2177 GI/2016
(1901)
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- 20]
ubZ fnYyh] ebZ 8— ebZ 14] 2016] 'kfuokj@oS'kk[k 18—oS'kk[k 24] 1938
No. 20]
NEW DELHI, MAY 8—MAY 14, 2016, SATURDAY/ VAISAKHA 18—VAISAKHA 24, 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)
िव
िव
िव
िव मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
(िवीय
िवीय
िवीय
िवीय सेवाएं
सेवाएं
सेवाएं
सेवाएं िवभाग
िवभाग
िवभाग
िवभाग)
नई दली, 25 अैल, 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.851.
851.
851.
851.— राीयकृत बक (बंध एवं कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड (1) के साथ
पठत, बककारी कंपनी (उपम का अजन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 क धारा 9 क उपधारा 3 (ज) और (3-क)
!ारा द" शि%य का योग करते (ए, के+,ीय सरकार, एत-ारा, .ी पदमनाबन िव0ल दास (ज+म ितिथ 02.05.1950)
को उनक िनयुि% क अिधसूचना क तारीख से तीन वष क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो,
इंिडयन बक के िनदेशक मंडल म4 अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक नािमत करती है।
[फा.सं. 6/21/2015-बीओ-I]
5ानोतोष रॉय, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 25th April, 2016
S.O. 851.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 3 (h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The
Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government hereby
nominates Shri Padmanaban Vittal Dass (DoB: 02.05.1950) as Part-time Non-Official Director on the Board of
1902
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Directors of Indian Bank for a period of three years, from the date of notification of his appointment or until further
orders, whichever is earlier.
[F.No. 6/21/2015-BO-I]
JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.
नई दली, 25 अैल, 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.852.
852.
852.
852.— राीयकृत बक (बंध एवं कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड (1) के साथ
पठत, बककारी कंपनी (उपम का अजन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 क धारा 9 क उपधारा 3 (ज) और (3-क)
!ारा द" शि%य का योग करते (ए, के+,ीय सरकार, एत-ारा, सु.ी वंदना कुमारी जेना (ज+म ितिथ 10.07.1955) को
उनक िनयुि% क अिधसूचना क तारीख से तीन वष क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, 7सिडकेट
बक के िनदेशक मंडल म4 अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक नािमत करती है।
[फा.सं. 6/26/2015-बीओ-I]
5ानोतोष रॉय, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 25th April, 2016
S.O.852.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 3 (h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The
Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government hereby
nominates Ms. Vandana Kumari Jena (DoB: 10.07.1955) as Part-time Non-Official Director on the Board of Directors
of Syndicate Bank for a period of three years, from the date of notification of her appointment or until further orders,
whichever is earlier.
[F.No. 6/26/2015-BO-I]
JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.
नई दली, 25 अैल, 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.853.
853.
853.
853.— राीयकृत बक (बंध एवं कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड (1) के साथ
पठत, बककारी कंपनी (उपम का अजन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 क धारा 9 क उपधारा 3 (ज) और (3-क)
!ारा द" शि%य का योग करते (ए, के+,ीय सरकार, एत-ारा, .ी जी. रमेश (ज+म ितिथ 25.06.1956) को उनक
िनयुि% क अिधसूचना क तारीख से तीन वष क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, 7सिडकेट बक के
िनदेशक मंडल म4 अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक नािमत करती है।
[फा.सं. 6/27 /2015-बीओ-I]
5ानोतोष रॉय, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 25th April, 2016
S.O.853.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 3 (h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The
Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government hereby
nominates Shri G. Ramesh (DoB: 25.06.1956) as Part-time Non-Official Director on the Board of Directors of
Syndicate Bank for a period of three years, from the date of notification of his appointment or until further orders,
whichever is earlier.
[F.No. 6/ 27/2015-BO-I]
JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.
नई दली, 25 अैल, 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.854.
854.
854.
854.— राीयकृत बक (बंध एवं कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड (1) के साथ
पठत, बककारी कंपनी (उपम का अजन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 क धारा 9 क उपधारा 3 (ज) और (3-क)
!ारा द" शि%य का योग करते (ए, के+,ीय सरकार, एत-ारा, सु.ी माला .ीवातव (ज+म ितिथ 04.11.1954) को
उनक िनयुि% क अिधसूचना क तारीख से तीन वष क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो,
ओरयंटल बक ऑफ कामस के िनदेशक मंडल म4 अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक नािमत करती है
[फा.सं. 6/23/2015-बीओ-I]
5ानोतोष रॉय, अवर सिचव
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1903
New Delhi, the 25th April, 2016
S.O.854.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 3 (h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The
Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government hereby
nominates Ms. Mala Srivastava (DoB: 04.11.1954) as Part-time Non-Official Director on the Board of Directors of
Oriental Bank of Commerce for a period of three years, from the date of notification of her appointment or until further
orders, whichever is earlier.
[F.No. 6/23/2015-BO-I]
JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.
नई दली, 25 अैल, 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.855.
855.
855.
855.—राीयकृत बक (बंध एवं कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड (1) के साथ
पठत, बककारी कंपनी (उपम का अजन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 क धारा 9 क उपधारा 3 (ज) और (3-क)
!ारा द" शि%य का योग करते (ए, के+,ीय सरकार, एत-ारा, .ी एस. रघुनाथ (ज+म ितिथ 24.05.1957) को उनक
िनयुि% क अिधसूचना क तारीख से तीन वष क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, िवजया बक के
िनदेशक मंडल म4 अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक नािमत करती है।
[फा.सं. 6/32 /2015-बीओ-I]
5ानोतोष रॉय, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 25th April, 2016
S.O.855.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 3 (h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The
Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government hereby
nominates Shri S. Raghunath (DoB: 24.05.1957) as Part-time Non-Official Director on the Board of Directors of Vijaya
Bank for a period of three years, from the date of notification of his appointment or until further orders, whichever is
earlier.
[F.No. 6/32/2015-BO-I]
JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.
नई दली, 25 अैल, 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.856.
856.
856.
856.— राीयकृत बक (बंध एवं कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड (1) के साथ
पठत, बककारी कंपनी (उपम का अजन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 क धारा 9 क उपधारा 3 (ज) और (3-क)
!ारा द" शि%य का योग करते (ए, के+,ीय सरकार, एत-ारा, .ी िबजू वर;े (ज+म ितिथ 22.12.1965) को उनक
िनयुि% क अिधसूचना क तारीख से तीन वष क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, बक ऑफ
बड़ौदा के िनदेशक मंडल म4 अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक नािमत करती है।
[फा.सं. 6/8 /2015-बीओ-I]
5ानोतोष रॉय, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 25th April, 2016
S.O.856.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 3 (h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The
Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government hereby
nominates Shri Biju Varkkey (DoB: 22.12.1965) as Part-time Non-Official Director on the Board of Directors of Bank
of Baroda for a period of three years, from the date of notification of his appointment or until further orders, whichever
is earlier.
[F.No. 6/8 /2015-BO-I]
JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.
नई दली, 25 अैल, 2016
का.आ
का.आ
का.आ
का.आ. 857
. 857
. 857
. 857.—राीयकृत बक (बंध एवं कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड (1) के साथ
पठत, बककारी कंपनी (उपम का अजन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 क धारा 9 क उपधारा 3 (ज) और (3-क)
!ारा द" शि%य का योग करते (ए, के+,ीय सरकार, एत-ारा, डॉ. के. रमेश (ज+म ितिथ 13.01.1957) को उनक
1904
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
िनयुि% क अिधसूचना क तारीख से तीन वष क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, यूिनयन बक
ऑफ इंिडया के िनदेशक मंडल म4 अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक नािमत करती है।
[फा.सं. 6/29/2015-बीओ-I]
5ानोतोष रॉय, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 25th April, 2016
S.O.857.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 3 (h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The
Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government hereby
nominates Dr. K. Ramesha (DoB: 13.01.1957) as Part-time Non-Official Director on the Board of Directors of Union
Bank of India for a period of three years, from the date of notification of his appointment or until further orders,
whichever is earlier.
[F.No. 6/ 29/2015-BO-I]
JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.
नई दली, 25 अैल, 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.858.
858.
858.
858.— राीयकृत बक (बंध एवं कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड (1) के साथ
पठत, बककारी कंपनी (उपम का अजन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 क धारा 9 क उपधारा 3 (ज) और (3-क)
!ारा द" शि%य का योग करते (ए, के+,ीय सरकार, एत-ारा, .ी गौतम गुहा (ज+म ितिथ 16.01.1955) को उनक
िनयुि% क अिधसूचना क तारीख से तीन वष क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, इलाहाबाद बक
के िनदेशक मंडल म4 अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक नािमत करती है।
[फा.सं. 6/7/2015-बीओ-I]
5ानोतोष रॉय, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 25th April, 2016
S.O.858.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 3 (h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The
Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government hereby
nominates Shri Gautam Guha (DoB: 16.01.1955) as Part-time Non-Official Director on the Board of Directors of
Allahabad Bank for a period of three years, from the date of notification of his appointment or until further orders,
whichever is earlier.
[F.No. 6/ 7/2015-BO-I]
JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.
नई दली, 25 अैल, 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.859.
859.
859.
859.—राीय कृिष और <ामीण िवकास बक अिधिनयम, 1981 (1981 का 61) क धारा 7 क उप-धारा
(2) के साथ पठत धारा 6 क उप-धारा (1) के ख>ड (ख) !ारा द" शि%य का योग करते (ए, के+,ीय सरकार, भारतीय
रजव बक से परामश करके, एत-ारा, .ी अनूप कुमार दाश (ज+म ितिथ 02.03.1955) को उनक िनयुि% क अिधसूचना
क तारीख से तीन वष क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, राीय कृिष और <ामीण िवकास बक
(नाबाड) के िनदेशक म>डल म4 अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक नािमत करती है, बशत? क वे नाबाड के बोड म4 कायभार
<हण करने से पूव वयं .ी माइो ेिडट सDवसेज (एसएमसीएस) के बोड से Eयाग-पF दे द4।
[फा. सं. 7/6/2015-बीओ-I]
5ानोतोष रॉय, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 25th April, 2016
S.O.859.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 read with sub-section
(2) of Section (7) of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 (61 of 1981), the Central
Government, in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby nominates Shri Anup Kumar Dash (DoB :
02.03.1955) as Part Time Non-Official Director on the Board of Directors of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural
Development (NABARD), for a period of three years from the date of notification of his appointment or until further
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1905
orders, whichever is earlier, subject to the condition that he will resign from the Board of Swayamshree Micro Credit
Services (SMCS) before joining the Board of NABARD.
[F. No.7/6/2015-BO-I]
JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.
नई दली, 25 अैल, 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.860.
860.
860.
860.— राीयकृत ब क (बंध एवं कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड (1) के साथ पठत,
ब ककारी कंपनी (उपम का अजन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 क धारा 9 क उपधारा 3 (ज) और (3-क) ारा द
शि!य का योग करते $ए, के'(ीय सरकार, एत)ारा, *ी देवेरको,डा दीि.िवलास (ज'म ितिथ 16.06.1954) को उनक िनयुि! क
अिधसूचना क तारीख से तीन वष क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, काप5रेशन ब क के िनदेशक मंडल म6
अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक नािमत करती है।
[फा. सं. 6/17 /2015-बीओ-I]
5ानोतोष रॉय, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 25th April, 2016
S.O.860.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 3 (h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The
Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government hereby
nominates Shri Deverakonda Diptivilasa (DoB: 16.06.1954) as Part-time Non-Official Director on the Board of
Directors of Corporation Bank for a period of three years, from the date of notification of his appointment or until
further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 6/17/2015-BO-I]
JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.
नई दली, 26 अैल, 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.861.
861.
861.
861.— राीयकृत बक (बंध एवं कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड (1) के साथ
पठत बककारी कंपनी (उपम का अजन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 क धारा 9 क उप-धारा 3 के खंड (ग)
!ारा द" शि%य का योग करते (ए, के+,ीय सरकार, एत-ारा, नीचे दी गई सारणी के कालम (3) म4 िविनHदI Jि%य
को उ% सारणी के कालम (2) म4 िविनHदI Jि%य के थान पर कालम (1) म4 िविनHदI पंजाब नैशनल बक और बक ऑफ
इंिडया म4 तEकाल भाव से और अगले आदेश होने तक, िनदेशक नािमत करती हैः-
म
सं.
बक का नाम
वतमान िनदेशक का नाम
तािवत M यि% का नाम
1
2
3
1.
पंजाब नैशनल बक
.ी बी. पी. कानूनगो
डॉ. रिब एन. िम.ा, मुNय महाबंधक, 7िसपल रजव बक
टाफ कालेज, 359, अPा सलाई, तेनामपेट, चेPै-600018
2.
बक ऑफ इंिडया
.ी एस. एस. बारीक
.ीमती आर. सबिटयन, मुNय महाबंधक, भारतीय रजव
बक, िनरीRण िवभाग, के+,ीय कायालय, सी-7, 8वS मंिजल,
बां,ा-कुला काTपलेUस, बां,ा (ई), मुTबई-400051
[फा. सं. 6/3/2011-बीओ-I]
5ानोतोष रॉय, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 26th April, 2016
S.O.861.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of the sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The
Nationalized Banks (Management & Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby
nominates the persons specified in column (3) of the table below as Director of Punjab National Bank and Bank of India
specified in column (1) thereof in place of the persons specified in column (2) of said Table, with immediate effect and
until further orders:-
1906
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SI. No.
Name of the Bank
Name of the Existing
Director
Name of the Persons proposed
(1)
(2)
(3)
1.
Punjab National Bank
Shri B.P.Kanungo
Dr.Rabi N.Mishra, CGM, Principal
Reserve Bank Staff College, 359, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai-600018
2.
Bank of India
Shri S.S.Barik
Smt.R.Sebastian, CGM, Reserve Bank of India,
Inspection Department, Central Officer, C-7, 8th
Floor,
Bandra-Kurla
Complex,
Bandra(E)
Mumbai-400051
[F.No. 6/3/2011-BO-I]
JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.
नई दली, 27 अैल, 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.862.
862.
862.
862.— िनयुि% संबंधी मंिFमंडलीय सिमित (एसीसी) के अनुमोदन के अनुसार, के+,ीय सरकार, एत-ारा,
.ी मोहTमद मुतफा, संयु% सिचव, िव"ीय सेवाएं िवभाग, भारत सरकार को ितभूितकरण से संबंिधत लेन-देन के
पंजीकरण, िव"ीय आितय के पुनगठन तथा संपि"य पर सृिजत ितभूित िहत के योजन हेतु दनांक 01.04.2016 से 6
माह क अविध के िलए या िनयिमत पदधारी क िनयुि% होने तक अथवा अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, के+,ीय
रिज_ार और बंध िनदेशक एवं मुNय कायपालक अिधकारी, के+,ीय रिज_ी के पद का अितर% कायभार सaपती है।
[फा.सं. 56/05/2007-(बीओ-II) रकवरी]
तीथ राम, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 27th April, 2016
S.O.862.—In accordance with ACC approval, the Central Government hereby entrusts the additional charge for the
post of Central Registrar and Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer, Central Registry to Shri Mohammad Mustafa,
Joint Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Government of India, for the purpose of registration of transactions relating
to securitisation, reconstruction of financial assets and security interest created over the properties, for a period of 6 months
w.e.f. 01.04.2016, or till the joining of a regular incumbent, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F.No. 56/05/2007-(BO-II) Recovery]
TIRTH RAM, Under Secy.
(बक काय एवं लेखा
बक काय एवं लेखा
बक काय एवं लेखा
बक काय एवं लेखा)
नई दली, 4 मई, 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.863.
863.
863.
863.— बककारी िविनयमन अिधिनयम, 1949 क धारा 53 !ारा द" शि%य का योग करते (ए,
के+,ीय सरकार, भारतीय रजव बक क िसफारश पर, यह िनHदI करती है क बककारी िविनयमन अिधिनयम, 1949 क
धारा 15 क उप-धारा (1), अनुसूिचत वािणिbयक बक पर लागू नहS होगी, जहां तक इसका संबंध भारतीय रजव बक के
26 फरवरी, 2014 के परपF डीबीओडी.बीपी.बीसी.सं.98/21.04.132/2013-14 तथा
21
मई
, 2015 के परपF सं.
डीबीआर. सं. बीपी बीसी.94/21.04.048/2014-15 के !ारा दी गई अनुमित के अनुसार िव"ीय आितय का
ितभूितकरण एवं पुनगठन तथा ितभूित िहत का वतन अिधिनयम, 2002 के उपबंध के अंतगत पंजीकृत ितभूित
कंपिनय/पुनसcरचना कंपिनय को 01 अैल, 2015 और 31 माच, 2016 के बीच बेची गई अनजक आितय (जहां िवय
ितफल िनवल अंकत मूय से कम हो) के िवय से (ई कसी कमी के कारण दो वष क ऋण परशोधन अविध का है।
[फा.सं. 13/2 /2010-बीओए]
िजते+ , 7सह, उप िनदेशक (बीओए)
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1907
(BANKING OPERATION AND ACCOUNTS)
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2016
S.O.863.—In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the
Central Government, on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India, specifies that sub-section (1) of Section 15
of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 shall not apply to scheduled commercial banks in so far as the amortisation over a
period of two years of any loss arising out of sale of non-performing assets sold between April 01, 2015 and March 31,
2016 (where the sale consideration is lower than the net book value) to Securitisation Companies/Reconstruction
Companies, registered under the provisions of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, as permitted by the Reserve Bank of India vide its circular
DBOD.BP.BC.No.98 / 21.04.132 / 2013-14 dated February 26, 2014 and circular DBR.No.BP.BC.94/21.04.048/2014-
15 dated May 21, 2015.
[F.No.13/2/2010-BOA]
JITENDER SINGH, Dy. Director (BOA)
िवदेश मं ालय
िवदेश मं ालय
िवदेश मं ालय
िवदेश मं ालय
(सी.पी.वी. भाग)
(सी.पी.वी. भाग)
(सी.पी.वी. भाग)
(सी.पी.वी. भाग)
नई दली, 3 मई, 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.864.
864.
864.
864.—राजनियक और कसुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फस)के अिधिनयम, 1948 क धारा 2 के खंड (क)
के अनुसरण म4 वैधािनक आदेश। एतद् !ारा, क4 , सरकार भारत के दूतावास, g यूनस आयस म4 .ी सुरेश चं, .ीवा तव,
सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को दनांक 3 मई, 2016 से सहायक कसुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर कसुलर सेवाj के िनवहन
के िलए ािधकृत करती है।
[सं. टी- 4330/01/2015]
काश च+ द, उप सिचव (कसुलर)
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O.864.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Suresh Chandra
Srivastava, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Embassy of India, Buenos Aires to perform the
Consular services with effect from 3 May, 2016.
[No. T-4330/01/2015]
PRAKASH CHAND, Dy Secy. (Consular)
सू म
सू म
सू म
सू म, लघु और म य
लघु और म य
लघु और म य
लघु और म यम उम मंालय
म उम मंालय
म उम मंालय
म उम मंालय
(एसएमई अनुभाग)
(एसएमई अनुभाग)
(एसएमई अनुभाग)
(एसएमई अनुभाग)
नई दली, 12 मई, 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.865.
865.
865.
865.— सावजिनक परसर (अनिधकृत दखलकार क बेदखली) अिधिनयम, 1971 (1971 का 40) क
धारा 3 !ारा द" शि%य का योग करते (ए दनांक 7 जुलाई, 2012 के भारत के राजपF, भाग II, खंड-3, उपखंड (ii) म4
कािशत सूmम, लघु और मoयम उpम मंFालय, भारत सरकार के दनांक 28 जून, 2012 क संNया का.आ. 2222 क
अिधसूचना का अिधमण करते (ए, ऐसे अिधमण से पूव क गई यथा आवrयक बात4 या कए जाने के िलए ितबs के
अितर%, के+,ीय सरकार नीचे दी गई तािलका के कॉलम (1) म4 उिलिखत अिधकारी को, उ% अिधिनयम के योजनाथ
सTपदा अिधकारी के िलए के+, सरकार के राजपिFत अिधकारी क रक के समकR अिधकारी होने के नाते िनयु% करती है
तथा आगे यह िनदेश देती है क उ% अिधकारी उ% तािलका के कॉलम (2) म4 िवDनदI सावजिनक परसर के संबंध म4 अपने
RेFािधकार क सीमाj के अंदर उ% अिधिनयम !ारा या अंतगत सTपदा अिधकारी को द" शि%य का योग करेगा तथा
सaपी गई uूटय का िनvपादन करेगा।
1908
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
तािलका
तािलका
तािलका
तािलका
अिधकारी का नाम
सावजिनक परसर क .ेिणयां तथा RेFािधकार क थानीय सीमाएं
(1)
(2)
.ी मेन पाल 7सह, उप
महाबंधक,
उप महा बंधक (िव" एवं
लेखा.), राीय लघु उpोग
िनगम
िलिमटेड,
नई
दली।
राीय राजधानी RेF दली म4 राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड और अ+य थान म4 जहाँ
इसके RेFीय कायालय, शाखा कायालय, एनएसआईसी- Jवसाय िवकास िवतार कायालय,
कxी साम<ी िवतरण के+, (गोदाम), िवपणन आसूचना कोy, चूक बंधन वसूली शाखा,
एनएसआईसी - तकनीक सेवा के+,, सॉzटवेयर ौpोिगक पाक, दशनी के+,, सॉzटवेयर
ौpोिगक पाक, दशनी के+,, औpोिगक सTपदा, नैनी, इलाहबाद (उ"र देश) अनुबंध म4
यथा उिलिखत िथत है, !ारा वयं के अथवा समय-समय पर प0े पर िलए गए परसर।
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
.सं.
कायालय
पता
(1)
(2)
(3)
1.
कॉप{रेट कायालय
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
(भारत सरकार का उpम)
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम भवन, ओखला इंडि_यल एटेट,
नई दली - 110 020, भारत
टेलीफोन: ++ 91-11-26926275, 26926370,
टोल | नTबर 1800111955
फैUस: ++ 91-11-26932075, 26311109
ईमेल: [email protected], [email protected]
वेबसाइट: www.nsic.co.in
2.
िवपणन आसूचना कोy
और
एनएसआईसी
सूचना कॉल स4टर
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
िवपणन आसूचना कोy और एनएसआईसी सूचना कॉल स4टर आईटी इनUयूबेटर,
एनटीएससी कॉमलेUस,
ओखला इंडि_यल एटेट, नई दली
टेलीफोन: 011-26321423, 64650781,
64651703, 26382047,
ईमेल: [email protected]
3.
आंचिलक कायालय
(उ"र-I)
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
आंचिलक कायालय उ"र-I,
जी -15, सेUटर -18, नोएडा, उ"र देश - 201301
टेलीफोन: 0120-4571700 टेलीफैUस: 0120-4247966
ईमेल: [email protected]
4.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
तीन-बी / 118, सेUटर-18 शॉ7पग कॉमलेUस, नोएडा- 201301, (उ"र देश)
दूरभाष : 0120-4595000, 4595045 (46 लाइन), और 2511798,
फैUस: 0120- 4556450 और 4556453
ईमेल: [email protected]
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1909
5.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
110, 111, 116, 117, थम तल, अंसल सुमेधा िब7डग,
राज नगर िजला क4 ,, गािजयाबाद - 201 002
ईमेल: [email protected]
6.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
16-डी, पहली मंिजल, महालmमी मे_ो टॉवर, सी 1, सी 2,
सेUटर -4, वैशाली, गािजयाबाद - 201 002
टेलीफोन: 0120-4566526, टेलीफैUस: 0120-4350679
ईमेल: [email protected]
7.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
सgजी मंडी के पास, िनरंजनपुर,
सहारनपुर रोड, देहरादून-248001
दूरभाष। सं: 0135-6451005, टेलीफैUस: 0135-2520501
ईमेल: [email protected]
8.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा/टीआईसी
बी -1, बी 5, औpोिगक एटेट, बाजपुर रोड,
काशीपुर (उ"रांचल)
टेलीफोन: 05947-262453
ईमेल: [email protected]
9.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
307 / टी-6, तीसरा तल, माित लाजा,
(संजय टॉकज के पीछे), संजय लेस
आगरा - 282 002
टेलीफोन: 0562-2527862, 2525567,
टैलीफैUस: 0562-2524842
ईमेल: [email protected]
10.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
65/1, दूसरा तल, मीरा गैस एज4सी के ऊपर,
पंचशील कालोनी, गढ़ रोड, मेरठ - 250 004 (उ"र देश)
टेलीफोन: 0121-4051441 / 42
ईमेल: [email protected]
1910
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
105, थम तल, _ेडेUस - टॉवर-II, वािणिbयक बेट,
अफा-I, <ेटर नोएडा (उ"र देश) - 201308
दूरभाष: 0120- 4253123/4572986
ईमेल: [email protected]
12.
आंचिलक कायालय
(उ"र-III)
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
आंचिलक कायालय उ"र-III
मानसरोवर कॉमलेUस, सी-30/35-बी,
दूसरा तल, मालधैया,
वाराणसी-221001
फोन नं.- 0542-2200324
ईमेल: [email protected]
13.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
मानसरोवर कॉमलेUस, सी-30/35-बी, दूसरा तल, मालधैया,
वाराणसी-221001, उ"र देश
टेलीफैUस: 0542-2370223
ईमेल: [email protected]
14.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
112/1, दूसरी मंिजल, बेनझाबाड़ रोड, कानपुर- 208 001
टेलीफोन: 0512-2535049, 2556379, टेलीफैUस: 0512-2543217
ईमेल: [email protected]
15.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा
डीआईसी कैTपस, गोरखनाथ औpोिगक एटेट, गोरखपुर-273 015 (उ"र देश)
टेलीफोन: 09235406193
ईमेल: [email protected]
16.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
औpोिगक एटेट, पी.ओ. उpोग नगर, नैनी, इलाहाबाद-211 009 (उ"र देश)
टेलीफोन: 0532-2697218 / 2697050, 2695847
टेलीफैUस: 0532-2697218
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1911
17.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
503, 5 वS मंिजल, .ीराम टावर, 13, अशोक माग,
लखनऊ-226001
टेलीफैUस: 0522-2288803
ईमेल: [email protected], [email protected]
18.
आंचिलक कायालय
(उ"र-II)
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
आंचिलक कायालय उ"र-II
एनएफ / 0/2 नेह लेस, टक रोड, जयपुर- 302015 (राजथान)
टेलीफोन: 0141-2744899 / 2742991/2742372,
फैUस: 0141-2741277, 2740334
ईमेल: [email protected]
19.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
एनएफ/0/2 नेह लेस, टक रोड, जयपुर- 302015 (राजथान)
0141- 2740191/2742991/2742372 / फैUस: 0141-2741277
ईमेल: [email protected]
20.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
513, अलंकार लाजा, से+_ल पाइन, िवpाधर नगर,
जयपुर -302 023 (राजथान)
टेलीफोन: 0141-2231594,2231573, फैUस: 0141-2231572
ईमेल: [email protected]
21.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा
!ारा लघु उpोग संघ, पुषाथ भवन, रोड संNया 5, आईपीआईए, कोटा (राजथान)
टेलीफोन: 0744-2426104
22.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा
एसोिसएशन भवन, बग औpोिगक एसोिसएशन,
बग एUसट4शन, बग-303007 (जयपुर)
संपक सं. 09413846491
23.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
बी 294, 295 (भू-तल), थम तल, मंगलम हाउस, रीको चौक,
िभवाड़ी - 301 019,
टेलीफैUस: 01493-220076
ईमेल: [email protected]
1912
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
24.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
गु गो7बद 7सह टॉवर ढोलेवाल चौक के पास
जी टी रोड लुिधयाना- 141 003 (पंजाब)
टेलीफोन: 0161-2541946 / 2530940/2546523,
टेलीफैUस: 0161-2531946
ईमेल: [email protected]
25.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा, िजला उpोग क4 , कायालय भवन, थम तल, बस टड के पास, मंडी
गो7बदगढ़ (पंजाब), मो.- 08146755811
टेलीफोन: 01765-2241493
ईमेल: [email protected]
26.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा, रेड ॉस भवन, रणबीर Uलब के पास, संगर-148001
संपक संNया: 09781935323, टेलीफोन: 01672232322
ईमेल: [email protected]
27.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
एससीओ - 378, दूसरा तल, सेUटर -32, डी, चंडीगढ़
टेलीफोन: 0172-2620538, 2620539, फैUस: 0172-4656538
ईमेल: [email protected]
28.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा,
आईडीडीसी परसर, टाफ रोड, अंबाला कट- 133001 (हरयाणा)
फोन सं. 0171-2633507
ईमेल: [email protected]
29.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा
!ारा एनएसआईसी-नाको गोदाम, धरमपुर, साई रोड, िपिडलाइट इंड_ीज िलिमटेड
के सामने, ब ी, िहमाचल देश
टेलीफोन: 01795-652114, 657114
30.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
थम तल, एसएस आक? ड, बी-1-823 / 4, टांडा रोड, केएमवी कॉलेज के सामने
जालंधर - 144004 (पंजाब)
टेलीफोन: 0181-2292242,2295533,6570257
फैUस: 0181-2299242
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1913
31.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा
कमरा सं .12, िजला उpोग क4 , परसर,
दशनी मैदान, जTमू-180 001
टेलीफोन: 0191-2564934,
ईमेल: [email protected]
32.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा
थम मंिजल, बक परसर, जी.टी. रोड,
दमतल तहसील इंदौरा,
िजला कांगड़ा (िहमाचल देश) -176 403
टेलीफोन: 01893-245319
ईमेल: [email protected]
33.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा
िजला उpोग क4 , परसर, फोकल वाइंट, मेहता रोड,
अमृतसर-143 001
ईमेल: [email protected]
मो. सं. 9216449998
34.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
दुकान सह कायालय (एससीओ), 11-12, गौशाला मंडी,
जी.टी. रोड, पानीपत -132103 (हरयाणा)
दूरभाष सं. 0180-4002721
टेलीफैUस सं. 0180-2670608
ईमेल: [email protected]
35.
आंचिलक कायालय
(रा.रा.Rे.)
एनएसआईसी िलिमटेड, आंचिलक कायालय
एनएसआईसी तकनीक सेवा क4 ,,
ओखला इंडि_यल एटेट, नई दली- 110020
फोन: 011-26382350, टेली फैUस: 011-41036462
ईमेल: [email protected]
36.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
एनटीएससी परसर, चांदीवाला अपताल के पास
ओखला औpोिगक एटेट, नई दली -20
टेलीफोन: 011-26382568-69
फैUस: 011-26382568, 41002320
ईमेल: [email protected]
1914
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
37.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
सं. 9, ि!तीय तल, आप का िसटी लाजा, होटल पाक इन के पास, िसिवल लाइ+स,
गुड़गांव -122 001 (हरयाणा)
टेलीफोन: 0124-2308913, फैUस: 0124-2220543
ईमेल: [email protected]
38.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
लॉट सं. 107, िनसान हट, एनएच -5, रेलवे रोड,
फरीदाबाद - 121 001 (हरयाणा)
टेलीफोन: 0129-4311249/52/92/93 (गोदाम) 4102430
फैUस: 0129-4311293
ईमेल: [email protected] [email protected]
39.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
थम तल, जीवन तारा
(डीजी एस एंड डी) िब7डग
संसद माग, नई दली - 110 001
टेलीफोन: 011-23360527, 23747674,
फैUस: 011-23747673
ईमेल: [email protected]
40.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
516-517, 5 वां तल, लmमी टावर,
आजादपुर वािणिbयक परसर,
आजादपुर, दली -33
टेलीफोन: 011-47580231
ईमेल: [email protected]
41.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
706, सातवां तल, प स बे ट हाइट-1
नेताजी सुभाष पैलेस, वजीरपुर िडपो के सामने,
दली -110034
टेलीफोन: 011-27357120-21
फैUस: 011-45057484
ईमेल: [email protected]
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1915
42.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
सी -60 व 64, zलैटेड फैUटरी परसर,
झंडेवालान, नई दली - 110055
टेलीफोन: 011-23515243 - 44, 23535255
फैUस: 011-47597201
ईमेल: [email protected]
43.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
जेड-99, थम तल, मामा चौक, एमआईई भाग-ए,
|ंटयर िबकुट फैUटरी के सामने,
दली रोहतक रोड,
बहादुरगढ़ - 124 507 (हरयाणा)
टेलीफोन: 01276-267551, फैUस: 01276-267552
ईमेल: [email protected]
44.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
सीबी-326, ि!तीय तल, रग रोड, नारायणा,
नई दली - 110028
टेलीफोन: 011-64611484, 25775787
फैU स: 011-25775166
ई-मेल: [email protected]
45. आंचिलक
कायालय
(दिRण-I)
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
आंचिलक कायालय दिRण-I,
नई सं. 422 (पुरानी सं. 615), अPा सलाई,
चेPई - 600006, (तिमलनाडु)
दूरभाष : 044-2829 1943/2829 4541
फैUस: 044-2829 5791
ईमेल: [email protected]
46.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
नई सं. 422 (पुरानी सं. 615), अPा सलाई,
चेPई - 600006, (तिमलनाडु)
दूरभाष : 044-28293347 / 28294541
फैUस: 044-28295791, 28293347
ईमेल: [email protected]
1916
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
47.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा(नाको, बाको, वेदांता और पैराफन वैUस)
!ारा एनएसआईसी-तकनीक सेवा क4 ,
बी -24, 7गडी औpोिगक एटेट,
एकादुथंगल, चेPई- 600 032
48.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा कायालय
नेफेड वेयर हाउस परसर,
सीएमडीए _ क टDमनल,
पोिनयममैनमेदु, पीओ, माधवराम,
चेPई-600110
टेलीफोन: 044-25530310
49.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
35 / बी, थम तल, यननईक0ी मैदान, बीमा नगर,
िFची -620001
टेलीफोन: 04312414541
ई-मेल: [email protected]
50.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
सं. 309, िसडको – एआईईएमए टॉवर, तीसरा तल, पहला मेन रोड, अंबा"ुर
औpोिगक एटेट, अंबा"ुर,
चेPई - 600058
टेलीफोन: 044-26243984, 28291292
टेलीफैU स : 044-26246826
ईमेल: [email protected]
51.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड उप शाखा,
!ारा चेPई ऑटो अनुषंगी औpोिगक अवसंरचना उPयन कंपनी,
टीआईईएमए 'क+व4शन स4टर पहला मेन रोड,
िसडको औpोिगक एटेट ितमझीसाई, चेPई- 600 124
टेलीफोन: 044-26912327
52.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
एस -10, चरण III, 11 वां ॉस रोड, ित-वी-का औpोिगक एटेट, 7गडी,
चेPई - 600 032
टेलीफोन : 044-22501069, 22500005
फैUस सं.044-22501052
ईमेल: [email protected]
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1917
53.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड उप शाखा
सं. 5, ितवलुवर _ीट, कंदनचावडी, पेरनगु> डी,
चेPई - 600 096
टेलीफोन: 044-2454 0533
ई-मेल: [email protected]
54.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
शासिनक भवन, औpोिगक एटेट,थ0नचावडी, पांिडचेरी-605009
टेलीफोन: 0413-2248970,2248940,
फैUस: 0413-2248970
ईमेल: [email protected]
55.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
1055/10 गौतम क4 ,, अिवनाशी रोड, कोयंबटूर - 641 018 (तिमलनाडु)
टेलीफोन: 0422-2244618,0422-2247757
टेलीफैU स: 0422-2247764
ईमेल: [email protected]
56.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा,
!ारा इरोड िजला लघु उpोग संघ,
संNया 5/1, िसडको औpोिगक एटेट,
चेPीमलाई रोड, इरोड-638001
57.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
नई सं. 14, पहली _ीट, हाव? नगर, आरासराड़ी
मदुरै 625 016 (तिमलनाडु)
दूरभाष .: 0452-2609992/3, 2602419
फैUस: 0452-2604322
ईमेल: [email protected]
58. आंचिलक
कायालय
(दिRण-II)
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
सं. 25, पहला मेन रोड, केएसएसआईडीसी औpोिगक एटेट, छठा gलॉक,
राजाजीनगर,
ब4गलु - 560 044 (कनाटक)
टेलीफोन: 080- 23307790/23307791,
फैUस: 080-23145227
ईमेल: [email protected]
1918
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
59.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
सं. 25,पहला मेन रोड,
केएसएसआईडीसी औpोिगक एटेट, छठा gलॉक, राजाजीनगर, ब4गलु - 560 044
(कनाटक)
टेलीफैU स: 080- 23300070/23109059,
ईमेल: [email protected], [email protected]
60.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
लॉट नं 60, अनुजय िब7डग, 5 वां ॉस,
सुभाष च+, नगर, फाउंी Uलटर िब7डग के सामने,
उEसव, होटल के पास
बेलगाम -590006
टेलीफोन: 0831- 2449922,
ईमेल: [email protected] / [email protected]
61.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा
113 / 2-4, आईसीकॉस गोदाम, राजाजीनगर औpोिगक नगर,
ब4गलूर - 560 044
62.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
सी-424, िप+ या थम चरण, िप+ या पुिलस टेशन के पीछे
ब4गलूर - 560 058
टेलीफोन: 080-28374676, 28394576, 28374977,
टेलीफैUस: टेलीफोन: 080-28374676
ईमेल: [email protected]
63.
एनएसआईसी तकनीक िशRण क4 ,
सव?Rण सं. 52 / 1, खाता सं. 1618, डॉन बॉको आईटीआई के आगे, पोटेप ली,
बेथमंगला (बली, गांधीनगर, - 563 122, रॉबट सनपेट, केजीएफ-563, कोलार िजला,
कनाटक
मो. सं. : 09480888240, 9341158399
ईमेल: [email protected]
64.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय, 203, .ी दातासाई परसर, आरटीसी ॉस रोड,
हैदराबाद-500020 (आं देश)
टेलीफोन: 040-27622515 / 27615761/27622097]
फैUस: 040-27617777
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1919
65.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड उप शाखा,
शेड सं.2, साई सं.61 / भाग, लेनिडड अपणा मीडोज
कूतबुलापुर (एम),कमपैली (V), मेडचाल (टीU यू)
(हैदराबाद)-500014
66.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड उप शाखा
25/197, वेलोर रोड, व4सन परवहन परसर, रेडीगुंता,
िच"ूर-517 002 (आं देश)
टेलीफोन: 08572-240958, फैU स: 08572-232545
67.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
!ार सं. 6-3-144 तथा 144/1, जहाँआरा करीम परसर, तीसरा तल, बालानगर,
हैदराबाद - 500 037 (टेलीफोन) 040-23777880 / 23777/1 (टेलीफैU स): 040-
23777879
ईमेलः [email protected]
68.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायाल,
थम तल, लॉट सं. 49, मेन रोड, गु नानक कालोनी,
िवजयवाड़ा - 520 008 (आं देश)
टेलीफोन: 0866-2541055, टेलीफैU स: 0866-2545055
ईमेल: [email protected]
69.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
!ार सं. 6-67-27 / 2/3, गजुवाका पुिलस टेशन मेन गेट के सामने, .िमक नगर,
गजुवाका,
िवशाखाप0नम - 530026
टेलीफैU स : 0891-2768554
ईमेल: [email protected]
70.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
# 1, एनएस टॉवर, वैvणवी नगर, बाईपास रोड,
होसुर - 635 109, िजला कृvणािगरी (तिमलनाडु)
टेलीफोन: 04344-267092, फैUस: 04344-267093
ईमेल: [email protected]
71.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा
70 बी, िसपकॉट औpोिगक परसर,
हमसा नसग होम के पास,
रानीपेट-632403 (तिमलनाडु)
1920
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
72.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
एस - 67 जी डी सी ए परसर, मरीन ाइव
एणाकुलम, कोिx, कोचीन - 682031 (केरल)
टेलीफोन: 0484-2381850 / 2368149,
फैUस: 0484-2380155
ईमेल: [email protected]
73.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड उप शाखा
!ारा एमएसएमईडीआई रोड, िFचूर (केरल)
74.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा
!ारा िजला उpोग क4 ,, िसिवल लाइ+स के पीछे,
िजला- पल;ड़ - 678 001 (केरल)
75.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा
XIV/105 ए, को0ायम नगर औpोिगक एटेट,
कोडीमाता, को0ायम, केरल
76.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा
!ारा िजला उpोग क4 ,, वाटर वUस कंपाउंड,
वेलायमबालम, िFवे+,म-695033, केरल
77. आंचिलक कायालय (पूव
एवं पूव{"र)
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
आंचिलक कायालय पूव{E तर,
बाई लेन 3, औpोिगक एटेट
बामुनी मैदान, गुवाहाटी- 781021 (असम)
टेलीफोन: 0361- 2657952 आवास-2730219,
फैUस: 0361-2558948
ईमेल: [email protected]
78.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
20-बी, अgदुल हमीद _ीट, (7 वS मंिजल)
कोलकाता - 700069, (पिम बंगाल)
दूरभाष : 033-2213-7084 / 2248-8288,
फैUस: 033-2248-7359
ईमेल: [email protected]
79.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा
ढूलागढ़ _क टDमनल, गोदाम सं.45,
ढूलागढ़, पी.एस. संकरेल, हावड़ा (पिम बंगाल)
टेलीफैUस: 033-26792016
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1921
80.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड उप शाखा
!ारा हावड़ा वािणbय एवं उpोग मंडल,
िललुआ, हावड़ा - 711204 (पिम बंगाल)
81.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड उप शाखा
35/4, इचापुर रोड, कदमताल,
हावड़ा - 711 104
82.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय,
ए.ए.-177, साट लेक िसटी, सेUटर-I,
कोलकाता-700 064
टेलीफोन: 033-23211471, टेलीफैUस: 033-23212416
ईमेल: [email protected]
83.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड शाखा कायालय,
िसलीगुड़ी औpोिगक एटेट िवकास एसोिसएशन,
िसलीगुड़ी औpोिगक एटेट, लॉट सं.33,
दूसरा माइल, सेवोक रोड,
िसलीगुड़ी - 734001 (पिम बंगाल)
टेलीफोन: 0353-2540218
ईमेल: bo.[email protected]
84.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
थम तल, डीआईसी कैTपस, रसूलगढ़ औpोिगक एटेट,
भुवनेर - 751 010 (उड़ीसा)
टेलीफोन: 0674-2548875, 6510189
फैUस: 0674-2549780,
85.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा
7लक रोड, कटक, -753012 (उड़ीसा)
टेलीफोन: 0671-2312083 / 2312875,
फैUस: 0671-2312875
ईमेल: [email protected]
86.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
लॉट सं. जेजेजे. -16, िसिवल टाउनिशप,
राउरकेला
राउरकेला
राउरकेला
राउरकेला -769004 िजला सुंदरगढ़ (उड़ीसा)
दूरभाष 0661-2665059, फैUस: 0661-2664559
1922
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
87.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
104, पहली मंिजल, मPा-सूत परसर,
डॉUटस कॉलोनी, कंकड़बाग, पटना 800 020 (िबहार)
टेलीफोन: 0612-2354222,3212403
टेलीफैUस: 0612-2354222
ईमेल: bopatna @ nsic.co.in, patnansicgmail.com
88.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
4/7, स4_ल पाक , डॉUटस कालोनी,
िसटी स4टर, दुगापुर - 713 216
फोन: 0343-2542165, टेलीफैUस: 0343-2549975
ईमेल: [email protected]
89.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
िवकास भवन परसर, आदEयपुर,
जमशेदपुर-831013 (झारखंड)
टेलीफोन: 0657-3294051,
टेलीफैUस सं.0657-2371299
ईमेल: [email protected]
90.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
उpोग भवन, कोकर इंडि_यल एरया,
रांची - 834001 (झारखंड)
टेलीफैU स : 0651-2543921
ईमेल: [email protected], [email protected]
91.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा,
बाई पास रोड चास, बोकारो (झारखंड)
ईमेल: [email protected]
92.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
+यू माक? ट, "(डको टावर, 15एन,
नेली सेनगुा सरणी (7लडसे _ीट)
ि!तीय तल, कमरा संNया 2/1, कोलकाता-700 087
फोन: 033-22522232 / 2252
टेलीफैUस-33-22522319
ई-मेल :[email protected],
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1923
93.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
बाई लेन सं.3, औpोिगक एटेट,
बामुनी मैदान, गुवाहाटी – 781021 (असम)
टेलीफोन: 0361- 2657952 िन. 2730219,
फैUस: 0361-2558948
ईमेल: [email protected]
94.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
बाई लेन .3, औpोिगक एटेट,
बामुनी मैदान, गुवाहाटी - 781021 (असम)
टेलीफोन: 0361-2657947, फैUस: 0361-2657948
ईमेल: [email protected]
95.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा
ईडीआई परसर, सोफेड, आई टी आई के सामने,
इं,ानगर, अगरतला
अगरतला
अगरतला
अगरतला -799 006 (िFपुरा)
टेलीफोन: 0381-2351374
96.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा
यूरीपोक अचोम लेकई, इTफाल-795 001 (मिणपुर)
टेली फैU स : 0385-2414270
97.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा
एमआईडीसी परसर, "कमत", अपलड रोड, लैतुमाह
िशलांग -793 003 (मेघालय)
98.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा,
!ारा उpोग िनदेशालय, खातला
आइजोल - 796 001 (िमजोरम)
संपक नंबर 08575091069
99. आंचिलक
कायालय
(पिम)
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
आंचिलक कायालय (पिम)
तृतीय तल, आर एंड सी िलिमटेड भवन, सर जे.जे.रोड,
बाईकुला मुंबई - 400008, (महारा)
टेलीफोन: 022-23738275, फैUस: 022-23733742
ईमेल: [email protected]
1924
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
100.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
थम तल, ेटीज चैT बस, कयाण _ीट, मिजद (पूव), मुंबई - 400009, (महारा)
टेलीफोन: 23740268 23740272, 23740116,
टेलीफैUस: 022-23741989
ईमेल: [email protected], [email protected]
101.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा,
!ारा टीएसएसआईए हाउस, लॉट सं.26, रोड सं .16, वागले औpोिगक एटेट, ठाणे
(प.) 400 064
टेलीफोन: 022-25802244
ईमेल: [email protected]
102.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा (नाको उEपाद)
42/57, इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप{रेशन कंपाउंड, मनकोली नाका, िभवंडी, िजला: ठाणे
(महारा)
103.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा (7जक उEपाद)
!ारा क4 ,ीय वेयर हाउस7सग िनगम, नई रनोली zलाईओवर के पास, िज, करिछया,
वडोदरा-391350,
टेली फैU स : 0265-2241430,
ईमेल: [email protected]
104.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा (7जक उEपाद)
एन -14 / 2, तारापुर औpोिगक एटेट, एमआईडीसी, तालुका बोईसर, कुT भावली,
तारापुर,
िजला ठाणे (महारा)
टेलीफोन: 02525-653041, टेलीफैUस: 02525-270200
ईमेल: [email protected]
105.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
403, 7वग बी, सागर टेक लाजा, साकनाका, अंधेरी कुला रोड,
अंधेरी (पूव)
अंधेरी (पूव)
अंधेरी (पूव)
अंधेरी (पूव), , , , मुंबई
मुंबई
मुंबई
मुंबई - 400072, (महारा)
टेलीफोन
टेलीफोन
टेलीफोन
टेलीफोन: 022- 28582020, 2850 9915/16,
3226 5918,
फै$स
फै$स
फै$स
फै$स: 022 28509917
ईमेल: [email protected]
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1925
106.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा, सव?Rण सं.68 / 1, वारानगडे <ाम,
बोईसर िचलर रोड, बोईसर (पिम)
टेलीफोन: 02525-653041,
107.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा,
!ारा गोविल स औpोिगक एसोिसएशन, 101-103, इंदरा उpोग भवन, गोलानी
परसर, वािलव, वसई (पूव) - 401 208
108.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
एनडीटीए परसर, gलॉक 9, दूसरा तल
िलबट िसनेमा के सामने, रेिजड4स रोड, सदर,
नागपुर- 440001 (महारा)
टेलीफोन: 0712-2543254, 2552023
फैUस: 0712-2543255
ईमेल: [email protected]
109.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
!ारा एमएसएमईडीआई, शंकरशेट रोड, वरगेट पीएमटी वक शाप के पास, जानक
हॉल कंपाउंड, पुणे-411037 (महारा)
टेलीफोन: 020-24497303,
टेलीफैUस: 020-24440546
ईमेल: [email protected]
110.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा
!ारा िजला उpोग क4 ,, उpोग भवन,
िजला कलेUटर कायालय के पास, कोहापुर-416012
111.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
!ारा एमएएसएसआईए, पी -15,
एमआईडीसी, वालुज, मोर चौक,
औरंगाबाद - 431136 (महारा),
टेलीफोन: 0240-2552300, फैUस: 0240-2563799
ईमेल: [email protected]
1926
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
112.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
204, ि!तीय तल, gलॉक-ए, टल आक? ड लोधीपारा चौक के पास शंकर नगर,
रायपुर - 492 007 (छ"ीसगढ़),
टेलीफोन: 0771 - 4035388, 6006070
ईमेल: [email protected]
113.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा (नाको उEपाद) सव?Rण सं.80 / 4, दयात-फािलया रोड,
अमली, िसलवासा-396 230, दादरा एवं नगर हवेली संघ राb य RेF)
टेलीफैUस: 0260-2641436
114.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय .ीजी परसर, चौथा तल मनोशांित होटल के पास,
डॉ. दादा वैp रोड, पणजी - 403 001 (गोवा)
टेलीफैUस: 0832-2220540
ईमेल: [email protected]
115.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
गला सं. 13, तृतीय तल, उpोग भवन, एमआईडीसी, सतपुर,
नािसक -422007
टेलीफोन: 0252-2365059,
टेलीफैUस - 0253-2365061
ईमेल: [email protected]
116. आंचिलक
कायालय
(मoय)
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
आंचिलक कायालय (मoय)
202, 203, समs भवन, गुजरात उx +यायालय के सामने, अहमदाबाद -
380014, (गुजरात)
दूरभाष : 079-27543228 / 27544893/27544254,
फैUस: 079-27540159
ईमेल: [email protected]
117.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
202, 203, समs िब7डग
गुजरात उx +यायालय के सामने, अहमदाबाद - 380014, (गुजरात)
दूरभाष : 079-27543228 / 27544893/27544254,
फैUस: 079-27540159
ईमेल: [email protected]
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1927
118.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा
कायालय
404,
राजहंस
िब7डग,
जे.के.
