ ]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th April, 2016

S.O. 703.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.30/2008) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. ECL, and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 11/04/2016.

[No. L-22012/24/2008 - IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 30 OF 2008

PARTIES: The management of 1 & 2 Incline, Jhanjra Area of M/s. ECL.

Vs.

Sri Daya Ram Paswan

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 30] 2016@oS'kk[k 10] 1938

1383

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management:

Sri P. K. Goswami, Ld. Advocate

For the union (Workman):

P.C. Pandey, KMC

INDUSTRY:

COAL

State : West Bengal

Dated: 28.03.2016

A W A R D

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter

NO. L-22012/24/2008-IR(CM-II) dated 19.06.2008 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by

this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of M/s. ECL in dismissing Shri Daya Ram Paswan w.e.f. 08.05.2002

is legal and justified? To what relief is the workman entitled? ”

Having received the Order No. L-22012/24/2008-IR(CM-II) dated 19.06.2008 of the above said reference

from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 30 of 2008

was registered on 01.07.2008 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered

post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements

along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order

notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.

Case called out. Sri P. K. Goswami, Learned Advocate is present on behalf of the management but has not

filed his authorization. None appears on behalf of the workman/union.

On perusal of the case record I find that the union has never attended the Tribunal except once on 11.07.2013.

Three registered notices were issued on 06.05.2009, 24.05.2012 and 19.09.2014 and Thirty Three dates have been

granted to the union so far but all in vain. It seems to me that neither the workman nor the union is now interested to

proceed with the case further. As such the case is closed and a ‘No Dispute Award’ is hereby passed accordingly.

O R D E R

Let an “Award” be and same is passed as no dispute existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vizSy] 2016

dk- vk

vkvk

vk- 704

704

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

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 34@2008½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 11@04@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012/28/2008–vkbZ- vkj- (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th April, 2016

S.O. 704.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.34/2008) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/04/2016.

[No. L-22012/28/2008 - IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 34 OF 2008

PARTIES: The management of Haripur Colliery of M/s. ECL.

Vs.

Sri Ibrail Mia

1384

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :APRIL 30, 2016/ VAISAKHA 10, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management:

Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate

For the union (Workman):

None

INDUSTRY:

COAL

State : West Bengal

Dated: 30.03.2016

A W A R D

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter

No. L-22012/28/2008-IR(CM-II) dated 19.06.2008 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by

this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of M/s. ECL in dismissing Shri Ibrail Mia w.e.f. 22.06.1998 is legal

and justified? To what relief the claimant is entitled to? ”

Having received the Order No. L-22012/28/2008-IR(CM-II) dated 19.06.2008 of the above said reference from

the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 34 of 2008 was

registered on 01.07.2008 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post

to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along

with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by

the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.

Case called out. Both parties are absent.

On perusal of the case record I find that this is a case of the year 2008 and so far 24 dates have been granted but

the workman or his representative did not appears even for a single day. Registered notices were issued on 06.05.2009,

20.05.2012 & 16.10.2014 but to no effect. Neither party has filed written statement so far. It seems to me that the

workman has no interest to proceed with the case further. As such the case is closed and a ‘No Dispute Award’ is hereby

passed accordingly.

O R D E R

Let an “Award” be and same is passed as no dispute existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vizSy] 2016

dk- vk

vkvk

vk- 705

705

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

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 45@2008½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 11@04@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012/72/2008–vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th April, 2016

S.O. 705.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.45/2008) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. ECL, and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 11/04/2016.

[No. L-22012/72/2008 - IR(CM-II]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 45 OF 2008

PARTIES: The management of 1 & 2 Incline, Jhanjra of M/s. ECL.

Vs.

Sri Dipak Bouri

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 30] 2016@oS'kk[k 10] 1938

1385

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management:

Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate

For the union (Workman):

Sri Rakesh Kumar, President, KMC

INDUSTRY:

COAL

State: West Bengal

Dated: 31.03.2016

A W A R D

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter

No. L-22012/72/2008-IR(CM-II) dated 29.07.2008 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by

this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of M/s. ECL in dismissing Shri Dipak Bouri w.e.f. 06.02.2007 is legal

and justified? To what relief is the workman concerned entitled ?”

Having received the Order No. L-22012/72/2008-IR(CM-II) dated 29.07.2008 of the above said reference from

the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 45 of 2008

was registered on 04.08.2008 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the

registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written

statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the

said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.

Case called out. Sri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate is present on behalf of the management of ECL. Sri Rakesh

Kumar, President of the union, KMC is present on behalf of the workman. But the union yet not filed the written

statement of the workman.

Sri Rakesh Kumar submits that the workman has expired and he has got no information from the heirs of the

deceased workman. He also submits that he does not want to proceed with this case any further. Since the workman is

dead and his heirs do not want to contest the case any more the tribunal has no option left but to close the case. As such

the case is closed and a ‘No Dispute Award’ is hereby passed accordingly.

O R D E R

Let an “Award” be and same is passed as no dispute existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vizSy] 2016

dk- vk

vkvk

vk- 706

706

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

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 05@2008½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 11@04@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012/366/2007–vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th April, 2016

S.O. 706. — In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/2008) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.04.2016.

[No. L-22012/366/2007 - IR(CM-II]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 05 OF 2008

PARTIES: The management of Khas Kajora Colliery of M/s. E.C.L.

Vs.

Sri Ram Paharia

1386

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :APRIL 30, 2016/ VAISAKHA 10, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management:

Sri. P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate

For the union (Workman):

Sri G. P. Mal, Ld. Advocate

INDUSTRY:

COAL

STATE: WEST BENGAL

Dated: 29.03.2016

A W A R D

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter

No. L-22012/366/2007–IR(CM-II) dated 07.01.2008 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by

this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of M/s. ECL in dismissing Shri Ram Paharia from service w.e.f

24.04.2004 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled? ”

1. Having received the Order No. L-22012/366/2007–IR(CM-II) dated 07.01.2008 of the above said reference from the

Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 05 of 2008 was

registered on 16.01.2008. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to

the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements along

with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by

the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through their

representative.