टॉवर
के
सामने,
रग रोड, सूरत - 395 002 (गुजरात)
फोन-0261-2345733, फैUस-0261-4039735
ईमेल: [email protected]
119.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय
10, पोलो<ाउंड, औpोिगक एटेट, इंदौर (मoय देश) - 452015
टेलीफोन- 0731- 2424408-2424409 - 2421566,
फैUस - 0731- 2421566
ईमेल: [email protected]
120.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
उप शाखा, !ारा िजला Jापार एवं उpोग के+,,
िविवpालय चौराहा, िसटी स4टर, वािलयर, मoय देश
121.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड शाखा कायालय
110, मालवीय नगर, थम तल, , , , भोपाल-462003, (मoय देश)
टेलीफोन: 0755-2766205, 4295152, 2766205,
टेलीफैUस: 0755-2553183
ईमेल: [email protected]
122.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड
शाखा कायालय 105-106, होटल िवराज िब7डग, गुदेव वािणिbयक परसर के
सामने, ऑफ सायली रोड,
िसलवासा –396 230, (दादर नगर एवं हवेली संघ राbय RेF)
टेलीफोन: 0260- 2640272, 6534514, फैUस: 0260-2640272,
ईमेल: [email protected]
123. चूक बंधन वसूली शाखा राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड,
चूक बंधन वसूली शाखा, सी -41, सेUटर -58, नोएडा।
दूरभाष -0120-4546197,
टेलीफैUस-0120-4546198
ईमेल: [email protected]
124.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड,
चूक बंधन वसूली शाखा, पी-104, खैराने एमआईडीसी,
टीटीसी इंडि_यल एरया, कोपड़खैराने,
नवी मुंबई 400 709, (महारा)
टेलीफोन: 022- 27620865,
टेलीफैUस: 022-27634969
ईमेल: [email protected]
1928
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
125.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड,
चूक बंधन वसूली शाखा, 202, 203, समs भवन, गुजरात उx +यायालय के
सामने, अहमदाबाद - 380014, (गुजरात)
दूरभाष : 079-27543228 / 27544893/27544254,
फैUस: 079-27540159
ईमेल: [email protected]
126.
एनएसआईसी तकनीक सेवा क4 ,
सेUटर बी -24, 7गडी औpोिगक एटेट, इकादुथंगल पीओ,
चेPई 600032 (तिमलनाडु), टेलीफोन: 044-22252335 / 6/7,
फैUस: 044-22254500,
ईमेल: [email protected]
127.
एनएसआईसी तकनीक सेवा क4,
पी ओ बािलटीकुरी िजला हावड़ा- 711 113 (पिम बंगाल)
टेलीफोन: 033-26530304 / 26532962/26534280
फैUस: 033-26531314
ईमेल: [email protected]
128.
एनएसआईसी तकनीक सेवा क4 , कुशईगुहा, कमलानगर ईसीआईएल (पी ओ),
हैदराबाद
हैदराबाद
हैदराबाद
हैदराबाद-500062 (तेलंगाना)
टेलीफोन: 040-27121422, 27126646, 27134025, 27124597, फैUस: 040-
27122303
ईमेल: [email protected]
129.
एनएसआईसी तकनीक सेवा क4,
ओखला इंडि_यल एटेट, नई दली- 110020
टेलीफोन: 011-26826801, 26826847, 26826846
फैUस: 011-26826783
ईमेल: [email protected]
130.
एनएसआईसी तकनीक सेवा क4,
भाव नगर रोड, अजी इंडि_यल एरया,
राजकोट -360 003 (गुजरात)
टेलीफोन: 0281- 2387396/97/98, 2387613,
फैUस: 0281-2387729
ईमेल: [email protected]
131.
एनएसआईसी तकनीक सेवा क4,
डी-82/83, फोकल वाइंट, पुराना U यूएमई भवन
राजपुरा- 140 401, (पंजाब)
टेलीफोन: 09115005601-609 फैUस: 01762-232669,
ईमेल: [email protected]
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1929
132.
एनएसआईसी तकनीक सेवा क4,
ए-1 औpोिगक एटेट, अलीगढ़- 202 001 (उ"र देश)
टेलीफोन: 0571-2403552, 2400364,
टेलीफैUस: 0571-2403552
ईमेल: [email protected]
133.
एनएसआईसी कTयूटर िशRण के+,,
सी-15, दूसरा तल, गणपित अपताल के ऊपर, तुलसी पे_ोल पTप के पास, भगवान
टॉकज, एनएच -2, बाईपास रोड, आगरा-282002 (उ"र देश) टेलीफोन / फैUस:
0562-4040196,
मो.: -09456276705, ईमेल: [email protected]
134.
एनएसआईसी िशRण क4 ,
1714/663, गांव – हालेल, पीओ कनैद, तहसील - सुंदरनगर,
िजला – मंडी िहमाचल देश) - 175 010
टेलीफोन: 09816360071,
ईमेल: [email protected]
135.
एनएसआईसी िशRण के+,,
रानी रा कुमारी शैिRक और क याण सोसायटी भवन, एनएसी के पास, जुgबल,
तहसील, िजला िशमला, िहमाचल देश-171205
टेलीफोन: 01781-252200, ईमेल: [email protected]
136.
राीय लघु उpोग िनगम िलिमटेड,
चूक बंधन वसूली शाखा,
एसटीपी िब7डग, सेUटर बी -24, 7गडी औpोिगक एटेट,
इकादुथुगंल पीओ, चेPई- 600032 (तिमलनाडु)
टेलीफोन: 044-22250444, 22250445
टेली फैU स : 044-22250343
137.
दशनी सह िवपणन िवकास िबजनेस पाक
मॉuूल सं.207, ईएमडीबीपी भवन,
ईसीआईएल पी ओ कमलानगर, कुशाईगुदा हैदराबाद-500062
(आं देश), टेलीफोन: 040-27141422, 27125802
फैUस: 040-27141411
ईमेल: [email protected]
138.
एनएसआईसी िशRण सह इनUयूबेशन स4टर
लॉट सं.18, सोनदा मौजा,
देवरया - 274 001 (उ..)
[फा.सं. 9(6)/2012-एसएमई]
संजीव कुमार, उप िनदेशक
1930
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES
(SME SECTION)
New Delhi, the 12th May, 2016
S.O. 865. —In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises number S.O. 2222, dated the 28th June 2012, published in the Gazette of India,
Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 7th July, 2012 except as requisite things done or committed to be done
before such supersession, the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column (1) of the Table
below, being an officer equivalent to the rank of the Gazetted Officer of the Central Government to be Estate Officer for
the purpose of the said Act and further directs that the said officer shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the
duties imposed on Estate Officer by or under the said Act within the limits of his jurisdiction in respect of public
premises specified in column (2) of the said Table.
TABLE
Designation of officer
Categories of public premises and local limits of jurisdiction
(1)
(2)
Shri Men Pal Singh, Deputy
General Manager (F&A), the
National
Small
Industries
Corporation
Limited,
New
Delhi.
Premise owned or taken on lease from time to time by the National Small Industries
Corporation Limited in the National Capital Territory of Delhi and in other places
where its Zonal Offices, Branch Offices, NSIC – Business Development Extension
Offices, Raw Material Distribution Centres (Godowns), Marketing Intelligence Cell,
Default Management Recovery Branches, NSIC-Technical Services Centres,
Software Technology Parks, Exhibition Centres, Software Technology Parks,
Exhibition Centre(s), Industrial Estate, Naini, Allahabad (Uttar Pradesh) are situated
as mentioned in Annexure.
ANNEXURE
S.No.
Offices
Address
(1)
(2)
(3)
1.
Corporate Office
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited (A Government of India
Enterprise) NSIC Bhawan, Okhla
Industrial Estate, New Delhi – 110 020,
India
Tel: ++91-11-26926275, 26926370,
Toll free No. 1800111955
Fax: ++91-11-26932075, 26311109
Email: [email protected], [email protected]
Website: www.nsic.co.in
2.
Marketing Intelligence Cell & NSIC
Info Call Centre
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Marketing Intelligence Cell &
NSIC Info Call Centre, IT Incubator,
NTSC Complex, Okhla Industrial Estate,
New Delhi . Tel: 011-26321423,
64650781, 64651703, 26382047, Email:
3.
Zonal Office (North-I)
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Zonal Office North-I,
G-15, Sector -18, NOIDA,
Uttar Pradesh – 201301
Tel: 0120-4571700,
Telfax: 0120-4247966
Email: z[email protected]
4.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited Branch Office,
III-B/118, Sector – 18
Shopping Complex, Noida - 201301
(Uttar Pradesh)
Tel.: 0120-4595000 to 4595045 (46 lines),
& 2511798
Fax: 0120- 4556450 & 4556453
Email: b[email protected]
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1931
5.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited Branch Office
110, 111, 116, 117, First Floor,
Ansal Sumedha Building,
Raj Nagar District Centre,
Ghaziabad – 201 002
Email: [email protected]
6.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited Branch Office
16-D, 1st Floor, Mahaluxmi Metro Tower,
C-1, C-2, Sector-4,
Vaishali, Ghaziabad – 201 002
Tel: 0120-4566526,
Telfax: 0120-4350679
Email: [email protected]
7.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited Branch Office,
Near Sabji Mandi, Niranjanpur,
Saharanpur Road, Dehradun-248001
Tel. No. : 0135-6451005,
Telefax : 0135-2520501
Email : [email protected]
8.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited Sub Branch/TIC
B-1, B-5, Industrial Estate, Bazpur Road,
Kashipur (Uttaranchal)
Tel: 05947-262453
Email: [email protected]
9.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited Branch Office,
307/T-6,
3rd
Floor,
Maruti
Plaza,
(Behind Sanjay Talkies) Sanjay Place,
Agra – 282 002
Tel: 0562-2527862, 2525567
Telefax: 0562-2524842
Email: [email protected]
10.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited Branch Office
65/1, 2nd Floor, Above Meera Gas Agency,
Panchsheel Colony, Garh Road,
Meerut – 250 004 (UP)
Tel: 0121-4051441/42
Email: [email protected]
11.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited Branch Office,
105, First Floor, Tradex- Tower-II,
Commercial Belt, Alpha-I,
Greater Noida (U.P.)-201308
Tel
No:
0120-
4253123/4572986
Email: [email protected]
12.
Zonal Office (North-III)
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Zonal
Office
North-III
Mansarovar
Complex,
C-30/35-B,
2nd Floor, Maldhaiya,
Varanasi-221001
Ph. No.- 0542-2200324
Email: [email protected]
1932
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited Branch Office,
Mansarovar Complex, C-30/35-B,
2nd Floor, Maldhaiya,
Varanasi – 221001, Uttar Pradesh
Telefax: 0542-2370223
Email: [email protected]
14.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited Branch Office
112 / 1, IInd Floor Benajhabar Road,
Kanpur - 208 001
Tel: 0512-2535049, 2556379,
Telefax:0512-2543217
Email: [email protected]
15.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited Sub Branch,
DIC Campus, Gorakhnath Industrial
Estate, Gorakhpur – 273 015 (Uttar
Pradesh) Tel: 09235406193
Email: [email protected]
16.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited Branch Office
Industrial Estate, P.O. Udyog Nagar,
Naini, Allahabad-211 009 (Uttar Pradesh)
Tel: 0532-2697218/2697050, 2695847
Telefax : 0532-2697218
Email: b[email protected],
17.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited Branch Office,
503, 5th Floor, Shriram Tower,
13, Ashok Marg, Lucknow-226001
Telefax: 0522-2288803
Email: [email protected],
18.
Zonal Office (North-II)
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited Zonal Office North-II,
NF / 0 / 2 Nehru Place, Tonk Road,
Jaipur- 302015 (Rajasthan)
Tel: 0141-2744899/2742991/2742372,
Fax:0141-2741277, 2740334
Email: [email protected]
19.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited Branch Office,
NF / 0 / 2 Nehru Place, Tonk Road,
Jaipur- 302015 (Rajasthan)
0141- 2740191/2742991/2742372
Fax:0141-2741277
Email: [email protected]
20.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited Branch Office, 513, Alankar
Plaza, Central Spine,
Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur -302 023
(Rajasthan)
Tel : 0141-2231594,2231573,
Fax: 0141-2231572
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1933
21.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited , Sub Branch,
C/o The SSI Association,
Purusararth Bhawan, Road No.5, IPIA,
Kota (Rajasthan)
Tel: 0744-2426104
22.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Sub Branch,
Association Bhawan,
Bagru Industrial Association,
Bagru Extn., Bagru-303007 (Jaipur)
Contact No: 09413846491
23.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Branch Office,
B-294, 295 (G), 1st Floor, Manglam
House, RIICO Chowk,
Bhiwadi – 301019.
Telfax: 01493-220076
Email: [email protected]
24.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Branch Office,
Guru Gobind Singh Tower,
Near Dholewal Chowk,
G T Road, Ludhiana- 141 003 (Punjab).
Tel: 0161-2541946/2530940/2546523,
Telefax: 0161-2531946
Email: [email protected]
25.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Sub Branch,
1st Floor, DIC Office Building ,
Adjacent Bus Stand,
Mandi Gobindgarh (Punjab)
Contact No. -08146755811
Tel:01765-2241493
Email:[email protected]
26.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Sub Branch,
Red Cross Building,
Near Ranbir Club,
Sangrur-148001.
Contact No: 09781935323,
Tel:01672232322
Email: [email protected]
27.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Branch Office,
SCO - 378, 2nd Floor, Sector-32 D,
Chandigarh. Tel: 0172-2620538, 2620539,
Fax: 0172-4656538
Email: [email protected]
28.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Sub Branch,
IDDC Complex, Staff Road,
Ambala Cantt. 133001 ( Haryana)
Tel:.0171-2633507
Email: [email protected]
1934
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
29.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Sub Branch,
C/o NSIC-NALCO Godown,
Dharampur, Sai Road,
Opposite of Pidilite Industries Ltd.,
Baddi, Himachal Pradesh.
Tel: 01795-652114, 657114
30.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Branch Office,
First Floor, SS Arcade,
B-1-823/4, Tanda Road, Opp. KMV
College, Jalandhar – 144004 (Punjab)
Tel: 0181-2292242,2295533,6570257,
Fax:0181-2299242
Email: [email protected],
31.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Sub Branch,
Room No.12, District Industries Centre
Complex, Exhibition Grounds,
Jammu-180 001. Tel: 0191-2564934,
Email: [email protected]
32.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited Sub Branch
1st floor, Bank Complex, G.T. Road,
Damtal, Teh. Indora, Distt. Kangra
(H.P.) -176 403 Tel: 01893-245319
Email: [email protected]
33.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Sub Branch District Industries
Centre Complex,
Focal Point, Mehta Road,
Amritsar-143 001
Email: [email protected]
Contact. No.: 9216449998
34.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Branch Office,
Shop Cum Office (SCO), 11-12,
Gaushala Mandi,
G.T. Road, Panipat -132103 (Haryana)
Tel. No. 0180-4002721, Telfax No. 0180-
2670608,
Email: [email protected]
35.
Zonal Office (NCR)
NSIC Limited, Zonal Office NSIC
Technical Services Centre,
Okhla Industrial Estate,
New Delhi-110020 Tel: 011-26382350,
Telfax: 011-41036462.
Email: [email protected]
36.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Branch Office
NTSC Complex, Near Chandiwala
Hospital,Okhla Industrial Estate,
New Delhi-20
Tel: 011-26382568-69,
Fax: 011-26382568, 41002320
Email: [email protected]
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1935
37.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Branch Office,
No.9, IInd Floor, Aap Ka City Plaza,
Near Hotel Park Inn, Civil Lines,
Gurgaon -122 001 (Haryana)
Tel: 0124-2308913, Fax:0124-2220543
Email: [email protected]
38.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Branch Office,
Plot No.107, Nissan Hut, NH-5,
Railway Road, Faridabad – 121 001
(Haryana)
Tel: 0129-4311249/52/92/93 (Godown)
4102430 Fax: 0129-4311293
Email: [email protected] ,
39.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Branch Office,
1st Floor, Jeevan Tara (DGS&D) Building,
Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110 001
Tel:011-23360527, 23747674,
Fax: 011-23747673
Email: [email protected]
40.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Branch Office,
516-517, 5th Floor, Laxmi Tower,
Azdapur Commercial Complex,
Azadpur, Delhi-33.
Tel: 011-47580231
Email: [email protected]
41.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Branch Office,
706, 7th Floor , Pearls Best Height-I,
Netaji Subhash Palace, Opposite of
Wazirpur Depot, Delhi -110034
Tel: 011-27357120-21, Fax: 011-
45057484
Email: [email protected]
42.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Branch Office,
C-60 & 64, Flatted Factory Complex,
Jhandewalan, New Delhi – 110055
Tel: 011-23515243 - 44, 23535255
Fax: 011-47597201
Email: [email protected]
43.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Branch Office,
Z-99, First Floor, Mama Chowk, M.I.E.
Part-A, Opposite of Frontier Biscuit
Factory, Delhi Rohtak Road,
Bahadurgarh – 124 507 (Haryana)
Tel: 01276-267551,
Fax:01276-267552
Email: [email protected]
1936
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
44.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Branch Office,
CB-326, Second Floor,
Ring Road, Naraina,
New Delhi – 110028
Tel : 011-64611484, 25775787,
Telfax : 011-25775166
Email: [email protected]
45.
Zonal Office (South-I)
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Zonal Office, South-I,
New No. 422(Old No. 615),
Anna Salai, Chennai – 600006,
(Tamil Nadu)
Tel. : 044-2829 1943 / 2829 4541,
Fax: 044-2829 5791
Email: [email protected]
46.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Branch Office, New No. 422(Old
No. 615), Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600006, (Tamil Nadu)
Tel. : 044-28293347/28294541,
Fax : 044-28295791, 28293347
Email: [email protected]
47.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Sub Branch,
(Nalco, Balco, Vedanta & Paraffin Wax)
C/o. NSIC-Technical Services Centre
B-24, Guindy Indl Estate Ekkaduthangal,
Chennai 600 032
48.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Sub Branch, Office NAFED
Warehousing Complex,
CMDA Trusck Terminal,
Ponniammanmedu PO, Madhavaram,
Chennai-600110 Tel: 044-25530310
49.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Branch Office, 35/B, First Floor,
Yannnaikatti Maidhan, Beemanagar,
Trichy -620001 Tel: 04312414541
E-mail: [email protected]
50.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Branch Office, No.309, SIDCO-
AIEMA Tower, 3rd Floor, Ist Main Road,
Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur,
Chennai 600058
Tel: 044-26243984, 28291292
Telfax: 044-26246826
Email: [email protected]
51.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Sub Branch,
C/o. Chennai Auto Ancillary Industrial
Infrastructure Upgradation Company
TIEMA’ Convention Centre,
I Main Road, SIDCO Industrial Estate
Thirumazhisai,
Chennai - 600 124.
Tel: 044-26912327
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1937
52.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Branch Office,
S-10, Phase-III, 11th Cross Road,
Thiru-vi-ka Industrial Estate, Guindy,
Chennai - 600 032.
044-22501069, 22500005,
Fax No.044-22501052
Email: [email protected]
53.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited,
Sub Branch,
No.5, Thiruvalluvar Street,
Kandanchavadi, Perungundi,
Chennai – 600 096
Tel: 044-2454 0533
E-mail: [email protected]
54.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited,
Branch Office,
Administrative Building, Industrial Estate,
Thattanchavady,
Pondicherry-605009
Tel: 0413-2248970,2248940,
Fax: 0413-2248970
Email: [email protected]
55.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Branch Office,
1055 / 10 Gowtham Centre,
Avinashi Road,
Coimbatore - 641 018 (Tamil Nadu)
Tel: 0422-2244618,0422-2247757
Telfax: 0422-2247764
Email: [email protected]
56.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Sub Branch,
C/o Erode District Small Industries
Association
No.5/1, SIDCO Industrial Estate,
Chennimalai Road,
Erode-638001
57.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Branch Office,
New No. 14, 1st Street,Harvey Nagar,
Arasaradi,
Madurai 625 016 (Tamilnadu)
Tel.: 0452-2609992/3, 2602419
Fax: 0452-2604322
Email: [email protected]
58.
Zonal Office (South-II)
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited, Branch Office,
No. 25, 1ST Main Road,
KSSIDC Industrial Estate,
6th Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangaluru - 560 044 (Karnataka)
Tel: 080- 23307790/23307791,
Fax: 080-23145227
Email: [email protected]
1938
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
59.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited,
Branch Office,
No. 25, 1ST Main Road,
KSSIDC Industrial Estate,
6th Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangaluru - 560 044 (Karnataka)
Telfax: 080- 23300070/ 23109059,
Email: [email protected],
60.
National Small Industries Corporation
Ltd.,
Branch Office,
Plot No. 60, Anujay Building,
5th Cross, Subhash Chandra Nagar,
Opposite of Foundry Cluster Building,
Near Utsav Hotel, Belgaum -590006.
Tel: 0831- 2449922,
Email: [email protected] /
61.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited,
Sub Branch,
113/2-4, ISICOS Godown,
Rajajinaar Industrial Town
Bangalore – 560 044
62.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited,
Branch Office,
C-424, Peenya 1st Stage,
Behind Peenya Police Station
Bangalore – 560 058
Tel: 080-28374676, 28394576, 28374977,
Telefax: Tel: 080-28374676
Email: [email protected]
63.
NSIC Technical Training Centre
Survey No.52/1, Khata No.1618,
Next to Don Bosco ITI,
Pottepalli, Bethamangala Hobbli,
Gandhinagar,
Robertsonpet, KGF – 563 122,
Kolar Dist, Karnataka
Mob: 09480888240, 9341158399
Email: [email protected]
64.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited,
Branch Office,
203, Sri Dattasai Complex,
RTC Cross Roads,
Hyderabad-500020 (Andhra Pradesh)
Tel: 040-27622515/27615761/27622097,
Fax:040-27617777
Email: [email protected],
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1939
65.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited,
Sub Branch,
Shed No.2, Sy.No.61/Part, Splendid
Aparna Meadows,
Quthbullapur (M), Kompally (V),
Medchal (Tq)
Hyderabad-500014
66.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited,
Sub Branch,
25/197, Vellore Road, Venson Transport
Premises,
Reddigunta,
Chittoor-517 002 (Andhra Pradesh)
Tel: 08572-240958,
Fax: 08572-232545
67.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited,
Branch Office,
Door No. 6-3-144 & 144/1,
Jahanara Kareem Complex, 3rd Floor,
Balanagar, Hyderabad - 500 037
(T) 040-23777880/23777/1
(TF):040-23777879
68.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited,
Branch Office,
Ist Floor, Plot No.49,
Main Road, Guru Nanak Colony,
Vijayawada – 520 008 (Andhra Pradesh)
Tel: 0866-2541055,
Telfax: 0866-2545055
Email: [email protected]
69.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited,
Branch Office,
D.No.6-67-27/2/3,
Opposite of Gajuwaka Police Station Main
Gate,
Sramika Nagar, Gajuwaka,
Visakhapatnam – 530026
Telfax: 0891-2768554
Email: [email protected]
70.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited,
Branch Office,
# 1, N.S. Tower, Vaishnavi Nagar,
Bye Pass Road, Hosur – 635 109,
Dist. Krishnagiri (Tamilnadu)
Tel: 04344-267092, Fax: 04344-267093
Email: [email protected]
1940
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
71.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited,
Sub Branch,
70 B, Sipcot Industrial Complex,
Near Hamsa Nursing Home,
Ranipet-632403 (Tamilnadu)
72.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited,
Branch Office,
S – 67 GDCA Complex, Marine Drive
Ernakulum, Kochi,
Cochin – 682031 (Kerala)
Tel: 0484-2381850/2368149,
Fax: 0484-2380155
Email: [email protected]
73.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited,
Sub Branch
C/o MSMDI, Kanjani Road,
Trichur (Kerala)
74.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited,
Sub Branch,
C/o District Industries Centre,
Behind Civil Lines,
Distt. Palakkad – 678 001 (Kerala)
75.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited,
Sub Branch,
XIV/105A, Kottayam Municipal Industrial
Estate,
Kodimatha, Kottayam, Kerala
76.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited,
Sub Branch,
C/o District Industries Centre,
Water Works Compound,
Vellayambalam,
Trivendrum-695033 (Kerala)
77.
Zonal Office (East & North East)
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited,
Zonal Office, North East
Bye Lane No.3, Industrial Estate
Bamunimaidan, Guwahati- 781021
(Assam)
Tel: 0361- 2657952 Res. 2730219,
Fax: 0361-2558948
Email: [email protected]
78.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited,
Branch Office,
20-B, Abdul Hamid Street. (7th Floor)
Kolkata-700069, (West Bental)
Tel. : 033-2213-7084/2248-8288,
Fax : 033-2248-7359
Email : [email protected]
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1941
79.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited,
Sub Branch,
Dhulagarh Truck Terminal, Godown
No.45,
Dhulagarh, P.S. Sankrail,
Howrah (West Bengal)
Telefax: 033-26792016
80.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited,
Sub Branch,
C/o Howrah Chamber of Commerce &
Industry,
Liluah,
Howrah – 711 204 (West Bengal)
81.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Sub Branch
35/4, Ichapur Road, Kadamtala,
Howrah – 711 104
82.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Branch Office
Branch Office,
AA-177, Salt Lake City, Sector-I,
Kolkata-700 064
Tel: 033-23211471, Telefax:033-
23212416
Email: [email protected]
83.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Branch Office,
Siliguri Industrial Estate Development
Association,
Siliguri Industrial Estate, Plot No.33,
2nd Mile, Sevoke Road,
Siliguri – 734001 (West Bengal)
Tel: 0353-2540218
Email: [email protected]
84.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Branch Office
1st Floor, DIC Campus, Rasulgarh
Industrial Estate,
Bhubaneswar – 751 010 (Orissa)
Tel: 0674-2548875, 6510189
Fax: 0674-2549780,
85.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Sub Branch
Link Road, Cuttack, -753012 (Orissa)
Tel:0671-2312083/2312875,
Fax: 0671-2312875
Email: [email protected]
1942
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
86.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Branch Office
Plot no.JJJ-16, Civil Township,
Rourkela -769004
Dist Sundargarh (Orissa)
Tel. 0661-2665059,
Fax: 0661-2664559
Email: [email protected],
87.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Branch Office
104, Ist Floor, Manna-Surti Complex,
Doctor’s Colony, Kankarbagh,
Patna 800 020 (Bihar)
Tel: 0612-2354222,3212403
Telefax: 0612-2354222
Email:
[email protected],[email protected]
88.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Branch Office
4/7, Central Park, Doctor’s Colony,
City Centre, Durgapur – 713 216
Ph: 0343-2542165, Telefax: 0343-
2549975
Email: [email protected]
89.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Branch Office
Vikash Bhawan Complex,
Adityapur, Jamshedpur-831013
(Jharkhand)
Tel: 0657-3294051,
Telefax No.0657-2371299
Email: [email protected]
90.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Branch Office,
Udyog Bhawan, Kokar Industrial Area,
Ranchi - 834001 (Jharkhand)
Telfax: 0651-2543921
Email: [email protected],
91.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Sub Branch,
By-Pass Road Chas, Bokaro
(Jharkhand)
Email: [email protected]
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1943
92.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Branch Office
New Market, ”HUDCO Tower,
15N, Nellie Sengupta Sarani (Lindsay
Street)
2nd Floor, Room No.2/1,
Kolkata-700 087
Phone: 033-22522232/2252,
Telefax-33-22522319
E-mail [email protected],
93.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Branch Office,
Bye Lane No.3, Industrial Estate,
Bamunimaidam,
Guwahati- 781021 (Assam)
Tel: 0361- 2657952 Res. 2730219, Fax:
0361-2558948
Email: [email protected]
94.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Branch Office
Bye Lane No.3, Industrial Estate,
Bamunimaidam, Guwahati- 781021
(Assam)
Tel: 0361-2657947, Fax: 0361-2657948
Email: [email protected]
95.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Sub Branch
EDI Complex, SOFED,
Opposite of ITI.,
Indra Nagar,
Agartala –799 006 (Tripura)
Tel: 0381-2351374
96.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Sub Branch
Uripok Achom Leikai,
Imphal-795 001 (Manipur)
Telfax: 0385-2414270
1944
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
97.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Sub Branch
MIDC Complex, “Kismat”, Upland Road,
Laitumkhrah
Shillong –793 003 (Meghalaya)
98.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Sub Branch,
C/o Directorate of Industries, Khatla,
Aizawal – 796 001 (Mizoram)
Contact No. 08575091069
99.
Zonal Office (West)
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Zonal Office (West)
3rd Floor, R&C Limited Building,
Sir J.J. Road, Bycurla
Mumbai - 400008, (Maharashtra)
Tel: 022-23738275,
Fax :022-23733742
Email: [email protected]
100.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Branch Office
Ist Floor, Prestige Chambers,
Kalyan Street, Masjid (E),
Mumbai - 400009, (Maharashtra)
Tel: 23740268 23740272, 23740116,
Telefax: 022-23741989
Email: [email protected],
101.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Sub Branch,
C/o TSSIA House,P lot No.26,
Road No.16, Wagle Industrial Estate,
Thane (W) 400 064
Tel: 022-25802244
Email: [email protected]
102.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Sub Branch (NALCO Product)
42/57, Indian Oil Corporation Compound,
Mankoli Naka, Bhiwandi,
Dist: Thane (Maharastra)
103.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Sub Branch (Zinc Product)
C/o Central Warehousing Corporation,
Near Ranoli Flyover, Bridge, Karachiyya,
Vadodara-391350,
Telfx: 0265-2241430,
Email: [email protected]
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1945
104.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Sub Branch (Zinc Product)
N-14/2, Tarapur Indl. Estate,
MIDC, Taluka Boisar,
Kumbhavali, Tarapur,
Dist. Thane (Maharastra)
Tel: 02525-653041,
Telefax: 02525-270200
Email: [email protected]
105.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Branch Office
403, Wing B, Sagar Tech Plaza,
Sakinaka, Andheri Kurla Road,
Andheri (East),
Mumbai - 400072, (Maharashtra)
Tel: 022- 28582020, 2850 9915 /
16, 3226 5918,
Fax : 022 28509917
Email: [email protected]
106.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Sub Branch,
Survey No.68/1, Varangade Village,
Boisar Chillar Road, Boisar (W)
Tel: 02525-653041,
107.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Sub Branch ,
C/o Gowalis Industrial Association,
101-103, Indira Udyog Bhawan,
Golani Complex,Waliv,
Vasai (E) – 401 208
108.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Branch Office
NDTA Complex, Block 9, 2nd Floor
Opposite of Liberty Cinema,
Residence Road, Sadar,
Nagpur- 440001 (Maharastra)
Tel: 0712-2543254, 2552023,
Fax: 0712-2543255
Email: [email protected]
109.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Branch Office
C/o MSMEDI, Shankarshet Road,
Swargate,
Near PMT Workshop,
Janki Hall Compound,
Pune-411037 (Maharashtra)
Tel: 020-24497303,
Telefax:020-24440546
Email: [email protected]
1946
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
110.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Sub Branch
C/o District Industries Centre,
Udyog Bhavan, Near District Collector
Office,
Kolhapur-416012
111.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Branch Office
C/o MASSIA, P-15, MIDC,
Waluj, More Chowk, Aurangabad –
431136 (Maharastra),
Tel: 0240-2552300,
Fax:0240-2563799
Email: [email protected]
112.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Branch Office
204, IInd Floor, Block-A, Crystal Arcade,
Near Lodhipara Chowk, Shankar Nagar,
Raipur – 492 007 (Chattisgarh),
Tel: 0771-4035388, 6006070
email: [email protected]
113.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Sub Branch (NALCO Product)
Survey No.80/4, Dayat Falia Road, Amli,
Silvassa-396 230, U.T. of Dadra & Nagar
Haveli)
Telefax: 0260-2641436
114.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Branch Office
Shriji Complex, 4th floor, Near
Manoshanthi Hotel, Dr. Dada Vaidhya
Road,
Panaji – 403 001(Goa)
Telefax : 0832-2220540
Email: [email protected]
115.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Branch Office
Galla No 13 , 3rd Floor, Udyog Bhawan ,
MIDC , Satpur, Nasik -422007
Tel: 0252-2365059,
Telefax – 0253-2365061
Email: [email protected]
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1947
116.
Zanal Office (Central)
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Zonal Office (Central)
202, 203, Samruddh Building,
Opposite of Gujarat High Court,
Ahmedabad – 380014, (Gujarat)
Tel. :079-27543228/27544893/27544254,
Fax : 079-27540159
Email: [email protected]
117.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited Branch Office 202, 203,
Samruddh Building Opp.
Gujarat High Court,
Ahmedabad – 380014,
(Gujarat)
Tel. :079-27543228/27544893/27544254,
Fax : 079-27540159
Email: [email protected]
118.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Branch Office
404, Rajhans Building,
Opposite of J.K. Tower,
Ring Road,
Surat – 395 002 (Gujarat)
Phone-0261-2345733, Fax-0261-4039735
Email: [email protected]
119.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Branch Office
10, Pologround, Industrial Estate,
Indore (Madhya Pradesh) – 452015
Tel- 0731- 2424408 - 2424409 – 2421566,
Fax - 0731- 2421566
Email: [email protected]
120.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Sub Branch,
C/o District Trade & Industries Centre,
University Chauraha,
City Centre,
Gwaliar, Madhya Pradesh
121.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Branch Office
110, Malviya Nagar, Ist Floor,
Bhopal-462003,
(Madhya Pradesh)
Tel: 0755-2766205, 4295152, 2766205,
Telefax : 0755-2553183
Email: [email protected]
1948
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
122.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited
Branch Office
105-106, Hotel Viraj Building,
Opposite of Gurudev Commercial
Complex,
Off Sayli Road,
Silvassa – 396 230, (UT of Dadar, Nagar
& Haveli)
Tel: 0260- 2640272, 6534514,
Fax: 0260-2640272,
Email: [email protected]
123.
Default Management Recovery Branch
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited,
Default Management Recovery Branch,
C-41, Sector-58, Noida.
Tel-0120-4546197,
Telefax-0120-4546198
Email: [email protected]
124.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited,
Default Management Recovery Branch,
P-104, Khairane MIDC,
TTC Industrial Area, Koparkhairane,
Navi Mumbai- 400 709, (Maharashtra)
Tel: 022- 27620865,
Telefax: 022-27634969
Email: [email protected]
125.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited,
Default Management Recovery Branch,
202, 203, Samruddh Building,
Opposite of Gujarat High Court,
Ahmedabad – 380014, (Gujarat)
Tel. :079-27543228/27544893/27544254,
Fax : 079-27540159
Email: [email protected]
126.
NSIC Technical Services Centre
NSIC Technical Services Centre
Sector B-24, Guindy Industrial Estate,
Ekkaduthangal PO,
Chennai 600032 (Tamilnadu)
Tel: 044-22252335/6/7,
Fax: 044-22254500,
Email: [email protected]
127.
NSIC Technical Services Centre
P.O. Balitikuri
Distt Howrah 711 113 (West Bengal)
Tel: 033-26530304/26532962/26534280
Fax: 033-26531314
Email: [email protected]
128.
NSIC Technical Services Centre
Kushaiguda, Kamalanagar, ECIL (P.O.),
Hyderabad-500062 (Telengana)
Tel: 040-27121422, 27126646, 27134025,
27124597, Fax: 040-27122303
Email: [email protected]
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1949
129.
NSIC Technical Services Centre
Okhla Industrial Estate,
New Delhi 110020
Tel: 011-26826801, 26826847, 26826846
Fax: 011-26826783
Email: [email protected]
130.
NSIC Technical Services Centre
Bhav Nagar Road, Aji Industrial Area,
Rajkot –360 003 (Gujarat)
Tel: 0281- 2387396/97/98, 2387613,
Fax: 0281-2387729
Email: [email protected]
131.
NSIC Technical Services Centre
D-82 / 83, Focal Point, Old QME Building
Rajpura 140 401, (Punjab)
Tel: 09115005601-609
Fax : 01762-232669,
Email: [email protected]
132.
NSIC Technical Services Centre
A-1 Industrial Estate,
Aligarh 202 001 (Uttar Pradesh)
Tel: 0571-2403552, 2400364,
Telefax: 0571-2403552
Email: [email protected]
133.
NSIC Computer Training Centre,
C-15, 2nd floor, Above Ganapati
Hospital,
Near Tulsi Petrol Pump, Bhagwan Talkies,
N.H.-2, Bye Pass Road,
Agra-282002 (UP)
Tel/Fax: 0562-4040196,
Mob: 09456276705
Email: [email protected]
134.
NSIC Training Centre
1714/663, Village – Halel, P.O. Kanaid,
Tehsil – Sundernagar, Distt - Mandi
Himachal Pradesh – 175 010
Tel: 09816360071,
Email: [email protected]
135.
NSIC Training Centre,
Rani Ratna Kumari Educational and
Welfare Society Building, Near NAC,
Jubbal, Distt. Shimla,
Himachal Pradesh-171205
Tel: 01781-252200,
Email: [email protected]
136.
National Small Industries Corporation
Limited,
Default Management Recovery Branch,
STP Building,
Sector B-24,
Guindy Industrial Estate,
Ekkaduthangal PO,
Chennai 600032 (Tamilnadu)
Tel: 044-22250444, 22250445
Telfax : 044-22250343
1950
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
137.
Exhibition cum Marketing Development
Business Park
Module No.207, EMDBP Building,
ECIL P.O. Kamalanagar, Kushaiguda,
Hyderabad-500062 (Andhra Pradesh)
Tel: 040-27141422, 27125802
Fax: 040-27141411
Email: [email protected]
138.
NSIC Training cum Incubation Centre
Plot No.18, Sonda Mauza,
Deoria – 274 001 (U.P.)
[F.No. 9(6)/2012-SME]
SANJEEV KUMAR, Dy. Director
उपभो$ ता
उपभो$ ता
उपभो$ ता
उपभो$ ता मामले
मामले
मामले
मामले, खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मंालय
खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मंालय
खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मंालय
खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मंालय
(खा और सावजिनक िवतरण िवभाग)
(खा और सावजिनक िवतरण िवभाग)
(खा और सावजिनक िवतरण िवभाग)
(खा और सावजिनक िवतरण िवभाग)
नई द ली, 28 अैल, 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.866.
866.
866.
866.—के+ ,ीय सरकार राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के
िनयम उप िनयम (4) के अनुसरण म4 उपभोU ता मामले, खाp और सावजिनक िवतरण मंFालय (खाp और सावजिनक
िवतरण िवभाग) के शासिनक िनयंFणाधीन िनT निलिखत कायालय, िनजके 80 ितशत से अिधक कमचारीवृ+ द ने िह+ दी
का कायसाधक 5ान ा त कर िलया है, को राजपF म4 अिधसूिचत करती है –
1. भारतीय खाp िनगम, RेFीय कायालय, कोलकाता
2. के+ ,ीय भांडागार, सी-9, एमआईडीसी एरया अT बड-I (नािशक)- 422010
3. के+ ,ीय भांडागार, माक? ट याड, सांगली – 416416
[सं. ई-11011/1/2008-िह+ दी]
टी. के. मनोज कुमार, संयुU त सिचव
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Food and Public Distribution)
New Delhi, the 28th April, 2016
S.O.866.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the administrative control of the
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Deptt. of Food and Public Distribution), where of more
than 80% of staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :
1. Food Corporation of Iindia, Regional Office, Kolkata
2. Central Warehouse, C-9, MIDC Area, Ambad-I (Nashik) – 422010
3. Central Warehouse, Market Yard, Sangli – 416416
[No. E-11011/1/2008-Hindi]
T. K. MANOJ KUMAR, Jt. Secy.
, वा
, वा
, वा
, वा, - य
, - य
, - य
, - य और प.रवार क/ या
और प.रवार क/ या
और प.रवार क/ या
और प.रवार क/ याण मंालय
ण मंालय
ण मंालय
ण मंालय
नई, द ली, 5 मई, 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 867
867
867
867.— वा य और परवार क याण मंFालय के िनT निलिखत कायालय को, िजसम4 80 ितशत से अिधक
अिधकारय/कमचारय ने 7हदी का कायसाधक 5ान ा त कर िलया है, के+ ,ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ क शासकय
योजन के िलए योग) िनयमावली, 1976 के िनयम 10 के उपिनयम (4) के तहत उसे अिधसूिचत करती है।
[सं.ई-11012/8/2014-7हदी-II]
वंदना गुरनानी, संयुU त सिचव
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2016
S.O.867.—In pursuance of Sub-rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the Union) Rule
1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following office of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, whose 80
percent staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.
1. Office of the Regional Health and Family Welfare, Kolkata.
[No. E-11012/8/2014-Hindi-II]
VANDANA GURNANI, Jt. Secy.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1951
कोयला मं ालय
कोयला मं ालय
कोयला मं ालय
कोयला मं ालय
नई द ली, 12 मई, 2016
का.आ.868.— केीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक े (अजन और िवकास), अिधिनयम 1957 (1957 का
20), (िजसे इसम इसके पात उ अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क$ धारा 4 क$ उपधारा (1) के अधीन भारत सरकार
म कोयला मंालय &ारा जारी क$ गई अिधसूचना, सं*यांक का.आ. 121, तारीख 13 जनवरी, 2015, जो भारत
के राजप, भाग II, ख.ड 3, उप-ख.ड (ii), तारीख 17 जनवरी, 2015 म 0कािशत क$ गई थी, उस अिधसूचना से
संल3 अनुसूची म िविन5द7 प8रे क$ भूिम म िजसका माप 13.79 हे:टेयर (लगभग) या 34.05 एकड़
(लगभग) है, कोयले का पूव<ण करने के अपने आशय क$ नो8टस दी थी;
और केीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है >क इस अिधसूचना से संल? न अनुसूची म िविन5द@ ट क$
गई उ: त भूिम के भाग म कोयला अिभ0ाAय है;
अतः अब, केीय सरकार, उ अिधिनयम क$ धारा 7 क$ उप-धारा (1) &ारा 0दC शि: तयD का 0योग
करते Eए, उससे संल3 अनुसूची म वGणत 13.79 हे:टेयर (लगभग) या 34.05 एकड़ (लगभग) माप क$ भूिम और
सभी अिधकार का अजन करने के अपने आशय क$ नो8टस देती है ।
टपण
टपण
टपण
टपण 1:
1:
1:
1: इस अिधसूचना के अधीन आने वाले े के रेखांक सं*या ईसीएल/ आरजीओएम/जीएम
(आई/सी)/पीसीडीए. डई/सीबीए/56, तारीख 16 जून, 2015 को उपायु , िजला गोIा(झारखंड) के कायालय म
या कोयला िनयंक, 1, काउंिसल हाउस KLीट, कोलकाता – 700001 के कायालय म या िनदेशक तकनीक$
(संचालन), ईKटन कोलफ$NOस िलिमटेड, सांकतोिड़या, डाकघर - >दशेरगढ़, िजला- बRवान- 713 333 (पिमी
बंगाल) के कायालय म >कया जा सकता है।
टपण
टपण
टपण
टपण 2:
2:2:
2: उ: त अिधिनयम क$ धारा 8 क$ उपबंधD क$ ओर Wयान आकृ7 >कया जाता है जो िनYिलिखत उपलबंध है –
अजन क$ बाबत आपिCयाँ.-
“8 (1) कोई [ि जो >कसी भूिम म िजसक$ बाबत धारा 7(1) के अधीन अिधसूचना िनकाली गयी है, िहतबR है,
अिधसूचना के िनकाले जाने से तीस >दन के भीतर स\पूण भूिम या उसके >कसी भाग या ऐसी भूिम म या उस पर के
>कह^ अिधकारD का अजन के िलए जाने के बारे म आेप कर सकेगा।
पीकरण.
पीकरण.
पीकरण.
पीकरण.- (1) इस धारा के अंतगत यह आपिC नह^ मानी जायेगी, >क कोई [ि >कसी भूिम म कोयला
उ_पादन के िलए Kवयं खनन सं>`याएँ करना चाहता है और ऐसी सं>`याएँ केीय सरकार या >कसी अय [ि
को नह^ करनी चािहए।
(2) उप-धारा (1) के अधीन 0_येक आपिC सम अिधकारी को िलिखत aप म क$ जाएगी और सम अिधकारी
को या आपिCकता को Kवयं सुने जाने िविध b यवसायी &ारा सुनवाई का अवसर देगा और ऐसी सभी आपिCयD को
सुनने के पात और ऐसी अित8र जाँच य>द कोई हो, करने के पात जो वह आवcयक समझता है, वह या तो
धारा 7 क$ उपधारा (1) के अधीन अिधसूिचत भूिम के या ऐसी भूिम म या उस पर के अिधकारD के संबंध म
आपिCयD पर अपनी िसफा8रशD और उसके &ारा क$ गई कायवाही के अिभलेख सिहत िविभd 8रपोट केीय
सरकार को उसके िविनय के िलए देगा।
(3) इस धारा के 0योजनD के िलए वह [ि >कसी भूिम म िहतबR समझा जाएगा जो 0ितकर म िहत का दावा
करने का हकदार होता य>द भूिम या >कसी ऐसी भूिम म या उस पर के अिधकार इस अिधिनयम के अधीन अGजत
कर िलए जाते हe।”
1952
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
.ट1पण
.ट1पण
.ट1पण
.ट1पण 3 :
3 :
3 :
3 : के+,ीय सरकार ने कोयला िनयंFक, 1, काउंिसल हाउस _ीट, कोलकाता – 700001 को, उU त अिधिनयम
क धारा 3 के अधीन, जो भारत के राजपF, भाग II, खंड 3, उप-खंड (ii) म4 कािशत, का. आ. सं. 2520, तारीख 11 जून,
1983 !ारा सRम ािधकारी िनयु% कया है।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
ललमटया कोल खनन gलॉक ( चरण- X )
िजला- गोा ( झारख>ड)
( रेखांक संNया ईसीएल/ आरजीओएम/जीएम(आई/सी)/पीसीडीए> डई/सीबीए/56, तारीख 16 जून, 2015)
सभी अिधकार:
म
सं.
मौजा/
<ाम
थाना
<ाम
संN या
िजला
RेF हेU टेयर म4
(लगभग)
RेF एकड़ म4
(लगभग)
ट पिणयां
1.
डकैता
ललमटया
44
गोा
13.79
34.05
भाग
कुल RेF:
13.79
34.05
मौजा डकैता न. 44 के अGजत >कए जाने वाले A लाट सं* याक : 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233,
235, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467,
468,469, 470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485,
486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503,
504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521,
522, 528, 531, 532, 534, 619, 620, 621, 622, 623 और 624.
सीमा वणन
सीमा वणन
सीमा वणन
सीमा वणन :
d1&d2
js[kk] ekStk MdSrk la[;kd 44 vkSj ekStk yksgf.kM;k la[;kd 45 ds iwohZ lfEefyr ij fLFkr fcUnq ^d1^
ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj ekStk MdSrk la[;kd 44 dk IykV la[;kd 227] 226] 233] 235 dh mRrjh lhek
vkSj IykV la[;kd 235 dh if”peh ,oa mRrjh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ iqu% 451 dh mRrjh lhek ls gksrs gq,
ekStk MdSrk la[;kd 44 dk IykV la[;kd 451 ds mRrj&if”peh dksuk ij fLFkr fcUnq ^d2^ ij feyrh
gSA
d2&d3
js[kk] ekStk MdSrk la[;kd 44 dk IykV la[;kd 451 ds mRrj&if”peh dksuk ij fLFkr ^d2^ fcUnq ls
“kq: gksdj ekStk MdSrk la[;kd 44 dk IykV la[;kd 451 dk if”peh lhek] IykV la[;kd 453 vkSj
454 ds mRrjh lhek rFkkk IykV la[;kd 454] 455] 522] 528] 520] 519] 518] 517] 516 vkSj 531 dh
if”peh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ ekStk MdSrk la[;k 44 dk [kljk la[;kd 531 ds nf{k.k&if”peh dksuk ij
fLFkr fcUnq ^d3^ ij feyrh gS A
d3&d4
js[kk] ekStk MdSrk la[;kd 44 dk IykV la[;kd 531 ds nf{k.kh&if”peh dksuk ij fLFkr ^d3^ fcUnq ls
“kq: gksdj IykV la[;kd 531] 532 dh nf{k.kh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ ekStk MdSrk la[;kd 44 dk IykV
la[;kd 532 ds nf{k.k lhek ij fLFkr fcUnq ^d4^ ij feyrh gS A
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1953
d4&d5
js[kk] ekStk MdSrk la[;kd 44 dk IykV la[;kd 532 ds nf{k.kh lhek ij fLFkr ^d4^ fcUnq ls “kq: gksdj
IykV la[;kd 534 ds if”peh lhek vkSj IykV la[;kd 619 dh mRrjh lhek ls xqtjrs gq, ekStk MdSrk
la[;kd 44 dk IykV la[;kd 619 ds nf{k.k&if”peh dksuk ij fLFkr fcUnq ^d5^ ij feyrh gS A
d5&d6
js[kk] ekStk MdSrk la[;kd 44 dk IykV la[;kd 619 ds mRrjh&if”peh dksuk ij fLFkr ^d5^ fcUnq ls
“kq: gksdj IykV la[;kd 619]622 vkSj 623 ds if”peh lhek ls xqtjrs gq, ekStk MdSrk la[;kd 44 dk
IykV la[;kd 623 ds nf{k.k&if”peh dksuk ij fLFkr fcUnq ^d6^ ij feyrh gS A
d6&d7
js[kk] ekStk MdSrk la[;kd 44 dk IykV la[;kd 624 ds nf{k.kh&if”peh dksuk ij fLFkr ^d6^ fcUnq ls
“kq: gksdj IykV la[;kd 624 ds mRrjh lhek ls xqtjrs gq, ekStk MdSrk la[;kd 44 dk IykV la[;kd
624 ds mRrjh&if”peh lhek ij fLFkr fcUnq ^d7^ ij feyrh gS A
d7&d8
js[kk] ekStk MdSrk la[;kd 44 dk IykV la[;kd 624 ds mRrjh&if”peh lhek ij fLFkr ^d7^ fcUnq ls
“kq: gksdj ekStk MdSrk la[;kd 44 ,oa ekStk yyefV;k la[;kd 43 ds lfEefyr lhek rFkk ekStk MdSrk
la[;kd 44 ds IykV la[;kd 624 ds if”peh lhek ls xqtjrs gq, ekStk MdSrk la[;kd 44 ,oa ekStk
yyefV;k la[;kd 43 ds lfEefyr lhek ij fLFkr ekStk MdSrk la[;kd 44 dk IykV la[;kd 624 ds
nf{k.kh&if”peh lhek ij fLFkr fcUnq ^d8^ ij feyrh gS A
d8&d9
js[kk] ekStk MdSrk la[;kd 44 dk IykV la[;kd 624 ds nf{k.kh&if”peh lhek ij fLFkr ^d8^ fcUnq ls “kq: gksdj
ekStk MdSrk la[;kd 44 ds IykV la[;kd 624 ds nf{k.kh lhek ls xqtjrs gq, ekStk MdSrk la[;kd 44 dh lhek
ij fLFkr IykV la[;kd 624 dk nf{k.kh&iwohZ dksuk ij fLFkr fcUnq ^d9^ ij feyrh gS A
d9&d1
js[kk] ekStk MdSrk la[;kd 44 ds lhek ij fLFkr IykV la[;kd 624 ds nf{k.kh&iwohZ dksuk ij fLFkr ^d9^
fcUnq ls “kq: gksdj ekStk MdSrk la[;kd 44 ,oa ekStk yksgf.kM;k la[;kd 45 ds iwohZ lfEefyr lhek ls
xqtjrh gqbZ] ekStk MdSrk la[;kd 44 vkSj ekStk yksgf.kM;k la[;kd 45 ds iwohZ lfEefyr lhek ij fLFkr
fcUnq ^d1^ ij feyrh gS A
[Qk-la- 43015@14@2014&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]
lqthr dqekj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 12th May, 2016
S.O.868.— Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 121,
dated the 13th January,2015 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said act ), and published in the Gazette of India Part
II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 17th January, 2015, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to
prospect for coal in 13.79 hectares (approximately) or 34.05 acres (approximately) of the lands in the locality specified
in the Schedule annexed to that notification;
And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that coal is obtainable in a part of the said lands prescribed in
the Schedule appended to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(1) of section 7 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire the land measuring 13.79 hectares (approximately) or 34.05
acres (approximately) and all rights in or over the said Schedule appended hereto.