In brief, the workman has stated in his written statement that Sri Ram Paharia was a permanent workman of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited and was posted at Khas Kajora Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited as Under Ground Loader.

He was in employment since 25.11.1995. He became ill. He could not attend his duty from 23.09.2002. His absence was

on medical grounds. He was suspected T.B. There was no enquiry. He was asked to sit outside and an Enquiry Officer

proceeded enquiry proceeding. Later on the Enquiry Officer called the workman and got his signature on enquiry

proceeding. The medical papers were not considered in enquiry proceeding. He was not residing in Company’s Quarter.

He belongs to Schedule Tribe and an illiterate person. His dismissal is illegal. He has prayed that tribunal may kindly

set-a-side the dismissal order and pass order for reinstatement with back wages and with incidental benefits.

On the other hand, the management has stated in his written statement in brief that Sri Ram Paharia, U.G. Loader, U-M

No.107731 was a permanent employee of Khas Kajora Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. His date of birth was

04.03.1972. He was appointed on 25.11.1995. Ram Paharia absented himself from duties since 23.09.2002 without any

intimation, permission or sanctioned leave. He was issued Charge sheet No.KC/P&IR/C-6/19/2003 dated 03.09.2003 as

per provision under Clause 26.39 and 26.23 of the Certified Standing Order of the Company. Sri Ram Paharia submitted

his reply on 01.10.2003 enclosing medical certificates issued by Dr. S. Kar, M.O., Nakra Konda P.H.C. The employee

concerned was suffering from PARA PARESTS and was under his treatment from 23.09.2002 to 15.07.2003. There

was no corroborative document such as Prescription, Medical Purchase Receipts etc. The explanation of concerned

workman being unsatisfactory, the enquiry was conducted against the workman. Sri Ram Paharia along with his co-

worker fully participated in enquiry. Second show cause notice vide letter No. KA/PM/C-6/10/3416 dated 18.03.2004

was issued to him, but he did not care to reply. The competent authority being satisfied with the enquiry proceeding that

the delinquent was guilty of the charge sheet awarded punishment of termination of his service from the company vide

letter No. KA/PM/C-6/10/234 dated 17/24.04.2004. M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has denied that the ex workman

was suffering from T.B. or under medical treatment from 23.09.2002 to 26.02.2004. The Ex-workman was given

reasonable opportunity to defend his case at the time of enquiry proceeding in accordance with the principles of natural

justice. The Ex.-workman attended enquiry along with his co-worker. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

The workman has filed his affidavit in oral evidence. He has been cross-examined by the learned Advocate of M/s.

Eastern Coalfields Limited. The management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed any documentary

evidence in their support.

Sri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate on behalf of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is present. Sri G. P. Mal, Learned

Advocate on behalf of workman is present. The workman has filed written argument. I perused the written argument of

workman and heard argument of Sri P. K Das, Learned Advocate on behalf of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

It is admitted fact by both parties that Sri Ram Paharia, the delinquent workman was a permanent employee as Under

Ground Loader under Khas Kajora Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and he was appointed on 25.11.1995.

The workman has alleged in his Written Argument that he was not afforded any reasonable opportunity to defend

himself in enquiry. The enquiry was conducted arbitrarily in biased manner and in utter violation of principle of natural

justice. The management did not follow the Procedure of Domestic Enquiry on the basis of which the punishment was

Awarded. On the other hand, Sri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate has argued that the enquiry was conducted in accordance

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 30] 2016@oS'kk[k 10] 1938

1387

with the Principle of Natural Justice. The concerned workman was afforded opportunity to defend himself. The

workman has participated in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted after issuing notice to workman.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in A. K. Kraipak & Ors. v/s Union of India & Ors. [1970] 1 SCR 457 has held “ the aims rules

of Natural Justice to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only

in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words, they do not supplant the law, out supplement it . It is true

that if statutory provision can be read consistently with the principles of natural justice, the court should do so because it

must be presumed that the legislature and the statutory authorities intend to act in accordance with the principles of

natural justice”

When the domestic enquiry itself is in question, then it can be verified on perusal of enquiry proceeding, enquiry report

and connected documents regarding compliance of Principles of Natural Justice. The copy of Charge Sheet, Enquiry

Proceeding, Enquiry Report and other documents have not been filed on the file of reference. Obviously these are the

documents of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. It ought to have been filed of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. These are

the vital documents. On perusal of these documents the tribunal can only ensure the fairness and impartiality of domestic

enquiry. But M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed any single paper regarding enquiry proceeding against

delinquent employee Sri Ram Paharia. Section 114 (g) of Evidence Act lays down as “ that evidence which could be and

is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it ”. Therefore the tribunal is

bound to draw the adverse presumption against M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited that if there was any enquiry at all it was

invalid due to non-compliance of Principle of Natural Justice or for utter violation of Principle of Natural Justice.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India Ltd v/s The Management &

Others, AIR 1973 SC 1227 has held that the Tribunal could interfere (i) when there is want of good faith, (ii) when there

is victimization or unfair labour practice, (iii) when the Management is guilty of a basic error or violation of a principle

of natural justice, and (iv) when on the materials, the finding is completely baseless or perverse.

10.

As per requirement of natural justice (i) enquiry must be held by a person who is not biased in favour or against either of

the parties (ii) delinquent employee should be given a fair opportunity to adequately representing his case by hearing the

evidence in support of the charge and to cross-examine the witnesses produced against him and also be allowed to rebut

the evidence laid against him by examining the witnesses including himself, if he so wishes on any relevant matter.

11.

The workman has stated in his evidence in para-30 of his affidavit that he was absent from his duty from 23.09.2002 to

24.08.2003 i.e. for 11 months due to his illness. In cross-examination he has stated that he has not filed documents

regarding his treatment at Kajora Hospital. He did not intimate the management about his treatment at different places.

This piece of evidence indicates that delinquent workman Sri Ram Paharia was absent from duty for eleven months

without any sanctioned leave. He did not intimate M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited about his illness or treatment. As per

Certified Standing Order of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in rule 26.28 that absence from duty beyond 10 days

without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause are overstaying beyond sanctioned leave without valid reason is one of the

misconduct described under Certified Standing Order. As per admission of workman in his oral evidence he was absent

for about 11 months without sanctioned leave or intimation to M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, which is one of the

misconduct. Every workman is expected to behave himself so as not to damage or prejudice the interest of his employer

whatever may be the sphere of employee concerned. A workman owes a duty to his employer to exercise reasonable

care in the performance of his duty. A workman who deliberately neglects to carry out his work or perform his duty

when required to do with reasonable care is guilty of misconduct of negligence.

12.

The right of employer to inflict the punishment of dismissal or discharge is not unfettered. The punishment must be

commensurate with the gravity of the act of misconduct proved against delinquent workman. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court has laid down in this connection in Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India Ltd. v/s. The

Management & Others, AIR 1973 SC 1227 where the order of punishment was shockingly disproportionate with the act

of misconduct which no reasonable employer would ever impose in like circumstances that itself would lead to the

inference of victimization or unfair labour practice which would vitiate the order of dismissal. But by enacting section

11A the legislature has transferred the discretion of the employer in imposing the punishment to the adjudicator. It is

now the satisfaction of the Industrial adjudicator to finally decide the quantum of punishment for proved acts of

misconduct in case of dismissal. If the tribunal is not satisfied that the order of dismissal is justified in any circumstances

of the facts of the case, it has the power not only to set aside the order of punishment and direct to reinstatement with

back wages, but it also has the power to impose certain condition as it may deemed fit and also to give relief to the

workman including the award of lesser punishment in lieu of dismissal. When different categories of penalties can be

imposed in respect of the alleged fault, one of which is dismissal from service, the Disciplinary Authority is

required to consult himself for selecting the most appropriate penalty from out of all the range of penalties available

that can be imposed having regard to the nature, content and gravity of the misconduct. Unless the Disciplinary

Authority reaches the conclusion that having regard to the nature, content and magnitude of the fault, committed by the

workman concerned, it would be absolutely unsafe to retain him in service, the maximum penalty of dismissal should

not be imposed. If the lesser penalty can be imposed without seriously jeopardizing the interest of employer, the

disciplinary authority should not impose the maximum penalty of dismissal from service. Punishment of dismissal of a

1388

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :APRIL 30, 2016/ VAISAKHA 10, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

permanent employee for absence of 11 months even without any lawful domestic enquiry, is unjustified, which should

be set-a-side and be substituted by lesser punishment and reinstatement will be the natural consequence.

13.

In affidavit the delinquent Sri Ram Paharia has stated his age near about 41 years. It is not possible at this age to get

alternate employment anywhere else. Therefore, he should be reinstated with back wages. In Deepali Gundu Surwase

V/s Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D. Endowment Department) and other reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 has

held that cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the

statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman then the

concerned Court or Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages.

14.

Considering the whole facts and circumstances of the reference, as discussed above, I come to the conclusion that the

action of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing Sri Ram Paharia from service is illegal and unjustified. I set-a-

side the order of dismissal dated 24.04.2004 of Sri Ram Paharia. M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is directed to reinstate

Sri Ram Paharia with continuity of service. I think it appropriate that the delinquent workman be imposed a punishment

of stoppage of 2 (Two) increments with cumulative effect. It is further directed that the concerned workman will get full

back wages from the order of dismissal i.e. from 24.04.2004 till his reinstatement. The concerned workman will be

entitled to get all consequential service benefits.

O R D E R

Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vizSy] 2016

dk- vk

vkvk

vk- 707

707

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

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 120@2001½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 11-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012/4/2001–vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th April, 2016

S.O. 707.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 120/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Forest Research

Institute and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.04.2016

[No. L-42012/4/2001 - IR(CM-II]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR-COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

RAKESH KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 120/2001

Ref.No. L-42012/4/2001-IR(CM-II) dated 17.07.2001

BETWEEN

The President

Centre of Indian Trade Union,

Local Bus Stand, Dehradun

Dehradun-0

AND

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 30] 2016@oS'kk[k 10] 1938

1389

1. The Director,

Forest Research Institute,

(Indian Council of Forestry Research & Education

Dehradun-0

AWARD

By order No. L-42012/4/2001-IR(CM-II) dated 17.07.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between The

President, Centre of Indian Trade Union, Dehradun and the Director, Forest Research Institution, Dehradun

for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF ICFRI, DEHRADUN IN NOT

GIVING THE POST AND PAY SCALE OF COMPOSITOR TO SH. RODGER SHER SINGH

W.E.F. 01.11.1994 IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF HE IS ENTITLED

TO?”

3. As per the claim statement W2, the workman union has stated in brief that on 04.10.1971, the workman

Rodger Sher Singh was appointed as skilled labour compositor on daily wage basis, and his services

continued till August 1981, due to his serious illness he went on leave, information was sent to the

employer but without following due procedure his services were terminated in Sept.1981 while he had

worked for more than 240 days, several representations were given by him but none was considered

properly. Again on 03.01.1984, the workman was offered appointment as temporary Khalasi which was in

furtherance of directions given by the Central Government that those who had worked for more than 240

days before 1981 should be regularized, and in such circumstances the workman should have been posted

as compositor since for skilled trained compositor he had got the certificate regarding Printing technology

also, and also had sufficient experience. The opposite party had transferred him from the maintenance

division. to the said department in 1995 where he had been working as compositor but neither he was paid

the salary for that work nor his designation was changed as compositor, other related facilities were also

not provided.