Note 1: The plan bearing number ECL/ RGOM/ GM(I/C)/ PCD&E/ CBA /56, dated the 16th June,2015, the area
covered by this notification may be inspected in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, District Godda (Jharkhand) or
in the office of the Coal controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata – 700 001 or in the office of the Director
Technical (Operation), Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria , Post Office Dishergarh, District Burdwan-713 333 (West
Bengal).
1954
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Note 2: Attention is hereby invited to the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act which provided as follows:-
Objection to acquisition.-
“8 (1) Any person interested in any land in respect of which a notification under Section 7(1) has been issued, may
within thirty days of the issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or any
rights in or over the land.
Explanation.- (1) It shall not be an objection within the meaning of this section for any person to say that he himself
desires to undertake mining operations in the land for the production of coal and that such operations should not be
undertaken by the Central Government or by any other person.
(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the competent authority in writing, and the competent
authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and shall, after
hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in
respect of the land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 or of rights in or over such land, or make
different reports in respect of different parcels or such land or of rights in or over such land, to the Central Government,
containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, the decision
of that Government.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim
an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act.”
Note3: The Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata -700001 has been appointed by the Central Government
as the competent authority under section 3 of the said Act, vide notification number S.O. 2520, dated the 11th June,
1983 published in part II, section 3, sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India.
SCHEDULE
Lalmatia Coal Mining Block (Phase – X)
District - Godda ( Jharkhand)
(Plan bearing number ECL/RGOM/GM(I/C)/PCD&E/CBA/56, dated the 16th June,2015)
All Rights:
Sl.
No.
Mouza /
Village
Thana
Village
number
District
Area in hectares
(approxi-
mately)
Area in acres
(approxi-
mately)
Remarks
1.
Dakaita
Lalmatia
44
Godda
13.79
34.05
Part
Total Area:
13.79
34.05
Plot numbers to be acquired in Mouza Dakaita No. 44 : 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 235, 451, 452, 453, 454,
455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478,
479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502,
503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519,520, 521, 522, 528, 531, 532, 534,
619, 620, 621, 622, 623 and 624.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1955
Boundary Description:
A1 – A2:
Line starts from point number A1 situated on eastern common mouza boundary of Dakaita number 44
and Lohandia number 45, passes along northern boundary of plot number 227,226,233and 235 of
mouza Dakaita, western and northern boundary of plot number 235,again passes along northern
boundary of plot number 451 and meets at point number A2 situated at north western corner of plot
number 451 of mouza Dakaita number 44.
A2 – A3:
Line starts from point number A2, situated on north western corner of plot number 451 of mouza
Dakaita number 44, passes along western boundary of plot number 451 of mouza Dakaita number 44,
northern boundary of plot number 453 and 454, western boundary of plot number 454, 455, 522, 528,
520, 519, 518, 517, 516, 531 and meets at point number A3 situated at south western corner of plot
number 531 of mouza Dakaita number 44.
A3 - A4:
Line starts from point number A3, situated at south western corner of plot number 531 of mouza
Dakaita number 44, passes along southern boundary of plot number 531 and 532, and meets at point
number A4 situated at southern boundary of plot number 532 of mouza Dakaita number 44.
A4 – A5:
Line starts at point number A4 situated at southern boundary of plot number 532 of mouza Dakaita
number 44, passes along western boundary of plot number 534, northern boundary of plot number 619
and meets at point number A5 situated at north-western corner of plot number 619 of mouza Dakaita
number 44.
A5 – A6:
Line starts from point number A5 situated at north-western corner of plot number 619 of mouza
Dakaita number 44, passes along western boundary of plot number 619, 622 and 623 and meets at
point number A6 situated at south-western corner of plot number 623 of mouza Dakaita number 44.
A6 – A7
Line starts from point number A6 situated at south-western corner of plot number 623 of mouza
Dakaita number 44, passes along northern boundary of plot number 624 and meets at point number A7
situated on north-western boundary of plot number 624 of mouza Dakaita number 44.
A7 – A8:
Line starts from point number A7 situated on north-western boundary of plot number 624 of mouza
Dakaita number 44, passes along common mouza boundary of Lalmatia number 43 and Dakaita
number 44 , and western boundary of plot number 624 and meets at point number A8 situated on
south-western boundary of plot number 624 of mouza Dakaita number 44, on common mouza
boundary of mouza Dakaita number 44 and Lalmatia number 43.
A8 – A9:
Line starts from point number A8 situated on south-western boundary of plot number 624 of mouza
Dakaita number 44, on common mouza boundary of mouza Dakaita number 44 and Lalmatia number
43, passes along southern boundary of plot number 624 of mouza Dakaita number 44 and meets at
point number A9 situated at south-eastern corner of plot number 624 on mouza boundary of Dakaita
number 44.
A9 – A1:
Line starts from point number A9 situated at south-eastern corner of plot number 624 on mouza
boundary of Dakaita number 44, passes along eastern common mouza boundary of Dakaita number 44
and Lohandia number 45 and meets at point number A1 situated on eastern common mouza boundary
of Dakaita number 44 and Lohandia number 45.
[F.No. 43015/14/2014/PRIW-I]
SUJEET KUMAR, Under Secy.
1956
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 28 vizSy] 2016
dk-vk- 869-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jhtuy fjlpZ
lsaVj] jcj cksMZ] dUuwj 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;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 23@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
27-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@79@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 28th April, 2016
S.O. 869.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 23/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Regional Research Centre, Rubber Board, Kannur and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 27.04.2016.
[No. L-42012/79/2015-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri.K. Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer
(Friday the 08th day of April, 2016/19th Chaitra, 1938)
ID 23/2015
Workmen
:
Shri Venu & 22 others,
Kattadathu House,
Padiyur P.O.,
KANNUR Distt. – 670703.
Management
:
The Chairman,
Regional Research Centre,
Rubber Board,
Padiyoor,
KANNUR Distt. – 670703.
By Adv. Shri. Binu Mathew
This case coming up for final hearing on 08.04.2016 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the same day passed the
following:
A W A R D
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Central Government referred the following dispute before this
Tribunal for adjudication.
2.
The dispute is:
“Whether the action of the management of Regional Rubber Research Station of Rubber Board in
making Shri Venu. K and 22 others to continue as permanent casual workers and not giving the scale of
pay of permanent workers is justified? If not to what relief they are entitled?”
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1957
3.
After receipt of the reference order No.L-42012/79/2015-IR(DU) dated 05.05.2015, issued by the Ministry of
Labour, Government of India, summons was issued to the parties to appear and answer all material questions relating to
the dispute and to produce documents to substantiate their respective contentions. On receipt of the summons the
management entered appearance through counsel. As per the reference order the address of the workman involved in
this reference is as follows:
“Shri Venu & 22 others,
Kattadathu House, Padiyur P. O.,
KANNUR Distt. – 670703.”
4.
Summons was served on workman No.1 on two occasions. He remained absent and there was no
representation on his behalf. No document is available before this Tribunal to ascertain the name and address of the
remaining workmen involved in this reference. Since summons was served on the available address of the workman
involved in this reference on two occasions and he remained absent, and that there was no representation on his behalf,
the workman was called absent and set ex-parte. The workmen involved in this reference failed to appear before this
tribunal even after the receipt of summons on two occasions. Therefore it is seen that the workmen have no interest in
proceeding with this reference. Hence it is held that there is no subsisting dispute to be adjudicated as per the reference
order.
5.
In the result an award is passed holding that there is no subsisting dispute to be adjudicated as per the reference
order by this Tribunal.
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 08th day
of April, 2016.
SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer
APPENDIX - NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 28 vizSy] 2016
dk-vk-870-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,p,y,y
ykbZiQds;j fyfeVsM 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;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 10@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
27-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42011@157@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 28th April, 2016
S.O. 870.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 10/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of HLL Lifecare Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on
27.04.2016.
[No. L-42011/157/2013-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri.K. Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer
(Tuesday the 19th day of April, 2016/30th Chaitra, 1938)
ID 10/2014
Union
:
The Working President,
Hindustan Latex Employees Congress (INTUC),
1958
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
C/o HLL Lifecare Limited,
Akkulam Factory,
Sreekaryam-PO,
Trivandrum – 695017.
By Adv. Shri. M. S. Vijayachandra Babu
Management
:
The Unit Chief,
HLL Lifecare Limited,
Akkulam Factory,
Sreekaryam-PO,
Trivandrum – 695017.
By Adv. Shri. Ajith. S. Nair
This case coming up for final hearing on 19.04.2016 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the same day
passed the following:
AWARD
In exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Central Government referred the following dispute before this
Tribunal for adjudication.
2.
The dispute is:
‘Whether the action of issuing warning to Shri K. Nizar Ahammed by the management HH Life Care
Limited vide their letter Nos.(1)HLL/AFT/HR/Disc(5)2012/0519 dated 08-05-2012 (Annexure-D-5) and
(2) HLL/AFT/HR/2013/0696 dated 15.5.2013 (Annexure-D-11) can be said to be an act of victimization
and harassment. If so, what relief the worker is entitled to?’
3.
After receipt of the reference order No.L-42011/157/2013-IR(DU) dated 24.02.2014, issued by the Ministry of
Labour, Government of India, summons was issued to parties to appear and answer all material points relating to the
dispute and to produce the documents to substantiate their respective contentions. On receipt of the summons, the
parties entered into appearance through counsel and submitted their pleadings. After affording sufficient opportunity to
the parties to take steps and produce the documents, the matter was posted for evidence. While so, the union at whose
instance the reference was initiated filed IA No.67/2016. The affidavit in support of their application was filed by the
Working President of the Hindustan Latex Employees Congress (INTUC), HLL Life Care Limited,
Thiruvananthapuram. Paragraph Nos.3 & 4 of the affidavit read as follows:
“3.The matter in dispute has been resolved by stopping all actions initiated against the workman, giving due
promotion with effect from 1.07.2015 and allowing him to participate in Union activities. In this
circumstances no dispute exists between the management and the union at present.
4. The accompanying petition to pass an award holding that no dispute exists between the management and
the union may kindly be allowed.”
The deponent has requested to pass an award holding that there is no subsisting industrial dispute to be
adjudicated as per the reference order.
4.
Notice of this application was given to the counsel for the management. After hearing the learned counsel
appearing for the parties; IA No.67/2016 was allowed. From the affidavit filed in support of IA No.67/2016 it is seen
that the matter in issue has been settled amicably between the union and the management. Therefore it is held that there
is no subsisting industrial dispute to be adjudicated as per the reference.
5.
In the result an award is passed holding that there is no subsisting Industrial Dispute between the union and the
management to be adjudicated as per the reference order.
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 19th day
of April, 2016.
SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer
APPENDIX - NIL
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1959
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vizSy] 2016
dk-vk- 871-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQ-lh-vkbZ- ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1042@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@04@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@550@1995&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2016
S.O. 871.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1042/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad (Gurjrat) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of FCI and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 29/04/2016.
[No. L-22012/550/1995-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section 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. 1042/2004
Reference: (ITC) No. 12/1997
1.
The Regional Director,
FCI Employees Association,
Kandla/Gandhidham Region,
C/o FCI, Chandan Chambers,
Plot No. 18, W. No. 12-A,
P.B. No. 130,
Gandhidham (Kutch)-370201
…First Party
Vs.
Their Workman,
Through the Regional Secretary,
FBI Employees Association,
Kandla/Gandhidham Region,
Chandan Chambers,
Gandhidham (Kutch)
…Second Party
For the First Party : D.C. Gandhi, Associates
For the Second Party : C/o. FBI Employees Association
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-22012/550/95-IR(C-II) dated 24.02.1997 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Rajkot(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demands raised by the Food Corporation of India Employees Association vide letter
No. KDL/FCIEA/RP/1/95 dated 22/06/95 are just, valid and legal? If so, what benefits they are entitled to?”
1960
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
This reference dates back to 24.2.1997. Second party filed the vakalapatra of his advocate(Ext.10) on
11.03.2003 and first party also filed the vakalatpatra (Ext.16) on 23.07.2008. But second party did not prefer to submit
statement of claim and has also been absent since last several dates. Thus, it appears that second party is not willing to
proceed with the reference as they have been absent since last several dates. Thus Tribunal has no option but to dismiss
the reference in default of the second party.
This reference is dismissed in default of the second party.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vizSy] 2016
dk-vk- 872-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds-,-ih-,l- ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 120@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@04@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@43@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2016
S.O. 872.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 120/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad (Gurjrat) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Kakrapar Atomic
Power Station and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29/04/2016.
[No. L-42012/43/2005-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present:
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 16th March, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 120/2005
1. The Station Director,
Kakrapar Atomic Power Station,
Nuclear Power Corporation of India,
Anumala, Via Vyara,
Surat (Gujarat)
…First Party
Vs.
Their Workman,
Through the Secretary,
Kakrapar Tribal Workers Association,
Devani Faliam
Vyara,
Surat (Gujarat) -394651
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri K. V. Gadhia, Advocate
For the Second Party : C/o. KakraparTribal Workers Association,
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-42012/43/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 06.12.2005 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1961
SCHEDULE
Whether the action of the management of Kakrapar Atomic Power Station in terminating the services of Shri
Devjibhai Fuljibhai Gamit & 36 others on 1.5.1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled
to?” and whether the demand of Kakrapar Tribal Workers Association for treating these workmen as direct
workmen of the corporation from the first date of the joining in service is legal and justified? If so, to what
relief they are entitled?”
2.
This reference dates back to 06.12.2005. Both the parties were served. Second party filed statement of claim
(Ext.10) on 08.10.2010. First party filed written statement (Ext.12) on 23.04.2011. But since then second party has not
prefer to lead evidence and they have also been absent since then. Thus, it appears that second party is not willing to
proceed with the reference as they have been absent since last several dates. Thus Tribunal has no option but to dismiss
the reference in default of the second party.
This reference is dismissed in default of the second party.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vizSy] 2016
dk-vk- 873-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 44@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@04@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@247@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2016
S.O. 873.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Colleries Co.
Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29/04/2016.
[No. L-22012/247/2005-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 12th day of April, 2016
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 44/2006
and
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 76/2006
(LC 76/2006 has been clubbed with ID 44/2006 vide order dt. 10.2.2009)
Between:
Sri Mudiganti Karunakar Reddy,
Branch Secretary,
Singareni Coal Mines Labour Union(INTUC)
Ramagundam Branch-I,
Godavarikhani – 505209.
….Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Ramagundam – I Divn.,
Godavarikhani – 505209.
….Respondents
1962
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
This case was registered in this Tribunal on the basis of the reference received from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 22012/247/2005-IR(CM.II) dated 2.8.2006 under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D.
Act, 1947 to adjudicate the dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their
workman Sri Boya Swamy. The term of reference is as under:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam-I
Division, Godavarikhani in dismissing Shri Boya Swamy, Coal Filler, GDK-6B INC., Ramagundam-I Division
from service w.e.f. 20.1.2005 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 44/2006 and notices were issued to the parties
concerned. They both appeared before the court and engaged their respective counsels with the leave of the court and
consent of either party. The Petitioner has filed one petition under Sec.2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with
the same cause of action in the file of this Tribunal which was numbered as LC No. 76/2006 earlier to the reference
received from the Government of India. Hence, LC No.76/2006 has been clubbed with ID No.44/2006 vide docket
order dated 10.2.2009 at the instance of memo from the Petitioner’s counsel. Therefore, both the cases are being
disposed off together.
2.
The averments made in the claim statement of the Petitioner workman in brief are as follows:
The Petitioner workman was appointed as a coal filler in the Respondent management on 28.11.1988 on
compassionate grounds. Since the date of joining he used to perform his duties sincerely, dedicatedly, up to the
satisfaction of his superiors. But due to his ill-health the workman could not be regular in his duties during the year
2002 for which on 15.1.2003 a charge sheet was issued on the workman with an allegation that the workman had
worked for only 82 days during the year 2002 which amounts to misconduct under the company’s Standing Order
No.25(25). On receipt of the charge sheet, on 3.2.2003 the workman submitted his explanation stating the reasons of
his absence. Unfortunately without considering the merits of the explanation made by the workman a show cause
notice dated 2.5.2004 was issued to the workman to which on 5.5.2004 the workman submitted his explanation,
explaining that he was suffering from T.B. for which he was bed ridden and under going treatment. But without
considering the submission of the workman, the Respondent dismissed him from service by office order dated
18.1.2005. The workman has also stated that due to his illness he was unable to move and perform his duties not more
than 82 days during the year 2002 and could not be able to attend the enquiry on account of his illness and not
otherwise. The workman further stated that he will attend his duties in future without absence. It is further submitted
that unfortunately without considering any of his submissions the Respondent dismissed him from service w.e.f.
21.1.2005 vide office order dated 18.1.2005. It is also submitted that the action of the Respondent dismissing the
workman from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of the natural justice. The workman
further submitted that having been appointed as a coal filler in the year 1988 he was confirmed in the same post and
used to perform his duties perfectly from 1988 to 2002 except during the year 1999. It is also submitted that during the
year 1999 his father was seriously ill for which the workman had no other alternative except to accompany his father to
take care for his health. Once again during the year 2002, the workman’s father fell sick and suffered from Paralysis.
On account of his father’s illness the workman was not regular in his duties during the year 2002. Subsequently the
workman himself suffered from T.B. and has undergone treatment in the company’s hospital for a long time and
ultimately he was declared fit by the medical authorities of the company’s hospital in the month of May, 2004.
Unfortunately without considering the circumstances under which the workman could not be able to attend his duties he
was dismissed from service vide proceedings dated 18.1.2005. It is also submitted that in all fairness the Respondent
ought to have considered the submissions made by the workman, before imposing the punishment of dismissal from
service. On a bare perusal of the office order dated 18.1.2005 it establishes that none of the submissions made by the
workman has been considered before dismissing him from service. It is stated that the impugned office order dated
18.1.2005 does not indicate any reason much less valid in nature. It is further submitted that on account of the
workman’s illness he could not put in 20 musters in every month during the year 2003 and 2004. Even by considering
the said period the workman was dismissed from service, and such an action on the part of the Respondent is wholly
unjustifiable. It is clearly stated that though the workman could not appear before the Enquiry Officer it is obligatory
on the part of the Enquiry Officer to examine the relevant witnesses and relevant documents and then consider the
question whether the charges alleged against the workman are correct or not. The workman has also stated that he is
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1963
the sole earning member of his family and he is able to serve under the Respondent. The dismissal of the workman
from service is highly illegal and after dismissal of service the family members of the workman are leading their day to
day life very miserably. The workman also remained without any employment from the day of his dismissal and he was
not employed else where. The charges levelled against him are quite incorrect and imposition of punishment of
dismissal from service is totally disproportionate to the charges alleged. The workman also stated that inability to
attend his duties is owing to illness and ought not to be treated as a serious misconduct. The workman submitted to
modify the punishment of dismissal from service to that of a lesser punishment and to give an opportunity to him to
secure bread and butter for himself and for his family members.
3.
Respondent management filed their counter in brief as follows:
The Respondent management while denying all the allegations of the workman, submitted that the petition filed by the
workman under Sec.2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not maintainable. The workman being an
unauthorised absentee has prayed this Tribunal to declare the order No.RG.1/PER/S/46/319, dated 18.1.2005 issued by
the Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequentially direct the Respondent to reinstate the
workman into service duly granting consequential benefits such as, continuity of service, back wages etc.. The
Respondent management submitted that initially the workman was appointed in the Respondent’s company on
28.1.1988 as a badli filler and was regularised as a coal filler w.e.f. 1.9.1995. It is further submitted that the workman
had remained absent on a number of days without any leave or without sufficient cause during the year 2002 and had
put in only 82 musters from the month of January, 2002 to the month of December, 2002 for which, he was issued with
a charge sheet bearing No. GDK.6B/6-H/B-05/135, dated 15.1.2003 under company’s Standing Order No.25(25) which
reads as “Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause”. Since the workman had not
attended his duty, charge sheet was sent to him in his home address by Regd. Post with ACK due and the same was
received by him. The workman on 3.2.2003 submitted an explanation which was found not satisfactory and lastly
enquiry was fixed to 21.5.2003 vide enquiry notice dated 6.5.2003 which was sent to him in his home address by
registered post acknowledgement due and the workman acknowledged the same. But he did not attend the enquiry on
21.5.2003. Then 2nd enquiry notice dated 27.5.2003 was issued to him fixing the enquiry on 10.6.2003 and sent to him
in home address by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due and he acknowledged the same. But did not attend the
enquiry on 10.6.2003. Final enquiry notice dated 28.7.2003 was issued fixing the enquiry on 5.8.2003 and the same
was sent to him in his home address by registered post with acknowledgement due and the same was received by him.
Inspite of receipt of all the notices of enquiry the workman remained absent and did not attend the enquiry on 5.8.2003.
He neither attended the enquiry nor communicated the reason of his absence. Hence, an ex-parte enquiry was conducted
on 5.8.2003. The Respondent also submitted that as per Respondent’s Industrial Relation Policy the workmen, who
have absented frequently have been counselled before the family members of the absenting workmen, trade union
leaders, colleague workmen, and officers and have been explained the consequences that arose due to absence.
Accordingly, after issuing the charge sheet, the workman was also counselled on 11.6.2003. During the course of
counselling the workman accepted his absence and assured that he would put minimum 20 musters per month.
Accordingly the performance of the workman was kept in observation from 12.6.2003 to 11.9.2003. But the workman
had put in only 2 actual attendance during the observation period and as such he failed to improve his attendance. It is
also submitted that on 2.5.2004 a show cause notice was issued to the workman along with the enquiry report and
enquiry proceedings advising him to make any representation in this regard within 7 days of receipt of the notice. The
workman made a representation on dated 5.5.21004 to the management stating that due to his ill health he did not attend
for duty regularly during the year 2002. But he assured that he would improve his work performance in future. He was
given another opportunity to improve his attendance and performance by keeping the disciplinary action to be taken
against him in abeyance temporarily for a period of three months from 25.7.2004 to 17.10.2004 on a condition that he
should put atleast 20 fillings in every month with a filling performance of two tubs for every muster on an average per
month. But the workman did not put in single muster during the above period to improve his attendance. The
attendance particulars of the workman from the year 1999 to 2004 are furnished hereunder:
Year
Actual Attendance
1999
097
2000
206
2001
133
2002(Chargesheeted year)
082
2003
007
2004
009
1964
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
It is submitted that from the above, it is observed that the workman did not improve in his work performance after
receiving the charge sheet, he was given two opportunities to improve his work performance. During the observation
period also he did not improve his work performance. Therefore, the Respondent was constrained to dismiss the
workman from service w.e.f. 21.1.2005 vide office order dated 18.1.2005. It is also submitted that the workman has
received three enquiry notices but he neither attended any of the enquiries nor explained his inability to attend the
enquiry. Though he was given three opportunities to attend the enquiry, he did not avail the same. Hence, an ex-parte
enquiry was conducted. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The allegation
of the workman that neither relevant witnesses were examined nor relevant documents were examined during the
course of the enquiry is totally false and the workman is bound to prove it strictly. The Respondent also submitted that
the absence of the workman from duty is not a minor misconduct. Due to the unauthorized absence of the workman he
was rightly punished by way of dismissal and further submitted to dismiss the present claim of the workman as it is
devoid of merit.
4.
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner conceded the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry conducted
by the Respondent management by way of filing a memo and it was considered. As such, the domestic enquiry
conducted by the Respondent management is held to be legal and valid vide order dated 10.2.2009.
5.
None of the parties have advanced any oral evidence. But only advanced their argument. I have already heard
the Learned Counsels for both the sides and considered their written notes of argument.
6.
The points for consideration are:-
I.
Whether the action of the Respondent management in dismissing Sri Boya Swamy, Coal Filler, GDK-6B INc.,
Ramagundam-I Division from service w.e.f. 21.1.2005 is legal and justified?
II.
If so, to what relief the workman is entitled for?
7.
Point No.I: Admittedly, the workman had worked only 82 days during the year 2002 which amounts to
misconduct under company’s Standing Order No.25(25) for which the Respondent issued charge sheet to the workman.
But the workman submitted his explanation stating that due to his ill-health and the ill-health of his father, he could not
be able to work sufficient days. The workman was also found absent unauthorizedly during the chargesheeted period
but during the time of such absence the workman could have taken any kind of leave which he has not done. Standing
Order No.25(25) of the Respondent company provides that ‘habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty
without sufficient cause, “amounts to misconduct”.’ Therefore, mere absence from duty by itself does not amount to
misconduct. It must be without sufficient cause. Now it is to be seen whether there was any sufficient cause for the
absence of the workman to attend his duty or not. It is the plea of the workman that he was suffering from T.B., and
was bed ridden, and also undergoing treatment for which he could not be able to attend his duties. The workman has
also stated that due to his illness he was unable to move and perform his duties not more than 82 days during the year
2002 and could not be able to attend the enquiry also. The workman further stated that in the year 1999, his father was
seriously ill for which he failed to attend his duties as he was attending his father to take care of his health. He also
stated that during the year 2002 his father also fell ill and suffered from paralysis and on account of his father’s illness
he was not regular in his duties. The workman has further stated that as he was suffering from T.B., he had undergone
treatment in the company’s hospital for long time and ultimately he was declared fit by the medical authorities of the
company’s hospital in the month of May, 2004. But, unfortunately without considering the circumstances under which
he could not be able to attend his duties, the Respondent management dismissed him from service. No doubt, the
workman has not produced any medical record to prove his illness as well as the illness of his father. But during the
course of enquiry the workman has not been given any opportunity to cross examine the management witness and to
verify the relevant documents regarding his claim that he was sick during the relevant time which clearly indicates that
the management has not given any opportunity to the workman to contradict or to dispute the correctness of the plea of
the workman with regard to his illness as well as the illness of his father. When the workman has consistently taken the
plea that he was suffering from T.B. and was treated in the company’s hospital by whom he was declared fit, it clearly
shows that due to self-illness the workman could not be able to attend his duties in the year 2002. therefore, on
consideration of the circumstances stated above it can not be stated that there was no sufficient cause for the absence of
the workman from duty. The only fault on the part of the workman is not reporting his sickness and not informing his
superiors before remaining absent from duties. But the workman has remained absent due to his illness and illness of
his father which he should have informed his superiors. but as he has not reported to his superiors about his illness, he
was negligent. But in the given circumstances due to sufficient reason, the workman was remained absent. The
materials available on record clearly indicates that the workman has put in long service of 16 years in the Respondents
organization and only due to the above referred reasons he became irregular in duties during the year 2002 to 2004
including the chargesheeted period. Further more, the workman has consistently pleaded that if opportunity will be
given he will work under the management. That means he has already realized his mistake and he will work under the
management regularly in future. It is not the plea of the Respondent that the workman is a habitual offender of
misconduct or there was any previous occasion of imposing punishment against him. as because the workman was not
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1965
regular in his duty, his action amounts to misconduct under the company’s Standing Order No.25(25). This is the first
and the only instance of misconduct which they have raised to initiate the proceedings and conducted the enquiry and
also a capital punishment has been given to the workman. While imposing punishment the Disciplinary Authority ought
to have seen that the workman has not been imposed with any penalty prior to such order. Admittedly dismissal from
service is a capital punishment, so far as the service juris-prudence is concerned. The charge alleged against the
Petitioner was not that of theft, assault or misappropriation of company’s funds, which shall amount to capital
punishment like dismissal from service. In this case, due to self-illness and illness of his father the Petitioner could not
be regular in his duties. The workman has not been imposed with a penalty for any misconduct previously. But for the
very first event of this nature, the gravest possible punishment applicable in the Standing Order i.e., dismissal from
service has been awarded to the workman as punishment by the Disciplinary Authority.
8.
The management has contended that the musters put in by the Petitioner during the previous years to the
chargesheeted period have been taken note for, while awarding punishment. Such contention of the management is not
proper and reasonable. The past conduct becomes relevant while awarding the punishment which is a previous proven
misconduct. But not the allegation which was merely met without giving an opportunity to the workman to explain.
In the case at hand as already discussed above, there is no proven misconduct, on the part of the workman. The
allegation regarding putting in less musters during the period prior to the chargesheeted period is in the status of mere
allegation only for the reason that the workman has not been informed of the exception taken by the management
regarding the said conduct and no explanation has been called for from him to know whether he is actually speaking the
truth on the said allegation. In this case, the Disciplinary Authority without considering the previous conduct of the
workman, has awarded a capital punishment which is not at all reasonable. In view of the fore gone discussion, it can
safely be held that the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the workman is guilty of misconduct under Standing Order
No.25(25) itself is not acceptable and further it is to be held that the punishment awarded to the workman is grossly
disproportionate to the proven misconduct. Thus, the action of the Respondent management i.e., M/s. Singareni
Collieries Company Ltd., in terminating the services of Sri Boya Swamy w.e.f. 21.1.2005 is held as neither legal nor
justified.
This point is answered accordingly.
9.
Point No.II: In view of the findings given in Point No.I, the impugned order of dismissal from service of the
workman is liable to be set aside. But the fact remains that the workman remained absent from duty, though got
sufficient reason for doing so, but there is lapse on his part as he failed to inform his superiors, at any point of time
before or during the period of his absence from duty.
10.
This is a case of unauthorized absenteeism. The workman was found absent, but has not taken either leave or
permission from his higher authorities. Thus, the workman is to be awarded with an appropriate punishment of such
lapse only. But as already stated above, while deciding Point No.I, awarding punishment of dismissal from service for
the very first instance of misconduct is not reasonable. Hence, withholding of one annual grade increment without
cumulative effect is reasonable punishment to be awarded to the workman for the lapse of not informing his superiors
regarding his illness and illness of his father and not taking permission remained absent from duty. Hence, withholding
of one annual increment without cumulative effect is reasonable punishment to be awarded to the workman for his lapse
of not informing his superiors regarding his illness and illness of his father, not taking permission to remain absent
from duty. In view of the fore going discussion, the workman is to be reinstated into service, consequent to the
declaration that the impugned order No. RG.I/PER/S/46/319 dated 18.1.2005, w.e.f. 21.1.2005 as illegal and arbitrary
and setting aside the same. Instead, the workman shall be awarded with the punishment of stoppage of one annual
increment without cumulative effect. He is entitled for 50% of back wages only as he is found to be liable for
punishment, though it is the lesser punishment than the one impugned to him by virtue of the impugned order dated
18.1.2005. He is entitled for all other attendant benefits.
Thus, Point No.II is answered accordingly.
Result:
In the result, the reference is answered as follows:
The action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam-I Division,
Godavarikhani in dismissing Shri Boya Swamy, Coal Filler, GDK-6B INC., Ramagundam-I Division from service
w.e.f. 21.1.2005 is declared as neither legal nor justified and is hereby set aside. The workman shall be reinstated into
service as a coal filler forthwith w.e.f. 21.1.2005. He is awarded with the punishment of stoppage of one annual
increment without cumulative effect. He is entitled for all other attendant benefits and 50% of the back wages only.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
1966
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 12th day
of April, 2016.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vizSy] 2016
dk-vk- 874-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 57@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@04@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@21@2014&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2016
S.O. 874.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Colleries Co.
Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29/04/2016.
[No. L-22012/21/2014-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 5th day of April, 2016
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 57/2014
Between:
The President (Bandari Satyanarayana),
Telengana Trade Union Council,
Raj Kumar Complex, Saibaba Temple Road,
Jaffar Nagar, Mancherial – 504208.
Adilabad District. ….Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Bellampalli Area,
Goleti Township(P.O.)-504292.
Adilabad District. ….Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : None
For the Respondent : Sri V.S.V.S.R.K.S. Prasad, Advocate
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1967
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/21/2014-IR(CM-II) dated 18.3.2014
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 General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Goleti
Township (P.O.), Adilabad Distt. in terminating the services of Sri More Narsinga Rao, Ex-Coal Filler MVK-1
Inc., SCCL, Bellampalli Area with effect from 1.9.1998 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is
entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 57/2014 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 union failed to file Claim
statement and remained absent. There is no representation on behalf of the Petitioner union on the date fixed inspite of
repeated calls. In the circumstances stated above, it is felt that the Petitioner union has got no claim to raise. Thus,
‘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 5th day of April,
2016.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vizSy] 2016
dk-vk- 875-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-,y-
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 58@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@04@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@22@2014&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2016
S.O. 875.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 58/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Colleries Co.
Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29/04/2016.
[No. L-22012/22/2014-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
1968
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 21st day of April, 2016
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 58/2014
Between:
The President (Bandari Satyanarayana),
Telengana Trade Union Council,
Raj Kumar Complex, Saibaba Temple Road,
Jaffar Nagar, Mancherial – 504208.
Adilabad District.
….Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Bellampalli Area,
Goleti Township(P.O.)-504292.
Adilabad District.
….Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
:
None
For the Respondent
:
Sri V.S.V.S.R.K.S. Prasad, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/22/2014-IR(CM-II) dated 18.3.2014
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 General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Goleti
Township (P.O.), Adilabad Distt. in terminating the services of Sri Jorrigula Narasaiah, Ex-Coal Filler MVK-1
Inc., SCCL, Bellampalli Area with effect from 17.10.1998 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant
is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 58/2014 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 union failed to file Claim
statement and remained absent. There is no representation on behalf of the Petitioner union on the date fixed inspite of
repeated calls. In the circumstances stated above, it is felt that the Petitioner union has got no claim to raise. Thus,
‘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 21st day of
April, 2016.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1969
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vizSy] 2016
dk-vk-876-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chch,ech ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky; ua- 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 251@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@04@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&23012@4@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2016
S.O. 876.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 251/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.
2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of BBMB, Bhakra Dam,
BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29/04/2016.
[No. L-23012/4/2011-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 251/2013
Registered on 8.4.2013
Sh. Beeb Din S/o Sh. Karma, C/o Sh. R.K. Parmar,
Working President, 211-L, Brari Post Office,
Pratap Nagar, Nangal Dam, Distt. Ropar(Pb)
… Petitioner
Versus
Chief Engineer, Bhakra Dam Nangal, Distt. Ropar
…Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
:
Sh. R.K. Parmar, AR of workman.
For the Management
:
Sh. S.K. Goyal.
AWARD
Passed on:- 22/03/2016
Vide Order No.L-23012/4/2011-IR(CM-II), dated 27.02.2013 the Central Government in exercise of the
powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(in short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of BBMB in denying employment to Sh. Beebdin S/o
Sh.Karma, Daraiman(seasonal worker) during the rainy season 1997 and so on till date is just &
fair? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?”
In response to the notice, workman submitted statement of claim, pleading that he was employed in work
charge capacity in the rainy season of 1993, 1994 and 1995 and was not re-employed in the year 1996 in violation of
Section 25-H of the Act. He served a demand notice and the matter was referred to Labour Court, who awarded the
compensation vide its award dated 16.11.2007 which was not challenged.
It is further pleaded that the management again did not call him for re-employment since the year 1997, though,
the persons junior to him were engaged and he had the right to be re-employed and there is a violation of the provisions
of Section 25-H of the Act and he be presumed to in service of the respondent-management since the year 1997.
Respondent-management filed written reply, admitting that the workman was employed for 89 days during the
year 1993, 1994 and 1995. Thereafter, he was not selected due to less merit in the year 1996, 1997 and 1998 and his
name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange during the year 2001 and 2002. Thereafter, the workman did not
offer himself for service from the year 2003 to 2007. However, he presented himself for engagement in the year 2008
1970
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and due to his lower position in the seniority, he was not selected. The passing of the award dated 16.11.2007 by the
Court is not disputed.
The workman has no right to be re-employed and he is not entitled to any relief.
Parties were given opportunity to lead the evidence.
In support of his case, the workman himself appeared in the witness-box and filed his affidavit reiterating his
case as set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand, respondent-management examined Sh. Mehar Singh, who file his affidavit reiterating the
stand of the respondent-management and further deposed that the workman has agitated the matter after a lapse of 11
years and his claim is barred by time.
I have heard Sh. R.K. Parmar for the workman and Sh. S.K. Goyal for the management.
It is not disputed that the workman was employed on 89 days basis during the rainy season by the respondent-
management in the year 1993, 1994 and 1995. He was not engaged in the year 1996 and he served a demand notice and
compensation was awarded to him vide award dated 16.11.2007. It was argued by the learned counsel for the workman
that the workman was not again employed in the year 1997 and onwards, there is a violation of Section 25-F of the Act
and he is to be considered as employed during the said period and he be given all the benefits.
I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel.
Section 25-H of the Act reads as follow:-
“25H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.- Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer
proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an
opportunity [to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and
such retrenched workmen] who offer themselves for re-employment, shall have preference over other
persons.
Thus, this section provides that when any workman was ‘retrenched’, he is to be given an opportunity for re-
employment if he offers himself for such an employment. Thus, this section is attracted when the workman was
‘retrenched’.
‘Retrenchment’ was defined under Section 2(00) and it read as follow:-
[(00)“retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason
whatsoever, otherwise that as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include-
(a)
Voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b)
Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment
between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or
[(bb)termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of
employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract
being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or]
(c)
termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;]
Thus, as per Section 2(00)(bb), if the termination is due to non-renewal of contract or the contract being
terminated under a stipulation, the same do not amount to ‘retrenchment’. It is the case of the workman that he was
employed for 89 days during the rainy season of 1993, 1994 and 1995. His services came to an end on the expiry of the
contract period. When the services of the workman came to an end on the expiry of the contract, the workman cannot
claim himself that he was ‘retrenched’ from service. When workman has failed to prove that he was ‘retrenched’, he
cannot claim the benefit of Section 25H of the Act and he is not entitled to any relief.
It may also be added that the workman has claimed relief from the rainy season of 1997 but the demand notice
was issued only in the year 2008 as pleaded by the respondent-management and thus there is a considerable unexplained
delay in agitating the dispute on the part of the workman. On this account, he cannot be given any relief.
In result the reference is answered against the workman and he is not entitled to any relief.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1971
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 877-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj us'kuy bafLVV~;wV
vkWiQ VsDuksykWth] f=kph 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;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 87@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
25-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42011@77@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2016
S.O. 877.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 87/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management
of National Institute of Technology, Trichy and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on
25.04.2016.
[No. L-42011/77/2014-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Friday, the 8th April, 2016
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 87/2014
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of National Institute of Technology, Trichy and
their workman)
BETWEEN :
The Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Trichy National Institute of Technology
All Employees Association, “F” Mess, NIT Post
Trichy-620015
AND
1.
The Registrar
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
National Institute of Technology
Trichy-620015
2.
The Chief Warden
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Hostel Administration Committee
NITT Hostels, National Institute of Tech.
Thuvakkudi
Trichy-620015
3.
The Director
:
2nd Party/3rd Respondent
National Institute of Technology
Trichy-620015
Appearance
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Assn.
:
M/s R. Subramaniam, R. Palaniyappan, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/1st & 3rd Respondent
:
M/s K.K. Annamalaisamy, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/2nd Respondent
:
M/s G. Thangavel, G. Raja, Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-42011/77/2014-IR (DU)
dated 30.09.2014 referred the Industrial Dispute between the above referred parties for adjudication.
1972
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the demand of the Trichy National Institute of Technology All Employees Association for seeking
status at par with regular employees of National Institute of Technology, Trichy to Sri Amaladoss and 80
Others (as per Annexure-A) is legal and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 87/2014 and sent notices to both sides.
Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel and filed their claim and counter statement respectively.
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner is an association registered under the Societies Registration Act. The object of the association is
to protect the welfare of the employees who are its members. The Regional Engineering College, Trichy has been started
in the year 1964. The institution was later converted into a deemed university and was renamed as National Institute of
Technology. 81 members of the Petitioner Association out of the 102 members are employed in the Regional
Engineering College Hostels. They were employed from 1964 onwards and were working as Cooks, Assistant Cooks
and so on under different pay-scales. The Principal of the Regional Engineering College is the competent person to
appoint employees in the Hostel Mess. The institution is running the Mess of its hostels. The Principal himself is
appointing all the employees of the Regional Engineering College also. The members of the Petitioner Association have
been initially appointed as NMR on various dates and have been regularized subsequently. The scale of the pay of the
employees have been enhanced periodically. All the monetary benefits due to the employees used to be granted by the
authorities under the Regional Engineering College. The National Institute of Technology Act, 2007 came into force on
06.06.2007 and thereafter the Regional Engineering College was renamed as National Institute of Technology. The
National Institute of Technology Act provides for protection to the permanent employees of the Regional Engineering
College. The petitioner has raised demands before the Respondent, the National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirapally
claiming that they should be approved as the regular employees of the Institute, that they should be granted equal pay for
equal work, that they should be approved and considered as “D” group employees of the institution, etc. An order may
be passed directing the Respondent to treat the members of the Petitioner Association on par with the other employees of
the Respondent and grant all consequent monetary benefits.
4.
The Third Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:
The Third Respondent is the competent authority to decide the issues regarding the Hostels of the National
Institute of Technology, Trichy, he being the Chief Warden of the Hostels. The Regional Engineering College, Trichy
was established in the year 1964. It was granted the status of Deemed University in the year 2003 and was later renamed
as National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirapally. Presently the institution is functioning under the control of
Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development. The administration of the hostels is entirely different
in nature and is under the control of the Third Respondent, the Chief Warden. From the beginning itself, the college was
administered wholly under government grants. However, student hostels were administered and maintained out of
hostel fees collected from the students. The institution administration and the hostel administration are different, though
functioning inside the same campus. The members of the Petitioner Association are employed in the NIT Hostels and
not the NIT itself. The members of the Petitioner Association were initially recruited as NMR for running mess service
on behalf of hostel students. The employees are called mess employees. They are not canteen employees as referred to at
times in the Claim Statement. The salary for the employees used to be paid from the hostel fees collected from the
students. The employees in the hostels are categorized as Cleaner, Server, Assistant Cook and Cook. To avoid stagnation
and to encourage sincere workers, the hostels administration granted the relief of selection grade to the employees based
on the experience and performance over a period of time. Under the NIT Act, 2007 there are no posts as Cleaner,
Server, Cook, Assistant Cook, etc. The NIT is being administered by the Board of Governors under the provisions of
National Institute of Technology Act. The annual accounts of the Institute are certified by the Comptroller and Auditor
General of India. The accounts of the hostels are certified by the Chartered Accountant of local authority. The Pay
Commission Recommendations were never implemented in respect of the Hostel employees. The lower scale of pay
under the 4th and 5th Pay Commission Recommendations were adopted as benchmark for fixing the pay scale of highest
Mess Worker Cadre Cook at the discretion of the Hostel Administration. The pay-scales of the remaining Mess Worker
Cadres were structured below the Cook Cadre. The Regional Engineering College Hostel Mess Employees were
appointed by the Principal of the College in his ex-officio capacity as Chief Warden of the College Hostels. The
employees of the Institute are appointed in the capacity of Principal of the regional Engineering College. The
Recruitment Rules of Regional Engineering College, Trichy or National Institute of Technology, Trichy do not include
the posts such as Cooks, Assistant Cooks, Server, Cleaner, etc. The regularization of the mess employees were always
issued by the Principal of the College in his ex-officio capacity as Chief Warden. In order to control the hostel funds and
to manage the administration the employees of the mess cannot be treated as regular employees of REC/NIT. On
change of Regional Engineering College as National Institute of Technology, the strength of the Institute and the
strength of the hostels increased steadily. Due to increase in the workload the Director, National Institute of Technology
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1973
has relinquished his duties from Hostel Administration and formed a separate Hostel Administrative Committee to
manage the increased hostel student strength and Hostel administration workload. After 2007 the pay-scale of the
employees were being revised by the Hostel Administration Committee. The Hostel Administration is paying gratuity to
the employees. The Gratuity Rules for the college and the employees of the Hostels are different. It was due to the poor
work ethics of the members of the Petitioner Association the Hostel Mess had to be outsourced. On shutting down the
mess, out of compassion, the Hostel Administration had redeployed the members of the Petitioner Association for
cleaning and maintenance of hostels and that also without reduction in their salaries. The petitioner is not entitled to any
relief.
5.
The Second Respondent has filed a memo adopting the counter statement filed by the Third Respondent.
6.
The First Respondent did not file any Counter Statement.
7.
The petitioner has filed a rejoinder and the Third Respondent a reply to the rejoinder.
8.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to
Ext.W49 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M20.
9.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the members of the Petitioner Association are entitled to have status on par with the other employees
of the Respondent?
(ii)
What, if any are the reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled?”
The Points
10.
The petitioner is an association formed for the welfare of its members who are working in the different hostels
meant for the students of the National Institute of Technology, Trichy. All the employees were working in the different
hostels even while the National Institute of Technology was known by the name Regional Engineering College, before
the Institute became a Deemed University under the enactment by name National Institute of Technology Act, 2003.
Sometime ago the mess of the hostels were outsourced. All the employees working in the hostels who are members of
the Petitioner Association were redeployed in other categories of work in the hostels. It is the contention of the
Management that the employees of the hostel mess were a category on their own, that they were never a part of the
Institute, that they were not the employees of the Institute itself but were paid out of the fee collected from the students
and their status were not that of the regular employees of the Institute. According to the Third Respondent the Hostel
Administration is different from the Administration of the Institute and he in his capacity as Chief Warden of the Hostel
is administering the Mess also and it has nothing to do with the administration of the Institute. It is the further case of the
Third Respondent that the Mess was not properly conducted by the employees, that there was complaint from the
students and accordingly Mess was outsourced and the employees who were working in the Mess were re-deployed in
other positions without any change in their salary and perks. It is the case of the concerned employees that their status is
that of the regular employees of the Institute, on par with the other employees of the Institute and they are entitled to all
the benefits as in the case of other employees.
11.
The Petitioner Association has produced documents in its attempt to prove that they were employed by the
Regional Engineering College Management itself and not by a separate entity as Hostel Administration. Before dealing
with those documents it will be beneficial to refer to the recruitment and service rules of the Institution while it existed
as Tiruchirapalli Regional Engineering College Society. The rules is produced by the Third Respondent and is marked
as Ext.M1. The different categories of staff, teaching and non-teaching are provided for in the rules. The last but one in
the series is given as Cooks under S.No. 72. The qualification provided for them is that they should be able to read and
write Tamil and also should possess considerable experience in the art of cooking, vegetarian or non-vegetarian food and
tiffin. Apart from that, under S.No. 71 there is a post of Steward who should possess experience in managing and
controlling cooks and Chief who should possess adequate experience in serving and cooking food in a big residential
hostel. This itself would show that the staff of the Hostel Mess also were intended as the employees of the Engineering
College Society and no separation was made in the matter of managing the Institute and in managing the Hostels.
12.
The documents produced on behalf of the petitioner are the different orders issued by the Institute while it was
functioning as Regional Engineering College. The first document marked as Ext.W1 is only a statement showing the
scales of cooks, assistant cooks, servers and cleaners during different periods for Regional Engineering College Hostels.
The scales of pay referred to in the document are not controverted by the Respondent. The other documents are intended
to show that the Principal of the College was handling the appointment of the Mess Staff and also making orders
regarding their pay revision and payment of other benefits. Ext.W2 is the circular of the Principal of the College
introducing Group Insurance Scheme to the College and Hostel employees. The order is signed by the Principal and does
not make any distinction in between the Hostel and the Institute employees. There is a contention in the Counter
Statement of the Third Respondent that the Principal was passing orders in respect of the employees of the Hostels in his
capacity as the Administrator of the Hostels. But even as per Ext.M1 no such distinction is seen made. This is not
1974
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
discernible from the documents produced by the petitioner also. As per Ext.W3 Gratuity was introduced for the mess
employees w.e.f. January 1984 and separate rules have been framed regarding payment of gratuity to mess employees
also. However, there is nothing to show that this is done by the Principal in a different capacity and not as Administrator
of the entire Institute. Ext.W5 is the proceedings of the Principal by which a few NMR Servers who have completed
more than 5 years of service in the Hostel Mess are appointed on regular service. Ext.W6 and Ext.W7 are two other such
proceedings of the Principal. Ext.W16 is another proceeding with the heading Regional Engineering College Hostels by
which marriage advances already allowed to the employees of the College are introduced to the mess employees also.
This is also signed by the Principal of the College. The Hostel Manager and Convener also have signed in the
proceedings. Ext.W17 is the proceedings sanctioning increment, also by the Principal, and signed by him. Ext.W18 is a
circular increasing the subscription for GPF/CPF. Though this is not signed by the Principal, the signature is put on
behalf of the Principal. Ext.W21 is the submission for sanctioning the annual increment due to the Mess Staff and it is
seen signed by the Principal. Ext.W22, the order of promotion is also signed as per the order of the Principal. Thus it
could be seen that while the Institute was functioning as Regional Engineering College the Principal was the authority
who was taking all decisions regarding the administration of the hostels including appointment of mess staff, their
revision of salary, ordering payment of other benefits, etc. to them. Though at times, in a few documents the Hostel
Manager has signed, those were also either on behalf of the Principal or as per the order of the Principal, under his
authority. So it could be seen that while the Institute was functioning as Regional Engineering College the authority who
was administering the Hostels including the Mess of the Hostels was the Principal who was the competent authority. No
distinction of any kind could be seen made in the administration of the hostels and the Institute. There is nothing to show
that the employees of the Mess were not intended to be the staff of the Institute and they were merely the staff of the
students who were occupying the hostels and were not intended to have any benefits that were available to the other
employees of the Institute or even the Hostels. There is no case for the Third Respondent that the Steward or the Chief
who were also intended only as the Managers of the Mess were also being paid out of the fees received from the
students. They are undisputedly treated as the employees of the Institute. If the person who controls the Cooks, Assistant
Cooks, Servers and Cleaners of the Hostels are the employees of the Institute, how can those persons under their control
be treated as different having separate entity, thus discriminating them?
13.
Things started to have a different turn after the Institute came to be governed by the NIT Act and was renamed
as NIT. By then, a number of the students in the institution has considerably increased and the number of the hostels also
have increased considerably. It is not disputed by the Respondents that the students admitted in the Institution are
all expected to be residents of the Hostels to undergo their studies in the Institute. They cannot proceed with their studies
without becoming a resident of any one of the Hostels. Thus even as admitted by the Respondents, even at the beginning
when the College was established at Tiruchirapally the Hostels and the Mess of the Hostels were part and parcel of the
Regional Engineering College Society, the name under which the Institution was then registered. In that case how can
the employees of Mess alone be different and not a part of the entire institution? When the size of the Institute and the
number of students increased the power of Administration of the Hostels seem to have been delegated by the Principal.
It is accordingly the position of Chief Warden happened to be held by another. However, the Chief Warden without any
doubt is administering the Hostels under the direction of the Board of Governors who is administering the Institute under
the new enactment, the NIT Act.
14.
Ext.M5 is the Auditor’s Report of the year 2000 when the Institution was still known under the name Regional
Engineering College. The document is the Auditor’s Report on examining the account of college hostels. This is
probably produced to prove that even while functioning under the name Regional Engineering College the hostels were
treated separately. However, it could be seen on going through the report itself that the Auditor’s Report is not of the
mess alone but of the entire hostel establishment showing the entire receipts and payments for the hostels. The admission
fees, establishment charges, mess charges and all other collections are shown in the Auditor’s Report. Ext.M6 is the
agenda and notes of the 6th Meeting of the Board of Governors after the institute has become National Institute of
Technology. Clause-18 shows that Auditor’s were appointed for audit of the Mess Account. Thus it could be seen that
the mess account is being separately audited only after the establishment became National Institute of Technology. It is
not known why the earlier practice of auditing the entire account of the hostels has been changed to audit of the Mess
alone. In the same document at Page-36 there is a proposal to outsource the Mess maintenance. This is the first time the
institute thought of doing away with the mess by the existing employees and outsourcing it. Again, it is stated in the
same document at Page-45 that the Mess employees are not employees of the institute. At Page-147 there is revision of
pay of Mess employees. Ext.M10 is a proposal to enhance the Dearness Allowance @ 6% of the Basic Pay to all the
regular Mess staff annually. At Page-150 it is stated that the salary of the Mess staff is met out of the funds collected
from the students. At Page-313 there is a suggestion that a major part of the mess fee is going for the salary of the mess
employees and this can be considerably reduced if the mess is outsourced. This is the history of the hostel by which the
employees who were all along working in the mess were thrown out and employed in other areas. There is a case also
for the Respondent that the Mess staff have agreed for the proposal to withdraw them from their work in the hostel and
engage them in other areas.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1975
15.
As per the provisions of National Institute of Technology Act which is marked as Ext.M8 the status of any of
the staff under the Society could not have been changed. Section-5(d) of the Act states that every person employed by
the Society immediately before commencement of the Act shall hold his office or service in the corresponding institute
for the same tenure at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions and with the same rights and
privileges as to pension, leave, gratuity, provident fund and other matters he would have held if this Act had not been
passed and shall continue to do so unless and until his employment is terminated or until such tenure, remuneration and
terms and conditions are duly altered by the statutes. So those who were employees under the Society were eligible to
continue in the same status in spite of the passing of enactment, National Institute of Technology Act. The authorities
under the Act could not on their own change their status. The case of the Respondent is that there is a separate fund for
the running of the Mess alone. However, this is against Section-21 of the Act which states that every institute under the
Act shall maintain a fund to which shall be credited all monies provided by the Central Government, all fees and other
charges received by the institute, all monies received by the Institute by way of grants, gifts, donations, benefactions,
requests or transfers and all monies received by the institute in any other manner or from any other source. Clause-3 of
Section-21 states that the fund of every institute shall be applied towards meeting the expenses of the institute including
expenses incurred in the exercise of its powers in discharge of its duties under the Act. Section-25 states that the statutes
may provide for matters including the establishment and maintenance of halls and hostels and also the conditions of
residents of students of the institute and the levying of fees for residents in the halls and hostels and other charges. So it
is clear that running of the hostels also is under the provisions of the Act which is a substitute for the Regional
Engineering College Society Rules. The Respondents could not take shelter under the contention that mess fee is
collected from the students and the mess employees are only employees of the students and have nothing to do with the
institution.
16.
The admission by MW1 examined on behalf of the Chief Warden makes matter more clear. The Warden
himself has not come forward to give evidence. Respondents 1 and 2 also did not advance any specific case other than
R2 filing a memo adopting the case of Respondent 3, the Chief Warden. When it was put to MW1 that the Hostel
Administration under the Regional Engineering College was part of the college administration itself and just
like that the present administration is part of the NIT, he refused to give any answer. Again when he was asked if the
Board of Governors of the Institution had not authorized the Director to act as a Chief Warden he pleaded ignorance. It
is clear that the Board of Governors are having the authority to run the entire institution including the hostels alongwith
the mess. The mess employees who were treated as employees of the institution could not now be treated as if they have
nothing to do with the institute and they are not a part of the institute. All the mess employees have been working in the
institute for a long time. Removing them of their existing status after so many years of service could not be justified in
view of the very provisions of the NIT Act. If the institute feels that it is better to have the mess outsourced, they are at
liberty to do so. However, those employees who were in the roll of the institute as employees of the mess should be
retained, with the same salary and other benefits. Their status is on par with that of the other employees of the institute.
They are entitled to the relief claimed by them.
17.
On the basis of discussion above an award is passed as below:
Amaladoss and others who are members of the Petitioner Association are found to be having
status at par with the other regular employees of the institute. They are entitled to and shall be
given all the benefits that are given to other employees, from 20.07.2013.
The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 8th April, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
WW1, Sri M. Chandrasekar
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Party Management
:
MW1, Sri A. Sreekanth
Documents Marked:
On the Petitioner’s side
Ext.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
1964-1965
Pay-scale fixed by the Regional Engineering College, Trichy
Ext.W2
01.11.1976
LIC proof insurance scheme to the hostel employee – Order
Ext.W3
20.01.1984
The rules of permanent canteen employee framed by the Principal (Appointing Authority)
1976
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.W4
26.10.1984
Regularization Order – REC
Ext.W5
16.10.1986
Regularization Order – REC
Ext.W6
01.07.1989
Regularization Order – REC
Ext.W7
26.06.1990
Series of pay slip issued by Regional Engineering College
Ext.W8
28.06.1990
Regularization Order – by REC
Ext.W9
01.10.1990
Regularization Order – by REC
Ext.W10
18.10.1990
Regularization Order – by REC
Ext.W11
06.06.1991
Promotional Order – by REC
Ext.W12
21.09.1995
Order issued by REC for pay-scale
Ext.W13
28.07.1995
Order for Approval
Ext.W14
01.01.1996
Pay slip series
Ext.W15
15.10.1996
Annual increment sanctioned order
Ext.W16
25.11.1997
Payment of marriage advance order
Ext.W17
05.08.1998
Annual increment order and pay slip by REC
Ext.W18
26.10.1998
Recovery intimation order for increased rate of subscription for gratuity and provident
fund
Ext.W19
27.09.1999
Promotion Order by REC
Ext.W20
13.10.1999
Appointment Order by REC
Ext.W21
24.01.2000
Salary increment order – proceedings by REC
Ext.W22
01.10.2001
Promotion Order
Ext.W23
02.01.2002
Circular all regular employee with periodical increment certificate
Ext.W24
2003-2004
Series of pay bills issued by the REC
Ext.W25
25.11.2005
Approval of 50% allowance with basic pay by REC
Ext.W26
01.08.2007
Financial upgradation pay order to employee
Ext.W27
14.11.2006
Pay commission order in favour of the employee
Ext.W28
2006
Series of pay bills
Ext.W29
28.07.2008
Peace Committee – Talk Report
Ext.W30
05.09.2008
Office Memorandum
Ext.W31
10.10.2008
Annual Increrment
Ext.W32
12.10.2009
Minutes of Executive Committee
Ext.W33
09.06.2009
Salary Certificate series
Ext.W34
22.07.2011
The Voluntary Retirement order issued to the employee by the authority
Ext.W35
23.09.2011
The order of selection grade
Ext.W36
-
List of person working under the institution
Ext.W37
04.06.2012
Retirement Relieving Order
Ext.W38
20.07.2013
Our Association demands – raised under 2(a) of the Industrial Dispute Act
Ext.W39
08.01.2014
Reply before the Labour Commissioner
Ext.W40
13.02.2014
Additional demands of our Association
Ext.W41
21.10.2014
Another reply before the Labour Commissioner
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1977
Ext.W42
31.07.1985
Appointment of Server and Cleaner Orders in E/84/85 by the P.R.E.C. Trichy
Ext.W43
13.02.1989
Appointment as N.M.R. Assistant Cook on the Mess Order in R.C. No. A2/2792/89
by the P.R.E.C. Trichy
Ext.W44
04.03.1991
Notification with Interview Letter
Ext.W45
12.02.1991
Interview Notice Order in RECT/RECH/Estt./91 R.E.C. Hostel, Trichy
Ext.W46
17.06.1992
Call for the employment office letter R.E.C. Series
Ext.W47
30.07.1992
Temporary appointment orders alongwith employment call letters
Ext.W48
16.12.1992
Temporary appointment order
Ext.W49
20.01.1995
Recommendation of the M.P. letter
On the Management’s side
Ext.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
12.09.1963
The Tiruchirappalli Regional Engineering College Society Recruitment and Service
Rules
Ext.M2
1988
Special Adhoc Rules for the non-teaching administrative technical and non-technical
members of the staffs of REC, Tiruchirappalli
Ext.M3
Oct. 2000
Gross Pay of the Helper in Regional Engineering College
Ext.M4
Oct. 2000
Average Gross Pay for Mess Employees for the month of 2000
Ext.M5
12.10.2000
Auditor’s Report regarding Hostel Account
Ext.M6
2005 onwards
Board of Governance under Item No. 5,6,7,8,9,10,19,20,21,23,28,31,32 and 33
Ext.M7
April, 2007
Average Gross Pay for Mess Employees for the month of 2007
Ext.M8
06.06.2007
Provisions of the National Institute of Technology Act, 2007
Ext.M9
02.05.2009
Minutes of Mess Employees Pay Fixation Committee Meeting
Ext.M10
27.05.2009
Committee Recommendation and Director Approval as Ex-Officio of Chief Warden
Ext.M11
11.06.2012
Proceeding No. F19-13/2008 TS III issued by the Government of India addressed to
the Director
Ext.M12
25.08.2012
Complaint submitted by the Hostel Students
Ext.M13
06.09.2012
Complaint submitted by the Hostel Students
Ext.M14
05.10.2012
Consent letter submitted by the Mess Employees numbering 72 in numbers
Ext.M15
15.10.2012
Proposal for closure of Institute Mess, outsourcing of the said Mess and re-deployment
of Mess workers
Ext.M16
01.09.2014
Pay structure for Hostel Office Staff
Ext.M17
Nov. 2014
Average Gross Pay for Mess Employees for the M/o 2014
Ext.M18
18.12.2014
Expenditure statement for the year 2014-2015 for Hostel
Ext.M19
30.12.2014
Representation submitted from the Students Counsel
Ext.M20
17.11.2015
Hostel Office Order authorizing Dr. A. Sreekanth, Convener of Hostel to submit
Proof Affidavit/Counter Affidavit on behalf of the Chief Warden, NIT Hostels
Trichy.
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 878-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj
fuxe fyfeVsM] lgkjuiqj 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;&2] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 113@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
28-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&40012@110@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
1978
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2016
S.O. 878.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 113/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II,
Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of
the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Saharanpur and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on
28.04.2016.
[No. L-40012/110/2011-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT - II, DELHI
Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID.No. 113/12
Sh. Nasir Khan S/o Sh. Shaboor Khan,
C/o Sh. Faizal Khan, Khan Alampura,
Dehradun Chowk,
Saharanpur(U.P.).
Vs.
The General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Mission Compound,
Saharanpur (U.P.)
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour Vide Letter No. L-40012/110/2011(IR(DU) dated
12.03.2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-
“Whether action of the management of department of telecommunications (now BSNL ) Sharanpur, (Telegraph
Engineering Division) in terminating the services of workman, Shri, Nasir Khan w.e.f. 10.10.1987, without
complying with section 25(F) (G)(H) is legal and Justified? What relief workman is entitled to?
On 23.03.2012 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No.113/2012 and claimant was
called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was required to be
accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.
After service of notice workman filed claim statement on 17.08.2012. Where-in he prayed as follows:-
It is, therefore, prayed that the management may kindly be persuaded to reinstate the services of the workman
with full back wages alongwith other service benefits of the workman and continuity of services.
It is further prayed that the management may kindly be directed to pay the all due salary of the workman to the
workman alongwith overtime, bonus and other benefits since 1990 till the reinstatement of service of the workman , in
the interest of justice,.
It is further prayed that the management may kindly be directed to compensate the workman for loss of his
hand.
Pass any other or further order (s) & relief (s) which this Hon’ble forum may deem fit and proper in favour of
the workman and against the management, in the interest of justice.
Against claim statement management filed written statement on 2.5.2013. Through which it prayed as follows:-
“It is respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to dismiss the claim of the workman and give its
award accordingly.
My Ld. Predecessor, on 2.5.2013 framed following issues:-
1. Whether order dated 30.09.1992 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal Operates as res-judicata?
2. As in terms of reference.
Workman filed his affidavit in his evidence on 27.08.2013.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1979
Who tendered his affidavit on 25.10.13 through his examination-in-chief. He was also cross-examined and his
cross-examination concluded on 25.10.2013. Thereafter Workman closed his evidence .
Management filed affidavit of MW on 11.04.2014 .
On 12.08.2014 MW1 Sh. Om Prakash tendered his affidavit.
He was cross-examined on 27.01.2015 and his cross-examination was concluded.
Thereafter, Management closed its evidence.
On 5.10.2015 workman filed written arguments. Copy of which supplied to Ld. A/R for the management.
Fixed 13.11.2015 for written arguments by management.
In the light contention and counter contentions mentioned in written arguments. I perused the pleadings of
claim statement , written statement as well as issues and evidence of parties including principles laid down in the cited
rulings in the written arguments.
My Issue wise is follows:
Finding on Issue No. 1 “Whehter order dated 30.09.1992 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal Operates
as per res-judicata” is as follows:-
It is admitted fact that workman alongwith other workmen filed writ-petition no. 513 of 1991 in Hon’ble S.C.
On the basis of which matter of workmen have been sent to Hon’ble C.A.T, New Delhi vide order dated 26.04.1991
passed by Hon’ble S.C. Hon’ble C.A.T New Delhi decided it on 30.09.1992.
Copy of judgement of aforesaid case was sent to management for compliance.
Hon’ble C.A.T through its interim order dated 30.09.1992 gave the following directions to the management:-
“…the respondents shall consider engaging them as casual labourers if vacancies are available in preference to
their juniors and outsiders.”
After aforesaid order management gave following intimation to the workmen in compliance of the aforesaid
order:-
“If there arises any vacancy in future the case of applicant workmen shall be considered.”
It is admitted fact that neither party has challenged the order dated 30.09.1992 passed by Hon’ble C.A.T, New
Delhi therefore aforesaid order has become final.
Moreover Hon’ble C.A.T is superior to this Tribunal.
So this Tribunal is barred to adjudicate the questions of determination mentioned in the schedule of reference
sent to this Tribunal for adjudication on the basis of principle of Res-judicata.
On the basis of aforesaid discussions I am of considered view that Issue No1 is liable to be decided against
workman and in favour of management. Which is accordingly decided.
FINDING ON ISSUE NO.2
“As in terms of reference”.
After my findings on Issue No.1 and decision on it there is no need to decide issue No. 2 as trial on issue no.1 is
barred on the basis of principle of res-judicata.
Issue no. 2 is accordingly decided.
Reference is liable to be decided against workman and in favour of management and claim statement is liable to
be dismissed.
Which is accordingly decided. Claim statement is accordingly dismissed.
Award is accordingly passed.
Dated:-11/4/2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
1980
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 879-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u bafLVV~;wV
vkWiQ isVªksfy;e 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;&2] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 54@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-04-
2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42011@36@2009&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2016
S.O. 879 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 54/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II,
Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of
the Indian Institute of Petroleum and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 28.04.2016.
[No. L-42011/36/2009-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR-COURT - II, DELHI
Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID.No. 54/09
Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma,
S/o Sh. J.N. Sharma,
Vill. & P.O. Shamshergarh,
Dehradun, Uttrakhand.
Vs.
The Director,
Indian Institute of Petroleum,
Mohkampur,
Dehradun.
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour Vide Letter No. L-42011/36/2009 IR(DU)) dated
28.08.2009 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-
“Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun, in disengaging Sh. Vijay
Kumar Sharma w.e.f 14.04.1987 is legal and justified? If not what relief the workman is entitled to?
On 18.09.2009 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No.54/2009 and claimant was
called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was required to be
accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.
After service of notice workman filed claim statement on 9.12.2009. Where-in he prayed as follows:-
“Considering the above facts the Hon’ble Court is requested to Adjudicate the case and award the following
relief to the applicant.
a) Applicant be reinstated on the basis of continuity.
b) Applicant be awarded benefits of wages and other benefits from the date of termination till the date
of reinstatement.
c) Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Court.
Against claim statement management filed written statement on 5.4.2010. Through which it prayed as follows:-
“This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim of the workman with costs and pass any such other
or further order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper under facts and circumstances.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1981
Against which workmen filed rejoinder on 9.7.2010. Through which he reaffirmed the contents of claim
statement.
My Ld. Predecessor has not farmed any issues but proceeded to decided this I.D on the basis of question of
determination mentioned in schedule of reference.
Workman in support of his case filed his affidavit on 12.08.2011. Workman tendered his affidavit on 14.6.2013
and same day he was cross-examine by Ld. A/R for the management.
Statement of examination –in-chief and cross-examination is as follows:-
I tender my affidavit as evidence which is Ex. WW1/A . Alongwith his affidavit . I reply on appointment letter
dated 13.09.1984, which document is Exh. WW1/1 . This document may be read in support of my affidavit.
XXX:-By Sh. C.B.N. Babu, A/R for the management.
Ex. WW1/M1 was served upon me. Ex. WW1/M2 was also received by me.
Ex. WW1/M3 bears my signature at point A. Vol. It was written by me at the instance of Sh. Krishan Chander,
Section Officer in Accounts Section of the management. Ex. WW1/M4 was also served upon me. Ex. WW1/M5 was
delivered to me by the Management. It is incorrect that the management relieved me from my duties on 28.06.1985. Vol.
I was relieved from my duties on 14.04.1987.
It is incorrect that I was absent from my duties from 19.09.1984 to 28.06.1985. It is incorrect that I am not
entitled to relief of reinstatement in service. It is further incorrect that my claim is false. It is incorrect that I have not
worked with the management upto-14.04.1987 as claimed by me. Experience certificate Ex. WW1/M5 was given to me
by the management of their own and not on my demand. I had not raised any written objection when certificate Ex.
WW1/M5 was delivered to me by the management. It is incorrect that this certificate was given to me on my demand.
Management in support of its case filed affidavit of Sh. Mukesh Kumar on 27.3.2012.
Sh. Mukesh Kumar tendered his affidavit on 21.1.2014 and same day he was cross-examine by Ld. A/R for the
workman.
I tender in evidence my affidavit Exht. MW1/A. Which bears my signature at point A and B. I reply upon my
documents Exh. MW1/1 and MW1/4.
XXX:- By Sh. P.C. Pant, Ld. A/R for the workman.
I am serving my management 27th June, 2005. I am well conversant with the case of workman. My knowledge
is based on record. Yes I have seen the file as per record they are given in this case file. I recognize appendix S,B, F , G,
I filed by the management in the various lower courts. I have read the statement of Sh. Sudhir Singhal Director, which
was filed before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court Dehradun.
I am also recognize the reply filed by Dr. R.Krishna in the Labour Court, Dehradun. The vacancy was
advertised in the news paper for as well as in the employment exchange and the names were asked PCR is still existing.
Q. Whether Sh. G.C Bahuguna is still serving in the IIP Institute in 1984 to 14.4.1987?
A.No.
Q.When worker was retrenched he was given notice pay etc?
A. No he was not retrenched so no question of paying notice pay arise. Vol. stated that he was relieved.
It is correct that workman Vijay Kumar Sharma worked in management more than 240 days continuously.
Workman was employed temporarily in PCRA project originally Vijay Kumar was employed for a period of six months
project was extended for a period of 3 years. So his services were extended for a period of 3 months. He was not
extended for more period in service. He was relieved thereafter. It is incorrect to suggest workman Vijay Kumar Sharma
was remained in management for a period of one year probation. Thereafter he has been made permanent.
It is incorrect to suggest that Sh. Vijay Kumar was appoint against permanent vacancy.
Q. Whether you provide avocation to the individuals?
A. Appointed are made by CSIR
Q. What was the period of probation of workman in your department?
A. One Year.
Q. Whether vacancy of category in which Vijay Kumar was working is still exists in your organization.
A. No.
It is incorrect to suggest that Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma was illegally retrenched by management.
After that management closed its evidence.
1982
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
On 7.8.2014 workman tendered his two additional affidavit alongwith documents in his evidence.
His statement of re-examination-in-chief are as follows:-
I tender my additional affidavit dtd. 2.6.2014 which bears my signatures at point A and B.
Contents of affidavit are true and based on my personal knowledge. Additional affidavit Exh. WW1/B.
I also tender my affidavit dtd. 4.6.2014 which bears my signature at point A and B. Contents of my affidavit are
true and based on my personal knowledge. Alongwith this affidavit I annexed letter address to V.K. Sharma technician
dtd. 6.5.1986 which is attested by notary public on 4.6.2014. Letter is marked Ex.WW1/2. Another annexure is letter
dtd. 4.5.87 addressed to Administrative Officer IIP Dehradun. This letter is sent to administrative officer by me. Copy of
letter is attested by notary public 4.6.2014 which is marked WW1/3.
Workman was partly cross-examined on 28/11/2014. His statement of cross-examination is as follows:-
It is incorrect to suggest that contents of affidavit are not based on my personal knowledge and which are false
and concocted.
On 17.11.2015 workman was further cross-examined. His statement of cross-examination is as follows:-
Management has provided written appointment letter copy of which filed on record in this Tribunal.
It is incorrect to suggest that I filed copy of certificate which has been obtained by me from management office
with convince of management office.
It is also incorrect to suggest that aforesaid certificate is forged and fabricated.
It is correct that experience certificate by the same person who gave me appointment letter to me.
I filed required certificate of my experience in management at the time of my appointment.
It is incorrect to suggest that I never worked in management and document filed by me are not fabricated.
Affidavit dated 4.6.2014 has been prepared by my Ld. Advocate on my instruction in which I have directed to
written that I was orally restrain by management not to work since 14.04.1987.
If it is not mentioned in aforesaid affidavit then I can assign no reason.
I was paid monthly wage/salary in the pay scale 260-350 salary was obtained by me in the office of
management office clerk obtain my signature after received of my salary on pay register.
No salary is pending with management. It is incorrect to suggest that after creating evidence in my favour I
find belated claim proceedings.
It is also incorrect to suggest that I filed false claim statement.
I work as technician in management .
Vol. Stated my name was called from employment exchange by management for appointment.
It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
On 27.01.2016 Ld.A/R for the workman orally argued and filed written arguments. Where-in he mentioned as
follows:-
POINTS OF ARGUMENTS:-
Joining date 19.09.1984
(As Furnance Technician)
Termination date 14.04.1987
1.
Vacancy was existed (Opp. Party Mukesh Kumar Gairola confirmed in XXX examination dt. 21.01.2014)
2.
Complete employment procedure was adopted (Refer Opp. Party reply dated 03.03.2010 Parawise reply Para-2,
confirms statement)
(a)
Vacancy was advertised in the News Paper.
(b)
Names asked from Employment exchange.
(c)
Test/Interview held by High Powered Committee.
(d)
Medical of candidates was carried out.
(e)
All original documents checked before the issue of appointment letter.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1983
(f)
Appointment letter dated 13.09.1984 with PROBATION period of one year and pay scale was issued
(Copy of appointment letter submitted in the Court by both the parties) hence opposite party is
debarred at this stage to raise this plea.
(g)
As per appointment letter dt. 13.09.1984 (Para 2(X)) applicant was not allowed to apply for service
without permission of IIP.
(h)
Vide letter No. 3A (357)/83-per date 06.05.1986 of I.I.P. Mohakampur has informed Sh. V.K. Sharma
that action to release the Vacant Posts is being taken up with CSIR. (refer Rebuttal of
Applicant/worker dated 08.07.2010 Annexure-‘H’)
(i)
The opposite party was asked to produce the documents such as attendance registers/muster
rolls/wages registers for the duration from 19.09.1984 to 14.04.1987. A reminder was also given to
opposite party on 04.09.2013 through this court, but opposite party did not submit any documents, nor
gave any satisfactory answer.
(j)
Since the case was pending in various conciliation proceedings/labour court/High Courts, hence there
was no delay on the part of worker to in filing the case before this Court.
(k)
The applicant/worker filed the case for conciliation proceedings before the Deputy Labour
Commissioner, Dehradun in C.P. Case No. 56 of 1987, dated 13.07.1987 and reference was made to
Labour Court, Dehradun in I.D. case for adjudication vide case No. 203/88. Hence there was no delay
on the part of worker.
(l)
In their W.S. before Deputy Labour Commissioner Dehradun in C.P. Case No. 56/87 Vijay Kumar V/s
Director IIP (copy attached with workers Rebuttal dt. 08.07.2010 Annexure-1 page 21, O.P. has stated
that in this case proper authority is ALC (Central).
Total Continuous Service, from 19.09.1984 to 14.04.1987
(a)
Written statement submitted by opposite party in the Labour Court Dehradun in Adjudication Case
No. 203/88 between the parties Vijay Kumar Sharma V/s Indian Institute of Petroleum, Mohkampur
(para-3(viii), Page-11 of Annexure ‘F’ documents submitted with rebuttal Application dated
05.04.2010, says total continuous days served for 19.09.1984 to 13.04.1987 (938 days). Also in his
XXX Mr. Mukesh Kumar Gairola Section Officer IIP has confirmed having recognised the Annexure
‘F’ which was filed in Labour Court Dehradun. The C.T.C. obtained from Labour Court, Dehradun
have also been submitted with worker’s application dated 02.12.2010.
(b)
Sh. Mukesh Kumar Gairola in his affidavit MW1/A in para 8 has also confirmed that Sh. Vijay Kumar
Sharma served for more then 240 days (Reference para 8 of MW1/A)
(c)
In his XXX examination page-3 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Gairola also confirmed that Vijay Kumar served
for more than 240 days continuously.
(d)
The project PCRA still exist (confirmed in his XXX Page -2 by Sh. Mukesh Kumar Gairola.
Violation of Sec. 25-F of Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947, because worker Vijay Kumar Sharma had more then one year
continuous service.
As per the documents submitted by opposite party with the affidavit of evidence of witness Sh. Mukesh Kumar
Gairola (MW1/A), EX-MW1/1 Para 2 (III) clearly states that services may be terminated by either of the party with one
month’s notice, but no notice was given to applicant/worker.
•
No retrenchment compensation was paid.
•
No charges were levied against the worker.
•
No enquiry was held.
•
No punishment was given.
Ruling Submitted:-
On Continuous Service of 240 Days
(a)
Cotton Corporation of Indian Ltd. & another V/s State of Rajasthan & others (High Courts of Rajasthan, D.B.
Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 784 of 2002, April 8, 2010.
1984
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(b)
Bholaram V/s Presiding Officer Labour Court & others (Punjab And Haryana High Court) CWP No. 4784 of
2010 (O & M) June 2, 2011.
(c)
Lachhman Dass V/s Presiding Officer Labour Court, Ambala & others (Punjab and Haryana High Court) CWP
No. 1045 of 2011 August 7, 2012.
On industry Status
(i) Banglore water supply V/s A, Rajappa
AIR 1978 Supreme Court 548 = 1978 L.A.B. i.c. 467.
(ii)
Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun V/s State of Uttar Pradesh. Through Secretary Labour Department
Lucknow.
(Allahabad High Court) Civil Misc. Writ No. 2682 of 1984 August 3, 1984.
(b)
On Probation/Deemed Confirmation
(m)
Subash Vithal Pise V/s Children’s Film Society of India (Bombay High Court) O.O.C. J.W.P. No.
2902 of 1987 April 15, 1998.
(ii)
Management of Ambanand Estate V/s General Secretary, Kerala and another (Kerala High Court)
W.P. (C) No. 21974 of 2004 (N) December 9, 2008.
(iii)
Ruling On Delay
(i)
Workmen of PMP Textiles, Combatore V/s Management of PMP Textiles & another (Madras High
Court) W.P. No. 13159/1998 D/-3-1-2011.
Ruling on Reinstatement in the Last Year of service.
-
Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Rewa M.P. & another V/s Leelawati Yadav (Madhya Pradesh High
Court) Writ Petition No. 3498 of 2006(S) July 3, 2009.
On Project
1.
M.P. Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. V/s Santosh Kumar Dubey (M.P. High Court) W.P. Nos. 6479 & others,
January 20, 2009.
IN VIEW OF ABOVE IT IS PRAYED THAT THE APPLICANT/WORKER BE REINSTATED WITH FULL
BACK WAGES AND FULL BACK SERVICE TO BE COUNTED FOR THE PENSION BENEFITS.
ALTERNATIVELY HE BE AWARDED RS. 50,00,000/- AS COMPENSATION AMOUNT, SO THAT WITH
THE INTEREST OF THE AMOUNT HE CAN LIVE HAPPILY IN HIS OLD DAYS, WITHOUT ANY
FINANCIAL PROBLEM.
Ld.A/R for the management filed written argument and sent copy of written statement through registered post.
Written arguments of management are as follows:-
1.
It is submitted that the workman was appointed vide Order dt. 13.09.1984 temporarily upto 31.03.1985.
Thereafter his services were extended by the Order dt.27.03.1985 for a period of three months w.e.f.
01.04.1985 to 30.06.1985. His services were coterminous with the project and he was relieved of his
duties w.e.f. 28.06.1985 strictly in terms of conditions laid in the appointment order. The project was
completed on 30.06.1985 and that is why the other temporary appointed Furnace Technician in the
project Sh. Girish Chand Bahuguna was also relieved of his duties from IIP w.e.f. 28.06.1985 (A/N) as
29 & 30.06.1985 was holidays. Copy of related document is annexed as Annexure 1. Shri G. C.
Bahuguna was appointed as Fitter Grade II on 22.09.1988 on regular basis against an open advertisement.
2.
That as per the oral statement of Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma that the other candidates of his batch are
absorbed/regularized/still serving in IIP services are absolutely wrong, incorrect and denied. In this
connection it is submitted that 3 candidates were appointed in PCRA project on the same terms and
conditions as were made applicable to Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma. The other two candidates were namely
Shri Bhim Sen and Shri Charanjeet Singh. None of the two candidates were absorbed/regularized or still
working in IIP services. Thus Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma made merely bald/evasive statements without
substantiating the allegations supported by any valid evidence on record. Copy of proceedings of
selection in PCRA project is annexed as Annexure-2
3.
That the experience certificate dt. 02.08.1985 was issued to the workman on his own request to add on his
credits in the Employment Exchange in the interest of his future employment prospects.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1985
4.
That the workman was given no dues certificate from all concerned at the time of relieving of his services
and no dues were outstanding against him. Taking advantage of the situation that record pertaining to the
workman was not available / traceable with the management the workman is indulging in manipulating
and cooked up stories to gain backdoor entry in the service. The Workman has not come with clean hands
and not entitled for any relief.
5.
That the claim of the workman was filed belatedly and the workman has not approached the proper legal
forum immediately after termination. The present reference for industrial dispute under Sec.10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is hopelessly barred by limitation and therefore the same is liable to be
dismissed.
6.
The workman failed to explain the day to day delay in approaching this Hon'ble Tribunal except an
evasive statement that the case was pending before several forums. The workman has not explained for
any reasons for delay in approaching Deputy Labour Commissioner (CP 56 of 1987, dt. 13.07.1987)
while his services were terminated w.e.f. 28.06.1985. Therefore the claim of the workman is liable to be
rejected on the ground of delay and latches.
7.
That the engagement of the workman was only for a limited period and temporary.
8.
That the engagement was coterminous as to the project (PCRA project) in which the workman was
engaged temporarily.
9.
That the project in which the workman was engaged was accomplished and the project was no more in
existence and the services of the workman was accordingly terminated.
10.
That the workman never worked beyond 28.06.1985.
11.
That the engagement of the workman was not against any regular vacancy and was not as per procedure
established under law and was also for a limited period.
12.
That the issue with regard to whether CSIR is ‘Industry’ is still pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(Ref. Para 3 of Reply)
13.
It is submitted that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time
beyond the term of his appointment he would not be entitled for reinstatement or regularization in service
or made permanent merely on the strength of such continuance as the original appointment was not made
following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant Rules. That in view of the landmark
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled “State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi & Ors.”
reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 (para 43) the workman is not entitled to be absorbed or made permanent in
the service.
In reply to written argument of management. Workman again filed written argument. Through which he
reaffirmed his written arguments.
In the light of contentions and counter contentions I perused the pleadings of claim statement, written statement
and rejoinder as well as evidence of parties on record including principles laid down in cited rulings by Ld. A/R for the
parties and settled law of Supreme Court on the relevant points.
Perusal of which makes it crystal clear that workman of the instant case was employed for a limited period
alongwith other workmen of like nature. After expiry of limited period their services were not extended. However it is
admitted fact that no retrenchment compensation to workman has been provided by management. Which must be
awarded even after pronouncement of judgment of Uma Devi by their lordship of Supreme Court. So workman in the
instant case entitled for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- only as per settled law of Supreme Court in following case:-
In Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corporation and Anr Vs. Gitam Singh, (2013)II LLJ 141 Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that reinstatement of workman with continuity of service and 25% back wages was not proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case and the compensation of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) shall meet the
ends of justice. In Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3004,
Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus “the award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has
completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination particularly, daily wagers has not been found to
be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded.” In catena of Judgments, Hon’ble Supreme Court
has taken a view that reinstatement is not automatic, merely because the termination is illegal or in contravention of
S-25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act. In Talwara Co-operative credit and service society Limited Vs. Sushil Kumar
(2008) 9 SCC 486, Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus,” grant of relief of reinstatement, it is trite, is not automatic. Grant
of back wages is also not automatic.”
1986
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Reference is liable to be partly decided in favour of workman and against management and claim statement is
liable to be partly allowed. Which is accordingly allowed.
Award is accordingly passed.
Dated:-06.04.2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-880-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj E;qfufliy
dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ fnYyh 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;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 322@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
28-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42011@63@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2016
S.O. 880.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 322/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. I,
Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of
the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 28.04.2016.
[No. L-42011/63/2011-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No.322/2011
Shri Shyam Singh, S/o Shri Ram Singh,
Through MCD General Mazdoor Union,
Room No.95, Barack No.1/10,
Jam Nagar House, Shah Jahan Road,
New Delhi
…Workman
Versus
The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi
…Management
AWARD
Background facts, giving rise to the case is that reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act
(in short the Act) was received by this Tribunal vide letter No.L-42011/63/2011 dated 03.10.2011 referred the
following dispute for adjudication under Section 10(2)(a) read with clause 1(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947(in short the Act):
“Whether the action of the management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi in not paying full wages for the
period of suspension, i.e. 07.01.1992 to 21.04.1992 and in imposing penalty of stoppage of four increments
with future effect to their workman Shri Shyam Singh, S/o Shri Ram Singh, is legal and justified? What relief
the workman is entitled to?
2.
It is clear from the statement of claim of the workman that Shri Shyam Singh was initially posted in Shahdara
South Zone of Municipal Corporation of Delhi as Mali alongwith co-workers, Shri Ram Kumar, Phool Chand and
Hukam Singh. There are allegations that the claimant herein, alongwith the above workmen physically assaulted Shri
J.P. Sharma, Assistant Director (Horticulture) as a result of which they were charge sheeted, as is clear from charge
sheet (Annexure A). Management also suspended the claimant herein and conducted enquiry against the above workers.
Later on, the workmen were reinstated, which is no more the issue before this Tribunal now.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1987
3.
It has been averred by the claimant that evidence has not been adduced properly and he was not provided
opportunity to defend his case in accordance with law and that the enquiry conducted by the management was against
principles of natural justice and was unfair. Case of the management was conducted by a law graduate and the claimant
herein was denied opportunity of defence assistance. Matter was also pending before the criminal court during the
departmental enquiry on the same issue. However, the court of ACMM, Shahdara vide a judgement dated 18.02.1999
acquitted the claimant herein. The above case is alleged to be false as is clear from the findings recorded by the
Magistrate.
4.
It is also clear from the record that Deputy Director (Enquiries), Shri Yudhishtar Lal was appointed as Enquiry
Officer, whose report is Ex.MW1/W2. Claimant has also specifically taken a stand that departmental proceedings and
the criminal case were launched on the same set of facts and in view of the acquittal of the accused, i.e. the claimant
herein, there was no question of imposing any punishment by the Disciplinary Authority.
5.
Management filed amended written statement and denied all the material averments, particularly preliminary
objections regarding maintainability, espousal, not service of demand notice etc. have also been taken. It has been
alleged, on merits, that valid domestic enquiry was conducted against the claimant, who was served with statement of
charge. Claimant has participated in the enquiry and has availed all opportunities available to him under the rules.
There were serious allegations against the claimant and as such, the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of ‘stoppage
of four increments with future effect’ upon the claimant after giving him full opportunity of personal hearing and serving
show cause notice of the proposed penalty. It is further submitted that penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority
was much less than the gravity of charges levelled against the claimant. The workman also challenged the said penalty
before the Appellate Authority, who after giving a personal hearing, confirmed the penalty. In their reply, there is
reference to some judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, ie. Ramna Vs. APSRTC (2005 SC 1417) as well as other
judgements wherein view has been taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court that unless punishment imposed by the
Disciplinary Authority is shocking to the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, the Court/Tribunal should not normally
interfere in such matters. It is not open to the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal to take a view that the punishment
awarded is shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved. There are some other judgements also which deals with
the situation when delinquent employee has approached the court belatedly and not at the earliest. It is necessary to
mention here that the court at this stage is not concerned with this aspect of the matter. The question of limitation or
delay or laches is not being dealt with at this stage and herein question is only limited in nature, as already discussed
above. On merits, the management has denied the averments contained in the statement of claim.
6.
On perusal of pleadings, my learned predecessor, vide a order dated 21.03.2012, framed the following issues:
(i)
Whether there existed no industrial dispute for want of espousal by a Union or considerable number of
workmen?
(ii)
Whether the enquiry conducted by the management was not just, fair and proper?
(iii)
Whether the punishment awarded to the claimant commensurate to his misconduct?
(iv)
As in terms of reference.
7.
Issue No.(i) and (ii) were treated as preliminary issues and claimant was called upon to lead his evidence first.
The workman, in order to prove his case against the management examined himself as WW1 and Shri B.K. Prasad as
WW2 and also adduced several documents in support thereof.
8.
Management, in order to rebut the case of the workman herein, examined Shri R.S. Yadav, Deputy Law
Officer, who tendered in evidence various documents.
9.
I have heard Shri B.K. Prasad, A/R for the claimant and Shri Sanjeev Yadav, A/R for the management on the
preliminary issue.
10.
It is clear from perusal of the record that the claimant herein was awarded punishment of stoppage of 4
increments with future effect by the Disciplinary Authority vide a order dated 05.05.1999. Appeal filed by the claimant
herein before the Appellate Authority was also dismissed vide a order dated 03.02.2000 as is clear from memo
Ex.WW1/4. Same reads as under:
“Shri Shyam Singh, S/o Shri Ram Singh, Mali (C.O.) has filed appeal against the orders dated
05.05.1999 of the disciplinary authority hereby finally inflicting the enquiry of ‘stoppage of four increments
with future effect’. The C.O. was allowed personal hearing on 01.02.2000.
During the course of personal hearing, the C.O. reiterated the same points which have already been
considered by the disciplinary authority while inflicting the above penalty. No new ground/reason has been
given which could merit fresh consideration. The inflicted penalty is, therefore, confirmed upon the C.O..
Further action may be taken by the Vigilance Department.”
1988
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11.
It is revealed from the record of enquiry that the main allegation against the workman herein was that on
06.12.1991 at about 2.50 p.m. he assaulted and abused Shri J.P. Sharma, who has since expired in 1992. It is not out of
place to mention here that the charge sheets were also served upon Shri Ram Kumar, Shri Phool Chand and Shri Jialal,
who have faced joint enquiry with the workman herein. However, Shri Yudhishtar Lal, Enquiry Officer has exonerated
Shri Ram Kumar, Phool Chand and Shri Jialal, on the ground that charge against the said workmen have not been
proved. He also held that so far as charges against Shri Shyam Singh, Mali is concerned, in view of the evidence on
record, the same is held to be proved.
12.
It is clear from perusal of the enquiry report that the claimant herein was served with charge sheet alongwith
Shri Ram Kumar, Shri Phool Chand and Shri Jialal. It is, further, clear that all the aforesaid workers were placed under
suspension vide order dated 07.01.1992 Ex.WW1/2. Thereafter, vide a order dated 22.04.1992 Ex.WW1/3, management
reinstated all the above workers, including the claimant herein, Shri Shyam Singh.
13.
It is not out of place to mention here that regarding the above incident, FIR No.423/1991 was also lodged
against the claimant herein as well as Shri Hukum Singh regarding the same incident for offence under Section 186,
353, 332 r.w. 34 IPC. Admittedly, claimant, herein and Shri Hukum Singh were acquitted by the Ld. MM vide a order
dated 18.02.1999. It is pertinent to mention here that in the criminal case also, Shri Gajender Singh has appeared as
PW2 and Shri Jamshed Ali as PW3 who are in fact eye witness to the above incident of abuse and assault. Since the
above witnesses did not support the case for prosecution regarding hurling of abuses and assault upon Shri J.P. Sharma,
as such, the accused were acquitted. No appeal, admittedly, is pending against the said acquittal before any court of law.
14.
In the departmental enquiry, Shri Gajender Singh was examined as department’s witness (PW1). In his
examination in chief, he has named Shri Hukum Singh as a union leader and at the time of the incident, S/Shri Shyam
Singh, Ram Kumar, Phool Chand and Jailal were also present that they had slapped Shri J.P. Sharma, Assistant Director
(Horticulture) and that Shri Sharma was in his office, all these persons have hurled abuses at him, when the witness was
discussing some official matter with Shri Jamshed Ali. He further deposed that Shri Shyam Singh also hurled abuses
and climbed on the table and gave two slaps to Shri Sharma. Other persons had bad intentions and they had come
alongwith the mob to assist the assault and to support violence.
15.
It was strongly urged by Shri B.K. Prasad on behalf of the claimant that no opportunity was given to the
claimant, Shri Shyam Singh to cross examine the witnesses, Shri Gajender Singh as well as the other witness, Sri
Jamshed Ali (PW2). It was further argued that the entire enquiry was concluded in a single day and opportunity of
providing defence assistant to the claimant was also not afforded. In this regard, reference was made to statement of
Shri R.S. Yadav, MW1, who was directed to produce entire record in respect of enquiry. The statement of this witness
is not of any importance inasmuch as he was not present at the time of enquiry. He was not associated with the
departmental enquiry in any manner. It was also urged, in such circumstances, examination of Presenting Officer or the
Enquiry Officer could have been of much help.
16.
I have carefully gone through the record and there is nothing on record to suggest that the claimant, herein, was
given an opportunity to defend his case with the help of a defence assistant. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to
the CCS (CCA) Rules and Rule 14(8) clearly provides that a delinquent Government servant against whom disciplinary
proceedings have been initiated for imposition of major penalty, may not engage a legal practitioner to present the case
on his behalf before the Enquiry Officer, unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority is a legal
practitioner. However, opportunity is to be given to the delinquent Government servant to engage any other official as
his defence representative during the course of enquiry. Any exercise of discretion to the contrary in such cases is likely
to be held by the court as arbitrary and prejudicial to the delinquent Government servant. There is nothing on record to
suggest that the claimant, herein, was provided any opportunity to engage a defence assistant ,as entire evidence was
recorded on a single day. Record of enquiry also does not reveal that even an opportunity was given specifically to the
claimant herein to cross examine the witnesses, i.e. Shri Gajender Singh(PW1) and Shri Jamshed Ali (PW2). It is
further clear from the tone and tenor of the cross examination, [“…..xxxxx by the Respondents”], that same does not
show which of the respondents cross examined Shri Gajender Singh (PW 1) and Shri Jamshed Ali(PW 2) inasmuch as
there were four charge sheeted workmen in the said enquiry. Opportunity to the claimant, herein, was otherwise
necessary as main allegations of assault and abuse were against him.
17.
Statement of Shri Jamshed Ali (PW2) before the Enquiry Office have also been recorded by the Enquiry
Officer in the same manner. There is nothing in his statement to show as to which of the respondents cross examined the
said witnesses. These were the only two material witnesses examined by the management to prove the charge of assault
and abuse against the claimant herein.
18.
I have carefully gone through the report of the Enquiry Officer Ex.MW1/W2 and find that there is no mention
of providing opportunity to engage defence assistant to the claimant, herein, nor is there any mention of the fact as to
which of the respondents cross examined the witnesses examined by the management to prove the charges. In such a
situation, Enquiry Report Ex.MW1/W2 cannot be said to be fair and the same is held to be against the principles of
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1989
natural justice. Right of cross examination is an imperative component of nature justice. So is the position with regard
to the opportunity of engagement of defence assistant to a delinquent government official during the course of enquiry.
Denial of this opportunity to a workman has dealt a crippling blow to the departmental enquiry.
19.
During the course of arguments, Shri Prasad also relied upon the fact that the claimant, herein, Shri Shyam
Singh has been acquitted by criminal court vide a order dated 18.02.1999 and decision of the criminal court was binding
upon the management, who should have reviewed the order of stoppage of four increments and exonerated Shri Shyam
Singh of the charges leveled against him. To my mind, there is no force in the contention of the claimant and law on this
point is fairly settled by various judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
20.
In the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police Vs. S. Samuthiran (AIR 2013 SC 14), Hon’ble Apex Court
has dealt with the question as to whether acquittal in a criminal trial has any impact on the departmental proceedings
pending against the said employee . After having survey of the case law on the subject, it was observed in para 20 as
under;
“Mere acquittal of an employee by a criminal court has no impact on the disciplinary proceedings
initiated by the Department. . There may be cases where the service rules provide in spite of domestic enquiry,
if the criminal court acquits an employee honourably, he could be reinstated. In other words, the issue whether
an employee has to be reinstated in service or not depends upon the question whether the service rules contain
any such provision for reinstatement and not as a matter of right.
Acquittal of delinquent even if honourable as such does not in absence of any provision in the service
rule for reinstatement, confer right on to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that the standard
of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of
disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused
is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be
innocent. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not
required in a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient.”
21.
To the similar effect, is another latest judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs.
Purshottam (2015 Lab.I.C. 905)in para 13 of the above, it was held as under:
“Acquittal of an employee by a Criminal Court would not automatically and conclusively impact
Departmental proceedings. Firstly, this is because of the disparate degrees of proof in the two, viz. beyond
reasonable doubt in criminal prosecution contrasted by preponderant proof in civil or departmental enquiries.
Secondly, criminal prosecution is not within the control of the concerned department and acquittal could be the
consequence of shoddy investigation or slovenly assimilation of evidence, or lackadaisical if not collusive
conduct of the Trial etc. Thirdly, an acquittal in a criminal prosecution may preclude a contrary conclusion in a
departmental enquiry if the former is a positive decision in contradistinction to a passive verdict which may be
predicated on technical infirmities. In other words, the Criminal Court must conclude that the accused is
innocent and not merely conclude that he has not been proved to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.”
22.
Thus, it is clear from the ratio of law enunciated in the above cases that the outcome of criminal case based
upon similar set of allegations as are in the departmental enquiry, would not necessarily clinch the of departmental
enquiry after acquittal of the employee in the criminal case. However, situation would be different when department has
taken action against its employee on the basis of judgement of the criminal court and later on in appeal or revision, the
judgement was set aside by the higher court, in such a case, question of reinstatement of the workman acquitted or
restoring the employee to its original position can certainly betaken care of by the management. But when the enquiry
has been held independently to the criminal proceedings, acquittal in criminal case is not of much help. Law is
otherwise. Even if a person stood acquitted by criminal court, domestic enquiry can always be held or can continue.
Judgements were also cited on behalf of the claimant where contrary view has been taken and same cannot be followed
in the face of emphatic pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police
Vs. S. Samuthiran(supra) and Union of India vs. Purshottam (supra ).
23.
This Tribunal, vide order dated 26.06 held that the enquiry conducted by the management is was not fair and is
against principles of natural justice, as a result of which Issue No.(i) and (ii), which were treated as preliminary issue,
stood decided against the management and in favour of the workman herein.
24.
Thereafter, this Tribunal gave an opportunity to the management to adduce evidence on merits so as to prove
the charge of misconduct against the workman herein. Management has not brought any evidence worth the name in
support of the charges mentioned in the charge sheet, as a result of which case was heard on merits. Admittedly, no
evidence has been adduced by the management after findings has been rendered by this Tribunal vide order dated
26.06.2015 to the effect that the domestic enquiry in the present case is perverse and against principles of natural justice.
1990
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
25.
Now, the vital question which survives for consideration is whether the evidence adduced during the course of
domestic enquiry by the management can be taken into consideration so as to decide the allegations made against the
workman herein. Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has now finally settled the law in the case of Karnataka State
Road Transport Vs. Lakshmidevamma & Another (2001 Lab.L.C.1777) relating to domestic enquiry wherein ratio of
the case in Delhi Cloth Mills case was also considered, and held as under:
“We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that when a case of dismissal of discharge of an employee is referred for
industrial adjudication the labour court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry
has violated the principles of natural justice. When there is no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry is admitted
by the employer, there will be no difficulty. But when the matter is in controversy between the parties that
question must be decided as a preliminary issue. On that decision being pronounced it will be for the
management to decide whether it will adduce any evidence before the labour court. If it chooses not to adduce
any evidence, it will not be thereafter permissible in any proceeding to raise the issue. We should also make it
clear that there will be no justification for any party to stall the final adjudication of the dispute by the labour
court by questioning its decision with regard to the preliminary issue when the matter, if worthy, can be agitated
even after the final award. It will be also legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at this stage. We
are making these observations in our anxiety that there is no undue delay in industrial adjudication."
26.