4. It has further been stated in the claim statement that several other junior employees viz. Mr.HC Gauri and

Mr. Akhileshwar Singh Lingwal etc. were regularized and made permanent in the year 1980 and 1976, but

the workman applicant was deprived from his legal rights and after lapse of much time he was regularized

on the post of Khalasi, this fact should have been taken into account that at the time of initial appointment

the workman was Central Government employee, and even in the year 1976 at the time of formation of

autonomous unit, since the workman had accepted to be engaged as central government employee and in

the year 1971 when he was working as skilled labour-compositor, he was having minimum educational

qualification viz. Jr. high school, but the opposite party ignored the legal provisions and rules, unfair labour

practice were adopted, junior employees were summoned for interview and other persons are being called

for interview so as to be appointed on the post of compositor. It has also been stressed that the workman

belongs to minority community and he has disabled as well. The union has prayed for direction to the

opposite party to provide all facilities and salary as well as designation of compositor to the workman.

5. The management in its written statement M3, has denied the main allegation levelled in the claim

statement. The opposite party has stated that the Forest Research Institute being one of the prominent

Institute of International repute is controlled and operated by Indian Council of Forestry Research and

Education which is autonomous body under the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India and is

also duly registered under the Act. The aim and objectives of the Institute have also been given in the

written statement. The management has emphasized that the Forest Research Institute or ICFRE is not an

industry under the Act., therefore it is not covered for the purpose of the impugned case, moreover

applicant union is competent to espouse the present case and there is not locus standi in the matter. The

correct name of the parent institute has not been given in the claim statement.

6. The opposite party has further stressed that the workman applicant left the services without any information

and intimation. There was legal and valid break in his service since he himself has abandoned the services.

Offer against the post of Khalasi has been admitted by the opposite party but since there was no continuity

or linkage with his previous engagement therefore no relief can be given to the applicant. The opposite

party has also emphasized that at the time of accepting the offer for the post of Khalasi as fresh basis the

applicant did not make any protest or objection, more over the applicant is not qualified as per rules for the

post of compositor. In the printing technology department the workman had worked as Khalasi only and he

1390

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :APRIL 30, 2016/ VAISAKHA 10, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

has never discharged and performed duties of compositor. Other person appointed as compositor possesses

the requisite qualification as provided in the rules, and for that reasons the workman applicant was not

entitled to be posted or appointed as compositor, there was no discrimination at any stage.

7. The opposite party has further stated that post of compositor being a group C post, can only be filled by

direct recruitment and not by regularization of daily wages employee; earlier period of the applicant

workman could not be clubbed as claimed in the petition. The opposite party has also submitted that this

court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate in the matter. It has also been pointed out by the opposite

party that all the said posts of compositor have already beenfilled up and none is vacant, and the workman

applicant was due for retirement on 30.04.2003 on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years. The

management has prayed to reject the claim statement and to decide the matter in favour of the opposite

party.

8. Alongwith claim statement W4, several documents have also been filed by the workman union. Service

details, in 3 sets, have also been filed by the workman union. Further as per list A1-33, the applicant has

filed certain other documents.

9. Workman Sri Rodger Sher Singh has filed his affidavit in evidence. he was duly cross examined on behalf

of the management. The management, in its evidence has filed the affidavit of Sri R.K. Manchanda,

Establsihment and Accounts Officer as A-55, and another affidavit of Sri Sunil Prasad Mamgain as A-56.

Both the witnesses were cross examined on behalf of the workman.

10. Arguments of learned AR for both the parties have been heard at length. Record available before the court

has been scrutinized minutely.

11. Learned AR for the management has relied upon the following prouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court:-

1. 2011, SCLJ, Union of India and others vs A.Durairaj(D) page 7.

2. 2011 SCLJ, Haryana State Warehousing Corpn. And another vs

Jagat Ram and others page 554.

12. The principles propounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Rulings, cannot be and must not be

legitimately ignored.

13. The learned authorized representative of the workman has submitted that the management has victimized the

workman and has acted in an arbitrary method by not considering the workman for the post of Compositor; in

spite of the fact that the workman possessed all requisite qualification i.e. educational qualification up to Junior

High School and requisite experience also. It has also been contended by the workman that the other workmen,

junior to the workman, had been given all benefits, ignoring the workman which amounts to unfair labour

practice on the part of the management.

14. The authorized representative of the management contending the submissions of the workman has placed

reliance upon the Recruitment Rules and has submitted that the workman never possessed the qualification

required for the post of Compositor at any point of time as its minimum educational qualification was

matriculation and the workman was only Junior High School passed, therefore, it was not practically possible

for the management to appoint the workman on the post of compositor. As regards appointment of the other

workmen, the management has argued that they possessed all requisite qualifications i.e. educational and

otherwise; and accordingly, were considered and appointed as per Rules.

15. I have scanned entire material available on record in the light of the rival pleadings and submissions forwarded

by the learned authorized representatives of the parties.

16. The case referred to this Tribunal for adjudication is to evaluate the validity of the action of the management of

ICFRI, Dehradun in not given the post and pay scale of Compositor to the workman w.e.f. 02.11.94; and

accordingly, as per settled law, this Tribunal has to confine to the four corners of the schedule of reference.

The management has filed Recruitment Rules for the post of Technical Assistant (Compositor), paper No. 4/17-

4/18, which clearly provides that the educational and other qualification required for the post as under:

“Matriculation or equivalent. 3 years’ experience in Government Press or in a leading press of

repute.”

Further, the workman himself has filed the Circular dated 25.11.1999 regarding filling up the post of Technical

Assistant Group ‘C’ (Gen), paper No. 33/5, the relevant portion of the same, disclosing requisite qualifications etc., is

quoted hereunder:

“In compliance of ICFRE Notification No. 58/21/XX/99-ICFRE, DATED 18^TH October, 99,

applications are invited for the post of Technical Assistant Group ‘C’ (General), in the pay scale of

Rs. 3200-4900 in promotion quota from T.A. Group ‘D’ with 5 years regular service in the grade

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 30] 2016@oS'kk[k 10] 1938

1391

possessing Matriculation certificate from recognized Board or equivalent failing which from Group

‘D’/Mazdoors with 8 years regular service in the grade possessing Matriculation certificate from a

recognized Board or equivalent and subject to passing a test to be prescribed by the Director of the

Institute.”