It is clear from the above that the Tribunal/Labour Court was called upon to decide the validity of the domestic
enquiry conducted by the employer or management and the same is to be tried as preliminary issue and thereafter, if
necessary, management was to be given an option to adduce fresh evidence in case enquiry was held to be unfair,
perverse or against the principles of natural justice. However, management has to ask for such an opportunity or reserve
its right by taking specific plea in the pleadings. It can even also move an application asking for such a right in case
findings on the domestic enquiry is ultimately rendered against the management or employer. It has also been ruled in
various cases that in case management does not choose to adduce any evidence at that stage, it cannot be allowed to do
so at any later stage of the proceedings by filing application for that purpose as it may ultimately result in delay of the
case and lead to wrecking of the morale of the workman.
27.
Yet in another case Neeta Kaplish vs Presiding Officer Labour Court and Anr. AIR (1999) Lab.I.C.445) that
record pertaining to the domestic enquiry would not be considered as ‘fresh evidence’ or ‘material on record’ within the
meaning of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, it is now not open to the management to rely upon the
evidence adduced during the course of domestic enquiry so as to prove the charges of misconduct against the workman
herein. This view has been consistently taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon’ble High Court in various
judgements. Therefore, contention of the management that the record of the domestic enquiry be considered on merits
as substantive evidence so as to prove the charges against the workman herein is totally devoid of merit and deserves to
be rejected.
28.
As a sequel to my discussions herein above, it is held that the charge against the workman herein has not been
proved and as such the punishment of stoppage of four increments with future effect’ awarded to the claimant cannot
legally sustain; as such the order dated 10.03.2000 is, hereby, set aside. It is held that the workman herein is liable to be
paid full wages for the period of suspension with effect from 07.01.1992 to 21.04.1992 and is also entitled to monetary
benefits suffered due to imposition of the punishment, alongwith all consequential benefits. An award is accordingly
passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : April 21, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-881-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj usg: ;qok xksM~Mk
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;&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 46@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-04-2016 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@04@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1991
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O. 881.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (ID Ref. No. 46/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. I, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Nehru Yuva Kendra, Godda and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
25.04.2016.
[No. L-42012/04/2014-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) OF I.D.ACT, 1947.
Ref. No. 46/2014
Parties:-
Management of Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangthan, Godda
And
Their workman
Present:- Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer
Appearances:
For the Employers. :- Sri Rupak Kumar, Advocate
For the workman. :- Sri D. Mahato, Advocate.
State :-Jharkhand Industry:-Youth & Sports
Dated. 19/04/ 2016
AWARD
By Order No.L-42012/04/2014-IR (DU), dated 01/05/2014, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan , Godda in terminating the
service of the workman Shri Pintu Mandal, Daily wager w.e.f 30.06. 2010 is just fair & legal? If not to
what relief the workman concerned workman is entitled to ?”
1.
The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 22.05.2014. After receipt of the reference, both parties
are noticed. The workman files their written statement on 04.06.2014. Thereafter the management files their written
statement on 21.08.2014. Rejoinder & Document filed by the parties .
2.
The Short point to be decided in the case is whether termination of daily wager employee is proper or not.
3.
The case of the workman is the applicant was appointed as sweeper as Daily wage workers on 01.02.1999 and
he has given identity Card as well as the name of the applicant entered in the master roll and also issued certificate in
this regard. After joining the applicant has been working continuously without any break.
4.
It is also submitted by the applicant that he has worked more than 240 days after the year 2000 to year 2008
continuously but on 21.03.2006 applicant gave an application to the management and requested him to give him regular
in the post of sweeper Gr.D but the management refused. Thereafter the workman filed a writ petition before the
Hon’ble High Court in the WP (S) No. 2911 of 2009 and the Hon’ble High Court passed an order and give liberty to
the applicant to raise Industrial Dispute in the appropriate forum. Hence I.D arose.
5.
The case of the management is that the Nehru Yuva Kendra is the organization of Govt. of India under
Ministry of Youth affairs & Sports New Delhi. The management also submits that there is neither the post of sweeper
is sanctioned nor he was appointed against sanctioned post. He was only casual worker as part time for one hour to
sweep the floor only. It is further submitted that the workman is neither appointed nor terminated.
1992
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.
The management vide oerder dated 20/05/2015 agree to keep the workman as per previous terms and
condition. Such order is extracted below :-
Both parties are present . the management agrees that it will taken the workman as per previous terms and
condition from 01.06.2015. The workman agrees . Therefore the management directed to take the workman
from 01.06.15 as per the earlier terms.
7.
This may be the situation the dispute between the both parties have been settled.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 882-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vka/zk cSad ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 56@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@18@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O. 882.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 56/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.05.2016.
[No. L-12011/18/2015-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 9th March, 2016
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 56/2015
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Andhra Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Andhra Bank Employees Union
Old No. 13, New No. 5/6, Mount Poonamallee
High Road
Devi Nagar, Porur
Chennai-600116
AND
The Zonal Manager
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Andhra Bank, Zonal Office
58/1, D.B. Road, R.S. Puram
Coimbatore-641002
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
Sri S.D. Srinivasan, Authorized Representative
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
In Person
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1993
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No.L-12011/18/2015-IR (B-II)
dated 05.05.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the denial of regularization as claimed by Andhra Bank Employees Union in respect of Sri
Balamurugan by the management of Andhra Bank, Coimbatore is justifiable? If not so, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 56/2015 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have filed claim and counter statement respectively.
3.
When the matter came up for hearing today the petitioner has filed memo stating that discussion on the issue
regarding declaration of vacancies of subordinate staff is in progress and a positive decision will be taken by the
Management shortly and therefore the dispute is not being pressed.
4.
Since the petitioner does not want to proceed with the dispute the reference is to be answered against the
petitioner.
Accordingly the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 9th March, 2016
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 883-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vka/zk cSad ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 49@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@11@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O. 883.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 49/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.05.2016.
[No. L-12011/11/2015-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
1994
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 9th March, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 49/2015
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Andhra Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Andhra Bank Employees Union
Old No. 13, New No. 5/6, Mount Poonamallee
High Road
Devi Nagar, Porur
Chennai-600116
AND
The Zonal Manager
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Andhra Bank, Zonal Office
58/1, D.B. Road, R.S. Puram
Coimbatore-641002
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
Sri S.D. Srinivasan, Authorized Representative
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
In Person
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No.L-12011/11/2015-IR (B-II)
dated 28.04.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the denial of regularization as claimed by Andhra Bank Employees Union in respect of Sri
Karthikeyan by the management of Andhra Bank, Coimbatore is justifiable? If not so, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 49/2015 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have filed claim and counter statement respectively.
3.
When the matter came up for hearing today the petitioner has filed memo stating that discussion on the issue
regarding declaration of vacancies of subordinate staff is in progress and a positive decision will be taken by the
Management shortly and therefore the dispute is not being pressed.
4.
Since the petitioner does not want to proceed with the dispute the reference is to be answered against the
petitioner.
Accordingly the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 9th March, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1995
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-884-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vka/zk cSad ds izca/ra=k
ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 50@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@12@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O. 884.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.05.2016.
[No. L-12011/12/2015-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 9th March, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 50/2015
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Andhra Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Andhra Bank Employees Union
Old No. 13, New No. 5/6, Mount Poonamallee
High Road
Devi Nagar, Porur
Chennai-600116
AND
The Zonal Manager
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Andhra Bank, Zonal Office
58/1, D.B. Road, R.S. Puram
Coimbatore-641002
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
Sri S.D. Srinivasan, Authorized Representative
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
In Person
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No.L-12011/12/2015-IR (B-II)
dated 27.04.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the denial of regularization as claimed by Andhra Bank Employees Union in respect of Sri Rajesh by
the management of Andhra Bank, Coimbatore is justifiable? If not so, to what relief the workman is entitled
to?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 50/2015 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have filed claim and counter statement respectively.
1996
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
When the matter came up for hearing today the petitioner has filed memo stating that discussion on the issue
regarding declaration of vacancies of subordinate staff is in progress and a positive decision will be taken by the
Management shortly and therefore the dispute is not being pressed.
4.
Since the petitioner does not want to proceed with the dispute the reference is to be answered against the
petitioner.
Accordingly the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 9th March, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 885-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vka/zk cSad ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 51@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@13@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O. 885.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.05.2016.
[No. L-12011/13/2015-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 9th March, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 51/2015
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Andhra Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Andhra Bank Employees Union
Old No. 13, New No. 5/6, Mount Poonamallee
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1997
High Road
Devi Nagar, Porur
Chennai-600116
AND
The Zonal Manager
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Andhra Bank, Zonal Office
58/1, D.B. Road, R.S. Puram
Coimbatore-641002
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
Sri S.D. Srinivasan, Authorized Representative
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
In Person
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No.L-12011/13/2015-IR (B-II)
dated 27.04.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the denial of regularization as claimed by Andhra Bank Employees Union in respect of Sri Pon
Sukumar by the management of Andhra Bank, Coimbatore is justifiable? If not so, to what relief the workman is
entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 51/2015 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have filed claim and counter statement respectively.
3.
When the matter came up for hearing today the petitioner has filed memo stating that discussion on the issue
regarding declaration of vacancies of subordinate staff is in progress and a positive decision will be taken by the
Management shortly and therefore the dispute is not being pressed.
4.
Since the petitioner does not want to proceed with the dispute the reference is to be answered against the
petitioner.
Accordingly the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 9th March, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-886-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vka/zk cSad ds izca/ra=k
ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 52@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@14@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
1998
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O. 886.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 52/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.05.2016.
[No. L-12011/14/2015-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 9th March, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 52/2015
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Andhra Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Andhra Bank Employees Union
Old No. 13, New No. 5/6, Mount Poonamallee
High Road
Devi Nagar, Porur
Chennai-600116
AND
The Zonal Manager
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Andhra Bank, Zonal Office
58/1, D.B. Road, R.S. Puram
Coimbatore-641002
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
Sri S.D. Srinivasan, Authorized Representative
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
In Person
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No.L-12011/14/2015-IR (B-II)
dated 30.04.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the denial of regularization as claimed by Andhra Bank Employees Union in respect of Sri
Tamilmani by the management of Andhra Bank, Coimbatore is justifiable? If not so, to what relief the workman
is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 52/2015 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have filed claim and counter statement respectively.
3.
When the matter came up for hearing today the petitioner has filed memo stating that discussion on the issue
regarding declaration of vacancies of subordinate staff is in progress and a positive decision will be taken by the
Management shortly and therefore the dispute is not being pressed.
4.
Since the petitioner does not want to proceed with the dispute the reference is to be answered against the
petitioner.
Accordingly the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 9th March, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
1999
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 887-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vka/zk cSad ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 53@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@15@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O.887.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.05.2016.
[No. L-12011/15/2015-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 9th March, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 53/2015
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Andhra Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Andhra Bank Employees Union
Old No. 13, New No. 5/6, Mount Poonamallee
High Road
Devi Nagar, Porur
Chennai-600116
AND
The Zonal Manager
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Andhra Bank, Zonal Office
58/1, D.B. Road, R.S. Puram
Coimbatore-641002
2000
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
Sri S.D. Srinivasan, Authorized Representative
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
In Person
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No.L-12011/15/2015-IR (B-II)
dated 28.04.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the denial of regularization as claimed by Andhra Bank Employees Union in respect of Ms. Shanti by
the management of Andhra Bank, Coimbatore is justifiable? If not so, to what relief the workman is entitled
to?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 53/2015 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have filed claim and counter statement respectively.
3.
When the matter came up for hearing today the petitioner has filed memo stating that discussion on the issue
regarding declaration of vacancies of subordinate staff is in progress and a positive decision will be taken by the
Management shortly and therefore the dispute is not being pressed.
4.
Since the petitioner does not want to proceed with the dispute the reference is to be answered against the
petitioner.
Accordingly the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 9th March, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 888-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vka/zk cSad ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 54@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@16@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O. 888.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.05.2016.
[No. L-12011/16/2015-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2001
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 9th March, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 54/2015
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Andhra Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Andhra Bank Employees Union
Old No. 13, New No. 5/6, Mount Poonamallee
High Road
Devi Nagar, Porur
Chennai-600116
AND
The Zonal Manager
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Andhra Bank, Zonal Office
58/1, D.B. Road, R.S. Puram
Coimbatore-641002
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
Sri S.D. Srinivasan, Authorized Representative
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
In Person
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No.L-12011/16/2015-IR (B-II)
dated 28.04.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the denial of regularization as claimed by Andhra Bank Employees Union in respect of Ms.
Maheshwari by the management of Andhra Bank, Coimbatore is justifiable? If not so, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 54/2015 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have filed claim and counter statement respectively.
3.
When the matter came up for hearing today the petitioner has filed memo stating that discussion on the issue
regarding declaration of vacancies of subordinate staff is in progress and a positive decision will be taken by the
Management shortly and therefore the dispute is not being pressed.
4.
Since the petitioner does not want to proceed with the dispute the reference is to be answered against the
petitioner.
Accordingly the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 9th March, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
2002
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 889-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vka/zk cSad ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 55@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@17@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O.889.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.05.2016.
[No. L-12011/17/2015-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 9th March, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 55/2015
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Andhra Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Andhra Bank Employees Union
Old No. 13, New No. 5/6, Mount Poonamallee
High Road
Devi Nagar, Porur
Chennai-600116
AND
The Zonal Manager
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Andhra Bank, Zonal Office
58/1, D.B. Road, R.S. Puram
Coimbatore-641002
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
Sri S.D. Srinivasan, Authorized Representative
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
In Person
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2003
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No.L-12011/17/2015-IR (B-II)
dated 27.04.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the denial of regularization as claimed by Andhra Bank Employees Union in respect of Sri
Saravanan by the management of Andhra Bank, Coimbatore is justifiable? If not so, to what relief the workman
is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 55/2015 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have filed claim and counter statement respectively.
3.
When the matter came up for hearing today the petitioner has filed memo stating that discussion on the issue
regarding declaration of vacancies of subordinate staff is in progress and a positive decision will be taken by the
Management shortly and therefore the dispute is not being pressed.
4.
Since the petitioner does not want to proceed with the dispute the reference is to be answered against the
petitioner.
Accordingly the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 9th March, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-890-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vka/zk cSad ds izca/ra=k
ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 76@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@29@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O. 890.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 76/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.05.2016.
[No. L-12011/29/2015-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
2004
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 9th March, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 76/2015
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Andhra Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Andhra Bank Employees Union
No. 227, Angappa Naichen Street
Chennai-600001
AND
1.
The Zonal Manager
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
Andhra Bank, Zonal Office
58/1, D.B. Road, R.S. Puram
Coimbatore-641002
2.
The Branch Manager
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Andhra Bank, Sakkottai Branch
22, Rajameena Nagar, Needamangalam Main Road
Sakkottai-612401
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
Sri S.D. Srinivasan, Authorized Representative
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Management
:
In Person
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No.L-12011/29/2015-IR (B-II)
dated 22/29.05.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the demand of the union in seeking regularization of Sri Mageshkumar at Sakkottai branch of from
the management of Andhra Bank is justified? If yes, what relief the concerned workman entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 76/2015 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have filed claim and counter statement respectively.
3.
When the matter came up for hearing today the petitioner has filed memo stating that discussion on the issue
regarding declaration of vacancies of subordinate staff is in progress and a positive decision will be taken by the
Management shortly and therefore the dispute is not being pressed.
4.
Since the petitioner does not want to proceed with the dispute the reference is to be answered against the
petitioner.
Accordingly the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 9th
March, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2005
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-891-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vka/zk cSad ds izca/ra=k
ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 77@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@32@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O.891.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 77/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.05.2016.
[No. L-12011/32/2015-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 9th March, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 77/2015
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Andhra Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Andhra Bank Employees Union
No. 227, Angappa Naichen Street
Chennai-600001
AND
1.
The Zonal Manager
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
Andhra Bank, Zonal Office
58/1, D.B. Road, R.S. Puram
Coimbatore-641002
2.
The Branch Manager
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Andhra Bank, Thanjavur Branch
2854, Maris Corner, Nanjikottai Road
Thanjavur -613001
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
Sri S.D. Srinivasan, Authorized Representative
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Management
:
In Person
2006
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No.L-12011/32/2015-IR (B-II)
dated 22.05.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the demand of the union in seeking regularization of Shri Devendran at Thanjavur branch of from the
management of Andhra Bank is justified? If yes, what relief the concerned workman entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 77/2015 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have filed claim and counter statement respectively.
3.
When the matter came up for hearing today the petitioner has filed memo stating that discussion on the issue
regarding declaration of vacancies of subordinate staff is in progress and a positive decision will be taken by the
Management shortly and therefore the dispute is not being pressed.
4.
Since the petitioner does not want to proceed with the dispute the reference is to be answered against the
petitioner.
Accordingly the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 9th March, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-892-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vka/zk cSad ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 82@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@30@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O.892.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 82/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.05.2016.
[No. L-12011/30/2015-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2007
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 9th March, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 82/2015
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Andhra Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Andhra Bank Employees Union
No. 227, Angappa Naichen Street
Chennai-600001
AND
1.
The Zonal Manager
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
Andhra Bank, Zonal Office
58/1, D.B. Road, R.S. Puram
Coimbatore-641002
2.
The Branch Manager
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Andhra Bank, Elurpatty Branch
7/3, 13 Elurpatty South, Elurpatty Village
Thottiyam Taluk, Trichy District
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
Sri S.D. Srinivasan, Authorized Representative
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Management
:
In Person
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No.L-12011/30/2015-IR (B-II)
dated 18.05.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the demand of the union in seeking regularization of Sri Gnanavel at Elurpatty branch of the
management of Andhra Bank is justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 82/2015 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have filed claim and counter statement respectively.
3.
When the matter came up for hearing today the petitioner has filed memo stating that discussion on the issue
regarding declaration of vacancies of subordinate staff is in progress and a positive decision will be taken by the
Management shortly and therefore the dispute is not being pressed.
4.
Since the petitioner does not want to proceed with the dispute the reference is to be answered against the
petitioner.
Accordingly the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 9th March, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/1st and 2nd Management
:
None
2008
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-893-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vka/zk cSad ds izca/ra=k
ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 83@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@31@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O.893.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 83/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.05.2016.
[No. L-12011/31/2015-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 9th March, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 83/2015
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Andhra Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Andhra Bank Employees Union
No. 227, Angappa Naichen Street
Chennai-600001
AND
1.
The Zonal Manager
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
Andhra Bank, Zonal Office
58/1, D.B. Road, R.S. Puram
Coimbatore-641002
2.
The Branch Manager
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Andhra Bank, Moovalur Branch
Moovalur
Mayiladuthurai-609003
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
Sri S.D. Srinivasan, Authorized Representative
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Management
:
In Person
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2009
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No.L-12011/31/2015-IR (B-II)
dated 01.06.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the demand of the union in seeking regularization of Ms. Abhirami at Moovalur branch of the
management of Andhra Bank is justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 83/2015 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have filed claim and counter statement respectively.
3.
When the matter came up for hearing today the petitioner has filed memo stating that discussion on the issue
regarding declaration of vacancies of subordinate staff is in progress and a positive decision will be taken by the
Management shortly and therefore the dispute is not being pressed.
4.
Since the petitioner does not want to proceed with the dispute the reference is to be answered against the
petitioner.
Accordingly the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 9th March, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/1st and 2nd Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-894-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vka/zk cSad ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 117@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@52@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O. 894.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 117/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.05.2016.
[No. L-12011/52/2015-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
2010
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 9th March, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 117/2015
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Andhra Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Andhra Bank Employees Union
No. 227, Angappa Naichen Street
Chennai-600001
AND
1.
The Branch Manager
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
Andhra Bank, Kodambakkam Branch
4/9, 4th Main Road, United India Colony
Kodambakkam,
Chennai-600024
2.
The Zonal Manager
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Andhra Bank, Zonal Office
Chennai-600001
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
Sri S.D. Srinivasan, Authorized Representative
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Management
:
In Person
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No.L-12011/52/2015-IR (B-II)
dated 24/26.08.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the demand of the union in seeking regularization of the services of Sri B. Srinivasan at
Kodambakkam Branch by the management of Andhra Bank is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned
workman entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 117/2015 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have filed claim and counter statement respectively.
3.
When the matter came up for hearing today the petitioner has filed memo stating that discussion on the issue
regarding declaration of vacancies of subordinate staff is in progress and a positive decision will be taken by the
Management shortly and therefore the dispute is not being pressed.
4.
Since the petitioner does not want to proceed with the dispute the reference is to be answered against the
petitioner.
Accordingly the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 9th March, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/1st and 2nd Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2011
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 895-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vka/zk cSad ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 122@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@61@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O.895.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 122/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.05.2016.
[No. L-12011/61/2015-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 9th March, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 122/2015
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Andhra Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Andhra Bank Employees Union
No. 227, Angappa Naichen Street
Chennai-600001
AND
1.
The Zonal Manager
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
Andhra Bank, , Zonal Office
Chennai-600001
2.
The Branch Manager
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Andhra Bank, Nanganallur Branch
3A, 45th Street, Nanganallur
Chennai-600061
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
Sri S.D. Srinivasan, Authorized Representative
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Management
:
In Person
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No.L-12011/61/2015-IR (B-II)
dated 14.09.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the demand of the union in seeking regularization of the services of Sri K. Loganathan at
Nanganallur Branch by the management of Andhra Bank is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 122/2015 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have filed claim and counter statement respectively.
2012
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
When the matter came up for hearing today the petitioner has filed memo stating that discussion on the issue
regarding declaration of vacancies of subordinate staff is in progress and a positive decision will be taken by the
Management shortly and therefore the dispute is not being pressed.
4.
Since the petitioner does not want to proceed with the dispute the reference is to be answered against the
petitioner.
Accordingly the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 9th March, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/1st and 2nd Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 896-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vka/zk cSad ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 123@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@62@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O.896 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 123/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.05.2016.
[No. L-12011/62/2015-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 9th March, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 123/2015
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Andhra Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Andhra Bank Employees Union
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2013
No. 227, Angappa Naichen Street
Chennai-600001
AND
1.
The Branch Manager
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
Andhra Bank, Hasthinapuram Branch
Rajendra Prasad Road, Hasthinapuram
Chennai
2.
The Zonal Manager
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Andhra Bank, Zonal Office
Chennai-600001
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
Sri S.D. Srinivasan, Authorized Representative
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Management
:
In Person
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No.L-12011/62/2015-IR (B-II)
dated 14.09.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the demand of the union in seeking regularization of the services of Sri Ragunath at Hasthinapuram
Branch by the management of Andhra Bank is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman
entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 123/2015 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have filed claim and counter statement respectively.
3.
When the matter came up for hearing today the petitioner has filed memo stating that discussion on the issue
regarding declaration of vacancies of subordinate staff is in progress and a positive decision will be taken by the
Management shortly and therefore the dispute is not being pressed.
4.
Since the petitioner does not want to proceed with the dispute the reference is to be answered against the
petitioner.
Accordingly the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 9th March, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/1st and 2nd Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
2014
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 897-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vka/zk cSad ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 2@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@81@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O.897.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.05.2016.
[No. L-12011/81/2015-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 9th March, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 2/2016
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Andhra Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Andhra Bank Employees Union
No. 227, Angappa Naichen Street
Chennai-600001
AND
1.
The Zonal Manager
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
Andhra Bank, , Zonal Office
Chennai-600001
2.
The Branch Manager
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Andhra Bank, Adyar Branch
30, 1st Main Road, Adyar
Chennai-600020
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
Sri K. Thamaraiselvan, General Secretary
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Management
:
In Person
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/81/2015-IR (B.II)
dated 21.12.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the demand of the Union in seeking regularization of the services of Sri Raja at Adyar Branch by the
management of Andhra Bank is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 2/2016 and issued notices to both sides.
The petitioner has filed Claim Statement and the matter has been posted for Counter Statement of the Respondent.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2015
3.
When the matter came up for hearing today the petitioner has filed memo stating that discussion on the issue
regarding declaration of vacancies of subordinate staff is in progress and a positive decision will be taken by the
Management shortly and therefore the dispute is not being pressed.
4.
Since the petitioner does not want to proceed with the dispute the reference is to be answered against the
petitioner.
Accordingly the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A. transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
date the 9th March, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/1st and 2nd Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 898-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vka/zk cSad ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 3@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@82@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O. 898.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.05.2016.
[No. L-12011/82/2015-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 9th March, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 3/2016
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Andhra Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Andhra Bank Employees Union
No. 227, Angappa Naichen Street
Chennai-600001
2016
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AND
1.
The Zonal Manager
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
Andhra Bank, , Zonal Office
Chennai-600001
2.
The Branch Manager
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Andhra Bank, Hosur Branch
55/1, Bagalur Road
Hosur -635109
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
Sri K. Thamaraiselvan, General Secretary
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Management
:
In Person
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. 12011/82/2015-IR (B.II) dated
21.12.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the demand of the Union in seeking regularization of the services of Sri Balamurugan at Hosur
Branch by the management of Andhra Bank is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman
entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 3/2016 and issued notices to both sides.
The petitioner has filed Claim Statement and the matter has been posted for Counter Statement of the Respondent.
3.
When the matter came up for hearing today the petitioner has filed memo stating that discussion on the issue
regarding declaration of vacancies of subordinate staff is in progress and a positive decision will be taken by the
Management shortly and therefore the dispute is not being pressed.
4.
Since the petitioner does not want to proceed with the dispute the reference is to be answered against the
petitioner.
Accordingly the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A. transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
date the 9th March, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/1st and 2nd Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 899-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vka/zk cSad ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 4@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@83@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2017
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O. 899.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 4/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.05.2016.
[No. L-12011/83/2015-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 9th March, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 4/2016
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Andhra Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Andhra Bank Employees Union
No. 227, Angappa Naichen Street
Chennai-600001
AND
1.
The Zonal Manager
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
Andhra Bank, , Zonal Office
Chennai-600001
2.
The Branch Manager
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Andhra Bank, Mambakkam Branch
3/330, Kelambakkam High Road, Mambakkam
Mambakkam
Chennai -600048
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
Sri K. Thamaraiselvan, General Secretary
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Management
:
In Person
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. 12011/83/2015-IR (B.II) dated
21.12.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the demand of the Union in seeking regularization of the services of Sri Dilip at Mambakkam Branch
by the management of Andhra Bank is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 4/2016 and issued notices to both sides.
The petitioner has filed Claim Statement and the matter has been posted for Counter Statement of the Respondent.
3.
When the matter came up for hearing today the petitioner has filed memo stating that discussion on the issue
regarding declaration of vacancies of subordinate staff is in progress and a positive decision will be taken by the
Management shortly and therefore the dispute is not being pressed.
4.
Since the petitioner does not want to proceed with the dispute the reference is to be answered against the
petitioner.
Accordingly the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A. transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this date the 9th
March, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
2018
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/1st and 2nd Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 900-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vka/zk cSad ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 5@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@84@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O. 900.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 5/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.05.2016.
[No. L-12011/84/2015-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 9th March, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 5/2016
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Andhra Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Andhra Bank Employees Union
No. 227, Angappa Naichen Street
Chennai-600001
AND
1.
The Zonal Manager
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
Andhra Bank, , Zonal Office
Chennai-600001
2.
The Branch Manager
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Andhra Bank, Padappai Branch
S.No. 540/203, Navasakthi Nagar
Padappai Village
Chennai -601201
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2019
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
Sri K. Thamaraiselvan, General Secretary
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Management
:
In Person
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. 12011/84/2015-IR (B.II) dated
21.12.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the demand of the Union in seeking regularization of the services of Sri R. Vijay at Padappai Branch
by the management of Andhra Bank is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 5/2016 and issued notices to both sides.
The petitioner has filed Claim Statement and the matter has been posted for Counter Statement of the Respondent.
3.
When the matter came up for hearing today the petitioner has filed memo stating that discussion on the issue
regarding declaration of vacancies of subordinate staff is in progress and a positive decision will be taken by the
Management shortly and therefore the dispute is not being pressed.
4.
Since the petitioner does not want to proceed with the dispute the reference is to be answered against the
petitioner.
Accordingly the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A. transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
date the 9th March, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/1st and 2nd Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-901-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; esjhVkbe
;wfuo£lVh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 78@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[la- ,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O.901.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 78/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Maritime University and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.05.2016.
[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
2020
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Thursday, the 14th January, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 78/2014
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under Sub-Section 2A of Section-10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(as amended by Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010). between the Management of Ministry of Surface Transport and
Indian Maritime University, Chennai and their workman)
BETWEEN :
Sri M. Arumugam
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1.
The Secretary
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
Ministry of Surface Transport
Government of India
New Delhi-110001
2.
The Management of Indian Maritime University
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Uthandi
Chennai-600119
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
Sri S. Raghupati, Advocate
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Management
:
Sri M.R. Raghavan, Advocate
AWARD
This is an Industrial Dispute taken on file under 2(A)(2)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended by
Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010).
1.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner joined the service of the Second Respondent as a Driver on 11.03.2009. The work was
permanent in nature. The petitioner has been discharging his duties to the best of his abilities. He was orally retrenched
from service on 29.09.2013. The Respondent has forcefully obtained a letter of resignation from the petitioner and have
relieved him from service. Though the petitioner gave a representation to the Second Respondent for withdrawing the
letter the Second Respondent did not allow the petitioner to join duty. The petitioner was not given any letter accepting
the resignation. The action of the Second Respondent is in contravention of Section-9A of the Industrial Disputes Act. It
is against the provisions of the Standing Order of the Second Respondent also. The petitioner was not issued any notice
before he was retrenched from service so the retrenchment is against Section-25F of the Industrial Disputes Act also. the
petitioner was doing work of a permanent nature and was in continuous service for more than 480 days during a period
of 24 calendar months. So he is entitled to the benefit of Section-3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment
(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman) Act, 1981 and is entitled to be made permanent. The action of the
Respondents in retrenching the petitioner is in contravention of Section-33 of the Industrial Disputes Act also as a
dispute is pending before the labour authority between the Second Respondent and the Union. The petitioner had filed a
petition before the Asstt. Commissioner of Labour. The Respondents did not cooperate with the conciliations
proceedings. So the petition is filed before this Tribunal. An order may be passed directing the Respondents to reinstate
the petitioner with full backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
2.
The First Respondent has filed counter statement contending as below:
The First Respondent does not come under the definition of industry as contemplated in the Industrial Disputes
Act. There is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the First Respondent. The petitioner was not
employed under the First Respondent nor was terminated by the First Respondent. The dispute against the First
Respondent is not sustainable in law. The First Respondent has been made a party to the proceedings unnecessarily.
3.
The Second Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2021
The petitioner was appointed by the Indian Maritime University as Driver on contract basis for a period of one
year by Memorandum dated 11.03.2009. His service was extended periodically by the Second Respondent every six
months. On 24.09.2013 the petitioner submitted his resignation which was accepted and he was relieved from duty.
Subsequently, the petitioner was again appointed for a period of six months from 24.09.2014. But the petitioner did not
join duty. The dispute raised by the petitioner is not sustainable in law. The petitioner has voluntarily resigned from
employment. The claim that he was terminated from service is not correct. It is incorrect to state that incompetent
authority had passed order of retrenchment. The allegation that the resignation letter was withdrawn is not correct. So
also the case that the Second Respondent had acted in violation of Section-9 of the Industrial Disputes Act and the
provisions of Industrial Employment Standing Orders is not correct. There was no victimization of the petitioner as
alleged by him also. The petitioner is not entitled to permanent status under Section-3 of Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman) Act. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
4.
The petitioner has filed a rejoinder denying the allegations in the Counter Statement.
5.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W16.
6.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the petitioner was retrenched from service?
(ii)
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in the service of the Second Respondent? If not, what
if any is the other relief to which the petitioner is entitled to?
The Points
7.
The petition is filed seeking the relief of reinstatement with backwages, continuity of service and other
consequential reliefs.
8.
The First Respondent in the petition is the Ministry of Surface Transport. The petitioner has not stated in the
Clam Statement how the First Respondent is liable for the claim made. It is the case of the First Respondent that there is
no employer employee relationship between it and the petitioner. The petitioners seems to have been employed by the
Second Respondent which has nothing to do with the First Respondent. The petitioner has not established in evidence
that the First Respondent has got anything to do with the claim. The First Respondent seems to have been made a party
to the petition without any basis.
9.
The petitioner has claimed that he was in the service of the Respondent (he has not stated under which
Respondent he was working) from 11.03.2009 as Driver. It is admitted by the Second Respondent that he was appointed
as a Driver on 11.03.2009 for a period of one year. However, according to the Second Respondent it was on contract
basis and the period of his employment was being extended every six months. He had continued in service until
24.09.2013.
10.
The petitioner has alleged that he was terminated from service by Respondents on 24.09.2013 without any
notice. On the other hand, the case of the Second Respondent is that the petitioner has submitted his resignation letter on
24.09.2013 and this was accepted and it was accordingly he was relieved from duty.
11.
If actually the petitioner was terminated from service on the basis of a resignation letter submitted by him on
24.09.2013 his case that he was retrenched illegally and unjustifiably will be without any foundation. There is no dispute
about the fact that the petitioner had submitted a letter of resignation. The copy of the letter is marked as Ext.W13. The
claim that is put forth by the petitioner is that the Respondent forcefully made the petitioner resign from his post. He has
got a further case in his Claim Statement that he has subsequently given a representation to the Second Respondent to
withdraw his resignation letter but this was not accepted by the Second Respondent.
12.
Though the copy of the resignation letter is produced by the petitioner he has not submitted a copy of the
representation said to have been made by him to the Second Respondent withdrawing the resignation letter. So there is
nothing to show that he wanted to withdraw the letter of resignation.
13.
Is there any evidence to establish the case of the petitioner that the letter of resignation was obtained from him
by force? In the Claim Statement the petitioner has not even stated which Respondent has forcefully obtained letter of
resignation from him. As already stated, the First Respondent has nothing to do with the employment of the petitioner
and it could not have played any part in the resignation of the petitioner also. The Second Respondent is described in the
Claim Petition as the Management of Indian Maritime University. Any individual or even an Officer is not specified.
The petitioner has not stated in the body of the Claim Petition which official or individual is responsible for obtaining a
letter of resignation from him by force.
14.
The Proof Affidavit filed by the petitioner does not reveal any further information or details regarding the
resignation letter allegedly obtained from the petitioner by force. However there is a difference that the affidavit states
2022
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
that the resignation letter was forcefully obtained by the Second Respondent. The Second Respondent being not an
individual or official this also will not show who forced the petitioner to give a resignation letter. The petitioner has not
stated on which date the letter of resignation was obtained, for what reason it was obtained or under what circumstances
it was obtained. On going through the admission made by the petitioner during his cross-examination, it could be seen
that the case that the letter of resignation was obtained from him by force could not be accepted. He has stated that he
has given Ext.W13 letter stating that he is resigning from service. He then stated that he has not made any complaint to
any authority stating that the resignation letter was obtained by exercising force or threat. Apart from this is the fact that
after submitting his letter of resignation he has handed over the key of the residential quarters that was occupied by him.
He has stated that this was done on the basis of Ext.W13-the resignation letter, His act of vacating the quarters would
reveal that he had submitted letter of resignation voluntarily and it was consequently he had vacated the quarters. The
petitioner having admitted that he has given a resignation letter, the burden is heavy upon him to establish that the
resignation letter was obtained from him by force. There is only the oral version given by the petitioner in this respect
and that is very vague and unacceptable. It is clear from the fact that the petitioner has vacated the quarters consequent to
his resignation letter that his resignation was accepted by the Second Respondent. So his case that the resignation was
not accepted also has no basis The Claim Petition seems to be the result of an afterthought. The petitioner is not entitled
to any relief.
In the result the petition is dismissed. An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 14th January, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
WW1, Sri M. Arumugam
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Management
:
None
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
11.03.2000
Appointment Order
Ext.W2
11.02.2000
Extension of Service
Ext.W3
26.03.2010
Extension of Service
Ext.W4
25.08.2010
Office Order
Ext.W5
13.09.2010
Allotment of Quarters
Ext.W6
16.09.2010
Extension of Service
Ext.W7
14.02.2011
Certificate
Ext.W8
07.03.2011
Extension of Service
Ext.W9
06.09.2011
Extension of Service
Ext.W10
20.03.2012
Extension of Service
Ext.W11
24.09.2012
Extension of Service
Ext.W12
12.03.2013
Extension of Service
Ext.W13
24.09.2013
Resignation letter
Ext.W14
June 2011
Attendance Register from month of June 2011 to April 2013
To
April 2013
Ext.W15
-
Proof of Salary State Bank of India Statement
Ext.W16
23.09.2014
Failure Report, CLC, Chennai-600006
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2023
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-902-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 66@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@21@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O.902.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.05.2016.
[No. L-12011/21/2015-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Tuesday, the 16th February, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 66/2015
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Indian Bank Employees Union
No. 6, Moore Street, Mannady Corner
Chennai-600001
AND
The Zonal Manager
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Indian Bank, Zonal Office
T.K.M. Complex, 46-51, Katpadi Road
Vellore-632004
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
Sri J. Thomas Jeyaprabhakaran, Authorized Representative
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
:
M/s Aiyar & Dolia, Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, vide its Order No. L-12011/21/2015-IR (B.II)
dated 13.05.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The Schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank, Chennai regarding imposing of punishment of
“Reduction of pay by two stages in time scale of pay” on the employee Sri D. Pandian is justifiable or not? If
not so, to what relief Sri D. Pandian is entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 66/2015 and issued notices to both
sides. The petitioner has entered appearance through Authorized Representative and the Respondent through counsel and
filed their Claim and Counter Statement respectively. The petitioner filed a rejoinder in reply to the Counter Statement.
3.
The dispute has reached the stage of enquiry and the petitioner has marked documents produced on its side,
with consent from the Respondent. The case was posted for Respondent’s evidence. At this stage, the petitioner has
made an endorsement that the workman concerned on whose behalf the dispute was raised does not want to pursue the
2024
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
matter and therefore the Petitioner Union is not proceeding with the same. What is to be followed on account of this is
an award against the petitioner.
4.
In view of the above situation the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 16th February, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-903-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vka/zk cSad ds izca/ra=k
ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 15@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@106@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O.903.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.05.2016.
[No. L-12011/106/2015-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Thursday, the 7th April, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 15/2016
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Andhra Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Andhra Bank Employees Union
No. 227, Angappa Naichen Street
Chennai-600001
AND
1.
The Branch Manager
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
Andhra Bank, Namakkal Branch
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2025
No. 6/1168A, Paramathi Road
Namakkal-637001
2.
The Zonal Manager
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Andhra Bank, Zonal Office
168, Linghi Chetty Street
Chennai-600001
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
Sri K. Thamaraiselvan, General Secretary
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Party Management
:
In Person
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/106/2015-IR (B.II)
dated 01.03.2016 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the demand of the Union in seeking regularization of the services of Sri Mani at Namakkal Branch
by the Management of Andhra Bank is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 15/2016 and issued notice to both sides.
The petitioner has directly entered appearance on receipt of notice.
3.
The General Secretary of the Petitioner Union has filed a memo stating that the Union and the Respondent
Bank have been discussing the issues and that there will be positive decision regarding the dispute shortly. It is further
stated in the memo that the dispute is not being pressed for the above reason. The ID is to be decided against the
petitioner in the circumstances.
Therefore, reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 7th April, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/1st and 2nd Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-904-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vka/zk cSad ds izca/ra=k
ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 13@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@103@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
2026
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O.904.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.05.2016.
[No. L-12011/103/2015-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Thursday, the 7th April, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 13/2016
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Andhra Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Andhra Bank Employees Union
No. 227, Angappa Naichen Street
Chennai-600001
AND
1.
The Branch Manager
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
Andhra Bank,
No. 262, Arakkonam Branch
Arakkonam-631001
2.
The Zonal Manager
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Andhra Bank, Zonal Office
168, Linghi Chetty Street
Chennai-600001
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
Sri K. Thamaraiselvan, General Secretary
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Management
:
In Person
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/103/2015-IR (B.II)
dated 26.02.2016 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The Schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the demand of the Union in seeking regularization of the services of Sri Nandakumar at Arakkonam
Branch by the Management of Andhra Bank is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman
entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 13/2016 and issued notice to both sides.
The petitioner has directly entered appearance on receipt of notice.
3.
The General Secretary of the Petitioner Union has filed a memo stating that the Union and the Respondent
Bank have been discussing the issues and that there will be positive decision regarding the dispute shortly. It is further
stated in the memo that the dispute is not being pressed for the above reason. The ID is to be decided against the
petitioner in the circumstances.
Therefore, reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 7th April, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2027
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/1st and 2nd Party Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-905-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 64@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@19@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O.905.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 64/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.05.2016.
[No. L-12011/19/2015-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Tuesday, the 29th March, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 64/2015
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Indian Bank Employees Union
No. 6, Moore Street, Mannady Street
Chennai-600001
AND
The Zonal Manager
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Indian Bank, Zonal Office
T.K.M. Complex, 46-51, Katpadi Road
Vellore-632004
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
Sri J. Thomas Jeyaprabhakaran, Authorized Representative
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
:
M/s. Aiyar & Dolia, Advocates
2028
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/19/2015-IR (B.II)
dated 13.05.2015 referred the Industrial Dispute between the above referred parties for adjudication.
The Schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the Management of the Indian Bank regarding imposing the punishment of “be
compulsorily retired with superannuation benefits” on Sri S. Sunder is justifiable or not? If not, to what relief
Sri Sunder is entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 64/2015 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel and filed their Claim and Counter Statement
respectively. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder in answer to the Counter Statement.
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:
The dispute is raised on behalf of S. Sunder who had joined the services of the Respondent Bank as Sub-Staff
on 03.11.1995. Sunder was promoted as Clerk in the year 2005. While he was working at Microsate Branch, Vellore as
Clerk/Shroff he was issued with Charge Sheet dated 14.03.2012 alleging misappropriation of Bank’s money to the
extent of Rs. 500/- and also another charge that he was negligent in handling cash. Sunder was placed under suspension
and an enquiry was conducted against him. On the basis of the enquiry report the punishment of Compulsory Retirement
from Service with superannuation benefits was imposed on him. The appeal filed by the employee was not considered
and the punishment was confirmed. The dispute is raised accordingly. The action of the Respondent in imposing the
punishment of Compulsory Retirement on Sri Sunder is illegal and unjustified. Sri Sunder had not misappropriated any
amount. He had no mala fide intention of misappropriation of any amount also. An order may be passed directing the
Respondent to reinstate Sunder in service with backwages and other attendant benefits.
4.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:
The contention in the Claim Statement that there was no mensrea in removing the Rs. 500/- note is an
afterthought. The concerned employee has not been able to justify his action in removing the note. The concerned
employee had entered the cash counter of another employee without any reason. He is prohibited from entering into
another cash counter unless called upon by the employee manning the cash counter. The employee himself has admitted
his lapses. He is not entitled to any relief.
5.
The petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter Statement.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W18.
6.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the action of the Respondent in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement with
superannuation benefits on Sri S. Sunder is justified?
(ii)
If not, what if any is the relief to which the employee is entitled?
The Points
7.
S. Sunder on whose behalf the dispute is raised was working as Clerk/Shroff at Microsate Vellore Branch of the
Respondent Bank at the time when charge sheet on the basis of which an enquiry was conducted and the punishment of
compulsory retirement from service with superannuation benefits was imposed on him was served on him. As per
Ext.W1 the charge sheet dated 14.03.2012, the first charge against Sunder is that on 13.02.2012 he entered the cash
cabin of Valarmathi, the main Cashier of Microsate Vellore Branch and removed a note of Rs. 500/- denomination from
a Rs. 500/- section kept behind the Cashier and he did so with the intention of making unfair personal gain. The second
charge consists of two limbs. The first part of the charge is that on one occasion on counting the cash handed over to
Valarmathi it was found short of a section of Rs. 500/- and on hectic search it was later traced at the cash counter of
Sunder. The second part of the charge is that on another occasion there was a shortage of Rs. 2,000/- in the cash handed
over by him to Valarmathi on final closing and the amount was traced in the cash counter drawer of Sunder. These two
incidents are said to have caused a lot of tension to the other staff members. As per the charge, the acts of Sunder
amounted to doing acts prejudicial to the interests of the Bank, gross misconducts under Clause-5(j) of the Memorandum
of Settlement on Disciplinary Action and Procedure.
8.
Ext.W2 is the reply given by the concerned employee to the Charge Memo. The employee has admitted in the
reply that the incidents detailed in the Charge Memo had taken place. He has also tried to detail the circumstances under
which the incident on 13.02.2012 has taken place. He has stated in his reply that his colleague, Valarmathi was in the
habit of leaving the cash cabin unlocked exposing the cash inside and her person to grave risk. He had told Valarmathi
that it is not desirable to leave the cash cabin unlocked even when she remained inside. According to him, on 13.02.2012
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2029
Valarmathi had kept the cabin unlocked. When she was going through some record, to make her realize the seriousness
and grave consequences of not locking the cash cabin, he had entered the cabin to warn her. She did not even notice his
entry. She had left a section of Rs. 500/- note on the cash box placed behind her. To make her realize that it was not
proper he had removed one piece of Rs. 500/- note from the section kept on the cash box. He had dropped the piece so
removed behind the counting machine so that it could be located without difficulty subsequently. Regarding the second
charge, he had stated that he used to handle 150 to 200 transactions a day and during such heavy transactions shortages
may occur and the two occasions of the shortage referred to in the second charge were not intentional.
9.
During enquiry the concerned employee had pleaded not guilty of the charges against him. The Enquiry Officer
had examined four witnesses including Valarmathy. He had entered a finding that the charges are proved. Consequently,
the Disciplinary Authority had imposed the punishment of Compulsory Retirement with superannuation benefits on the
employee.
10.
As could be seen, the incidents referred to in the charge sheet are not denied by the concerned employee. The
argument that is advanced before me on behalf of the employee is that there was no mal-intention on his part in his act of
13.02.2012 and it could not be stated that he had done the act with the intention of making unfair personal gain. The
Disciplinary Authority has found that the offence committed by the concerned employee is one involving moral
turpitude and he is not entitled to continue in service.
11.
It is argued on behalf of the concerned employee that if personal gain was his intention his act would not have
been in the manner in which it was done. It is apparent from the very charge and also from the evidence in the enquiry
proceedings that the concerned employee had entered the cash counter of Valarmathi while she was at the counter.
Even as seen from her evidence, she was keeping cash in the cash box which was kept at the right side of the counter.
Thus it is clear that in the cash box Valarmathi had placed a considerable amount, in all probability several sections of
notes. The concerned employee had removed just a single piece of Rs. 500/- denomination from a section that was kept
on the cash box. If his intention was to make unfair gain it was easy for him to remove the entire section itself. Apart
from this, it is very much unlikely that the concerned employee would have dared to do such a thing with unfair
intention while the CCTV was working to his knowledge. It was on playing the CCTV as requested by Valarmathi to the
Manager that the details of the incident has been revealed. The concerned employee seems to have entered the cabin of
Valarmathi on more than one occasion. He was able to remove one piece of note from a section without being noticed by
Valarmathi. The concerned employee must have been very much aware that all his actions will be recorded by the
CCTV and all just for a single note of Rs. 500/- denomination. The concerned employee had joined the Bank in 1995,
had worked as Sub-Staff for several years and had been promoted as Clerk in 2005. He had worked as a Clerk upto 2013
without any complaint. His wife is a teacher in Tamil Nadu Government Service. Thus he seems to be financial sound.
The concerned employee could not have been foolish enough to do such an act for gain of just Rs. 500/- in the
circumstances.
12.
It is seen from the evidence during enquiry that Valarmathi used to hand over cash to the concerned employee
for counting. The counters of Valarmathi and the concerned employee are not adjacent to each other but separated and at
some distance. Valarmathi could not see the counting process carried out by the concerned employee. Even on the date
of the incident she had entrusted him with the task of some counting. So it is clear that the concerned employee was
beyond any suspicion.
13.
The reply to the charge sheet was given by the concerned employee on 04.04.2012. Even at the beginning of the
proceedings, in the reply itself the concerned employee had stated under what circumstances the incident had occurred.
It is unlikely that the intention was to make unlawful gain. It is true that the note that was removed was dropped by the
employee at the counter of Valarmathi itself without informing her that he had removed the note and this is the reason
for shortage in the cash of the day. As pointed out at the time of the argument the employee panicked when shortage was
reported and it is accordingly he is said to have dropped the note back at the counter rather than telling the main Cashier
about what had happened immediately. I am not able to decipher any malafide intention or mensrea in the act of the
employee. Regarding the second charge, the shortages referred to in the charge occurred probably out of negligence.
Apparently, it was not taken as serious at the time when those happened. Only after the incident on 13.02.2012 these
were even reported by the Main Cashier. The concerned employee had admitted them also in spite of the fact that he
could have denied them and easily escaped the charge.
14.
No doubt, the act committed by the employee is an offence. He had no business to take the extreme step of
removing a currency note from the counter of the Main Cashier to tell her that she should be more cautious and vigilant
while sitting in the cash counter. However, his act was never for unlawful gain. So he did not deserve to be visited with
the extreme punishment of Compulsory Retirement from service. He was not dishonest in his intentions. His act did not
cause any prejudice to the Bank. There is no case for the Bank that he was earlier involved in any misconducts. In this
background the punishment imposed on the concerned employee has to be modified to a lesser punishment
2030
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
commensurate with the nature of the misconduct committed by him. The punishment of bringing down to the next lower
stage will be sufficient.
15.
On the basis of my above discussion, an award is passed as below:
(i)
The punishment of Compulsory Retirement from service imposed on the concerned employee is set
aside.
(ii)
The employee shall be reinstated in service within one month of publication of award.
(iii)
The employee shall be brought down to next lower stage in the scale of pay.
(iv)
The employee will be entitled to all the backwages in the lower stage in the scale of pay with all
other benefits, payable to him within one month of publication of award, in default of which interest
@ 7.5% per annum is payable.
The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 29th March, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
WW1, Sri S. Sunder
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
14.03.2012
Charge Sheet issued to the employee
Ext.W2
04.04.2012
Reply in defence
Ext.W3
18.09.2012 and
Proceedings of the enquiry
10.10.2012
Ext.W4
15.02.2012
Letter of L. Valarmathi
Ext.W5
15.02.2012
Letter of Branch Manager to ZO, Vellore
Ext.W6
17.02.2012
Investigation Report of Mr. Kalyanaraman alongwith enclosures
Ext.W7
31.10.2012
Presenting Officers’ brief
Ext.W8
19.11.2012
Defence Summing up
Ext.W9
26.12.2012
Enquiry Officer’s findings
Ext.W10
09.01.2013
Comments on Enquiry Officer’s findings
Ext.W11
16.02.2013
Second Show Cause Notice
Ext.W12
26.02.2013
Reply to Second Show Cause Notice
Ext.W13
09.03.2013
Orders of the Disciplinary Authority
Ext.W14
02.04.2013
Appeal to the Appellate Authority
Ext.W15
01.07.2013
Speaking orders of the Appellate Authority
Ext.W16
01.08.2014
Dispute under Section-2A of ID Act
Ext.W17
03.02.2015
Counter to the dispute
Ext.W18
12.02.2015
Rejoinder to the Counter
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2031
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-906-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 68@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@107@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016
S.O.906 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 68/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.05.2016.
[No. L-12011/107/2014-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Tuesday, the 29th March, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 68/2015
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Indian Bank Employees Union
No. 6, Moore Street, Mannady Street
Chennai-600001
AND
The Zonal Manager
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Indian Bank, Zonal Office
4, Bharathi Road
Cuddalore-632004
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
Sri J. Thomas Jeyaprabhakaran, Authorized Representative
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
:
M/s Aiyar & Dolia, Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/107/2014-IR (B.II) dated
15.05.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the action of the Management/Zonal Manager, Indian Bank in extending the probation period of Sri
S.P. Vinod Kumar, Clerk, Indian Bank, Lalpet Branch was fair, legal and justified? If not so, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 68/2015 and issued notices to both
sides. The First Party entered appearance through Authorized Representative and the Second Party through their counsel
and filed Claim and Counter statement respectively. The First Party has filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter
Statement.
2032
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:
Vinod Kumar, a member of the Petitioner Union joined the services of the Respondent Bank on 24.06.2013 as
Clerk. Vinod Kumar was put on probation for a period of six months in terms of the Bipartite Settlement governing the
service conditions of the Clerical employees. As per the terms of the Bipartite Settlement, Vinod Kumar should have
been confirmed in the services of the Bank on 24.12.2013. Rather than confirming him in service he was served with a
letter dated 21.12.2013 intimating him that his probation period is extended by three months due to his “below
satisfactory performance”. The letter was served on him on 26.12.2013. Alongwith the extension of the probation
period the employee was transferred to Lalpet Branch of the Bank also and he joined the Branch on 07.01.2014. As per
the Shastri Award probation period can be extended by three months with due notice in writing on obtaining consent.
Guidelines were issued by the Personnel Department of the Respondent Bank regarding extension of probation, in tune
with the Shastri Award. As per the guidelines, the performance of the employee is to be monitored for a period of two
months and the Officers under whom the employee is working should make a report of the same. On the basis of the
report the deficiencies are to be pointed out to the employee and he should be advised to show improvement in his
performance. This is to be done in the presence of the concerned Officers and is to be noted in the Manager’s diary. If
there is no improvement in the performance in spite of the oral advice, at the end of the third month, a letter is to be
issued to the probationer pointing out his deficiencies and advising him to show improvement. If there is no
improvement in the performance of the petitioner even at the end of the fourth month the confidential report about the
probationer is to be sent to the competent authority. These guidelines were not complied with while extending the
probation of Vinod Kumar. The Manager of Kattumannarkoil Branch where Vinod Kumar was working was harassing
him. The Lalpet Branch Manager did not find anything adverse with the performance of Vinod Kumar. Vinod Kumar
was confirmed in service on 24.03.2014 on the basis of the report of Lalpet Branch Manager. The Petitioner Union has
requested the Management to confirm Vinod Kumar in service as on the original due date of confirmation but there was
no response from the Respondent. The Industrial Dispute is raised accordingly. An award may be passed directing the
Respondent to confirm the service of Vinod Kumar from the original due date of confirmation and retransfer him to
Kattumannarkoil Branch.
4.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:
The dispute does not fall within the definition of Industrial Dispute. Even as per the Shastri Award relied upon
by the petitioner, the probation period can be extended by three months provided due notice in writing is given to the
employee. The employee Vinod Kumar was informed of his deficiencies in performance of duties orally and he was
counseled by the Branch management to improve his efficiency during probation. In appraisal and review of the
employee’s performance the Branch Manager as well as the Asstt. Branch Manager were of the view that the employee
was slow in his work, not able to complete the task in time, was committing mistakes, was not cooperating with the
superiors and was not cordial in his relationship with his colleagues. The employee’s confirmation while at Lalpet
Branch was after it was observed by the Branch Manager that he required improvement in the areas of discipline,
punctuality and attendance. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
5.
The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the Counter Statement in which he has denied the averments in the
Counter Statement and has also reiterated his case in the Claim Statement.
6.
The evidence in the case consists of documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W8. Oral evidence was not adduced
by either side. The Respondent did not mark any documents on its side also.
7.
The points for consideration are :
(i)
Whether the action of the Respondent in extending the probation period of Vinod Kumar is legal and justified?
(ii)
What if any is the relief to which the employee is entitled?
The Points
8.
The dispute is raised by the Petitioner Union on behalf of Vinod Kumar, a Clerk of the Respondent Bank with
qualifications of B.E., MBA (Finance) and MBA (HR). He had joined the Bank as a Clerk on 24.06.2013 and was put
under probation for a period of six months. At the fag end of the period of probation, he received a letter from the Bank
extending his probation for three more months. Ext.W1 is the letter dated 21.12.2013. In the normal course the period of
six months of probation should have been over by 24.12.2013 and he should have been confirmed in service on that date.
According to the petitioner, Vinod Kumar received the letter extending his period of probation only on 26.12.2013
though the date shown in the letter is 21.12.2013. Alongwith the order extending probation the employee was transferred
to another branch of the Bank also. Ext.W2 is the copy of the order relieving Vinod Kumar from Kattumannarkoil
Branch for allowing him to join Lalpet Branch to which he was transferred. The employee is aggrieved that his period
of probation is extended only to harass him and victimize him by the Branch Manager and that the extension was not in
compliance with the Shastri Award nor in accordance with the guidelines given by the Human Resources Department of
the Bank regarding extension of probation.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2033
9.
Ext.W2 is the letter dated 07.01.2014 written by the concerned employee to the Deputy General Manager of the
Zonal Office of the Bank alleging that his probation period was extended on frivolous grounds. Ext.W5 is the letter by
the Petitioner Union to the Zonal Manager requesting to confirm the services of Vinod Kumar with retrospective effect
without extending the period of probation. In the meanwhile, by Ext.W4 order the Bank has confirmed the services of
Vinod Kumar on 24.03.2014.
10.
The case of the Respondent in the Counter Statement is that the probation period of Vinod Kumar was extended
for sufficient reasons. It is stated in the Counter Statement that the concerned employee was slow in his work, was
committing mistakes, was not cooperating with his superiors, was not having cordial relationship with his colleagues,
etc. as the reason for extending the period of probation.
11.
The petitioner has extracted the relevant portions of the Shastri Award and also the guidelines regarding
extension of probation, in the Claim Statement. The authenticity of these are not disputed by the Respondent. the
Respondent has stated in the Counter Statement that even as per Shastri Award the Bank is entitled to extend the period
of probation by three months if due notice is given in writing to the employee. The Counter Statement does not refer to
the guidelines of the Bank as a pre-requisite for extension of probation. As per the Shastri Award the period of probation
of an employee is six months and in case of persons whose work is not satisfactory during the period but who are likely
to improve and give satisfaction if a further opportunity is given to them the period may be extended for three months
provided due notice in writing is given to them and their consent in writing is obtained before extension of their period
of probation. In all other cases after expiry of the period of six months probationers should be deemed to have been
confirmed unless their services are dispensed with on or before the period of probation.
12.
The guidelines formed by the Bank in 1983 for extension of probation of its staff members elaborates the matter
and gives further indications on how it is to be given. The conduct and performance of the probationer is to be closely
monitored for a period of two months. His performance is to be ascertained from the Officers under whom the
probationer is working. If the reports of the probationer are adverse the probationer is to be called, his deficiencies
should be pointed out and he should be advised to show improvement in his performance. This is to be done in the
presence of the concerned Officers and the same is to be noted in the Manager’s diary. If there is no improvement in the
performance and conduct of the probationer at the end of the third month in spite of the oral advice, a letter is to be
issued to the probationer pointing out his deficiencies and advising him to show improvement. Such letter is to be
delivered under the acknowledgement of the probationer and a copy of the letter is to be marked to the Zonal Office, C/o
Personnel Department. If there is no improvement in the performance of the probationer even at the end of the fourth
month, a confidential report about the probationer pointing out the deficiencies should be sent to the competent
authority. The reporting authority should also specifically report whether there is any possibility of the probationer
improving his performance in case the period of probation is extended.
13.
There is no case for the Respondent nor any documents produced to show that the guidelines referred to above
have been complied with in extending the period of probation of Vinod Kumar. There is of course the statement in the
Counter Statement that he was orally advised of his deficiencies in performance and he was counseled by the Branch
Management. The Counter Statement alleges that the concerned employee was slow in work, he was committing
mistakes, not cooperating with his superiors, etc. However, before extending the period of probation the guidelines
regarding extension of the period of probation should have been complied with. There is no evidence or even a case for
the Respondent that performance of the concerned employee was assessed for the first two months, his deficiencies were
pointed out in the presence of the concerned Officers and this was noted in the Manager’s diary. There is no case also
that at the end of the third month of the period of probation a letter was issued to the concerned employee pointing out
his deficiencies and advising him to show improvement. There is no case that a confidential report was sent to the
competent authorities pointing out the deficiencies at the end of the fourth month of probation. What the Respondent has
done was to send a letter to the concerned employee at the fag end of the probation period stating that he needs
improvement in the areas such as job knowledge and intelligence, job performance, work commitment, ability of
performance under pressure, relation with customers and discipline and punctuality and creativity. The letter marked as
Ext.W1 dated 21.12.2013 is said to have been received by the employee on 26.12.2013 after expiry of the period of six
months which is the period of probation. The Respondent has not produced any document to show that the letter of
extension was served on the employee at least prior to the expiry of the period of probation. So it is clear that there was
no compliance with the guidelines of the Respondent itself while extending the period of probation. It is only natural that
the concerned employee who is more qualified, but was forced to join the service of the Respondent probably in
particular circumstances was aggrieved by the treatment meted out at the hands of the Bank. The Bank should be more
compassionate to the beginners in its service. There was no justification for the extension for the period of probation of
the concerned employee. He should be deemed to have been confirmed in service on the original due date of
confirmation.
14.
Apart from the prayer for confirmation in service on the original due date, there is also a prayer in the Claim
Statement that the employee should be re-transferred to the branch in which he was originally working. However, this is
2034
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
not a subject of reference. Even otherwise the petitioner has not justified its stand for re-transfer of the employee. So this
prayer could not be allowed.
In view of my discussion above an award is passed as below:
Vinod Kumar, the concerned employee of the Respondent Bank is deemed to have been confirmed in
service on 24.12.2013, the date on which the six months period of probation expired.
The reference is thus answered in favour of the petitioner.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 29th March, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
27.12.2013
Letter addressed to Mr. S.T. Vinod Kumar
Ext.W2
04.01.2014
Relieving letter of Mr. S.T. Vinod Kumar
Ext.W3
07.01.2014
Letter from S.T. Vinod Kumar to Zonal Office, Cuddalore
Ext.W4
24.03.2014
Confirmation letter of Mr. S.T. Vinod Kumar
Ext.W5
10.04.2014
Letter addressed to Zonal Office, Cuddalore
Ext.W6
15.05.2014
Letter addressed to ALC (C), Chennai raising the ID
Ext.W7
24.05.2014
Counter reply given by the Respondent Bank
Ext.W8
19.06.2014
Rejoinder submitted to the Counter
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 4 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-907-—jk"Vªifr] Jh jatu dqekj lju] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je
U;k;ky;] /kuckn&I dks lkSais x, dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] /kuckn&AA ds ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
dk vfrfjDr izHkkj dh vof/k dks fnukad 01-04-2016 ls Ng ekg ls vkxs dh vof/k vFkok fu;fer in/kkjh ds in xzg.k djus
dh frfFk rd vFkok vxys vkns’kksa rd] buesa tks Hkh igys gks] dh vof/k rd c<+krs gSaA
[la- ,&11016@03@2009&lh,y,l &II]
,l- ds- ¯lg] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2016
S.O. 907.—The President is pleased to extend the period of additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer of
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad-II entrusted to Shri Ranjan Kumar Saran,
Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad-I for a further period of 06
months with effect from 01.04.2016, or till the date of joining of regular incumbent on the post, or until further orders,
whichever is the earliest.
[No. A-11016/03/2009-CLS-II]
S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2035
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-908-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ
=kkoudksj 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] v:ukdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 47@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@292@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]
j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2016
S.O. 908.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47/2015) of the Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of State Bank of Travancore and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
05.05.2016.
[No. L-12012/292/2001-IR (B-I)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri. K. Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer
(Thursday the 31st day of March, 2016/11th Chaitra, 1938)
ID 47/2015
(Formerly ID No.88/2001 of Industrial Tribunal, Kollam)
Workman
:
Shri George Varghese,
Palackasseril House,
Kalathookadavu,
Erattupetta,
Kottayam District,
Kerala State.
By Adv. Shri Ashok B. Shenoy
Management
:
The Deputy General Manager,
State Bank of Tranvancore,
Zonal Office, Padinjarekkara Chambers,
Collectorate,
P.O. Kottayan-2,
Kerala State.
By Adv. Shri C. Anilkumar
This case coming up for final hearing on 15.03.2016 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 31.03.2016 passed
the following:
AWARD
This is a dispute referred by the Central Government as per clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A)
of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947).
2.
The dispute referred for adjudication is:
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Travancore, Erattupetta branch in imposing
punishment of dismissal from service of the Bank with immediate effect on Shri George Varghese,
Clerk/Cashier by their order dated 24-7-2000 is justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned is
entitled?”
2036
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
The dispute was originally referred before the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam vide reference order No.L-
12012/292/2001-IR(B-I) dated 07.12.2001, for adjudication. As per the judgment in WP(C) No.18044/2004 dated
27.02.2015, passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, the matter was transferred to this Court for adjudication. After
the receipt of copy of the judgment in WP(C) No.18044/2004 of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, and after the receipt
of the case records from the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam, notice was issued to the parties to appear before this Tribunal.
On receipt of the notice the workman and the management entered appearance through counsel. The parties had
submitted their pleadings before the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam.
4.
The contentions in the claim statement filed by the workman in brief are as follows:
While the workman was employed as clerk/cashier at the Erattupetta branch of the management bank, the
management issued a memo on 09.12.1998 calling upon him to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be
initiated against him for the alleged acts of lapses involving misappropriation and falsification of records in certain
accounts maintained at Erattupetta branch. The workman submitted explanation on 16.01.1999 denying the allegations
levelled against him. He has explained the true facts and circumstances and pointed out that he has not been provided
with copy of the investigation report, based on which the management has issued the memo.
5.
The management bank issued a charge sheet dated 12.02.1999 to the workman alleging three different
allegations and misconducts under clauses 19.5(d) and 19.5(j) of the First Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966
prevalent in the banking industry and governing the procedure for disciplinary proceedings in the management bank and
other banking institutions. The workman submitted an explanation on 13.03.1999 explaining the circumstances and
denying the allegations levelled against him. Without considering the explanation submitted by the workman, the
disciplinary authority of the management bank ordered an enquiry to be conducted in accordance with the
procedure in the Bipartite Settlement. They appointed Shri N. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Chief Manager(Advances) of
Kottayam Regional Office of the management bank as enquiry officer and Shri R. Mahadevan, Deputy
Manager(Advances) of Changanacherry branch of the management bank as presenting officer. In the enquiry the
workman was represented by Shri John Philipose, Special Assistant, Kozhencherry branch of the management bank.
The enquiry officer commenced the enquiry on 29.04.1999 and concluded it on 29.10.1999. The enquiry was held in an
unfair and unjust manner and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The findings of the enquiry officer dated
26.02.2000 is to the effect that the workman is guilty of charge Nos.1 & 3 in the charge sheet. The enquiry officer has
exonerated the workman in respect of charge No.2. Subsequently, the disciplinary authority served a preliminary order
dated 09.05.2000 to the workman concurring with the findings of the enquiry officer. They proposed to impose the
punishment of ‘dismissal from services of the bank with immediate effect’ on the workman. They also proposed that the
workman will not be eligible for any other terminal benefits except his own contribution to the Employees’ Provident
Fund. After affording an opportunity of personal hearing as regards the proposed punishment, the disciplinary authority
as per final order dated 24.07.2000 confirmed the proposed punishment without considering the submission and
representation made by the workman.
6.
The workman preferred an appeal before the appellate authority of the management bank on 06.09.2000. The
appellate authority rejected the appeal filed by the workman.
7.
The entire disciplinary proceedings against the workman is vitiated for the reason that the decision is biased.
The punishment imposed by the management is illegal, bad and lacking in material particulars. The workman was not
afforded reasonable opportunity to defend his case during the enquiry. Moreover the workman was not allowed to
peruse the documents relied on by the management. They did not allow the workman to go through the relevant
documents pertaining to the charges and take notes from it. They have not provided a copy of the investigation report
prepared by the Regional Office of the management bank, Kottayam. Before submitting explanation to the memo, they
have not afforded opportunity to the workman to go through those documents. The enquiry officer marked the
documents produced on the side of the management without proper identification and proof. The punishment imposed
on the workman is erroneous, against facts, circumstances and evidence on record and probabilities of the case. The
management failed to prove that the workman has committed gross misconduct as alleged by them. The punishment of
dismissal from service imposed on the workman is illegal and void. The workman has requested to declare that the
punishment of dismissal from service of the bank with immediate effect by the management as illegal and unjust and to
reinstate him with full back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits and such other relief as the
Tribunal deems fit, just and proper.
8.
The contentions in the written statement filed by the management in brief are as follows:
They have denied all the averments in the claim statement filed by the workman. It is true that the management
issued a memo dated 09.12.1998 to the delinquent workman calling for his explanation as to why disciplinary action
should not be initiated against him for serious allegations involving misappropriation of money and falsification of
records in certain accounts. The workman submitted a reply dated 16.01.1999 denying the allegations. The
investigation conducted by the Regional Office is internal communication for the subjective satisfaction of the
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2037
disciplinary authority so as to enable him to issue a memo or show cause notice. Copies of all those documents need not
be issued to the delinquent workman for the reason that the allegations are explained in the memo. The explanation
dated 16.01.1999 submitted by the workman was unsatisfactory. Therefore the management issued a charge sheet dated
12.02.1999 alleging the following charges against him:
“(i)
On 02.09.1998, while you were in charge of the cash receipts counter at the branch, Sri. T. Jijimon,
PMRY borrower remitted an amount of Rs.1,400/- for credit of his MTL account No.21/97-98 with the
branch along with the cash remittance slip and the relative pass book of the loan account and you
received the amount. You yourself posted this amount of Rs.1,400/- in the pass book and the loan
account in the ledger entering the date in both as 12.9.98, instead of the correct date of 2.9.98. You
managed to get the entries authenticated by the Branch Manager and the pass book was handed over to
the borrower. But the remittance was not got entered in the cash receipts scrolls and as such was not
accounted for at the branch on that date. Thus the money remitted by the customer on 2.9.98 was
misappropriated by you for your personal gains by-passing the Bank’s instructions for handling of
cash remittances received at Bank’s branches.
(ii)
At the time of quarterly balancing of the MTL account as on 25.9.98, when a difference of Rs.1,400
was located by the concerned officials, between the general ledger account and the sum of balances
taken from the ledger, you have influenced the officer to strike off the entry of Rs.1,400 posted by you
in the account on 2.9.98 dated as 12.9.98 to cover up the misappropriation perpetrated by you. It is
also seen that as per the branch records there is no such cash remittance for the credit of this account
on 12.9.98, as posted by you in the pass book and in the loan account. The aforesaid act on your part
is intended to camouflage the misappropriated item. This is a clear case of falsification of the records
of the Bank with fraudulent intention on your part.
(iii)
You have misappropriated an amount of Rs.500/- from an amount of Rs.1,500/- handed over to you by
Sri. Saji, proprietor of Madonna Ladies Centre on 22.9.98 for remitting in his cash credit account with
the branch. You have remitted only Rs.1,000/- in the cash counter, but you posted the entire amount
of Rs.1,500/- in the pass book of the borrower, even though the relative credit voucher and the credit
entry in the account were only for Rs.1000/-. By making the wrong credit entry in the pass book you
made the borrower believe that the Bank has accounted for the whole amount of Rs.1500/- as revealed
by his pass book which did not create any doubt in his mind to think otherwise. However,
subsequently an amount of Rs.500/- was remitted by you on 3.10.98 to this account, which was not
posted in the pass book. Thus you misappropriated fraudulently this amount of Rs.500/- for 11 days
by making the borrower believe that the amount of Rs.1,500/- was accounted and credited to his
account on 22.9.98 itself, whereas it was credited in two instalments i.e., Rs.1,000/- on 22.9.98 and
Rs.500/- on 3.10.98. The customer was also defrauded with falsified entries in the pass book. The
entries in respect of both the remittances were made by you in your own handwriting and authenticated
by forged initials of some other person purported to be an authorized official of the branch. In fact,
such an initial does not belong to any authorized supervisory official of the branch. In fact, such an
initial does not belong to any authorized supervisory official of the branch and it is an imaginary initial
invented by you for the fraudulent purpose of making the borrower believe that entry in pass book as
correct.”
9.
The explanation submitted by the workman was not satisfactory. Hence the management ordered departmental
enquiry and appointed Shri N. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Chief Manager(Advances), Zonal Office, Kottayam as the enquiry
officer and Shri R. Mahadevan, Deputy Manager(Advances), Changanacherry main branch as the presenting officer.
Shri John Philipose a representative of SBT Employees Union was allowed to defend the case on behalf of the workman.
The enquiry officer has afforded sufficient opportunity to the workman to substantiate his plea. The enquiry officer has
followed the principles of natural justice while conducting the enquiry. During the enquiry the witnesses on the side of
the management were cross-examined by the defence representative. Moreover two defence witnesses were examined in
the enquiry proceedings. The report was submitted by the enquiry officer after affording sufficient and reasonable
opportunity to the workman to substantiate his contentions.
10.
After obtaining the enquiry report, copy of the same was served on the employee on 10.03.2000 with a request
to submit his comments if any. He has submitted his comments on 18.04.2000. Thereafter the disciplinary authority
issued a preliminary order with the proposed punishment. He has submitted explanation to the preliminary order and the
disciplinary authority allowed him an opportunity of personal hearing and only after that the disciplinary authority
issued the final order dated 24.07.2000 dismissing him from services of the management with immediate effect. Against
that order the workman preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority considered the
contentions and submissions by the workman. The appellate authority concurred with the findings of the
disciplinary authority. The contention of the workman that the enquiry officer has not afforded opportunity to
2038
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
substantiate his contentions is false and incorrect. He has afforded reasonable opportunity to the workman to
substantiate his contentions. Moreover the enquiry officer has followed the principles of natural justice while
conducting the enquiry. The allegation that the enquiry officer has not afforded reasonable opportunity to the workman
to substantiate his contentions, is false and incorrect. The management imposed the punishment in accordance with
clause 19.5 and 19.6 of the First Bipartite Settlement and also under clause 21(iv) of the 6th Bipartite Settlement. The
management has requested to uphold their contentions.
11.
As per the order dated 27.02.2004 passed by the Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal, Kollam; the enquiry conducted by
the management was held to be vitiated. Against that finding the management preferred WP(C) No.18044/2004 before
the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam. As per the judgment in that Writ Petition dated 27.02.2015 the Hon’ble
High Court held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management is valid. The Hon’ble High Court has further
observed that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court shall de hors all the observations made on
merits in the preliminary order, consider the issue on merits afresh. It is also observed by the Hon’ble High Court that
the sustainability of the charges have to be looked into by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Ernakulam.
12.
After the appearance of the parties through counsel before this Tribunal, the parties have not adduced any
additional evidence. Before the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam Ext.M1 file was marked as agreed by the parties. No oral
evidence was adduced by both sides. Heard both side.
13.
The points arising for consideration are:
“(i)
Whether the management has succeeded in proving the charges levelled against the workman as per
the charge sheet dated 12.02.1999?
(ii)
Whether the punishment imposed by the management is illegal and unjust?
(iii)
Whether the punishment imposed by the management is excessive and disproportionate to the charges
levelled against the workman?
(iv)
Relief and cost.
14.
Point No.(i):- The workman involved in this reference namely Shri George Varghese was employed as a
clerk/cashier at the Erattupetta branch of the State Bank of Travancore. On 09.12.1998 the management bank issued a
memo calling upon him to submit explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for
certain acts of lapses involving misappropriation and falsification of records in certain accounts maintained at the
Erattupetta branch of the management bank. The workman has stated that he has submitted an explanation on
16.01.1999 denying the allegations. According to the workman he has explained the facts and circumstances leading to
the issuance of charge memo. The workman has stated that he has not been provided with a copy of the investigation
report, based on which the management proceeded against him. It is stated that the management issued charge sheet
dated 12.02.1999 alleging misconducts under clauses 19.5(d) and 19.5(j) of the First Bipartite Settlement dated
19.10.1966 governing the procedure for disciplinary proceedings. The workman has stated that he has submitted an
explanation on 13.03.1999 to the charge sheet; denying the charges and allegations.
15.
The management bank appointed an enquiry officer to conduct disciplinary enquiry against the workman.
Shri N. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Chief Manager(Advances) of the Regional Office, Kottayam was appointed as the enquiry
officer and Shri R. Mahadevan, Deputy Manager(Advances) of Changanacherry branch as the presenting officer. The
workman has stated that the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry in an unfair and unjust manner, without affording him
reasonable opportunity to substantiate his contentions and also in violation of the principles of natural justice.
According to the workman the enquiry is vitiated for the reason that he has not been afforded sufficient opportunity to
substantiate his contentions.
16.
After obtaining the enquiry report the management served a copy of the same on the workman to make his
submissions if any. After considering his submissions in the enquiry report the disciplinary authority issued memo to
the workman with the proposed punishment to be imposed and called upon his submissions. The workman has stated
that the disciplinary authority did not consider the submissions and representation made by him and passed an order of
dismissal from the services of the bank with immediate effect and that he shall not be eligible for any other terminal
benefits except his own contribution to the Employees’ Provident Fund. Even though the workman submitted an appeal
before the appellate authority, it was ended in dismissal.
17.
According to the workman the punishment imposed by the management is illegal, unreasonable, unjust,
excessive and disproportionate to the facts and circumstances. He would also state that the management proceeded
against him only on the basis of suspicion, probabilities, surmises and conjectures. At any rate the workman has stated
that the punishment imposed is vague and void. He has stated that the imposition of penalty by way of recovery from
pay, denial of terminal benefits and dismissal from service is violative of clause 19.9 of the First Bipartite Settlement.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2039
The workman has requested to set aside punishment order and to reinstate him with back wages and continuity of
service.
18.
The management has stated that as per the charge sheet dated 12.02.1999 three different sets of imputations
were alleged against the workman. Out of which the enquiry officer has found that the workman is guilty under heads
one and three and that the management bank failed to prove the charge under charge No.2. The charge Nos.1 & 3
levelled against the workman as per the charge memo is of serious nature.
19.
Initially the Industrial Tribunal in Kollam found that the enquiry is vitiated and hence invalid. Against that
decision the management preferred WP(C) No.18044/2004(W) before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam.
As per the judgment dated 27.02.2015 in WP(C) No.18044/2004 the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam set aside
the order passed by the Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal, Kollam. The Hon’ble High Court has held that the domestic
enquiry is conducted in consonance with natural justice and hence it is just and proper. The Hon’ble High Court of
Kerala directed this tribunal to consider the matter afresh on merits. Therefore as it stands now the domestic enquiry
conducted by the management is proved to be valid. Ext.M1 series 4nos. (Three registers and one file) are the
documents produced by the management relating to the enquiry. Page Nos.33 to 37 in Ext.M1 series 4nos.(4) is the
finding of the enquiry officer who conducted the departmental enquiry against the charges levelled against the workman.
The enquiry officer has found that charges 1 & 3 levelled against the workman as per the charge sheet has been proved
beyond doubt. The enquiry officer has observed that as regards charge sheet No.2 the presenting officer has not made
any effort to establish this charge. On the basis of the finding that the workman is guilty in respect of charge Nos.1 & 3
the management issued the punishment. Page No. 45 in Ext. M1 series 4 Nos.(4) reveals the proposed punishment
suggested by the disciplinary authority. The enquiry officer has considered the entries in Ext.PE1 pass book of MTL
A/c No.21/97. Falsification of records in Ext.PE1 document marked in the domestic enquiry and as pointed out by the
enquiry officer in Page No.36 of Ext.M1 series 4nos.(4) reveals that there was a conscious attempt on the part of the
workman to make wrong entries in Ext.PE1 document. Misappropriation of amount by the delinquent employee as
stated in charge No.1 is proved from the entries in Ext.PE1 document marked in the domestic enquiry and the supporting
evidence tendered by the witnesses examined in the enquiry. So also regarding charge No.3 in the charge sheet the
misappropriation of amount by the delinquent workman is proved from the evidence tendered before the enquiry officer.
After the decision of the Hon’ble High Court that the domestic enquiry is valid and not vitiated; neither the workman nor
the management adduced any additional evidence or produced additional documents to substantiate their respective rival
contentions.
20.
The learned counsel for the workman submitted that the entries in Ext.M1 series 4nos.(1) reveals that the
workman has not committed the acts of misconduct as alleged against him. The learned counsel submitted that the
evidence tendered by Shri T. J. Joy as PW2 in the domestic enquiry reveal that he has no knowledge as to who was in-
charge of the Cash section on 02.09.1998. It is further submitted that PW2 examined in the domestic enquiry could not
identify the handwriting of the person who wrote voucher no.6 dated 02.09.1998. It is further submitted that the PW2
has no clear idea as to whether the handwriting in voucher No.6 is that of the workman or not. He could also not
deny the suggestion that the writing is not that of the delinquent workman. The learned counsel for the workman
pointed out the discrepancy in the evidence tendered by the PW2 before the enquiry officer and submitted that the
management failed to prove that the workman was involved in the misappropriation of money and falsification of loans.
21.
The learned counsel for the management submitted that the enquiry officer has considered the contentions
raised by the delinquent workman and verified the entries in the documents marked before the enquiry and also
evaluated the oral evidence tendered by the witnesses examined in the enquiry and came to the conclusion that the
charge nos.1 & 3 stated in the charge sheet have been proved to the hilt. It is submitted that the workman was in-charge
of the Cash receipt counter only on 02.09.1998 and not on 12.09.1998. As per the entry in Ext.PE1 passbook the date of
remittance is noted as 12.09.1998. PW5 examined in the enquiry has stated that he has not remitted any amount on
12.09.1998. According to him the actual remittance was on 02.09.1998. The entries in Ext.PE-1 and PE-2 passbooks
and the corresponding ledger sheets marked in the enquiry proceedings and the evidence tendered by the witnesses
examined by the enquiry officer reveal that there was a conscious attempt on the part of the workman to falsify the
accounts so as to conceal his misdeeds. On going through the evidence tendered by the witnesses before the enquiry
officer and the documents marked in the enquiry it is abundantly clear that the management has succeeded in proving the
charges 1 & 3 as per the charge sheet levelled against the workman. Hence the point for consideration is answered
against the workman and in favour of the management.
22.
Point Nos.(ii) and (iii):- The learned counsel for the workman submitted that the punishment imposed by the
management is illegal, unjust, excessive, exorbitant and disproportionate to the charges levelled against the workman.
In view of the serious nature of the misconduct committed by the workman it cannot be held that the punishment
imposed by the management is excessive and exorbitant. The learned counsel for the management submitted that the
workman committed gross misconduct and hence the punishment imposed by the management is just, proper and in
proportion to misconduct committed by him.
2040
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
23.
The fact that the workman was employed in the management bank for a considerable long period cannot be lost
sight of. Considering the matter in a humanitarian way it may not be just or proper to deny the gratuity amount due to
the workman for the period he was working in the management bank. The denial of the employer’s share of EPF to the
workman is also not just or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
24.
Therefore it is held that the punishment of dismissal from service with immediate effect ordered by the
management is perfectly legal, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Regarding the denial of
gratuity and the employer’s share of EPF to the workman it is held that it is unjust and unfair. The recovery ordered as
per the order of the disciplinary authority will hold good. The points for consideration are answered accordingly.
25.
Point No.(iv):- In view of the finding on Point Nos.(i) to (iii), an award is passed holding that the punishment of
dismissal of the workman from the service with immediate effect, ordered by the management is perfectly just, legal and
proper. The recovery ordered as per the order of the disciplinary authority is also legal and proper. The denial of
gratuity amount and employer’s share of EPF to the workman is found to be unjust, unfair and improper. The workman
is entitled to get the gratuity amount and the employer’s contribution of EPF.
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 31st day
of March, 2016.
SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witness for the workman
- NIL
Witness for the management
- NIL
Exhibit for the workman
- NIL
Exhibit for the management
M1
- Enquiry proceedings in series of 4 nos.
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-909-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj isQMjy cSad fy-
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]
v:ukdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 12@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@46@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]
j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2016
S.O.909.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2011) of the Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of Federal Bank Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.05.2016.
[No. L-12011/46/2010-IR (B-I)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri K. Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer
(Monday the 29th day of February, 2016/10th Phalguna, 1937)
ID 12/2011
Union
:
The General Secretary,
Federal Bank Employees Union,
Central Office,
Aluva,
Kerala.
By Adv. Shri C. Anilkumar
Management
:
The Chairman & CEO,
Federal Bank Ltd.,
Aluva.
By M/s. B.S. Krishnan, Associates
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2041
This case coming up for final hearing on 09.02.2016 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 29.02.2016 passed
the following:
AWARD
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947), the Central Government referred the following industrial dispute to this
tribunal for adjudication.
2.
The dispute referred for adjudication is:
“Whether the action of the management of Federal Bank in imposing the penalty of compulsory
retirement with superannuation benefits on Shri Anil Kumar Popetlal Shah, Ex-Bankman vide their
order dated 26/9/2009, is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”
3.
After receipt of the reference order No.L-12011/46/2010-IR(B-I) dated 25.05.2011, issued by the Ministry of
Labour, Government of India, summons was issued to the parties to appear and answer all material questions relating to
the dispute and produce documents to substantiate their respective contentions. The parties entered appearance through
counsel and submitted their pleadings.
4.
The contentions in the claim statement filed by the union in brief are as follows:-
The workman involved in this reference Shri Anilkumar Popetlal Shah joined the management bank on
23.03.1987 as a Bankman(sub-staff). While he was working in the Pune branch, a memo dated 06.09.2008 was issued to
him alleging that for the period from 02.05.2008 to 17.07.2008, twenty cheques issued by him were dishonoured due to
insufficiency of funds. It is further alleged that the bank received a letter from one of its customers namely Shri Deepak
R. Shah, complaining that the workman borrowed a sum of `1,50,000/- from him and it was not repaid and that the
cheque issued by the workman towards this liability was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The further
allegation is that the workman absented from duty from 28.04.2008 without complying the leave rules. On the basis of
the aforesaid allegations the workman was charge sheeted for the following acts of ‘gross misconduct’ –
a)
willful damage to the property of the bank or any of its customers; b) doing any act prejudicial to the
interest of the bank; c) remaining absent unauthorisedly without intimation for a continuous period
exceeding thirty days;
and for the following acts of ‘minor misconducts’ –
d)
absence without leave; e) breach of any rule of business of the bank or instruction for running any
department and f) incurring debts to an extent considered by the management as excessive as per the
Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002 on Disciplinary Action & Procedure Therefor.
5.
The management ordered a domestic enquiry and appointed Shri Tom P. Roy, Senior Manager, P I R
department as enquiry officer. The enquiry conducted against the workman was in violation of the principles of natural
justice and fairness. The enquiry officer was biased. He was acting under instructions from the superior officials of the
management. During the enquiry the defacto complainant was not examined to prove the allegations levelled against the
workman. The enquiry was completed in one sitting without affording fair and reasonable opportunity to the workman
to substantiate his contentions. No opportunity was afforded to the workman to adduce defence evidence. The enquiry
officer failed to appreciate the fact that the contents of Ext.ME-1 document cannot be proved by examining the Chief
Manager. The management failed to prove the transaction between the workman and the defacto complainant. The
transaction between the workman and the complainant will not in any way adversely affect the business or interest of the
bank. So also it will not in any way affect the reputation of the bank. The Chief Manager deceitfully concealed the fact
that the defacto complainant had withdrawn his complaint. The charges levelled against the workman are vague and not
supported by adequate proof. Even now the complainant is continuing business transaction with the bank.
6.
The allegation that the workman unauthorisedly absented from duty for a period exceeding thirty days, is not
proved in the enquiry. The documents produced in the enquiry reveal that the workman absented from duty due to
ailment. After accepting the medical certificate and leave request from the workman the management did not inform
him in writing to report for duty or intimate him that the leave requested by him cannot be sanctioned in his case. In fact
MW1 has recommended the sanctioning of leave to the workman.
7.
The allegation that the workman committed breach of rules of business of the management is absolutely false.
There is no evidence in the enquiry to prove that the workman incurred debt that could be considered as excessive.
Ext.DE-1 document reveals that no amount is due from the workman to Shri Deepak R. Shah who is the proprietor of
Saras Optics. The enquiry officer and disciplinary authority failed to appreciate the fact that the dishonouring of
cheques was at the time when the workman was on leave due to ailment and that he has not received salary during that
period. The workman has stated that the finding of the enquiry officer is perverse and unsustainable. Ever since the date
2042
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of punishment order, the workman is not having any employment and he was not having any other source of income for
his livelihood. He has requested to set aside the punishment imposed and to reinstate him with back wages, continuity
of service and other attendant benefits.
8.
The management filed written statement contending as follows:
The management issued charge sheet against the workman alleging ‘gross misconduct’ and ‘minor misconduct’
that (i) he was absent from duty for 202 days from 28.04.2008 to 15.11.2008. The unauthorized absence of the workman
exceeded 30 days without any intimation. (ii) Shri Deepak R. Shah, proprietor of M/s.Saras Optik, who is a customer of
the bank lodged a complaint dated 10.05.2008 against the workman alleging that the workman borrowed a sum of
`1,50,000/- from him during November, 2007, promising to repay the same within fifteen days. The complainant has
alleged that after obtaining the amount, the workman failed to repay the same and stopped responding to his phone calls.
The cheque issued by the workman towards that liability was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. Apart from
this, the workman had issued cheques to other parties which also returned due to insufficiency of funds. An explanation
was called for from the workman. The reply submitted by the workman was not satisfactory. Hence the management
appointed an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer allowed the workman to defend his case with the assistance of Shri.M.
C. George, the Treasurer of Federal Bank Employees’ Union. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry affording
sufficient opportunity to the workman to substantiate his contentions and by following the principles of natural justice.
The enquiry officer submitted findings to the effect that the workman is guilty of ‘gross misconduct’ of (i) doing any act
prejudicial to the interest of the bank; (ii) remaining absent unauthorisedly without intimation continuously for more
than 30 days and ‘minor misconduct’ of (i) absence without leave and (ii) incurring debts to an extent considered by the
management as excessive. After obtaining the enquiry report, copy of the same was furnished to the workman and
called for his comments. After considering the submissions by the workman, the disciplinary authority suggested the
proposed punishment to be imposed on the workman. The appeal filed against the decision of the disciplinary authority
was ended in dismissal.
9.
After filing the written statement by the management the matter was posted for filing rejoinder. The workman
has not filed rejoinder. After affording the parties to take steps and produce documents the matter was posted for
evidence.
10.
On behalf of the management MW1 was examined and Ext.M1 is the document marked. On behalf of the
union/workman no oral evidence was adduced and no documents were marked. At the time of preliminary hearing the
learned counsel appearing for the union submitted that an award may be passed in the ID after considering all aspects of
the matter. Hence the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard.
11.
The points arising for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the enquiry conducted by the management is vitiated on any of the grounds alleged by
the union?
(ii)
Whether the workman has committed any act causing willful damage to the property of the
management bank or any of its customers?
(iii)
Whether the workman has done any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank?”
(iv)
Whether the workman has without intimation to the bank continuously absented from duty for
more than 30 days without any reasonable and probable cause?
(v)
Whether the workman has committed breach of any rule of business of the bank or instruction
for running any department?
(vi)
Whether the workman incurred debts to the extent considered by the management as excessive
as per the Bipartite Settlement?
(vii)
Whether the punishment imposed by the management is excessive or disproportionate to the
misconduct committed by the workman?
(viii)
To what relief the workman is entitled?”
12.
Point No.(i):- The workman involved in this dispute namely Shri Anilkumar Popetlal Shah joined the services of
the management bank on 23.03.1987 as a bankman(sub-staff). While he was working as bankman in the Pune branch,
the management bank issued a memo dated 06.09.2008 intimating that the cheques numbering twenty issued by him
were dishonoured during the period from 02.05.2008 to 17.07.2008 due to insufficiency of funds. Apart from that the
bank received a letter from one of its customers viz., Shri Deepak R. Shah complaining that the workman borrowed a
sum of `1,50,000/- from him and it was not repaid and that the cheque issued towards that liability was dishonoured due
to insufficiency of funds. Besides that the management has alleged that the workman absented from duty
w.e.f.28.04.2008 without complying the leave rules. According to the management the aforesaid acts on the part of the
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2043
workman amounts to ‘gross misconduct’ and hence the Bank initiated proceedings against him. The workman has stated
that he was sick and hence he could not attend duty. He has stated that after accepting the medical certificate and leave
letter from him, the bank failed to inform in writing to report for duty. He has stated that the management has not
expressed any disbelief in the medical certificates submitted by him. He has stated that the witness examined on the side
of the management in the domestic enquiry i.e., MW1 has recommended the sanctioning of leave during that period. He
has stated that the person who lodged complaint against him i.e., Shri Deepak R. Shah had withdrawn the complaint and
a letter to that effect was given to the bank. According to the workman the charges alleged against him are contradictory
and the allegations were moulded in such a manner so as to make it appear that he has committed severe acts of
misconduct. He has stated that the enquiry officer has not afforded opportunity to him to substantiate his contentions.
He would also state that the enquiry officer is biased and not followed the principles of natural justice while conducting
the enquiry.
13.
The management has contended that the enquiry officer has afforded sufficient opportunity to the workman to
substantiate his contentions and followed the principles of natural justice while conducting the enquiry.
14.
While examined as MW1, the enquiry officer has stated that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the
workman to substantiate his contentions. He has denied the suggestion that the enquiry was conducted in violation of
the principles of natural justice. From Ext.M1 enquiry file it can be seen that the witness examined on the side of the
management was cross examined at length by the defence representative and through this witness Ext.D1 document was
marked as a defence exhibit. Therefore it is evident that the enquiry officer has afforded sufficient opportunity to the
workman to substantiate his contentions in the domestic enquiry. It could also be seen that the enquiry officer has
followed the principles of natural justice while conducting the enquiry. There is nothing on record to prove that the
enquiry is vitiated on any of the grounds as alleged by the union/workman. Therefore it is held that the enquiry
conducted by the enquiry officer is valid, proper and by following the principles of natural justice. Hence the point for
consideration is answered against the union and in favour of the management.
15.
Point Nos.(ii) & (iii):- The management has contended that the charges levelled against the workman as detailed
in the charge sheet amounts to ‘gross misconduct’ as well as ‘minor misconduct’ as per the Bipartite Settlement dated
10.04.2002 on Disciplinary Action & Procedure Therefor. The management has stated that the workman, by misusing
his position as an employee of the bank, borrowed a sum of `1,50,000/- from one of its customers viz., Shri Deepak R.
Shah, proprietor of M/s.Saras Optik and failed to repay the amount in time. It is stated that the cheque issued by the
workman towards that liability was dishonoured and he failed to respond to the phone calls of customer of the bank. The
management has stated that the workman has done acts causing willful damage to the property of its customer and that
he has done acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank. The contention of the workman is that he was sick and could not
settle the transaction in time. He has further stated that the transaction between him and Shri Deepak R. Shah was
settled and that the complainant has issued a letter withdrawing the complaint. The workman has stated that he has not
done any act causing willful damage to the property of the customer of the bank and he has not done any act prejudicial
to the interest of the bank. He has stated that he was sick and hence could not attend duty. Therefore he has not earned
any salary during that period and hence could not repay the loan amount in time.
16.
Admittedly the workman had borrowed amount from Shri Deepak R. Shah, a customer of the bank and issued
cheques towards that liability. The cheques issued by the workman were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The
customer of the bank filed a complaint dated 10.05.2008 before the management bank detailing the financial transaction
and failure on the part of the workman to repay the amount in time and dishonouring of the cheques issued by the
workman. The complainant has further stated that the workman failed to respond to his phone calls. Ext.ME1 document
marked in the domestic enquiry is the complaint by Shri Deepak R. Shah, a customer of the bank. In that the
complainant has stated that he extended financial assistance to the workman having regard to the acquaintance with the
bank. The management has stated that the workman misused his position as an employee of the bank and borrowed
amounts from the customer of the bank and failed to repay the same in time. According to the management the
workman has committed acts causing willful damage to the property of the customer of the bank and that he has done
acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank. The workman has stated that he had settled the transaction with Shri Deepak
R. Shah and that the complainant has issued a letter withdrawing the complaint. Ext.DE-1 document marked in the
domestic enquiry is copy of the letter dated 12.12.2008 by Shri Deepak R. Shah to the Chief Manager of the
management bank. In Ext.DE-1 document the complainant Shri Deepak R. Shah has stated that he is withdrawing the
complaint unconditionally.
17.
In the complaint dated 10.05.2008, which is marked as Ext.ME1 in the domestic enquiry, Shri Deepak R Shah
who is a customer of the management bank has stated that the workman Shri.Anil Kumar Popetlal Shah approached him
for temporary financial assistance to a tune of ` 1,50,000/- promising to repay the same within fifteen days. The
complainant has further stated that having regard to the acquaintance with the bank and proximity, he extended the
required financial help to the workman on or about 15.11.2007. Therefore it is evident that the customer extended
financial assistance to the workman having due regard to his acquaintance with the bank. The complaint is dated
2044
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10.05.2008. Thereafter the management bank issued the show cause memos dated 02.06.2008 and 06.09.2008 to the
workman. He has not submitted any reply to the show cause notice dated 02.06.2008. He has submitted a reply to the
memo dated 06.09.2008.
18.
As per the order dated 22.11.2008 the management bank appointed enquiry officer to conduct enquiry against
the charges levelled against the workman. The fact that the workman sought financial assistance from one of the
customers of the bank on or about 15.11.2007 and that the customer extended financial assistance to him having regard
to the acquaintance with the bank is proved from Ext.ME1 document marked in the domestic enquiry. Failure on the
part of the workman to repay the amount in time is also clear from that document. Therefore it is evident that the
workman has done acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank and causing damage to the property of the customer of the
bank. Ext.DE-1 document marked in the enquiry is the letter dated 12.12.2008. It was issued by the complainant only
after the management bank ordered enquiry against the workman. Ext.DE-1 document will not by itself absolve the
workman from the charges levelled against him. Hence Point Nos.(ii) and (iii) are answered in favour of the
management and against the workman.
19.
Point Nos.(iv) and (v):- The next allegation against the workman is that he remained absent unauthorisedly
without intimation to the bank continuously for more than thirty days. As per clause 5(p) of the Disciplinary Action &
Procedure Thererfor of Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002, remaining in unauthorized absence without intimation
continuously for a period exceeding 30 days is an act of ‘gross misconduct’. Ext.ME17 marked in enquiry is the leave
application dated 17.11.2008 submitted by the workman requesting to sanction leave for 202 days from 28.04.2008 to
15.11.2008. While examined as MW1 in the enquiry, the Chief Manager of the Pune branch of the management has
stated that he has forwarded the leave application dated 17.11.2008 submitted by the workman to the Head Office since
he has no power to sanction the same. He has further stated that he has not received any other leave application in
between. Copy of the medical certificates marked as Exts.ME9 to ME16 in the enquiry reveals that the workman
produced those medical certificates on different dates. Exts.ME9 to ME17 marked in the enquiry reveal that the
workman remained absent unauthorizedly for more than 30 days without intimating the management bank in time. He
has submitted leave application only on 17.11.2008 with a request to grant leave for 202 days from 28.04.2008 to
15.11.2008. Therefore it is evident that he remained absent from duty unauthorisedly for more than 30 days without any
intimation to the bank. If in fact he was sick as contended by him, nothing prevented him from submitting a leave
application in time and intimating the bank about his inability to attend duty. Therefore it is clear that the workman has
committed acts of ‘gross misconduct’ as stated in clause 5(p) of the Disciplinary Action & Procedure dated 10th April,
2002. The action on the part of the workman reveals that he has committed breach of business of the bank. Hence Point
Nos.(iv) and (v) are answered against the workman.
20.
Point No.(vi):- The management has stated that the workman has incurred debts to the extent considered by the
bank as excessive as per the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002 on Disciplinary Action & Procedure Therefor. The
documents Ext.ME2 and ME3 marked in the domestic enquiry reveal that the workman has incurred debts to the extent
considered by the bank as excessive. As per clause 7(l) of Bipartite Settlement dated 10th April 2002, the aforesaid acts
on the part of the workman is a ‘minor misconduct’, for which the punishment is prescribed under clause 8. The
management bank initiated proceedings against the workman only after the dishonouring of the cheques issued by the
workman to different persons and after the receipt of the written complaint by one of its customers. It is true that the
workman has subsequently settled the financial transaction with the customer Shri Deepak R. Shah. That settlement
was only after the bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against the workman. From Exts.ME2 and ME3 marked in
the domestic enquiry it is evident that the workman has committed the misconduct as per clause 7(l) of the Disciplinary
Action & Procedure dated 10.04.2002. Hence the point for consideration is answered against the workman.
21.
Point no (vii):- While answering Point Nos.(ii) to (vi) it is held that the workman has committed acts of ‘gross
misconduct’ and ‘minor misconduct’ as stated in the charge sheet. The management has imposed the punishment as
stipulated in clause 6(c) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002 on Disciplinary Action & Procedure Therefor. The
document Ext.DE1 marked in the domestic enquiry reveals that the workman has settled the financial transaction with
the complainant Shri Deepak R. Shah. The settlement was after the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the
workman. There is long delay on the part of the workman in settling the financial transaction with the customer of the
bank. Apart from this it can be seen that the management bank has succeeded in proving the charge of absence without
leave for more than 30 days without intimation to the bank. The said act on the part of the workman amounts to ‘gross
misconduct’ as stipulated in clause 5(p) of the Disciplinary Action & Procedure.
22.
While examined as MW1 in the domestic enquiry the Chief Manager of the Pune branch of the management
has stated that after absenting from duty the workman joined duty on 17.11.2008, worked for three days and has been
absenting from duty since then. Therefore it is evident that the workman has no intention in abide by the rules and
regulations of the management bank. In such circumstance the punishment imposed by the management cannot said to
be too harsh or excessive.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2045
23.
Therefore it is held that the punishment imposed by the management is just and reasonable. The point is
answered accordingly.
24.
Point No. (viii):- In view of the finding on Point Nos.(i) to (vii), the workman is not entitled to any of the relief
claimed. The point is answered accordingly.
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 29th day
of February, 2016.
SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witness for the union
-
NIL
Witness for the management
MW1
15.07.2013
Shri Tom P. Roy
Exhibit for the union
-
NIL
Exhibit for the management
M1
-
Enquiry file
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-910-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksfPp esVªks jsy
dkWjiksjs'ku fy- 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] v:ukdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 18@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41011@10@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]
j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2016
S.O. 910.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2015) of the Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of Kochi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 05.05.2016.