A bare perusal of the Recruitment, Rules filed by the management as well as the Circular dated 25.11.99, filed

by the workman it is crystal clear that in both the documents the minimum requisite educational qualification for the post

is “Matriculation from a recognized Board or equivalent”; whereas the case of the workman himself is that he is only

Junior High School pass, therefore, the management of the ICFRI was right in not considering the workman for the post

of Compositor, being not fulfilling educational criteria.

It is also the case of the workman that when he was initially appointed in the year 1971, the education

qualification for the post of Compositor was Junior High School; but he has failed to show any document to the effect

that the educational qualification for the post of Compositor was ‘Junior High School’ at any point of time.

As regards the allegation of the workman that the management considered the other workmen junior to him, is

vague enough as apart from his oral evidence, he could not place any cogent reliance in form of document to show that

the alleged workmen were junior to him and did not posses requisite qualification and even then they were appointed as

Compositor. As per settled law, the burden to prove his pleadings was on the workman in which he utterly failed to

establish the pleadings made by him in the statement of claim filed by him before this Tribunal.

17. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and discussions made hereinabove, I am of considered

opinion that the workman did not posses requisite educational qualification required for the post; therefore, the

action of the management of ICFRI, Dehradun in not giving the post and pay scale of Compositor to the

workman was legal and just; and accordingly, come to the conclusion that the workman, Sh. Rodger Sher Singh

is not entitled to any relief.

18. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

19. Award as above.

LUCKNOW.

29^th March, 2016.

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vizSy] 2016

dk- vk

vkvk

vk- 708

708

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

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 27@2008½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

11@04@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22013/1/2016–vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th April, 2016

S.O. 708. — In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/2008) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/04/2016.

[No. L-22013/1/2016 - IR(CM-II]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present:

Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 14^th day of March, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 27/2008

Between:

Sri Senigarapu Narsaiah,

S/o Mondaiah,

1392

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :APRIL 30, 2016/ VAISAKHA 10, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate,

Flat No.G7,

Ground Floor, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,

Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,

Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

..….Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Area. Mandamarri.

Adilabad District.

The Supdt. Of Mines,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

SMG-1 Incline, Mandamarri Area,

Mandamarri, Adilabad District.

…..Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. A. Sarojana and K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent :

Sri M.V. Hanumantha Rao, Advocate

AWARD

Sri S. Narsaiah, the Petitioner has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., which was registered in this Tribunal as LC

No. 27/2008 and notices were issued to the Respondents.

The Petitioner has filed the present case with a prayer to declare the impugned order issued by the 1^st

Respondent vide order No. MMR/PER/D/072/2772, dated 15.5.2005 as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the

same with a direction to the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.

The Respondent entered their appearance and filed counter.

This Tribunal held the domestic enquiry as legal and valid on 5.2.2010 as Petitioner’s counsel conceded the

validity and legality of the domestic enquiry.

While the case was posted for hearing arguments, neither the Petitioner nor the Respondent attended the Court to

advance argument. As this is a case of the year 2008, this Tribunal has given fair chance to advance argument

to both the parties. Inspite of that, both the parties failed to attend the case, which clearly indicates that the

dispute of the parties has already been settled. Hence, ‘No Dispute’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 14^th day of

March, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 30] 2016@oS'kk[k 10] 1938

1393

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vizSy] 2016

dk- vk

vkvk

vk- 709

709

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

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 8@2009½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

11@04@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22013/1/2016–vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th April, 2016

S.O. 709.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 8/2009) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/04/2016.

[No. L-22013/1/2016 - IR(CM-II]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present:

Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 11^th day of March, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 8/2009

Between:

Sri Kona Jayachandra Rao,

S/o Nooka Raju,

R/o Qtr.No.648, T-II,

Manuguru, Khammam District.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Chief General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Manuguru. Khammam District.

The Manager (SOM)

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

PK-I Incline, Manuguru.

Khammam District.

….Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. G. Vidya Sagar, K. Udaya Sri, P. Sudheer Rao & D. Sunil Kumar, Advocates

For the Respondent :

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates.

AWARD

Sri Kona Jayachandra Rao, the Petitioner has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and it was registered in this Tribunal as LC

No.8/2009 and notices were issued to the Respondents.

Petitioner filed the present case seeking for declaring the action on the part of the Respondents in terminating

the service of the Petitioner vide order dated 12.9.2007 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law and

consequentially directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service with full back wages, continuity of

service and all other benefits.

1394

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :APRIL 30, 2016/ VAISAKHA 10, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Respondents entered their appearance and filed counter.

This Tribunal found the domestic enquiry conducted in this case as legal and valid vide order dt. 21.1.2011.

While the case was posted for arguments under Sec.11(A), the Petitioner remained absent. Several opportunities were

given to the Petitioner to advance argument, but the Petitioner failed to avail such opportunities which clearly indicates

that the dispute of the Petitioner has already been settled and the Petitioner has got nothing to raise any claim. Hence,

‘No Dispute’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 11^th day

of March, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vizSy] 2016

dk- vk

vkvk

vk- 710

710

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

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 99@2009½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 11@04@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22013/1/2016–vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th April, 2016

S.O. 710.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 99/2009) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/04/2016.

[No. L-22013/1/2016 - IR(CM-II]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present:

Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 10^th day of March, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 99/2009

Between:

Sri Kasu Mallaiah,

S/o Sri Kasu Iylaiah,

R/o Q.No.G-411,

Ganga Colony, Ramakrishnapur Post,

Adilabad District.

..….Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Ramakrishnapur,

Adilabad.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 30] 2016@oS'kk[k 10] 1938

1395

The Superintendent of Mines,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

R.K.V. Incline, Ramakrishnapur,

Adilabad District.

….Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. G. Vidya Sagar, K. Udaya Sri, P. Sudheer Rao & D. Sunil Kumar, Advocates

For the Respondent :

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

Sri Kasu Mallaiah, the Petitioner has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and it was registered in this Tribunal as LC

No.99/2009 and notices were issued to the Respondents.

Petitioner filed the present case seeking for declaring the action on part of the Respondents in terminating the

service of the Petitioner vide notice No.SRP/RK5/8/P001/SO/3459 dated 19.6.2004 prematurely on the ground that the

Petitioner would be attaining the age of 60 years as on 18.3.2005 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of

law and a further prayer to set aside the said notice and consequentially pass an award directing the Respondents to

continue the Petitioner in service till he attains the age of superannuation of 60 years as on 18.4.2015 in terms of

V.T.C. Certificate No.11934 dated 19.4.1977 and pass further order or orders in the interest of justice.

The Respondent entered their appearance and filed counter.

While the case was posted for recording the evidence of the Petitioner, the Petitioner remained absent. Several

opportunities have been given to the Petitioner to adduce evidence, but the Petitioner failed to avail such opportunities

which clearly indicates that the dispute of the Petitioner has already been settled and the Petitioner has got nothing to

raise any claim. Hence, ‘No Dispute’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 10^th day

of March, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vizSy] 2016

dk- vk

vkvk

vk- 711

711

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

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 18@2007½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 11@04@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22013/1/2016–vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th April, 2016

S.O. 711.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.04.2016.

[No. L-22013/1/2016 - IR(CM-II]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present:

Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 10^th day of March, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 18/2007

1396

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :APRIL 30, 2016/ VAISAKHA 10, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Between:

Sri Pinneti Jagapathi,

S/o Komaraiah,

C/o M/s. A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao,

D.No.3-4-206/2, Lingampally,

Kachiguda,

Hyderabad -27.

…Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Kalyani Khani, Mandamarri,

The Deputy General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

KK5 Incline Group of Mines,

Kalyani Khani Mandamarri,

Adilabad District.

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, K. Srinivas Rao, P. Sudha, T. Bal Reddy, M. Govind and

Venkatesh Dixit, Advocates

For the Respondent :

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

Sri Pinneti Jagapathi, the Petitioner has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., which was registered in this Tribunal as LC No.

18/2007 and notices were issued to the Respondents.

The Petitioner has filed the present case with a prayer to set aside the dismissal order dated 31.12.2005 and

consequently to direct the Respondent to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, back wages and all

consequential benefits and pass further order or orders in the interest of justice.

The Respondent entered their appearance and filed counter and documents.

While the case was posted for Petitioner’s evidence, the Petitioner did not attend the Court to adduce evidence.

In this case several opportunities have been given to the Petitioner to adduce evidence, but the Petitioner found absent

and failed to avail those opportunities, which clearly indicates that the dispute of the Petitioner has already been settled

and the Petitioner has nothing to raise any claim. Hence, a ‘No Dispute’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 10^th day

of March, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vizSy] 2016

dk- vk

vkvk

vk- 712

712

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

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 98@2007½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 11-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22013/1/2016–vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 30] 2016@oS'kk[k 10] 1938

1397

New Delhi, the 11^th April, 2016

S.O. 712. — In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 98/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.04.2016.

[No. L-22013/1/2016 - IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present:

Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 10^th day of March, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 98/2007

Between:

Sri M. Chatrapathi,

S/o Rajeswar.

R/o Sripathi Nagar, Kalyanikhani.

Adilabad District.

…Petitioner

AND

The Managing Director,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., (Admn),

Kothagudem, Khammam District.

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Area,

Adilabad District.

The Collieries Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Kasipet Mine, Mandamarri Area,

Adilabad District.

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. P. Venkat Rao & G. Naga Raju, Advocates

For the Respondent :

Sri S.M. Subhani, Advocate

AWARD

Sri M. Chatrapathi, the Petitioner has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., which was registered in this Tribunal as LC

No. 98/2007 and notices were issued to the Respondents.

The Petitioner has filed the present case with a prayer to set aside the dismissal order issued by the 2^nd

Respondent vide order No. P/MM/7/2/00/3525, dated 16.8.2000 as the dismissal is contrary to the rules and to direct the

Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service with all consequential benefits and pass further order or orders in the

interest of justice.

The Respondent entered their appearance and filed counter.

This Tribunal held the domestic enquiry as legal and valid on 6.7.2009 as there is none to challenge the

validity and legality of the domestic enquiry.

1398

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :APRIL 30, 2016/ VAISAKHA 10, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

While the case was posted for hearing arguments, neither the Petitioner nor the Respondent attended the Court

to advance arguments. As this is a case of the year 2007, this Tribunal has given fair chance to advance arguments to

both the parties. In spite of that, both the parties failed to attend the case, which clearly indicates that the dispute of the

parties has already been settled. Hence, ‘No Dispute’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 10^th day of

March, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vizSy] 2016

dk- vk

vkvk

vk- 713

713

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

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 108@2007½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 11@04@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22013/1/2016–vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th April, 2016

S.O. 713.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 108/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.04.2016.

[No. L-22013/1/2016 - IR(CM-II]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present:

Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 10^th day of March, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 108/2007

Between:

Sri Sk. Mahammad,

S/o Sk. Bhandisal,

R/o DA949, Nehru Basti,

Ramavaram, Kothagudem,

Khammam District.

…Petitioner

AND

The Managing Director,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Singareni Bhavan, Lakdikapool,

Hyderabad.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 30] 2016@oS'kk[k 10] 1938

1399

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Kothagudem Collieries,

Kothagudem, Khammam District.

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. G. Ravi Mohan, Vikas Sharma, K. Bhaskar & G. Pavan Kumar, Advocates

For the Respondent :

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

Sri Sk. Mahammad, the Petitioner has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., which was registered in this Tribunal as LC No.