[No. L-41011/10/2015-IR (B-I)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri.K. Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer
(Thursday the 31st day of March, 2016/11th Chaitra, 1937)
ID 18/2015
Union
:
The General Secretary,
Ernakulam Jilla Motor Thozhilali Sangham,
BMS Jilla Committee Office,
IS Press Road,
Kochi (Kerala)
Managements
:
1. The Project Director,
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.,
Opposite South Railway Station
Kochi (Kerala)
By M/s. B. S. Krishnan Associates
2046
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
The Managing Director,
Kochi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.,
Revenue Tower,
Kochi (Kerala)
3. M/s. Shilpa Constructions,
III Floor, North Avenue,
Paramara Road,
Kochi (Kerala) - 682018
This case coming up for final hearing on 31.03.2016 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the same day
passed the following:
AWARD
In exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Central Government referred the following dispute before this
Tribunal for adjudication.
2.
The dispute is:
“Whether the demand of the BMS Union that the local workers irrespective of the union to which they
belong to should be engaged for Metro Work at Muttam Yard is justified? If not, what relief they are
entitled?”
3.
After receipt of the reference order No.L-41011/10/2015-IR(B-I) dated 19.03.2015, issued by the Ministry of
Labour, Government of India, summons was issued to the parties to appear and answer all materials questions relating to
the dispute and produce documents to substantiate their respective contentions.
4.
Summons was served on the parties. Management No.1 entered appearance through counsel. The union and
the management Nos.2 & 3 remained absent. Hence they were called absent and set ex-parte.
5.
After setting the union and management Nos.2 & 3 ex-parte, several adjournments were granted for their
appearance before this Court. The union at whose instance the dispute was initiated, remained absent. Heard counsel
for the management No.1. There was no representation on behalf of the union. Hence it is found that the union has no
interest in proceeding with this dispute.
6.
In the result an award is passed holding that there is no subsisting dispute to be adjudicated as per this
reference.
The award will come into force one month from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
Pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st day of March, 2016.
SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer
APPENDIX - NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 5 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 911-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj /uy{eh cSad 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]
v:ukdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 25@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@35@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]
j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2016
S.O.911.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2011) of the Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of Dhanalakshmi Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
05.05.2016.
[No. L-12012/35/2011-IR (B-I)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2047
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri. K. Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer
(Friday the 26th day of February, 2016/07th Phalguna, 1937)
ID 25/2011
Workman
:
Shri K.K. Kuttikrishnan,
Kadavankullaklar House,
P.O. Puranmattukara,
Trichur.
By Adv. Shri C. Anilkumar
Management
:
The Chairman,
Dhanalakshmi Bank,
Corporate Office,
Thrissur (Kerala) - 680001.
By M/s. B.S. Krishnan Associates
This case coming up for final hearing on 28.01.2016 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 26.02.2016 passed the
following:
AWARD
This is a reference made by the Central Government under clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) to this tribunal for adjudication.
2.
The dispute referred for adjudication is:
“Whether the action of the management of Dhanalaxmi Bank, Thrissur in terminating the services of
Shri K.K. Kuttu krishnan w.e.f. 01/03/2010 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is
entitled?”
3.
After receipt of the reference order No.L-12012/35/2011-IR(B-I) dated 11.07.2011, issued by the Ministry of
Labour, Government of India, summons was issued to the parties to appear and answer all the claims and to produce
documents to substantiate their respective contentions. The workman and the management entered appearance through
counsel.
4.
The workman filed claim statement contending as follows:-
On 02.02.1996 the workman joined as a watchman at the Coimbatore branch of the management bank. His
appointment was made by Shri Babu Venkitachallam, the then Senior Manager of the Coimbatore branch. No
appointment letter was issued to the workman. At that time a promise was given that the services of the workman will
be regularized after one year. From the date of appointment till termination, he was paid consolidated salary @`1,500/-
per month. At the time of payment of salary the management had not obtained any voucher or required him to sign in
any register. He was not allowed to sign in the attendance register.
5.
The workman was the only watchman in the Coimbatore branch from 1996 to March, 2010. The branch
Manager of the management bank orally informed the workman on 27.02.2010 that his services are no longer required
as the bank is intending to appoint a new watchman through a security agency. At the time when the workman reported
for duty on 01.03.2010, he was not permitted to work. The management has not issued any termination notice. They
have not paid notice pay or compensation as provided under the Industrial Dispute Act to the workman. His seniority as
watchman was not considered by the management while terminating his services. The workman ought to have
continued under the services of the management up to the age of 60 years. He has requested to pass an award holding
that the termination of his services as a workman under the management as illegal and to direct the management to
reinstate him with back wages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits.
6.
The management filed written statement contending as follows:
There was no employer-employee relationship between the management and the workman and as such the
reference for adjudication is not maintainable in law or on facts. The contention that the workman was appointed by the
then Senior Manager Shri Babu Venkitachallam and that he was given a promise that his services will be regularized
within one year etc., are false and incorrect. He was neither appointed by the management bank as a security guard nor
2048
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
paid any amount as wages by the bank. At the request of the management bank, M/s.ISB Securities Services made
available the services of a security personal during the day shift of the management bank. The workman was one among
such persons made available by the security agency to do the security job during the day shift on different dates as
decided by the agency. The management bank has not paid any amount towards salary to the workman. The
management bank is unaware of the consolidated salary paid to the workman. The workman was engaged by the
contractor on whom the management has no control.
7.
The contention of the workman that on 27.02.2010 the branch Manager informed him that his services are no
longer required and that the bank is intending to appoint a new security guard in the branch through a security agency, is
false and incorrect. The management bank used to pay to M/s.ISB Securities towards their service charges. Apart from
the workman the contractor had deputed other persons for duty as security guard on different dates.
8.
The contention of the workman that after terminating his services the management bank appointed another
security guard for duty on 01.03.2010 is false and incorrect. M/s.ISB Security Services abandoned their services with
the management bank. Hence the bank entered into contract with M/s.SDB Cisco for the purpose of engaging security
personal. The management bank had no supervision or control over the workman. Hence there is no necessity to issue
termination notice or liability to pay notice pay to him. The workman had not undergone any process of selection.
Therefore there cannot be any regular appointment without undergoing the process of selection. The management has
requested to uphold their contentions and to pass an award to the effect that the workman is not entitled to any of the
relief claimed.
9.
After filing the written statement by the management the workman filed rejoinder reiterating the contentions in
the claim statement.
10.
Thereafter the matter was posted for taking steps and for production of documents. The workman tendered
evidence as WW1 and Exts.W1 to W3 are the documents marked on his side. On behalf of the management MW1 was
examined and Exts.M1 to M81 are the document marked. Heard both side.
11.
The points arising for consideration are:
(i)
Whether there was employer-employee relationship between the management and the
workman?
(ii)
Whether the workman is entitled to get regularization as an employee in the management
bank?”
(iii)
Whether the action of the management in discontinuing the services of the workman
w.e.f.01.03.2010 is legal and proper?
(iv)
To what relief the workman is entitled?”
12.
Point Nos.(i) to (iii):- The dispute referred for adjudication in this matter is:
“Whether the action of the management of Dhanalaxmi Bank, Thrissur in terminating the services of Shri K.K.
Kuttu krishnan w.e.f.01/03/2010 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”
In the claim statement the workman has stated that he joined as a watchman in the Coimbatore branch of the
management bank on 02.02.1996. He has stated that his appointment was made by the then Senior Manager of the
Coimbatore branch viz., Shri Babu Venkitachallam. He has further stated that from the date of his appointment till
termination on 27.02.2010 he was paid consolidated salary @ `1,500/- per month. He has stated that no appointment
letter was issued to him by the bank. It is stated that at the time of appointment a promise was given that his services
will be regularized after one year. According to the workman he was not required to sign in any voucher or register at
the time when he obtained salary from the management bank. He was not allowed to sign in the attendance register
retained in the bank.
13.
The workman has stated that on 27.02.2010 the management bank orally informed him that his services are no
longer required in the bank and that they are intending to appoint a new watchman through a security agency. He has
stated that the management did not allow him to join duty when he reported for duty on 01.03.2010. Thereafter he
raised this Industrial Dispute and the matter was referred to this tribunal for adjudication. He has claimed reinstatement
with continuity of service, back wages and other consequential benefits.
14.
The management has denied his appointment as a watchman. According to them there was no employer-
employee relationship between the management and the workman. The contention of the workman that he was
appointed by Shri Babu Venkitachallam, the then Senior Manager and at that time he was given a promise that his
services will be regularized within one year etc. are false and incorrect. He was neither appointed by the management
bank as a security guard nor paid any amount to him towards wages by the bank. At the request of the management
bank the services of a security personnel in the day shift in the bank was made available by the security agency to do the
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2049
security job in the day shift on different dates, as decided by the agency. The workman was engaged by the contractor
on whom the management has no control. The contention of the workman that the branch Manager informed him that
his services are no longer required in the bank and that they are intending to appoint a new security guard in the branch
is false and incorrect. The management bank used to pay the service charges of M/s.ISB Securities. Apart from the
workman the contractor deputed other persons also as security guard on different dates. There is no necessity to issue
notice or liability to pay notice pay to the workman. The workman had not undergone any selection process. There
cannot be any regular appointment without undergoing the selection process.
15.
Even as per the admission of the workman the management bank has not issued any letter of appointment to
him before he joined the services of the management bank. So also he has made clear that he has not signed any
voucher or register retained by the bank evidencing the receipt of the salary. The documents produced by the workman
do not reveal that he was employed by the management bank as a security guard. The learned counsel for the workman
submitted that Ext.W2 document reveals that the workman was working under the management bank for the last ten
years. Ext.W2 document is not sufficient enough to arrive at a conclusion that the workman herein was continuously
working under the management for ten years. Ext.W3 is another letter relied on by the learned counsel for the workman
to prove that the workman was continuously working under the management from the year 1996. Ext.W3 document
reveals that the appointment of the workman was through an agency (outsourcing). While examined as WW1 the
workman has stated that he joined the services of the management bank on 02.02.1996 and he was terminated on
27.02.2010. He has admitted that in Ext.W3 document it is stated that his appointment was through an agency. While
examined as MW1 the Senior Manager of the bank has stated that during his tenure as Manager in the branch from May,
2006 to November, 2009 an agency was providing the services of security guard to the branch. He has further stated that
the entries in Ext.M81 document relating to the watchman’s salary was not paid by the bank to the workman but it was
paid to the security services directly. He has stated that the bank has not made any payments directly to the workman.
MW1 has stated that the management bank has not appointed the workman as an employee in the bank.
16.
On going through the documents marked on the side of the workman and that of the management it can be seen
that there is no documentary proof to show that the workman herein was appointed by the management bank as a
security guard. Even as per the admission of the workman no appointment letter or termination letter was given to him
by the bank.
17.
In the decision reported in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors. 2006 (4) SCC 1 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:
“Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Court should desist from issuing orders preventing regular selection or
recruitment at the instance of temporary employees or those appointed on contract basis or on daily wages --
Service.
Constitution of India, Articles 32 & 226 -- Merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is
continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular
service or made permanent merely on the strength of his continuance, if the original appointment was not made
in accordance with rules.
If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an
engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is
discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term
of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker
is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular
service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not
made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to
prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to
an end or of adhoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.”
18.
In the decision referred above the Hon’ble Supreme Court made it clear that if the original appointment was not
made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules, the employee would not be entitled to
any right to be absorbed or made permanent in service merely because he had continued under cover of an order of the
Court.
19.
In this case even as per the admission of the workman no appointment letter or termination letter was issued by
the management bank to him. His admission reveals that he was deputed to do the security job in the management bank
through an agency. In such circumstance in view of the dictum laid down in the decision referred above the workman is
precluded from raising the claim for permanency in his appointment. Since there is no employer-employee relationship
between the management and the workman in this case the workman is not entitled to get permanency in appointment.
2050
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
It follows that the workman is not entitled to the relief claimed in this matter. Therefore the points are answered against
the workman.
20.
Point No.(iv):- In view of the findings on Point Nos.(i) to (iii) the workman is not entitled to the relief claimed.
The reference is answered accordingly.
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 26th day
of February, 2016.
SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witness for the workman
WW1
09.12.2013
Shri K. K. Kuttikrishnan
Witness for the management
MW1
15.07.2014
Shri S. Duraiswami
Exhibits for the workman
W1
-
True copy of the letter No.ZO/CHI/6744/05-06 dated 15.03.2006 addressed to the Senior
Manager, Coimbatore Branch by the Assistant General Manager, Zonal Office, The
Dhanalakshmi Bank, Chennai.
W2
-
True copy of the letter No.Nil dated Nil addressed to the Asst. General Manager, Zonal
Office, Chennai by the Sr. Branch Manager, The Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited, Gandhipuram,
Coimbatore.
W3
-
True copy of the letter No.Nil dated 26.04.2006 addressed to the Asst. General Manager,
Zonal Office, Chennai by the Sr. Branch Manager, The Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited,
Gandhipuram, Coimbatore.
Exhibits for the management
M1
-
True copy of the letter No.TSS/25/96 dated 05.02.1996 addressed to the Manager, Dhanalaxmi
Bank, Cross Cut Road, Coimbatore by the Regional Manager, Thai Security Services Private
Limited, Coimbatore
M2
-
True copy of the letter No.706/96-97 dated 06.02.1996 addressed to the Asst. General
Manager(P & P), The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Central Office, Thrissur by the Chief Manager,
the Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Coimbatore.
M3
-
True copy of letter No.P&P:15054/2-241 dated 20.02.1996 addressed to the Chief Manager,
Coimbatore by the Asst. Gen. Manager(P & P), The Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited, Central
Office, Thrissur.
M4
-
Copy of Bill No.3339 dated 01.03.2001 for `1,575/- issued to the Chief Manager, Dhanalakshmi
Bank Ltd., Cross cut Road, Coimbatore by the Branch Manager, Thai Security Services Private
Limited, Coimbatore.
M5
-
Copy of Debit voucher dated 02.03.2001 for `1,575/-
M6
-
Copy of Bill No.3350 dated 02.04.2001 for `1,575/- issued to M/s.Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd.,
Cross cut Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore by the Branch Manager, Thai Security Services
Private Limited, Coimbatore.
M7
-
Copy of Debit voucher dated 04.04.2001 for `1,575/-
M8
-
Copy of the cheque No.096146 dated 04.04.2001 for `1,575/- drawn in favour of Thai Security
Services Pvt. Ltd. By the Manager/Asst. Manager, The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Coimbatore.
M9
-
Copy of the cheque No.094026 dated 02.05.2001 for `1,575/- drawn in favour of Thai Security
Services Pvt. Ltd. By the Manager/Asst. Manager, The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Coimbatore
M10
-
Copy of the cheque No.042429 dated 03.10.2001 for `1,575/- drawn in favour of Thai Security
Services Pvt. Ltd. By the Manager/Asst. Manager, The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Coimbatore.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2051
M11
-
Copy of Debit voucher dated 03.10.2001 for `1,575/- (IV-32)
M12
-
Copy of Debit voucher dated 03.10.2001 for `1,575/- (IV-31)
M13
-
Copy of Bill No.3499 dated 02.04.2002 for `1,575/- issued to the Chief Manager, Dhanalakshmi
Bank Ltd., Cross cut Road, Gandhipuram by the Branch Manager, Thai Security Services
Private Limited, Coimbatore.
M14
-
Copy of Debit voucher dated 09.05.2002 for `1,575/- (IV-32)
M15
-
Copy of Bill No.2813 dated 03.05.2002 for `1,575/- issued to the Chief Manager, Dhanalakshmi
Bank Ltd., Cross cut Road, Gandhipuram by the Branch Manager, Thai Security Services
Private Limited, Coimbatore.
M16
-
Copy of the cheque No.171144 dated 07.10.2002 for `1,575/- drawn in favour of Thai Security
Services Pvt. Ltd. By the Manager/Asst. Manager, The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Coimbatore.
M17
-
Copy of Debit voucher dated 04.06.2002 for `1,575/- (IV-32)
M18
-
Copy of Debit voucher dated 04.06.2002 for `1,575/- (IV-31)
M19
-
Copy of Bill No.2828 dated 01.06.2002 for `1,575/- issued to the Chief Manager, Dhanalakshmi
Bank Ltd., Cross cut Road, Gandhipuram by the Branch Manager, Thai Security Services
Private Limited, Coimbatore.
M20
-
Copy of Debit voucher dated 04.04.2003 for `1,575/- (IV-32)
M21
-
Copy of Debit voucher dated 04.04.2003 for `1,575/- (IV-31)
M22
-
Copy of Bill No.2878 dated 31.03.2003 for `1,575/- issued to the Chief Manager, Dhanalakshmi
Bank Ltd., Cross cut Road, Coimbatore by the Branch Manager, Thai Security Services Private
Limited, Coimbatore.
M23
-
Copy of Debit voucher dated 06.05.2003 for `1,575/- (IV-32)
M24
-
Copy of Debit voucher dated 06.05.2003 for `1,575/- (IV-31)
M25
-
Copy of Bill No.2882 dated 05.05.2003 for `1,575/- issued to the Chief Manager, Dhanalakshmi
Bank Ltd., Cross cut Road, Gandhipuram by the Branch Manager, Thai Security Services
Private Limited, Coimbatore.
M26
-
Copy of Statement of A/c of M/s.Thai Security Services Pvt, Ltd., Madras from 01.01.1996 to
10.03.2005.
M27
-
Copy of Debit voucher dated 01.08.2003 for `1,575/- (IV-32)
M28
-
Copy of Debit voucher dated 01.08.2003 for `1,575/- (IV-31)
M29
-
Copy of Bill No.449 dated 01.08.2003 for `1,575/- issued to the Chief Manager, Dhanalakshmi
Bank Limited, Cross cut Road, Coimbatore by the Manager, ISB Security Services, Coimbatore.
M30
-
Copy of Debit voucher dated 21.10.2003 for `1,575/- (IV-32)
M31
-
Copy of Debit voucher dated 21.10.2003 for `1,575/- (IV-31)
M32
-
Copy of Bill No.507 dated 20.10.2003 for `1,575/- issued to the Chief Manager, Dhanalakshmi
Bank Limited, Cross cut Road, Coimbatore by the Manager, ISB Security Services, Coimbatore.
M33
-
Copy of Debit voucher dated 02.12.2003 for `1,575/- (IV-32)
M34
-
Copy of Debit voucher dated 02.12.2003 for `1,575/- (IV-31)
M35
-
Copy of Bill No.526 dated 01.12.2003 for `1,575/- issued to the Chief Manager, Dhanalakshmi
Bank Limited, Cross cut Road, Coimbatore by the Manager, ISB Security Services, Coimbatore.
M36
-
Copy of Debit voucher dated 02.01.2004 for `1,575/- (IV-32)
M37
-
Copy of Debit voucher dated 02.01.2004 for `1,575/- (IV-31)
M38
-
Copy of Bill No.565 dated 02.01.2004 for `1,575/- issued to the Chief Manager, Dhanalakshmi
Bank Limited, Cross cut Road, Coimbatore by the Manager, ISB Security Services, Coimbatore.
2052
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
M39
-
Copy of the cheque No.224983 dated 02.01.2004 for `1,575/- drawn in favour of ISB Security
Services by the Manager/Asst. Manager, The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Coimbatore.
M40
-
Copy of Debit voucher dated 01.07.2004 for `1,575/- (IV-32)
M41
-
Copy of Debit voucher dated 01.07.2004 for `1,575/- (IV-31)
M42
-
Copy of Bill No.667 dated 01.07.2004 for `1,575/- issued to the Chief Manager, Dhanalakshmi
Bank Limited, Cross cut Road, Coimbatore by the Manager, ISB Security Services, Coimbatore.
M43
-
Copy of Bill No.056 dated 01.02.2010 for `4,412/- issued to the Manager, Dhanalakshmi Bank
Limited, Cross cut Road, Coimbatore by the Manager, ISB Security Services, Coimbatore.
M44
-
Copy of Bill No.059 dated 01.03.2010 for `4,412/- issued to the Manager, Dhanalakshmi Bank
Limited, Cross cut Road, Coimbatore by the Manager, ISB Security Services, Coimbatore.
M45
-
Copy of Bill No.050 dated 01.12.2009 for `4,412/- issued to the Manager, Dhanalakshmi Bank
Limited, Cross cut Road, Coimbatore by the Manager, ISB Security Services, Coimbatore.
M46
-
Copy of Bill No.019 dated 01.11.2009 for `4,412/- issued to M/s.Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited,
Cross cut Road, Coimbatore by the Manager, ISB Security Services, Coimbatore.
M47
-
Copy of Bill No.016 dated 01.10.2009 for `4,412/- issued to M/s.Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited,
Cross cut Road, Coimbatore by the Manager, ISB Security Services, Coimbatore.
M48
-
Copy of Bill No.013 dated NIL for `4,412/- issued to M/s.Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited, Cross
cut Road, Coimbatore by the Manager, ISB Security Services, Coimbatore.
M49
-
Copy of Bill No.005 dated 01.07.2009 for `4,412/- issued to M/s.Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited,
Cross cut Road, Coimbatore by the Manager, ISB Security Services, Coimbatore.
M50
-
Copy of Bill No.001 dated 01.06.2009 for `4,412/- issued to M/s.Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited,
Cross cut Road, Coimbatore by the Manager, ISB Security Services, Coimbatore.
M51
-
Copy of Bill No.050 dated 01.05.2009 for `4,494/- issued to M/s.Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited,
Cross cut Road, Coimbatore by the Manager, ISB Security Services, Coimbatore.
M52
-
Copy of Bill No.044 dated 01.03.2009 for `3,933/- issued to M/s.Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited,
Cross cut Road, Coimbatore by the Manager, ISB Security Services, Coimbatore.
M53
-
Copy of Bill No.040 dated 01.02.2009 for `3,933/- issued to M/s.Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited,
Cross cut Road, Coimbatore by the Manager, ISB Security Services, Coimbatore.
M54
-
Copy of Bill No.024 dated 01.10.2008 for `3,933/- issued to M/s.Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited,
Cross cut Road, Coimbatore by the Manager, ISB Security Services, Coimbatore.
M55
-
Copy of Bill No.020 dated 01.09.2008 for `3,933/- issued to M/s.Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited,
Cross cut Road, Coimbatore by the Manager, ISB Security Services, Coimbatore.
M56
-
Copy of Bill No.016 dated 01.08.2008 for `3,933/- issued to M/s.Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited,
Cross cut Road, Coimbatore by the Manager, ISB Security Services, Coimbatore.
M57
-
Copy of Bill No.007 dated 01.06.2008 for `3,933/- issued to M/s.Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited,
Cross cut Road, Coimbatore by the Manager, ISB Security Services, Coimbatore.
M58
-
Copy of Bill No.092 dated 31.03.2008 for `3,933/- issued to M/s.Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited,
Cross cut Road, Coimbatore by the Manager, ISB Security Services, Coimbatore.
M59
-
Copy of Bill No.086 dated 01.03.2008 for `3,371/- issued to M/s.Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited,
Cross cut Road, Coimbatore by the Manager, ISB Security Services, Coimbatore.
M60
-
Copy of the cheque No.443875 dated 02.04.2008 for `3,933/- drawn in favour of ISB Security
Services by the Manager/Asst. Manager, The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Coimbatore.
M61
-
Copy of the cheque No.453831 dated 01.07.2008 for `3,933/- drawn in favour of ISB Security
Services by the Manager/Asst. Manager, The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Coimbatore.
M62
-
Copy of the cheque No.462255 dated 01.09.2008 for `3,933/- drawn in favour of ISB Security
Services by the Manager/Asst. Manager, The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Coimbatore.
M63
-
Copy of the cheque No.465763 dated 03.10.2008 for `3,933/- drawn in favour of ISB Security
Services by the Manager/Asst. Manager, The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Coimbatore.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2053
M64
-
Copy of the cheque No.476855 dated 02.01.2009 for `3,933/- drawn in favour of ISB Security
Services by the Manager/Asst. Manager, The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Coimbatore.
M65
-
Copy of the cheque No.486859 dated 03.03.2009 for `3,933/- drawn in favour of ISB Security
Services by the Manager/Asst. Manager, The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Coimbatore.
M66
-
Copy of the cheque No.495134 dated 05.05.2009 for `4,494/- drawn in favour of ISB Security
Services by the Manager/Asst. Manager, The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Coimbatore
M67
-
Copy of the cheque No.498065 dated 01.06.2009 for `4,412/- drawn in favour of ISB Security
Services by the Manager/Asst. Manager, The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Coimbatore
M68
-
Copy of the cheque No.502382 dated 03.07.2009 for `4,412/- drawn in favour of ISB Security
Services by the Manager/Asst. Manager, The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Coimbatore
M69
-
Copy of the cheque No.508777 dated 26.08.2009 for `4,412/- drawn in favour of ISB Security
Services by the Manager/Asst. Manager, The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Coimbatore
M70
-
Copy of the cheque No.506195 dated 04.08.2009 for `4,412/- drawn in favour of ISB Security
Services by the Manager/Asst. Manager, The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Coimbatore
M71
-
Copy of the cheque No.512321 dated 03.10.2009 for `4,412/- drawn in favour of ISB Security
Services by the Manager/Asst. Manager, The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Coimbatore
M72
-
Copy of the cheque No.517914 dated 02.11.2009 for `4,412/- drawn in favour of ISB Security
Services by the Manager/Asst. Manager, The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Coimbatore
M73
-
Copy of the cheque No.520666 dated 02.12.2009 for `4,412/- drawn in favour of ISB Security
Services by the Manager/Asst. Manager, The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Coimbatore
M74
-
Copy of the cheque No.526151 dated 03.02.2010 for `4,412/- drawn in favour of ISB Security
Services by the Manager/Asst. Manager, The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Coimbatore
M75
-
Copy of the account statement of M/s.ISB Security Services, Coimbatore from 01.04.2008 to
31.03.2009
M76
-
Copy of the account statement of M/s.ISB Security Services, Coimbatore from 01.04.2009 to
31.03.2010
M77
-
Copy of Statement of Account of M/s.ISB Security Services, Coimbatore in State Bank of
Mysore, TATABAD branch from 01.01.2005 to 31.12.2005
M78
-
Copy of Statement of Account of M/s.ISB Security Services, Coimbatore in Corporation Bank,
NSR Road, Coimbatore from 01.12.2005 to 31.03.2006
M79
-
Copy of Statement of Account of M/s.ISB Security Services, Coimbatore in Corporation Bank,
NSR Road, Coimbatore from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2007
M80
-
Copy of Statement of Account of M/s.ISB Security Services, Coimbatore in Corporation Bank,
NSR Road, Coimbatore from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008
M81
-
Copy of Statement of Account in the Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited Coimbatore main branch
from 01.01.2001 to 10.03.2005.
ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-912-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y 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@Je
U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 56@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@96@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
2054
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2016
S.O.912.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 56/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Shyamsunderpur Colliery M/s.
ECL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.05.2016.
[No. L-22012/96/2007-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. 56 OF 2007
PARTIES:
The management of Shyamsunderpur Colliery of M/s. ECL
Vs.
Sri Chamaklal Roy
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management
:
Sri P. K. Goswami, Ld. Advocate
For the union (Workman)
:
Sri Rakesh Kumar, President, KMC
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated: 04.04.2016
AWARD
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-22012/96/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 09.07.2007 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 Chamaklal Roy w.e.f. 10.01.2007 is
legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?”
1.
Having received the Order No. L-22012/96/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 09.07.2007 of the above said reference
from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 56 of 2007
was registered on 26.07.2007 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.
2.
Case called out. Sri P. K. Goswami, 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.
3.
On perusal of the case record I find that the case was fixed for filing evidence of the workman on 18.06.2015.
Thereafter 5 dates have already been elapsed but to no effect. Even Sri Rakesh Kumar was granted last chance on
02.02.2016 on his prayer but the outcome is nil. It is seems that the union does not want to file evidence of the workman.
Sri Rakesh Kumar also submits that he could not contact with the workman since long. I have no option left but to close
the case. The reference is also 9 years old. As such the case is closed and a ‘No Dispute Award’ is hereby passed
accordingly.
ORDER
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2055
ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-913-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y 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@Je
U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 63@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@342@2003&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2016
S.O.913.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 63/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bhanora West Block Colliery
M/s. ECL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.05.2016.
[No. L-22012/342/2003-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. 63 OF 2004
PARTIES :
The management of Bhanora West Block Colliery of M/s. E.C.L.
Vs.
Sri D. P. Singh
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management
:
Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate
For the union (Workman)
:
Sri S. Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated : 06.04.2016
AWARD
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-22012/342/2003–IR(CM-II) dated 28.10.2004 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of Bhanora West Block Colliery of M/s. E.C.L. in dismissing Sri D. P.
Singh, Weigh Bridge Clerk, from service w.e.f 29/30.03.2001 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
workman concerned entitled to and from which date? ”
1. Having received the Order No. L-22012/342/2003–IR(CM-II) dated 28.10.2004 of the above said reference
from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 63 of 2004
was registered on 18.11.2004. 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.
2.
The case of the workman as per his written statement, in short, is that the workman Sri Devendra Prasad Singh
(Sri D. P. Singh) was employed as Weigh Bridge Clerk at Girmint (3) Bhanora (R) Colliery under M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited. The management of Bhanora West Block Colliery issued Charge sheet to Sri D. P. Singh vide No.
2056
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
GIR/C.6/CS/186 dated 21/27.01.2000. The charge sheet was issued to Sri D. P. Singh under the provision of Model
Standing Order, whereas the certified Standing Order is applicable in Collieries of Sripur Area. Hence the charge sheet
issued to Sri D. P. Singh is not valid at all. The charges were made against Sri D. P. Singh for “willful damage of work
in progress or to property of Management is also.” The allegation is totally incorrect because no damage of work or any
progress or to property of management was damaged. In the charg e sheet against Sri D. P. Singh, the allegation of theft
does not arise because Sri D. P. Singh did not steal any property of management. The Task Force issued the certificate
regarding weighment of coal. It will be evident that the taskforce consisting of Sri Kajal Chatterjee, Dy. Sales Manager,
MW-I, S. K Banerjee, Supdt. Engineer (E&M) MW-2 and Sri N. L. Maharaj, Area Security Officer, MW-3, all of Sripur
Area, reached before 6:00 P.M. on 17.11.1998. They stopped challans and five trucks weighted during working hours by
Sri D. P. Singh. The officer concern deliberately under conspiracy waited till 11:00 P. M. for re-weighment which
could have been earlier. It will also be evident from their statement that numbers of witnesses i.e. in alleged task-force
who were the Officer of Sripur Area out of, out of 3 two members stated that the 5 numbers of trucks were stopped
by them for movement at the colliery premises and one member Sri N. L Maharaj, the then Security Officer stated that
trucks were stood on the Colliery premises near Durga Mandir whereas the 3 Officers MW - 4, 5 & 6, Sri K. K Roy,
Sri P. K. Chatterjee and Sri R. K Nayak all stated hat at about 10:00 P.M. when they came they found that all 5 trucks
were standing outside the Colliery Gate and as such the statement contradicting similarly on cross-examination done by
charge sheeted workman. Three out of 6 witnesses who were the officers of Colliery, MW- 4, 5 & 6 above replied on the
question asked by charge sheeted workman that “If you keep the trucks after weighment some outside person or
customers may load the more coal then what has been weight. It is possible or not.” They replied not known to them or
not in their knowledge etc. and thus their reply were varying they did not state that such malpractice were not done.
Hence due to conspiracy and by the enemy could have loaded extra coal cannot be over-looked and thus Sri Singh has
been victimized the conspiracy for no fault of Sri Singh. The Enquiry Officer failed to analyse the statement or
Management’s witness and made an error in his report that Sri D. P. Singh is guilty of the alleged charge on the basis of
erroneous report of Enquiry Officer. The blame of Management in charge sheet is that re-weighment was done by
Sri D. P. Singh at 11:00 P.M. on 17.11.1998 with ulterior motive is totally baseless and shows the mala fide, motivated
and ulterior motive. The functioning of machine can be defective. The charge sheet issued under the Model Standing
Order is illegal because Certified Standing Order is prevalent in M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited before issuing Charge
sheet to Sri D. P. Singh. The report of Enquiry Officer is biased and partial. The delinquent workman has prayed that
tribunal may kindly pass order to reinstate Sri D. P. Singh with full back wages.
3.
The Agent, Girmint (R) Colliery under M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has briefly stated in their written
statement that Sri D. P. Singh was dismissed for his misconduct. He filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court,
Calcutta with the observation that the said order will not preclude the Respondent authorities from taking any action
against the appellant in accordance with law. Thereafter the management issued a charge sheet to Sri D. P. Singh on
21/27.01.2000 for his act of misconduct under Section 17(i)(a) and 17(i)(i) as per the provision of Model Standing Order
applicable to the establishment. The concerned workman replied to the charge sheet denying the charges leveled against
him. As such the explanation offered by the workman was found to be unsatisfactory and as such the Enquiry Officer
was appointed by the competent authority for holding enquiry into the charges. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry.
The concerned workman fully participated in the enquiry proceeding and he was given all reasonable opportunities to
defend him in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The charge of misconduct was proved. The workman
was held guilty by the Enquiry Officer. The delinquent workman was supplied with the copy of enquiry report along
with connected papers and he was called upon to submit his written comments as to the enquiry report submitted by the
Enquiry Officer. The Ex-workman submitted his written explanation vide his reply dated 22.03.2001. The Disciplinary
authority was not satisfied with the said explanation of the Ex-workman and after examining all material, papers and
documents including Enquiry Proceeding and Enquiry Report was pleased to pass dismissal order of concerned
workman vide order No. GM/SA/C-6D/9/2001/947 dated 29/30.03.2005. The punishment awarded to Sri D. P. Singh
was quite proportionate in accordance with the gravity of misconduct and action of management is fully justified in
dismissing the concerned workman. The management has denied that charge sheet issued under Model Standing Order is
invalid or there has been violation of principle of Natural Justice. It is also denied that the enquiry findings submitted
by the Enquiry Officer is incorrect or that the Enquiry Officer did not consider the defence statement of delinquent
workman. It has been denied by the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited that enquiry is vitiated. The
management is fully justified in dismissing ex-workman and has prayed that Ex-workman is not entitled to any relief as
prayed by him.
4.
The workman has filed rejoinder written statement and has reiterated the allegations of his written statement
and has stated that the enquiry is illegal, arbitrary, whimsical and pre-determined. There is violation of Principle of
Natural Justice. The Enquiry Officer has not acted impartially. Enquiry Report is biased.
5.
The workman has filed copy of Charge Sheet No. A/Gir/C-6/C.S./186 dated 21/27.01.2000, Copy of reply to
above Charge Sheet by Sri D. P. Singh dated 05.02.2000, Copy of letter of General Manager, Sripur Area addressed to
Sri D. P. Singh dated 28.02.2001 / 01.03.2001 regarding his explanation in connection with Enquiry Report, Copy of
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2057
Enquiry Report of Enquiry Officer, Copy of letter of delinquent addressed to General Manager regarding explanation of
delinquent in connection with Enquiry Report dated 23.03.2001, copy of Enquiry Proceeding and statement of all
witnesses, copy of dismissal order dated 29/30.3.2001, Photostat copy of order of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court dated
14.12.1999 The workman has submitted affidavit in his evidence. He has been cross-examined by the learned Advocate
of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.
6.
I have heard the argument of both sides.
7.
Sri M. Mukherjee, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of workman has argued that after loading the truck,
the delinquent workman weighted the truck at 5:00 P.M. and after six hours at 11:00 P.M. it was re-weighted by the
concerned workman under the instruction of Officers of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. In this period the concerned
workman was not present on the concerned site where the truck was stranded. During six hours if there is overloading,
the workman can not be blamed. Any person can overload the truck. He has also argued that there is complete violation
of Principle of Natural Justice in Enquiry Proceeding, Enquiry Report is biased and partial.
8.
On the other hand, the learned Advocate Sri P. K. Das appearing on behalf of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited
has argued that there is compliance of principle of natural justice in enquiry proceeding. The workman has participated
in enquiry proceeding. Enquiry Officer afforded opportunity to delinquent to put his defence.
9.
It is admitted fact that delinquent Sri D. P. Singh is an ex-employee of Bhanora West Block colliery of M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited and he was dismissed on 30.03.2001. It is apparent from the record that Sri D. P. Singh,
delinquent workman filed a Write Petition before Hon’ble Calcutta High Court against dismissal order. Hon’ble Calcutta
High Court was pleased to pass order that delinquent be treated under suspension, rather than dismissal. But Hon’ble
Division Bench of Calcutta High Court was pleased to pass order in A.P.O.T No. 903 of 1999 and C.A. No. 4925 of
1999 as follows:-
“We, accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the order dated November 30, 1999. The writ petition is also
allowed and the impugned order dated November 19, 1998 be set aside. However, this order will not preclude
the respondent authorities from taking any action against the appellant as they may be advised and in
accordance with law. It is being made clear that this Court has not decided on the merits of the allegations
against the appellant.”
10.
Consequently, M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited issued the charge sheet against concerned workman. The Dy.
C.M.E. / Agent of Girmint Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited issued the charge sheet to Sri D. P. Singh on two
counts :-
17(i)(a) - Theft, fraud, or dishonesty in connection with the employer’s business or property.
17(i)(i) - Causing willful damage to work in progress or to property of the employer.
The delinquent replied the above charge sheet by letter dated 05.02.2000. After receiving the reply of
delinquent, General Manager, Sripur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited appointed Sri T. K. Mukherjee, Personnel
Manager (IC), Sripur Area as Enquiry Officer. Sri T. K. Mukherjee, Enquiry Officer examined 6 (six) Officers of the
management. Sri Kajal Chatterjee, the then Dy. Sales Manager, as MW-1, Sri S. K. Banerjee, the then Supdt. Engineer
as MW-2, Sri N. L. Maharaj, the then Security Officer as MW-3 Sri R. K Nayak, the then Manager, Bhanora West
Block Colliery as MW-4, Sri K. Roy, Executive Engineer as MW-5 and Sri P. Chatterjee, Executive Engineer, Bhanora
West Block colliery as MW-6. All these management witnesses were examined in presence of delinquent workman Shri
D. P. Singh by the Enquiry Officer. Sri Kajal Chatterjee the then Dy. Sales Manager, Sripur Area has stated in his
statement that:-
“I, Sri Kajal Chatterjee, the then Dy. Sales Manager of Sripur Area inspected Bhanora Weighbridge as a
member of a Taskforce at about 18 hours on 17.11.1998 along with other two members namely Sri S. K.
Banerjee, the then Supdt. Engineer (E&M) and Sri N. L. Maharaj, the then Area Security Officer, Sripur Area.
At the time of our inspection we found that the weighbridge room was closed and 5 (five) trucks were standing
at the colliery premises in loaded condition. The Weighbridge Clerk, Sri D. P. Singh was not available and
documents like challans, Gate Pass were prepared by Sri D. K. Roy, Tech. Inspector of Bhanora Colliery. We
stopped Sri Roy to issue these challans and requested him for re-weighment of the trucks. Sri Roy could not re-
weigh the trucks as the key of the weighbridge room was not with him. We searched Sri D. P. Singh, W.B. Clerk
but he was not available. The matter was intimated to the General Manager, Sri Joydeb Banerjee and the then
Manager of Bhanora Colliery at Sripur Area Guest House by Sri N. L Maharaj personally when they were
attending a meeting at Sripur Area Guest House. Sri Maharaj returned to the weighbridge along with the then
Manager and two colliery Engineer namely Sri P. K Chatterjee and Sri K. K Roy at about 8:30 P.M. They
searched out Sri D. P. Singh and opened the weighbridge room. The trucks were re-weighed in our presence
and found difference of 19.8000 tones more in 5 trucks. We prepared statement duly signed by 6 (six) executives
2058
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and one copy deposited with the Manager, one copy sent to the General Manager, Sripur Area through Area
Security Officer.”
11.
The Enquiry Officer afforded opportunity of cross-examination to delinquent from all the management
witnesses. Sri D. P. Singh, delinquent workman cross-examined all the witnesses. Sri D. P. Singh asked this question “If
you keep the truck after weighment, some outside persons or customers may load the coal more than what has been
weighed. Is it possible or not?” Some witnesses replied in answer that it was not possible and some management
witnesses pleaded ignorance. Sri D. P. Singh, the delinquent workman was cross-examined by the E.O. Sri T. K
Mukherjee. He was asked by the E.O. “The condition of the Weigh-bridge on that date was OK or NOT ?” Sri D. P.
Singh replied, “the condition of the Weigh bridge was OK .” Therefore, it is clear that Sri D. P. Singh the delinquent
workman has himself admitted that on 17.11.1998 when the tuck was re-weighed by Taskforce, the weighbridge was
OK. Therefore there is no possibility that due to any error or defect in machine overloading of coal might have occurred.
12.
After completion of enquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report against Sri D. P. Singh. On perusal of
enquiry report it appears that it is well-founded based on cogent evidence. General Manager, Sripur Area, issued copy of
enquiry report to Sri D. P. Singh and called for his comment by letter No. GM/SA/C/60/9/2001/646 dated 28.02.2001 /
01.03.2001 along with letter, the copy of findings of Enquiry Report was delivered to Sri D. P. Singh. Sri D. P. Singh
submitted his reply dated 23.03.2001 denying all the charges. The Disciplinary authority passed the dismissal order
dated 30.03.2001 against Sri D. P. Singh. It is relevant to mention that Sri D. P. Singh did not examine any defence
witness though opportunity to put defence witness was provided to Sri D. P. Singh.
13.
On perusal of enquiry proceeding, enquiry report and all other papers, it transpires that Enquiry Officer has
conducted enquiry proceeding in compliance of Principles of Natural Justice. Though, Sri D. P. Singh has challenged the
compliance of Principles of Natural Justice in his written statement. But on perusal of enquiry report, the contention of
Sri D. P. Singh does not find support. Even the delinquent Sri D. P. Singh has not been able to prove the element of bias,
partiality and malafide in enquiry report in his oral evidence.
14.
The duties of an employee would include, that he would be trustworthy, that his act would justify the
confidence of the employer, that he would not so act as to prejudice or damage the interests of the employer, that he
would not act as or conduct or behave himself in a way inconsistent or incompatible with the faithful discharge of his
duties to the employer. That he would not behave in an insubordinate manner. Every workman is expected to behave
himself, so as not to damage or prejudice the interest of his employer.
15.
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.
16.
On perusal of enquiry report and findings of Enquiry Office, it appears that the enquiry is based on cogent
evidence and there is no violation of principle of natural justice. Enquiry Officer has conducted departmental enquiry
against delinquent workman Sri D. P. Singh in compliance of Principle of Natural Justice. All opportunities to defend
the concerned workman has been provided to him. So far as the contention of Sri D. P. Singh in his written statement
that charge has been framed under Model Standing Order rather than Certified Standing Order is concerned, the
delinquent workman has not been able to prove that even if charges were framed under Model Standing Order, he was
prejudiced. If workman is not prejudiced then framing of charge under Model Standing Order rather than Certified
Standing Order there is no illegality.
17.
The vital question requires consideration where the domestic enquiry is held in compliance of natural justice,
whether punishment of dismissal is justified or it is too harsh or disproportionate to the proven guilt as in present case
against Sri D. P. Singh, whether the punishment of Sri D. P. Singh should be modified to lesser punishment than the
punishment of dismissal. The first and foremost requirement is to be seen that the workman, in fact, held a place of trust
and confidence and while holding such position he did something to forfeit the confidence of the employer. Delinquent
Sri D. P. Singh was not negligent in performance of his duties, rather, he actively committed willful wrong with
dishonest intention for wrongful gain to him and for wrongful loss to M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. Therefore, in
present scenario to continue such employee in service would be embarrassing and inconvenient to M/s Eastern
Coalfields Limited and would be detrimental to the interest of discipline and security of the establishment. The taskforce
reached on the spot at 6:00 P.M. on 17.11.1998, at that time the concerned workman was not present. He was called by
the Officers of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. Sri D. P. Singh came on the spot at 11:00 P.M. and coal was re-weighed
and 19.80 tones coal was found overloaded. It is not possible that after 6:00 P.M. till 11:00 P.M. any other person will
overload the truck with intention to falsely implicate Sri D. P. Singh.
18.
In Prem Singh v/s P.O., C.G.I.T., Panipat reported in 2014 LAB IC 1764, Punjab & Haryana High Court in
this case the delinquent workman embezzled some amount. Sufficient opportunity was given to delinquent at the time
of enquiry to defend himself as well as to cross-examine departmental witnesses and thereafter to lead his own evidence.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2059
But, the delinquent failed to show any mala fide. Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that enquiry was
conducted in compliance of Principle of Natural Justice. Order of termination is proper. In view of Hon’ble Punjab &
Haryana High Court since the guilt of Sri D. P. Singh is proved in departmental enquiry, which is held in compliance of
principle of natural justice, the dismissal of Sri D. P. Singh by M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is legal and justified.
19.
Considering the whole facts and circumstances of the reference, as discussed above, I come to the conclusion
that the act of the management of Bhanora West Block colliery of M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing Sri
D. P. Singh, Weigh-Bridge Clerk, from service w.e.f 30.03.2001 is legal and justified. The workman concerned is not
entitled to any relief.
ORDER
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] 9 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-914-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y 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@Je
U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 40@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@35@2008&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2016
S.O.914.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2008) of the Central Government Industrial 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 09.05.2016.
[No. L-22012/35/2008-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. 40 OF 2008
PARTIES:
The management of G.M. (P&IR), Sanctoria of M/s. ECL
Vs.
Sri Chandan Burman
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the management
:
Sri P. K. Goswami, Ld. Advocate
For the union (Workman)
:
Sri M.K. Bandopadhyay, Ld. Advocate
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated: 12.04.2016
AWARD
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-22012/35/2008-IR(CM-II) dated 07.07.2008 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by
this Tribunal.
2060
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of M/s. ECL in not regularizing the services of Shri Chandan Burman
as Clerk is legal and justified? To what relief is the workman concerned entitled ?”
1.
Having received the Order NO. L-22012/35/2008-IR(CM-II) dated 07.07.2008 of the above said reference
from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 40 of 2008
was registered on 15.07.2008 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.
2.
On perusal of the case record, I find that my predecessor (Late Jayanta Kumar Sen, the then P.O.) of this
Tribunal had reserved an award in this case because the workman neither appeared nor took any step through his lawyer.
It seems that the workman was no more interested to proceed with the case. The reference is also 8 years old, of the year
2008. As such the case is closed and a ‘No Dispute Award’ is hereby passed accordingly.
ORDER
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] 9 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-915-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y 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@Je
U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 41@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@289@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2016
S.O.915.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2008) of the Central Government Industrial 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 09.05.2016.
[No. L-22012/289/2007-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. 41 OF 2008
PARTIES:
The management of Satgram Incline of M/s. ECL
Vs.
Sri Lakhan Das
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management
:
Sri P. K. Goswami, Ld. Advocate
For the union (Workman)
:
None
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated: 18.04.2016
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2061
AWARD
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-22012/289/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 07.07.2008 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by
this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of M/s. by refusing encashment of earned leave to Sri Lakhan Das for
the period from 11.11.1996 to 30.11.1996 and again for 25.03.1997 to 10.04.1997 is legal and justified? To
what relief is the workman concerned entitled? ”
1.
Having received the Order No. L-22012/289/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 07.07.2008 of the above said reference
from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 41 of 2008
was registered on 15.07.2008 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.
2.
Case called out. Sri P. K. Goswami, learned advocate is present on behalf of the management but none appears
on behalf of the workman/union.
3.
On perusal of the case record, I find that the workman/union neither appeared nor took any step even for a
single day since beginning. Registered notices were issued to him on 06.05.2009, 24.01.2012, 17.05.2012 and
18.07.2014. 34 dates have been granted to the workman/union for filing written statement so far but all in vain. It seems
to me that the workman is not at all interested to proceed his case further. If he had been interested with the case he
would have come before the Tribunal. Since the workman is not interested to proceed with the case I have no option left
but to close the case. As such the case is closed and a ‘No Dispute Award’ is hereby passed accordingly.
ORDER
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] 9 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-916-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y 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@Je
U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 19@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@184@2004&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2016
S.O.916.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Parascole Colliery, Kajora Area
of M/s. ECL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.05.2016.
[No. L-22012/184/2004-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
2062
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT: Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 19 OF 2005
PARTIES :
The management of Parascole Colliery of M/s. E.C.L.
Vs.
Late Puran Gope
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management
:
Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate
For the union (Workman)
:
Sri Rakesh Kumar, Gen. Secy. KMC
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated : 19.04.2016
AWARD
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-22012/184/2004–IR(CM-II) dated 30.03.2005 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Parascole Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in
denying employment to the son of Late Puran Gope, Line Mistry, U.M. No. 676043 with payment of monetary
compensation to wife of the deceased workman till the son’s employment is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
dependant of the deceased workman is entitled? ”
1. Having received the Order No. L-22012/184/2004–IR(CM-II) dated 30.03.2005 of the above said reference
from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 19 of 2005
was registered on 12.04.2005. 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.
2.
The dependent of deceased employee Late Puran Gope has stated in brief in his written statement that Sri Late
Puran Gope, Line Mistry, U. M. No. 676043 of Parascole Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited
was a permanent employee of the company who died while he was in service of the company on 17.06.1995. Under the
provisions of NCWA-V Smt. Rajmatia Devi, wife of Late Puran Gope applied for providing employment in place of her
husband. Colliery management processed the employment proposal and forwarded to Area. After proper screening at
Area level send the proposal to the Head Quarter of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. Competent Authority of M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited Head Quarter decided to grant monetary compensation to the wife of deceased workman
Late Puran Gope as son of Late Puran Gope was near 15 years of age at the time of death of Late Puran Gope as per
Clause 9.5.0-III of NCWA-V. But she refused the proposal and requested for providing employment to her because her
son was below 18 years of age. Then Head Quarter of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited decided to grant her monetary
compensation till her son attend the age of majority i.e. 18 years of age and till then decided to kept the name of her son
in live roster so that after attaining majority the son of Late Puran Gope may be provided employment under provision
of Clause 9.5.0-III of NCWA-V&VI vide order No. ECL/CMD/C-6B/Empl/3/648 dated 15/16.10.1998. The widow of
Late Puran Gope requested for monetary compensation but it was not paid to her. Sri Ganesh Gope son of deceased
permanent employee, Late Puran Gope after attaining 18 years of age applied for providing employment to him and
submitted all relevant documents in support of the claim. But surprisingly enough the management of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited did not consider the employment proposal on the plea that Sri Ganesh Gope was less than 15 years
of age at the time of death of Late Puran Gope. As per service excerpt format in the year 1987 the age of Sri Ganesh
Gope was 5 years as on 1987 and he was 15 years old at the time of death of Late Puran Gope. Management of M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited approved the maintenance allowance to the wife deceased employee as well as employment
to son of deceased employee after attaining age of 18 years. Therefore rejection of employment and monetary proposal
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2063
is unjustified. The action of management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is contrary to provision of Clause 9.5.0-III
of NCWA-V. M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is deliberately harassing the poor family. M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited
even did not pay monetary compensation to the wife of Late Puran Gope. Name of Sri Ganesh Gope was kept in live
roster for providing employment when Sri Ganesh Gope attains the age of 18 years. Now at this stage the denial of
employment is unjustified. The dependents of Late Puran Gope has prayed that Sri Ganesh Gope son of deceased
employee Late Puran Gope be provided employment as per Clause 9.5.0-III of NCWA-V&VI and till then the widow of
Late Puran Gope, Smt. Rajmatia Devi be paid monetary compensation from the date of death of Late Puran Gope i.e.