108/2007 and notices were issued to the Respondents.

Petitioner filed the present case with a prayer to set aside the dismissal order dated 3.9.2003 and consequently

to direct the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into service with all consequential benefits and pass further order or

orders in the interest of justice.

The Respondent entered their appearance and filed counter.

This Tribunal held the domestic enquiry as legal and valid on 13.12.2010 as the Learned Counsel for the

Petitioner conceded the validity and legality of the domestic enquiry.

While the case was posted for hearing arguments, neither the Petitioner nor the Respondent attended the Court

to advance arguments. As this is a case of the year 2007, this Tribunal has given fair chance to advance arguments to

both the parties. But, inspite of that, both the parties failed to attend the case, which clearly indicates that the dispute of

the parties has already been settled. Hence, ‘No Dispute’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 10^th day

of March, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 714-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj uqDys;j ikoj

dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM] eqacbZ ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¹lanHkZ (lhthvkbZVh,) la- 132@2010º dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-4-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@86@2007&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 13th April, 2016

S.O. 714.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award [ID Ref. (CGITA) No. 132/2010] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

the management of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, Mumbai and their workmen, which was received by

the Central Government on 12.04.2016.

[No. L-42012/86/2007-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

1400

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2016/VAISAKHA 10, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 9th March, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 132/2010

Reference : (ITC) No. 1/2008

1. Station Director,

Nuclear Power Corp. of India Ltd.

Kakrapar Atomic Power Station,

P.O. Anukala, Via. Vyara,

Dist Surat (Gujarat)-394651

2. M/s. All Service Under 1 Roof (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

Unit No. 7, Shantinagar Co-op. Industrial Estate,

Plot No. 4B, Vakola, Santacruz (E),

Mumbai-400055

...First Party

Vs.

Their Workman,

Shri Lallubhai Becharbhai Mayavanshi,

At. Post Bedkuva,

Taluka Vyara,

Surat (Gujarat)

...Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri K.V. Gadhia, Advocate

For the Second Party : Shri L.M. Patil, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-42012/86/2007-

IR(DU) dated 18.02.2008 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Surat(Gujarat) in respect of the

matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s All services under 1 Roof (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai contractor of

M/s Kakrapar Atomic Power Station, in terminating the services of Shri Lallubhai Becharbhai Mayavanshi, w.e.f.

29/03/2007 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

The second party submit statement of claim (Ext.10) has stated that he was initially appointed as helper with the

in the first party on 02.06.1991 and has been continuing uninterruptedly till 29.03.2007 and in each calendar year of

aforesaid said period worked for more than 240 days. He was appointed on a sanctioned and vacant post permanently by

the principle employer first party Kakrapar Atomic Power station, herein after referred to as First party No. 1, upto the

year 2007. In the year 2007, his services were put under a contractor the first party no.2 One Roof (India) Pvt. Ltd. He is

meant to say that he initially he was employed by the first party no. 1 Kakrapar Atomic Power Station in 1991. Later, his

services were converted into outsourcing through afore said contractor. His services were always supervised by the first

party no. 1 Kakrapar Atomic Power Station. His leaves were also sanctioned by the principle employer. In the year 2007,

when the contractor was changed, he raised the objection which led into the annoyance. His service were terminated on

29.03.2007 without assigning any reason and also without initiating departmental inquiry and show cause notice. Thus,

his termination order violated the provision of section 25 (F) of the I.D. Act. At the time of termination, junior

employees were retained violating the provisions of section 25 (G & H) of the I.D. Act. Thus, the termination order is

illegal and violative of the section 25 (G & H) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

In reply to the statement of claim, the first party no. 1 Kakrapar Atomic Power Station in his written statement

(Ext.15) denied the facts narrated in the statement of claim and stated that first party no. 1 Nuclear Power Corporation

India Ltd. is a public sector under the administrative control of the Department of Atomic Energy, engaging in the

business of power generation through atomic energy across the country. It has established two units at Kakrapar Atomic

Power Station at village Kakarapar, Mandvi, Dist. Surat, Gujarat. It has been awarding ‘job contract’ to different

contractors from time to time depending upon the requirements. These contractors so awarded the job contract have been

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 30] 2016@oS'kk[k 10] 1938

1401

engaging in different contract labourer to execute the job assigned to them. The second party workman was engaged by

the contractor M/s All Services Under I Roof (India) Pvt. Ltd, the first party No. 2, herein after referred to as First party

No.2, as contract labour. First party No. 1 awarded job to first party no. 2 to carry out the certain activities as per the

work order no. KAPS/SMU/78660/11/2006/REV/71111 dated 04.01.2007. The services of second party were engaged

by first party no. 2, or a contractor. Engaging the contract labour to get the job executed and the service conditions of

such contract labour including the termination of his service falls within the domain of first party no. 2 contractor only.

First party no. 1 had nothing to do in the matters of engagement and termination of contract labours. This is also

noteworthy that the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India has not made any mention regarding the

relief against the first party no. 1. Thus, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant any relief to first party no.1.

First party No. 2, M/s All Services Under I Roof (India) Pvt. Ltd, herein after referred to as First party No. 2,

submitted the written statement (Ext.13) admitting the facts of the first party no. 1 stated that the second party workman

has not raised any demand against him for reinstatement of service with full back wages and continuity of service with

effect from 29.03.2007 or any other date. The Industrial Disputes Act does not recognized tripartite relationship of

principle employer, the contractor and the workman engaged by the contractor. Thus, this reference is not maintainable

under the law against him. First party No. 1 awarded the job for material handling and regular maintenance of plant

buildings for inner and outer areas of inside operating Iceland during the year 2006-07 in KAPS plant side at Moticher

Dist. Surat to M/s All Services Under I Roof (India) Pvt. Ltd for a period of 12 months on terms and conditions

described in the agreement after inviting tenders in accordance the rules and agreement. Therefore, no demand could be

raised for and on behalf of the workman whose tenure of employment was fixed for a limited period to end on the expiry

of the contract between the principle employer and the contractor. The reference is vague, general, devoid of any

material particulars and without disclosing the cause of action proceeding against the contractor. He used to maintain

proper records of social security benefits such as ESI and PF to their workmen. During the tenure of contract, he applied

for issue of entry passes on 03.01.2007 to first party no. 1 regarding 85 workmen. Same were issued accordingly. He

also extended provident funds, including workmen compensation policy to all workmen engaged by him. He is also

enrolled as an independent employer under the provisions of PF Act, ESI Act and also Bombay Shops and

Establishments Act, 1948. He maintained wage and attendance register of all workmen including second party workman.

He further stated that he was engaged as contractor by First party No. 1 and second party workman was engaged as

helper as a casual job and operations of intermittent nature with effect form 04.01.2007 till 29.01.2007 only for 12 days.

He tendered appointment letter to all workman immediately on 04.01.2007 but same were issued by the contract

labourers.

On perusal of pleading of all the parties, following issues arise:

(I)

Whether the second party workman was having employer-employee relationship with the first party no. 1?

(II)

Whether the second party workman was having employer-employee relationship with the first party no. 2?

(III) Whether the second party workman is entitled for the relief sought through the reference?

After submitting the written statement by first party no. 2, he did not turn up to contest the case.

To prove the case, second party workman Lallubhai Becharbhai Mayavanshi was examined who supported the

facts narrated in the statement of claim (Ext.10). In his cross examination, he stated that he is 55 years old, illiterate and

does not know his date of birth. He admitted that no appointment letter was issued to him for the said job by the first

party no. 1. He was employed by first party no. 2 contractor M/s All Services Under I Roof (India) Pvt. Ltd. The

contractor used to supervise his work and pay salary to him for the work done by him. He has 8 members in his family

and maintains them by doing labour work earning 2 to 3 thousand rupees in a month.

As first party no 2 after submitting written statement did not turn up and also did not prefer to cross examine the

second party witness, therefore, the reference is decided ex-parte in his absence.

From the pleadings and evidence, it is clear that first party no. 2 admitted the fact that he was awarded contract for

a year by the first party no. 1 with effect from 04.01.2007. He has also admitted that second party workman was

employed by him for the execution of the said contract.

10.

First party no. 1 has denied the employment of the second party workman and second party workman has also

admitted that he was not employed by the first party no. 1. It is also noteworthy that workman, unlike his statement in

the statement of claim, has not proved that he was employed by the first party no. 1. He has also failed to prove that he

worked for more than 240 days in any calendar year. Thus, in the circumstances of the case, no relief can be granted

against the first party no. 1 and the Issue No. I & II are decided in the manner that the second party workman was the

casual labourer of the first party no. 2.

11.

As first party no. 2 failed to contest the case by non-appearance and has admitted that he engaged the second party

workman as contract labour. Second party workman stated on oath that he always worked with the contractor for more

than 240 days in each calendar year and first party no. 2 has not rebutted it by cross examination of the workman or by

any other evidence. Thus, the reference may be decided in the terms that the termination of the second party was illegal

1402

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2016/VAISAKHA 10, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and unjustified because his services were terminated without any notice and retrenchment compensation. The second

party workman deserves for reinstatement of his services with the first party no. 2.

12.

In following cases, Punjab and Haryana High Court 2016 LLL 25 and Delhi High Court 2016 (148) FLR 460 held

that “In the absence of relationship of employer-employee, the principal employer cannot be directed by the Labour

Court to reinstate the employee of the contractor”.

13.

In the present case, the second party workman has failed to establish the relationship of employer and employee

between the second party workman and the first party no. 1 KAPS. Therefore, no relief can be granted against the first

party No. 1 KAPS. As regard, first party no. 2, he has admitted the employer and employee relationship, therefore, relief

of reinstatement of services is equitable to be granted against the first party no. 2 M/s All Services Under I Roof (India)

Pvt. Ltd.

14.

The reference is decided accordingly. First party no. 1 is directed to reinstate the services of the second party

workman within 30 days from the date of publication of Award.

This is the award of the Tribunal.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vizSy] 2016

dk-vk- 715-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj uqDysvj ikoj

dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM] eqacbZ ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¹lanHkZ (lhthvkbZVh,) la- 133@2010º dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-4-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@87@2007&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 13th April, 2016

S.O. 715.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award [ID Ref. (CGITA) No. 133/2010] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

the management of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, Mumbai and their workmen, which was received by

the Central Government on 12.04.2016.

[No. L-42012/87/2007-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 9th March, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 133/2010

Reference : (ITC) No. 2/2008

1. Station Director,

Nuclear Power Corp. of India Ltd.

Kakrapar Atomic Power Station,

P.O. Anukala, Via. Vyara,

Dist Surat (Gujarat)-394651

2. M/s. All Service Under 1 Roof (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

Unit No. 7, Shantinagar Co-op. Industrial Estate,

Plot No. 4B, Vakola, Santacruz (E),

Mumbai-400055

...First Party

Vs.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 30] 2016@oS'kk[k 10] 1938

1403

Their Workman,

Shri Gamanbhai Sumjibhai Chaudhary

At. Post Moticher, Taluka Mandvi,

Surat (Gujarat)

...Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri K.V. Gadhia, Advocate

For the Second Party : Shri L.M. Patil, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-42012/87/2007-IR(DU)

dated 18.07.2008 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Surat(Gujarat) in respect of the matter

specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s All services under 1 Roof (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai contractor of

M/s Kakrapar Atomic Power Station, in terminating the services of Shri Gamanbhai Sumjibhai Chaudhary, w.e.f.

29/03/2007 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

The second party submit statement of claim (Ext.9) has stated that he was initially appointed as helper with the in

the first party on 13.12.2003 and has been continuing uninterruptedly till 29.03.2007 and in each calendar year of