17.06.1995 till the date of getting employment of Sri Ganesh Gope son of deceased employee Late Puran Gope.
3.
Tribunal has fixed more than 40 dates for filing written statement of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. But M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited did not care to file written statement so far. The union representative has filed the following
documents:-
(i)
Xerox copy of the Service excerpts format of Late Puran Gope.
(ii)
Xerox copy of the Death Registration Certificate of Late Puran Gope.
(iii)
Xerox copy of the Death Certificate of Late Puran Gope.
(iv)
Voter I.D. of Sri Ganesh Gope son of Late Puran Gope.
(v)
Letter of the Agent of Parascole Colliery dated 04/06.11.1995 for attending screening committee for
employment of wife.
(vi)
Letter of P.M., Parascole Colliery addressed to wife of Late Puran Gope dated 11.04.1997 for some
clarification and submitting documents.
(vii)
Letter of Dy. C.P.M., H.Q., ECL dated 19/22.08.1998 for payment of monetary compensation in lieu
of employment.
(viii)
Letter of P.M., Kajora Area dated 08.10.1998 for payment of monetary compensation.
(ix)
Letter of Dy. C.P.M., Kajora Area dated 15/16.10.1998 for payment of monetary compensation.
(x)
Letter of Dy. P.M., dated 24/25.10.1998 Parascole for payment of monetary compensation till the son
of Late Puran Gope will attend the age of 18 years.
(xi)
Application of Sri Ganesh Gope for providing employment after attaining the age of 18 years.
(xii)
Note sheet (photo copy) dated 07/27.12.2001 for providing employment to the son of Late Puran
Gope.
(xiii)
Admit Card of Sri Ganesh Gope.
(xiv)
Voter I.D. card of Smt. Rajmatia Devi wife of Late Puran Gope.
(xv)
No objection for providing employment.
(xvi)
Xerox copy of clause 9.5.0 of NCWA.
4.
Sri Ganesh Gope has file affidavit in his oral evidence. Sri Ganesh Gope has been cross-examined by learned
advocate of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed any documentary or oral
evidence.
5.
Sri Rakesh Kumar, General Secretary of the union appearing on behalf of the dependent of the deceased
employee Late Puran Gope has argued that as per NCWA the widow or son of deceased employee is entitled for
employment. The name of Sri Ganesh Gope was entered in live roster for providing employment after attaining 18 year
of age. Because at the time of death of Late Puran Gope the age of Sri Ganesh Gope son of deceased was less than
18 years. But the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not followed the NCWA and order of M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited. The rejection of employment proposal is breach of Clause 9.5.0-III of NCWA. He has
argued that not only employment be provided to Sri Ganesh Gope but also monetary compensation be paid to Smt.
Rajmatia Devi from 17.06.1995 till the date of getting employment to her son. He has also argued that in a similar case
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has provided employment to son of deceased employee. The copy of Order dated
14.08.2012 is on record. On other hand Sri P. K. Das, learned advocate appearing on behalf of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited has argued that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as matter of right. Sri Ganesh Gope son of
deceased Late Puran Gope did not full fill the condition for employment. Therefore M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited
rejected the employment proposal.
2064
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.
As per copy of service excerpt of Late Puran Gope maintained by M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and
submitted by the union representation on behalf of the dependent of Late Puran Gope, it is apparent that Late Puran
Gope was a permanent employee of the company in Parascole Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The copy of
Death Certificate of Late Puran Gope is filed on record. He was expired on 17.06.1995 while he was in service of
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.
7.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v/s Union Of India & Others (2011) 4 SCC 209 has held:
Now, it is well settled that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole
object to provide immediate relief to the employee's family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot
be claimed as a matter of right. Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our Constitutional scheme,
and ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and
comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode of
appointment is permissible. Nevertheless, the concept of compassionate appointment has been recognized as an
exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of a policy of an
employer, which partakes the character of the service rules. That being so, it needs little emphasis that the
scheme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an
exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve.
8.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohan Mahto v/s M/s. Central Coalfields Limited, 2007 (115) FLR 427 has held:
A settlement within the meaning of Sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act is binding on
both the parties and continues to remain in force unless the same is altered, modified or substituted by another
settlement. No period of limitation was provided in the settlement. We would assume that the respondent had
jurisdiction to issue such circular prescribing a period of limitation for filing application for grant of
appointment on compassionate ground. But, such circular was not only required to be strictly complied
with but also was required to be read keeping in view the settlement entered into by and between the parties.
The expanding definition of workman as contained in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act would confer a
right upon the appellant to obtain appointment on compassionate ground, subject, of course, to compliance of
the conditions precedent contained therein.
9.
The copy of NCWA-VI agreement as per Clause 9.5.0-III is as follows:
In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0, if no
employment has been offered and the male dependant of the concerned worker is 12 years and above in age, he
will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications
when he attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependant is on live roster, the female
dependant will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at paras (i) & (ii).
10.
Question arises for consideration, whether Sri Ganesh Gope is dependent son of Late Puran Gope the decease
workman of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and whether dependents of Late Puran Gope are in financial crisis? Sri
Ganesh Gope has filed copy of Voter I.D. Card. The name of Late Puran Gope is entered as father of Sri Ganesh Gope.
In the letter of Dy. P.M. & Dy. CME/Agent of Parascole Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited bearing letter No.
PC/NS/C-6/2001-1696 dated 07.12.2001 the name of Sri Ganesh Gope is mentioned as son of Late Puran Gope. The
U.M. No. of Late Puran Gope is 676043. From these documents it is evident that Sri Ganesh Gope is son of Late Puran
Gope. Sri Ganesh Gope has filed affidavit in his oral evidence in Para 12 of his affidavit he has stated that “I am not
having any source of income to maintain our livelihood and now we are in the stage of starvation”. He has been cross-
examined by the advocate of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. His evidence appears to be trustworthy. Dy. Chief of M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited vide letter Ref. No. ECL/CMD/C-6B/Empl/3/648 dated 15/16.10.1998 addressed to the
Personnel Manager (I/C), Kajora Area has informed that the competent authority has approved the maintenance
allowance in respect of Smt. Rajmatia Devi wife of Late Puran Gope till her son Sri Ganesh Gope attains the age of 18
years. The name of the above son will be kept in the live roster and maintenance allowance of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two
Thousand only) per month will be paid to Smt. Rajmatia Devi. The same information has been conveyed to Smt.
Rajmatia Devi by Dy. P.M., Parascole Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited vide letter Ref. No. PC/C-6/98-1844
dated 24.10.1998. Sri Ganesh Gope applied for his employment to Dy. C.M.E./Agent, Parascole Colliery of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited. Smt. Rajmatia Devi also applied Dy. C.M.E./Agent, Parascole Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited for the job of his son. The sisters of Sri Ganesh Gope namely Monaka Kumari and Sumita Kumari have
submitted no objection to the Agent of Parascole Colliery in providing job to his brother Sri Ganesh Gope.
11.
When name of Sri Ganesh Gope the only son of the deceased permanent employee Late Puran Gope has
been entered in live roster for providing job after attaining the majority M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited also decided to
pay compensation of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) per month to Smt. Rajmatia Devi the widow of Late Puran
Gope. Sri Ganesh Gope the dependent son of Late Puran Gope fulfilled the condition prescribed in NCWA. Dependent
family of Late Puran Gope is facing financial crisis. He ought to have been provided employment. G.M., Satgram Area
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2065
of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited by Order dated 14.08.2012 has provided employment as per NCWA in similar
circumstances to Sri Yoginder Singh after the death of his father after attaining the age of 18 years. There is no reason
to withhold the rights of dependent family member of Late Puran Gope, deceased employee of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited which they are entitled to get as per NCWA.
12.
In view of discussion above the action of management of Parascole Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited in denying the employment to the son of Late Puran Gope, and payment of monetary compensation
to Smt. Rajmatia Devi the widow of Late Puran Gope till her son’s employment is illegal and unjustified. Sri Ganesh
Gope son of Late Puran Gope is entitled for employment in M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. Smt. Rajmatia Devi is
entitled for compensation from the date of death of Late Puran Gope i.e. 17.06.1995 till the date of employment of his
son Sri Ganesh Gope. The order will be enforced within Two months after publication under section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
ORDER
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] 9 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-917-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-,u-th-
lh- fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 96@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
04-05-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@13@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2016
S.O.917.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 96/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-1, New
Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of
M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 04-05-2016.
[No. L-30012/13/2013-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 96/2013
Shri Gopal Singh Pundir,
S/o Shri Keshar Singh Pundir,
House No.48, Vishnu Vihar,
Ajapur Kalan,
Dehradun 248 001
…Workman
Versus
1.
The Managing Director,
ONGC Ltd. Tel Bhawan
Dehradun, Uttarakhand
2.
The Chief Medical Superintendent,
ONGS Hospital, Ballupur,
Dehradun, Uttarakhand
…Managements
2066
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Reference under Section 10 sub section (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) was received
from the Central Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment vide it orders No.L-30012/13/2013-IR(M) dated
23.05.2013 for adjudication of the industrial dispute with the following terms:
‘Whether the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., Dehradun in terminating the services of Shri Gopal
Singh Pundir, Dresser-cum-Hospital Attendant with effect from September 2012, without complying of
provisions of Section 25 F, G H of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is unjustified? If so, to what relief workman is
entitled to?’
2.
Both the parties were put to notice and Shri Gopal Singh Pundir, workman herein, filed statement of claim
wherein it is alleged that he was engaged on fixed tenure of employment for a period commencing from 13.06.2007 as
Dresser cum Hospital Attendant by Oil and Natural Gas Commission, the management, on a monthly salary of
Rs.3500.00 till 30.06.2008. Workman had applied for the above job in response to an open advertisement and he was
selected and terms and conditions were reduced to writing on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.100.00 executed on
12.06.2007 vide a Ex.WW1/M1.
3.
Services of the workman herein were extended twice from 30.06.2008 to 30.08.2012 for a period of two years
and salary of the workman was also increased from Rs.3500.00 to Rs.7500.00 It was also agreed that in case of further
extension of the contract by the management, same terms and conditions shall apply to the workman who shall
communicate his acceptance in the prescribed format.
4.
It is also case of the workman that on 01.09.2012, as usual he came to the office for the purpose of performing
his duties and he was verbally told that his services have been terminated from 01.09.2012. Workman herein has not
done any wrongful act. He has also completed 240 days in a calendar year right from 13.06.2007 to 30.08.2012.
Workman herein also falls within the definition of ‘workman’ and management is an ‘industry’ under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). It is also violation of provisions of section 25(N) as well as section 25E(ii) of the
Act. During the period of his employment, workman was also deprived of various industrial benefits in the form of
gratuity, ESI , bonus etc. by the management.
5.
Lastly it is averred that had the workman herein been employed on regular basis, same would have fetched him
a salary of not less than Rs.30,000.00 per month. No retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman herein and
gratuity of the workmen comes to Rs.2,62,950.00 to which the workman is entitled @Rs.700.00 per months salary.
Retrenchment compensation of the workman is around Rs.70,000.00 having regard to the nature of work and salary of
Rs.7500.00. Workman has prayed for reinstatement on the job with all consequential benefits.
6.
Claim of the workman was refuted by the management by filing written statement thereto. However, it is
alleged in para 1 of the written statement that the workman was engaged on fixed tenure of contract for a period of one
year i.e. with effect form 30.06.2007 as Dresser cum Hospital Attendant on certain terms and conditions agreed by him
as is clear from memorandum dated 12.06.2007 as well as affidavit on stamp paper of the same date. Further, in para 4
management has admitted that on 29.06.2012 a memorandum was issued to the workman herein informing that fresh
extension of service has been given with effect from 01.07.2012 for two months or upto the joining of fresh incumbent,
whichever is earlier. It is also admitted that an advertisement was issued on 05.08.2012 so as to meet the contingency
requirement of Dresser cum Hospital Attendant and interview was conducted on 12.08.2012 and other colleagues of the
workman herein appeared for the test whereas the workman herein abstained from the test for reasons best known to
him. Workman was well aware as he was informed vide memorandum No.OHSS/1/(1)/2012 dated 29.06.2012
(Annexure III ) that his services have been extended with effect from 01.07.2012 for two months or upto the joining of
fresh incumbent, whichever is earlier. Thus, his period of contract of employment came to an end on 30.08.2012 after
the joining of the new incumbent. Workman was thus well aware of his contract of employment which was for a fixed
tenure as is evident from memorandum dated 12.06.2007 (Annexure I). There is no provision under the Act for
regularization or continuation of services of such workmen who have been deployed for a fixed period. Engagement of
the workman herein was covered by provisions under section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and termination of his services from
01.09.2012 was result of non-renewal of contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned.
There is no question of applicability of Section 25(N) of the Act. More so, when it is not a case of retrenchment, as such,
provisions of Section 25F, G and H of the Act are not applicable to the case of the workman. Management has denied
other averments made in the statement of claim.
7.
Finally, management has relied upon the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (AIR 2006 SC
1806).
8.
Against this factual background, my learned predecessor, vide a order dated 07.10.2013, framed the following
issues:
(i)
Whether claimant was engaged by the management for a specific period?
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2067
(ii)
Whether non-extension of period of service falls within sub-clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947?
(iii)
As in terms of reference.
9.
Workman, in order to prove his case against the management examined himself as WW1. No documents were
tendered by him. Management did not examine any witness so as to rebut the case of the workman. However,
management put Ex.WW1/M1 to Ex.WW1/M5 to the workman herein during the course of his cross examination.
10.
I have heard Shri Govind Singh, authorized representative for the claimant and Shri A.N. Mehrotra, authorized
representative, for the management.
Issue No.1
11.
During the course of arguments, one thing which emerged from the pleadings of the parties as well as on
evidence on record was that Shri Gopal Singh Pundir, the workman herein, was admittedly given employment for a
fixed tenure as Dresser cum Hospital Attendant in response to the application filed by the workman herein. After
selection of the workman, he has entered into an agreement with the management as is clear from Ex.WW1/M1. It is
clear from perusal of the agreement that the same is signed by the workman herein as well as Shri K.S. Rawat, Chief
Manager (F&A), ONGC Hospital . Perusal of clause 1 of the agreement clearly provides that the workman will render
services to the Corporation upto June 2008 from 13.06.2007 on contract basis. There is also reference of salary as well
as annual increments in the salary of the workman herein. Workman has also admitted execution of this agreement in
his pleadings. There is also another memorandum Ex.WW1/M2 which shows that on the basis of interview held on
12.06.2007 workman herein was engaged as Dresser cum Hospital Attendant on contract basis and terms and conditions
of employment are as under:
(i)
The tenure of engagement on contract basis will be upto 30.06.2008.
(ii)
Consolidated monthly honorarium would be Rs.3500.00 per month
(iii)
No other allowances/benefits would be admissible to him
(iv)
Notice period of one month would be required to be given from either side for termination of
contractual engagement
(v)
12 days casual leave can be granted by GM- CMS , Medical Service during one year of engagement
(vi)
Working hours/duty timings would be decided by GM-Chief Medical Services and communicated
separately
(vii)
An annual increase of Rs.150.00 will be considered and allowed after successful completion of one
year tenure
(viii)
Colony accommodation if available vacant will be allotted subject to deduction of flat amount, i.e.
Rs.750.00 per month & electricity charges on actual consumption.
(ix)
The para medical staff shall be extended in-house medical facility only during the tenure of
engagement
12.
Shri Gopal Singh Pundir, while appearing as WW1 has tendered in evidence his affidavit, which is Ex.WW1/A
and it is on similar lines as per the recital contained in the statement of claim. He has also admitted in his cross
examination regarding moving of application for the above job and in response thereto, he was selected for the said
post. He has also admitted that he has received memorandum Ex.WW1/2 from the management, which contains his
tenure of engagement as well as salary/increments to be given to the workman. He further admitted that Ex.WW1/M4
was also received by him which shows that services of the workman was extended for a period of one more year with
effect from 01.04.2010 to 30.06.2011 and other terms and conditions would remain unchanged. Further, office order
Ex.WW1/M3 also shows that further extension in service in respect of the contractual employees(Dresser cum Hospital
Attendant) was made by the management for a period upto 30.06.2010 and name of the workman herein appears at serial
No.20 of the said office order. It is, thus, clear from the evidence on record that initial appointment of the workman
herein was for a fixed period with effect from 13.06.2007 on contract basis till 30.06.2008 as is evident from
Ex.WW1/M1. But services of the workman herein were later on extended as is clear from memorandum Ex.WW1/M2
which is extension from 30.06.2008 to 30.06.2010, Ex.WW1/M4 which is extension from 01.07.2010 to 30.06.2011 and
vide Ex.WW1/M5 from 01.07.2012 for a period of two months. In view of the documentary evidence discussed above, it
is held that though the claimant was engaged by the management initially for a specific period but later on tenure of the
workman was extended in the manner discussed above from time to time upto 01.09.2012, when workman was informed
that his services were no more required. Hence, the issue is decided accordingly.
2068
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Issue No.2 and 3
13.
Both these issues are inter-related, as such, are being taken up together for the purpose of discussion.
14.
Now, the vital question in the case in hand is whether non-extension of service of the workman herein falls
within sub section (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act. The related issue, or to put things in the other way, as to whether
termination of service of the workman herein with effect from 01.09.2012 without complying with provisions of Section
25 F, G and H of the Act is unjustified. It was strongly contended on behalf of the workman that post of Dresser cum
Hospital Attendant in the hospital is regular and perennial nature and some other occupant is holding the said post after
September 2012. Management has acted in a most arbitrary manner by not regularizing the services of the workman
herein and instead of doing so, services of the workman have been terminated without serving any notice as required
under section 25F of the Act or payment of one months’ notice/salary to the workman in lieu of notice. It was also
urged that the workman was performing his duties sincerely and diligently and his appointment to the job was not a back
door entry as the same was made after advertising the post as required under the law and thereafter workman herein was
selected to the said post. In such circumstances, submission was raised that instead of regularizing the workman herein,
he was given an unceremonial send off by the management by not renewing his contract after September 2012. Reliance
was also placed on certain authorities. I would be discussing the same in the subsequent paras while drawing my
conclusions.
15.
Per contra, Shri Govind Singh raised submissions raised on behalf of the workman by urging that workman
herein was employed on contract basis for a fixed period, as such, it was fixed tenure employment initially for a period
of one year with effect from 13.06.2007 as Dresser cum Hospital Attendant . Thereafter, services of the workman herein
was extended till 30.06.2012 and thereafter for a period of two months, as is clear from Ex.WW1/M3. Learned
authorized representative for the management invited attention of this Tribunal to the fact that regular exam was also
held for the said post. However, workman herein did not appear for the test, as a result of which it was difficult to
continue him in the employment or extend his services when fresh incumbent who have qualified were offered jobs. It
was made clear to the workman, as is evident from Ex.WW1/M5 that his extension was lastly for a period of two months
only, upto the joining of fresh incumbent. Learned authorized representative for the management put reliance upon
certain authorities, which ratio I would be referring to while discussing the various provisions of the Act in the
subsequent paras.
16.
Before I proceed to consider and evaluate the evidence on record as well as various authorities relied upon on
behalf of both the parties, it is necessary to refer to the definition of ‘retrenchment’ as contained in Section 2(oo) and the
same is as under:
1*[(oo) "retrenchment means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason
whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include—
(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the
employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or
2*[(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment
between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a
stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or]
(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;
17.
Equally important is the definition of ‘workman’ as contained in section 2(s) of the Act. During the course of
arguments, it was not denied that the workman herein falls within definition of ’workman’ as defined in section 2(s) of
the Act inasmuch as even a daily wager, casual worker or a temporary worker are also included in the definition of
‘workman’ contained in the Act.
18.
Now, the vital question before this Tribunal is whether non-renewal of contract of the workman herein after
01.09.2012 by the management amounts to termination or retrenchment of the workman. It is clear from definition of
the word ‘retrenchment’ under sub-clause (bb) of section 2(oo), termination of services of a workman as a result of non-
renewal of contract of employment on the expiry of contract would not fall within definition of ‘retrenchment’.
19.
During the course of arguments, strong reliance was placed by the management upon the case of Morinda Co-
op. Sugar Mills Ltd vs Ram Kishan And Others etc.(1995 SCC (5) 653) decided on 25 August, 1995 by the Hon’ble
Apex Court, it was a case where workmen had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and they were
retrenched by the management without serving any notice, resulting in violation of requirement of section 25 of the Act.
Industrial Tribunal as well as Hon’ble High Court held order of termination to be illegal and retrenchment was held to
be void under the law. Matter was ultimately taken to the Apex Court . It was strongly urged on behalf of the
management that the workmen were employed to do seasonal work during the crushing season and they had hardly
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2069
worked for 4-5 months in a year. After seasonal work was over, their services used to be terminated as they were not
required to do any other work. Hon’ble Apex court set aside the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court and held that
deployment for such seasonal work would not invite provisions of section 25F of the Act as it is not retrenchment under
the Act.
20.
There is another authority, ie. District Animal Husbandry vs. Labour Court. It was also a case of contractual
appointment with services of the workmen stood terminated on the expiry of the contract period. There was also recital
in the agreement wherein it was clearly provided that on expiry of six month period, unless the same is mutually
extended, terms would automatically come to an end, it was also not disputed that no further extension was given to the
workmen after fixed term of appointment. It was held that there was no question of applicability of provisions of section
25F of the Act.
21.
Strong reliance was placed upon the case of Steel Authority of India vs. Workers of the management (2006 Vol.
3 JCR 432). Workmen in that case was a khalasi who was appointed for a period of three months on 06.04.1984 in
Bokaro Steel Plant. Contract was extended from time to time and finally his name was struck of from the rolls of the
company on 01.01.1986 without any notice to him. Conciliation having failed at the instance of the union, reference was
made under Section 10 of the Act to the Labour Court and moot point raised before the Tribunal was whether removal of
the workmen from service of Bokharo Steel Plant by the management is justified. Primary contention on behalf of the
workman was that there was non-compliance of section 25F of the Act as no one month notice or salary in lieu of such
notice was paid to the workman. Management specifically took shelter under the definition of retrenchment contained in
Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and it was strongly urged that no prior notice was required to be served on the workmen nor
retrenchment compensation was payable as the case is covered under the said sub-clause (bb) of clause (oo) of Section 2
of the Act. Labour Court answered the reference in favour of the workmen and held that action of the management to be
mala fide and unjustified, being breach of section 25F of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Hon’ble High
Court, Award of the Labour Court was set aside by placing reliance upon Harmohinder Singh Vs. Kharga Canteen
wherein in under similar circumstances, view was taken that provisions of section 25F of the Act are not applicable in
the case of termination of services on expiry of contract of service for a fixed period.
22.
Management also invited attention of this Tribunal to the case of Punjab State Electricity Board vs Darbara
Singh decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 17.112005 wherein the workman was a peon on daily wages from
08.01.1988 to 29.02.1988. It was also made clear that when the new incumbent would join services, his services would
be deemed to be terminated without notice and the post was alleged to be purely temporary in nature. There were
extensions in service from time to time for short periods. Later on, on 12.05.1989 another workman Shri Surant Singh
was appointed on permanent basis. The first appointee workman challenged the action of the management and the
Labour Court held the disengagement of the workman to be illegal and ordering his reinstatement. Even a writ petition
filed before the Hon’ble High Court was also dismissed and ultimately the management of Punjab State Electricity
Board took the matter in appeal to the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) as well as Section
25F etc. were discussed in extenso. Judgement rendered by the High Court was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, by placing reliance upon Anil Bapurao Kanase vs Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Anr (1997(10 SCC
599) it was held as under:
‘The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the judgment of the High court of Bombay relied on in the
impugned order dated 28/3/1995 in Writ Petition No. 488 of 1994 is perhaps not applicable. Since the appellant
has worked for more than 180 days, he is to be treated as retrenched employee and if the procedure
contemplated under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is applied, his retrenchment is illegal. We
find no force in this contention. In Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ram Kishan in para 3, this court
has dealt with engagement of the seasonal workman in sugarcane crushing; in para 4, it is stated that it was not
a case of retrenchment of the workman, but of closure of the factory after the crushing season was over.
Accordingly, in para 5, it was held that it is not "retrenchment" within the meaning of Section 2(00 of the Act.
As a consequence the appellant is not entitled to retrenchment as per clause (bb) of Section 2(00 of the Act.
Since the present work is seasonal business, the principles of the Act have no application. However, this court
has directed that the respondent management should maintain a register and engage the workmen when the
season starts in the succeeding years in the order of seniority. Until all the employees whose names appear in
the list are engaged in addition to the employees who are already working, the management should not go in for
fresh engagement of new workmen. It would be incumbent upon the respondent management to adopt such
procedure as is enumerated above.’
23.
Hon’ble Apex Court also relied upon Batala Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Sowaran Singh (2005
(7)Supreme 165) and held that order made by the Labour Court as well as High Court are clearly untenable and the same
are quashed.
2070
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
24.
Lastly, management put reliance upon the case of National Fertilizer Ltd. and Others Vs. Somvir Singh decided
by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 12.05.2006. It was a case where a workman was appointed without inviting application
in terms of provisions of Employment Exchange Act 1959. Admittedly no advertisement was issued. Initially workman
was engaged for a period of six months on contract basis. Workman later on applied for regularization of his services.
Several such demands were made in different States, as a result of which matter was taken to different High Courts by
the workmen expressing divergent views. Resultantly, matter finally reached before the Hon’ble Apex Court and strong
reliance was placed by the management on Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi & Othrs (2006(4)
SCALE 197). It was also urged on behalf of the workmen that their appointments are irregular but are not illegal as
they were fulfilling all the requisite conditions. Finally, it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that appointment to any
post under the State could only be made after proper advertisement has been made after inviting applications from
eligible candidates. No doubt, workmen were working for a long time but they were not in fact not holding any post; as
such, they were not entitled to be paid salary on regular scale of pay nor Court can direct regularization of their services
in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uma Devi case. In view of the dicta made in the various
authorities, it is thus clear that when an appointment has been made for a fixed period, then such appointment is
normally called fixed tenure appointment and after expiry of the said period, workman cannot claim regularization as a
matter of right. Further, if such contract of employment has been extended from time to time as per stipulations
contained in the agreement, same would not give advantage to the workman so as to claim benefit of provisions of
Section 25 F, G and H of the Act, when there was no complete facts on record to suggest that any assurance has been
given by the management to retain services of the said workman permanently. To the similar effect is the ratio of the
case of Haryana State FCCW Store vs Ram Niwas and Anr. decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 08.07.2002. It was a
case where respondents were appointed on contract basis on payment of daily wages till stocks are disposed or for a
period of three months. It was made clear in the order that a number of chowkidars/labourers were kept by the District
Manager of Food Corporation of India to come down with clearance of stocks lying in the open. Workers so deployed
ultimately took shelter under section 25F of the Act and strongly urged that no notice was served upon them before
termination of their services. View taken by the High Court regarding violation of provisions of Section 25F of the Act
was upset by the Hon’ble Apex Court by observing that there was no contract of service between the management of the
workmen so as to attract application of section 25F of the Act. Such contract of service was only for a fixed period and
the un-escapable conclusion is that disengagement or termination of the workmen would not amount to retrenchment
under the law. Similar view appears to have been taken in Uptron India Ltd. Vs. Shammi Bhan and Anr. ( AIR 1988
SC 1681).
25.
As against this, learned A/R for the workman herein heavily relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in ONGC Employees Mazdoor Sabha Union vs ONGC decided on 26.04.2013. It was a case where fate of more
than 577 workmen was involved who were initially given fixed tenure appointment. Industrial Tribunal had decided that
termination of their job was untenable in law and Corporation was directed to give regular appointment to such term
based employees. Tribunal also decided vide award dated 08.11.2011 not to make recruitment from open market by
inviting fresh applications for such regular posts. Management has taken the matter in appeal before the Hon’ble High
Court and urged vehemently that appointment of the workmen in that case was tenure based and for specific purpose.
Moreover, the Tribunal cannot give directions for regularization of the workmen when applications have been invited
from the open market for recruitment. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the management upon the case of Uma
Devi case (supra) in which it has been clearly laid down that no back door entry can be made by the Corporation or State
in disregard to the statutory principles . Appointment to posts is to be made by all the organs of the State, including the
Corporation after issuing advertisement in the prescribed manner and also invited applications from Employment
Exchange where eligible candidates get their names registered. Hon’ble High Court after considering comparative merits
of the contentions as well as case law relied upon by the respective parties, rejected contention of the management that
the workmen in the said case were purely holding tenure appointments. It was also noticed by the Hon’ble High Court
that no regular recruitments are being made by ONGC since 1987 to 2004 and almost 30% of the labour force stands
reduced, either due to superannuation or retirement on voluntary basis. Therefore, Corporation started managing its
affairs by deploying contract labour or engaging employees on tenure basis. Strong reliance was also placed by High
Court in the case of Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees Union vs. Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd.( AIR
2006 SCW 3865) wherein Hon’ble Apex Court had occasion to consider meaning of the term ‘temporary worker’ and
‘casual worker’. Hon’ble Apex Court also dealt with the question of contract employee or tenure appointments.
Finally, it was held that the employees engaged and continued for years together by the Corporation cannot be termed as
temporary or casual for the reason that they were given appointment for a specific period, particularly when the work
which such employees are doing is of regular or perennial in nature. It was the usual practice of the Corporation to
engage workers for long duration of time without affording them appointment. In the case in hand also, workmen herein
is doing work which is of regular and perennial in nature and recruitment of the workman admittedly been done in
accordance with regulations by inviting application, holding test/interview. Appointment of the workman herein is not
at all a back door entry, as such ratio of Uma Devi case is not attracted to the case in hand, which specifically deals with
irregular and illegal appointments. Hon’ble High Court has thus upheld award of the Tribunal by observing that term
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2071
based appointees were admittedly given extension from time to time and were doing similar job which other regular
appointees were doing. Above act of the Corporation was termed to be unfair labour practice and was strongly
deprecated by the High Court.
26.
Yet in another case Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Officer In-charge, Defence Standardization Cell Vs.
Mukesh Kumar (2013 Lab.IC 3329) dealt with the same question. In the said case, the workman was engaged as a
sweeper with the management. His appointment was on monthly basis and from time to time successive extension was
given to him by the management for a period of three years. He was also not given benefits to which he was entitled
under the law vis-à-vis regular workman. It was claim of the workman that juniors to him were continued in
employment and later on fresh hands were employed subsequent to his termination. No charge sheet was issued nor any
enquiry was held against the workman before ordering his termination. Tribunal passed an award in favour of the
workman holding that practice of giving renewal every month or after sometime amounts to unfair labour practice, as
such management has flouted provisions of section 25(F) read with Item 10 of the Act. Management took the matter in
appeal before the Hon’ble High Court by filing writ petition. Main contention of the management was that the workman
was employed on contract period for the purpose of conservancy and his employment was on the basis of agreement
which was renewed every month. This being the position, it was strongly urged that case of the workman falls under
section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and termination of his services does not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of
section 2(oo) of the Act as the same is in accordance with the terms of agreement. Therefore, in the submission of the
management, workman is not entitled to benefit of section 25F has held by the Tribunal. Hon’ble High Court after
discussing ratio of the case in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi ( AIR 2006 SC 1806) and also putting reliance upon the
case of Krishan Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board ( AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 787)
approved the award passed by the Labour Court. Ratio of the law in M. Venugopal vs, Divisional Manager ( AIR 1994
SC 1343) upon which reliance was placed by the Management was also explained and distinguished by the Hon’ble
High Court by observing that when the appointment is for a fixed period, unless there is finding that power under Clause
(bb) of Section 2(oo) was misused or vitiated by its mala fide exercise, it cannot be held that the termination is illegal. In
its absence, the employer could terminate the services in terms of the letter of appointment unless it is a colourable
exercise of power. It must be established in each case that the power was misused by the management or the
appointment for a fixed period was a colourable exercise of power.
27.
In the case in hand, the workman has admittedly completed more than 240 day in a calendar year. It is admitted
case of the parties that he was initially given appointment on 12.06.2007 for three years. Thereafter his term was
extended twice as is clear from documents Ex.WW1/M2 to Ex.WW1/M3. Finally, post of the workman was advertised
by the management when there was no need to do the same inasmuch the workman herein was not recruited by way of
back door entry. Rather, he has admittedly appeared before the Selection Committee and was given appointment
thereafter in accordance with law. The work which he was doing is of regular and perennial in nature. The job was not
in fact for a specific project or temporary or seasonal in nature as was the position in some case relied upon by the
management. Therefore, the action of the management terminating his job amounts to misuse or malafide exercise of
power. Resultantly, it cannot stand scrutiny of law.
28. There is also another authority, i.e. Satyapal vs PWD Special LPA No.,.4726/2007 decided on 24.08.2006 by
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. It was also a case where decision of the learned Single Judge holding award dated
30.04.2004 of CGIT whereby the Tribunal has held termination of services of the workman to be illegal, being in breach
of provisions of Section 25 of the Act, was assailed before the High Court. In the said case also, the workman had
continuously worked from 20.08.1990 to 16.09.1993 and no notice before termination of his service was issued as
required under Section 25 of the Act. Action of the management in terminating services of the workman Satpal was held
to be illegal and unjustified. Management was ordered to pay 40% of back wages also, when the judge of the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi had upheld the award and it was thereafter matter was taken in special appeal by way of LPA before
the Division Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court. In the said case also strong reliance was placed was placed by the
management upon the case of Haryana State FCCW Store vs Ram Niwas and Anr. And General Manager, Haryana
Roadways vs (2005 Vol.5 SCC 591). Hon’ble High Court after taking into consideration definition of ‘retrenchment’
as contained in Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act as well as other provisions of the law, came to the conclusion that in the
said case, management has invented a device to issue work orders for service of workman in some cases and was being
extended from time to time as per requirements. This action of the management was held to be in complete derogation
in law. It was held that this section cannot be invoked by the management in situation when the workman is in fixed
employment or doing work of perennial nature. While discussing the case of Haryana State FCCW Store (supra), it was
observed that the idea of introducing section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act was to meet a situation where workman is engaged for
a very short period to do temporary type of work. In the said case two workers were engaged only for a short period of
one month. Later on, their services were terminated after the entire stock lying in the open area was cleared. Thus, their
engagement was for less than one year. It was in such circumstances that Hon’ble Apex Court held that
disengagement/termination of the workman concerned did not amount to retrenchment. Resultantly, ratio of the said
judgment cannot be applied to the case in hand when evidence on record is ample and clear to the effect that the
2072
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman herein was doing the work against regular job and management later on has appointed another employee in
place of workman herein. In the case in hand, workman has admittedly worked for almost 5 years, as such in view of
the ratio of law propounded in the aforesaid two authorities, there is no need to follow other authorities of other High
Courts. It is now well settled position in law that subordinate Courts are required to follow judgements or orders of its
High Court in letter and spirit and there is no need to follow judgement of another High Court where contrary view has
been taken. Moreover, Hon’ble High Court has referred to the various judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein
similar questions were involved.
29.
The workman also placed reliance upon the case of Bhuvenesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd.
(2014 Lab.IC 2643) wherein Hon’ble Apex Court discussed in extenso provisions of section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act as well
as similar provisions contained in UP ID Act. It was noticed by the Apex Court that services of the workman was
terminated several times and he was subsequently employed again till his services were finally terminated. He has
rendered more than 6 years of service, save the artificial breaks made by the management with an oblique motive so as
to retain the appellant as temporary worker. Aforesaid conduct of the management was held to be unfair labour practice
under Section 2(ra) of the Act which is not permissible in view of sections 25T and Section 25(U) of the Act read with
entry in Serial No.10 in the V Schedule to the Act regarding unfair labour practice. It was the case of the workman that
he has worked for six calendar years from the date of his appointment till termination of his services, thus completing
240 days in each calendar year. Labour Court held termination of the job of the workman to be illegal, unjustified and
ordered payment of full back wages. In writ appeal, High Court set aside the award of the Tribunal. When matter was
taken to Apex Court, it was held to be exercise of excess jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
30.
Lastly, on behalf of the workman, reliance was placed on S.M. Nilajkar vs. The District Manager, Karnataka
(2003 Lab.IC 2273). It was a case where a number of workmen were engaged as casual labour for the purpose of
extension of telecom facilities and their services were utilized for digging and laying of cables, erecting of poles and
drawing of lines. Services of these workmen were terminated somewhere in the year 1985. Thereafter, they were not
engaged on the said work. In the first round of litigation Hon’ble Apex Court directed the State Government to
formulate a scheme under which all casual labourers who had rendered more than one year's continuous service could be
absorbed. When these workmen were not finally re-engaged or absorbed in the job, they took the matter to the Industrial
Tribunal and award was passed on 21.06.1999 by the Tribunal directing the employer to reinstate all the workmen into
service with the benefit of continuity of service and with 50% back wages. The employer filed writ petition in the High
Court and learned Single Judge of the High Court held that workers were not project employees as their appointments
were not for any particular project. As such, case of such employee was not covered by sub-clause (bb) of clause (oo)
of Section 2 of the Act. Since the workman had served for more than 240 days in a calendar, their termination amounted
to retrenchment, which was invalid for non- non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act. However, it was observed by
the Hon’ble High Court that there was a delay of 7-9 years in raising the dispute, which was not promptly raised, as such
the workmen were not held entitled to back wages. The employees again filed intra-court writ appeal before the
Division Bench of High Court. It was admitted case of the parties that workers were employed by Telecom Department
as casual labours in connection with the project for extension of telecom facilities and their services were utilized for
digging, laying of coaxial cables and other sundry work. The project was completed sometime in the year 1986-87.
Division Bench further held that case of the workman herein was in fact covered under sub-clause (bb) of clause (oo) of
Section 2 of the Act. It was a clear case of termination of services of the workmen as a result of non-renewal of contract
of employment on the expiry of contract. Resultantly, question of compliance of Section 25F of the Act did not arise
and the workmen could not be said to have been retrenched. Engagement of the workmen was on daily wages and only
for the purpose of completion of the project undertaken by the Telecom Department at a given place. When the project
stands completed, there is no question of retrenchment of the workmen whose contract stood expired. However, when
matter was taken to the Apex Court, decision of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court was set aside and that of
learned Single Judge was restored except for the finding that the workmen were not project employees. Contention of
the management that workmen were employed for general maintenance of Telecom Department against a specific
project and for specific period was out-rightly rejected by the Apex Court. It was also held that engagement of workman
on daily wages does not by itself amount to putting the workman on notice that he was being engaged in a scheme or
project which was to last only for a particular length of time or up to to occurrence of some event, and therefore, the
workman ought to know that his employment was short-lived. Further, the Court went to observe that it was for the
employer to prove that case of the workman was not covered by the definition of ‘retrenchment’ so as to attract
applicability of the said sub-clause (bb) of clause (oo) of Section 2 of the Act. Consequently, in view of the ratio of law,
in Officer Incharge Defence Standardization Cell (supra), Satyapal (supra), S.M. Nilajkar (supra ) and Bhuvanesh
Kumar Dwivedi(supra), there is no need to follow ration of judgements of the other High Courts, particularly when the
case of the workman herein is fully covered by the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Delhi High Court.
31.
Therefore, most of the authorities cited on behalf of the management are not applicable to the case in hand
inasmuch as all those authorities it has come on record that the workman in most of the cases were doing temporary or
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2073
seasonal work. For e.g. In Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.(supra), it has come in evidence that the workmen
were employed to do seasonal work during crushing season and they had hardly worked for 4-5 months in a year. After
seasonal work was over, their services used to be terminated. It was against this background, Hon’ble Apex Court held
that termination of the job of such seasonal workmen did not attract provisions of section 25F of the Act and the same
falls within clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of the Act. The other case, i.e. District Animal Husbandry (supra) related to
contractual appointment and services of the workmen stood terminated after expiry of contract period. No further
extension was given to the workmen in the said case , whereas in the case in hand, admittedly extension of services was
given to the workman twice. Similarly reliance placed by the management upon the case of Steel Authority of India
Workers (supra) is not of much help as in the said case though Labour Court held action of the management to be mala
fide, but retrenchment ultimately held to be in terms of the expiry of the contract of service which was for a fixed
period, so as not to invite applicability of provisions of Section 25F of the Act. Similar were the facts in Punjab State
Electricity Board where workman was peon and was engaged on daily wages. It was made clear to the workman that
when the new incumbent would come, his services would stand terminated. There were also extension of service from
time to time but the same was for very short period. It is clear from the various judgements relied upon by the
management that where engagement of the workman is for purely temporary period due to seasonal demands or work
ceased to exist due to closure of factory, in such eventuality, services of the workmen for fixed period was held to be
valid so as not to attract provisions of Section 25 F of the Act. However, where the work is of regular or perennial
nature and recruitment of the employee has been made in accordance with rules and regulations, in that eventuality,
engagement of workers for a specific period and thereafter giving periodical extensions to such workmen has been
strongly deprecated by the Apex Court in Bhuvanesh Kumar Dwivedi(supra). As discussed above, in the said case the
workman was appointed as Labour Supervisor on 30.12.1992 and he worked continuously on the said post till
28.07.1998 with a few artificial breaks in service. Later on, his services were terminated as per practice with the reason
‘sanction expired’. When the matter was taken to the Hon’ble Apex Court by the workman, contention of the
management that the workman was engaged by the management for a specific period on temporary basis in the present
job in the Construction Division of the company and with the completion of construction, contract stood expired, was
rejected by the Apex Court by holding that though the workman was working for a temporary period, was n fact
working against a post which is permanent in nature. Action of the management in the said case was held to be unfair
labour practice in terms of provisions of section 25G of the Act, which is punishable under section (U) of the Act. High
Court too concurred with findings of the Labour Court and held that action of the management was in contravention of
provisions of section 6N of the UP ID Act, which corresponds with provisions of section 25F of the Act. In the said
case, workman was ordered to be reinstated with full back wages as it was proved on record that the workman was not
gainfully employed after termination of his job.
32.
In view of the case law discussed above, it is clear that when a workman is doing work of regular and perennial
nature and there has been extension of his service from time to time, the action of the management in terminating his job
amounts to misuse or malafide use of power under the law, particularly when employment of the workman was after
following due procedure.
33.
In the case in hand, there is nothing in the statement of claim that after termination of the job of the workman
herein was unemployed. There is not even a whisper in the statement of claim as well as affidavit Ex.WW1/A filed by
the claimant that he was out of job. In such a situation, law is fairly settled now by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a number
of cases that the workman is not entitled to reinstatement with full back wages as a matter of course. In some cases,
Hon’ble Apex Court has granted only 50% of back wages. Even in S.M. Nilajkar case (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court had
upheld the decision of the High Court where 50% back wages were granted. Consequently, to my mind, the workman
herein is also entitled to only 50% of the back wages from the date of termination of his job. It is not out of place to
mention that the management has also not made a whisper in their written statement that the workman herein stood re-
employed after termination of the job with some other management. Rather, management has not adduced any
evidence worth the name so as to prove this fact.
32.
As a sequel to my discussion herein above, it is held that the action of the management in terminating services
of the claimant Shri Gopal Singh Pundir with effect from September 2012 is unjustified and as a corollary workman
herein is ordered to be reinstated and is held to be entitled to 50% of back wages from the date of his termination. An
award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
April 11, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
2074
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-918-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ykbe LVksu
ekbu vkWuj ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 37@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
04-05-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&29011@50@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2016
S.O. 918.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jaipur now
as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Lime
Stone Mine Owner and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 04-05-2016.
[No. L-29011/50/2013-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
vuqca/k
vuqca/k
vuqca/k
vuqca/k
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd v
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd v
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd v
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
f/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
f/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
f/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
lh
lh
lh
lh-th
th
th
th-vkbZ
vkbZ
vkbZ
vkbZ-VhVhVhVh- izdj.k la
izdj.k la
izdj.k la
izdj.k la- 37@
37@
37@
37@2014
2014
2014
2014
Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jsQjsUl ua- L- 29011/50/2013–IR(M) fnukad 21/04/2014
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh,
Ramganj Mandi, Dist.- Kota
(Rajasthan)
V/s.
Sh. Pankaj kumar S/o Sh.Ramswarup ji Jatwa,
Lime Stone Mine Owner, Pipakhedi, Satlakhedi
Tehsil – Ramganjmandi, Dist.- Kota (Raj.)
izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls
% Jh jkexksiky xqIrk & izfrfuf/k
vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls
% Jh jtuh’k 'kekZ & ,MoksdsV
iapkV
iapkV
iapkV
iapkV
fnukad % 19- 03- 2016
1-
dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 10 mi/kkjk 1 [k.M+ ¼?k½ ds vUrxZr fnukad
21-04-2014 ds vkns’k ls izsf"kr fookn ds vk/kkj ij ;g izdj.k U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lafLFkr gSA dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr fookn
fuEuor~ gS %&
2-
“Whether the 5 point charter of demand of Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh, Ramganj Mandi from the management of
Sh. Pankajkumar S/o Ramswarup ji Jatwa, Lime Stone Mine Owner, Pipakhedi raised vide their letter dated
9.3.2013 (copy enclosed) is legal and justified? what relief the union is entitled to?”
3-
LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse es fn;s x;s rF;ksa ds vuqlkj laf{kIrr% ;kph dk dFku gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed i{k us foi{kh
fu;kstd i{k dks ,d ik¡p lw=h; ekax i= fnukafdr 1-3-2013 izLrqr dhA ekax i= esa Jfedks ,oa deZpkfj;ksa dh fnukad
1-4-13 ls etnwjh ,oa nSfud osruo`f)] okf"kZd osruo`f) ,oa HkRrksa esa o`f) rFkk Jfedksa ds cPpksa ds fy, Nk=o`fRr ,oa vU;
osyQs;j lqfo/kk,a iznku djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k FkkA foi{k }kjk dksbZ /;ku u fn;s tkus ij ekax i= iqu% lgk;d Je
vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½ dksVk dks izsf"kr fd;k x;kA
4-
lgk;d Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½ dksVk us mHk;i{k dks lquokbZ ,oa le>kSrk ds fy, vkgwr fd;k rFkk blds fy, dbZ
ekSds iznku fd;sA fu;kstd i{k }kjk le>kSrs esa :fp ugha fn[kkus rFkk Hkkx ugha ysus ij fnukad 30-7-13 dks le>kSrk
vf/kdkjh }kjk vlQy le>kSrk okrkZ ls lEcfU/kr vk[;k dsUnz ljdkj dks izsf"kr dh x;h ftlds vk/kkj ij iapkV gsrq mDr
jsQjsUl fnukafdr 21-4-14 U;k;kf/kdj.k dks izsf"kr fd;k x;kA
5-
vkxs ;kfpdk esa dFku gS fd ekax i= fnukafdr 1-3-13 ds vuqlkj foi{kh ds ;gka dk;Zjr lHkh Jfed] dqyh] csynkj
,oa deZpkjh Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr 180 :- izfrfnu ds fglkc ls etnwjh izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS] bl izdkj M~;w ,oa
M~Wku ds vk/kkj ij cdk;k jkf'k fnyk;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSA foi{kh ds ;gka dk;Zjr LVksu dVj rFkk fcyks xzkmUM dk;Zjr
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2075
Jfed 190 :- izfr lkS oxZ QqV dh nj ls iRFkj dVkbZ dh etnwjh ikus ds gdnkj gSA laLFkku esa dk;Zjr Jfed tks 5500
:- ekfld osru ik jgs gS os 125 :- okf"kZd osruo`f) vkSj 5500 :- ls vf/kd osru ikus okys 150 :- okf"kZd osruo`f) dh
nj ls Hkqxrku ikus ds gdnkj gSA foi{kh dk ;g Hkh dRrZO; gS fd laLFkku esa dk;Zjr lHkh Jfedksa ,oa deZpkfj;ksa ds cPpksa
dks jkT; ljdkj ,oa dsUnz ljdkj dh osyQs;j Ldhe ds vUrxZr Nk=o`fRRk ,oa vU; lqfo/kka, iznku djsaA foi{kh] izkFkhZ i{k
}kjk vusd ckj fuosnu ds ckotwn iwjh rjg mnklhu jgk gS vkSj Jfedksa dks jkgr nsus ls cprk jgk gS] vr% izkFkhZ i{k us
izkFkZuk dh gS fd jsQjsUl ds vUrxZr ekax ls lEcfU/kr mudh ;kfpdk Lohdkj dj iapkV ikfjr dj U;k;ksfpr lgk;rk iznku
dh tk;A
6-
jsQjsUl ds vk/kkj ij okn iathd`r fd;k x;kA uksfVl mHk;i{k dks fuxZr dh x;hA fnukad 22-7-14 dks ;kph dh
rjQ ls iathd`r Mkd ls ;kfpdk izkIr gq;h ftls 'kkfey i=koyh fd;k x;kA fnukad 13-10-14 dks foi{kh ds fo:)
,di{kh; dk;Zokgh dk vkns’k ikfjr fd;k x;kA fnukad 8-12-14 dks ;kph i{k us lk{; esa 'kiFk&i= izLrqr fd;kA fnuakd
11-2-15 dks i=koyh ,di{kh; cgl ds fy, fu;r dh x;hA
7-
fnukad 11-2-2015 dks ;kph i{k dks vkfn"V fd;k x;k fd ,di{kh; lk{; esa ;kph }kjk fnukad 8-12-2014 dks izLrqr
'kiFk&i= 'kiFk&dfe'uj }kjk vFkok uksVjh }kjk lR;kfir ugha gS vr% vxyh frfFk fnukad 19-3-2015 dks lR;kfir
'kiFk&i= izLrqr fd;k tk;A fnukad 19-3-2015 dks ;kph i{k }kjk lk{; esa 'kiFk&i= izLrqr djus ds fy, le; dh ekax
dh x;h tks Lohdkj dh x;h vkSj fnukad 18-5-2015 dks ,di{kh; lk{; ds fy, frfFk fu;r dh x;hA fnukad 18-5-15 dks
mHk;i{k vuqifLFkr Fks vr% 17-8-15 'kiFk&i= izLrqr djus ds fy, frfFk fu;r dh x;hA fnuakd 17-8-15] rFkk vxyh
frfFk;ksa 9-11-15 ,oa 12-1-16 rd 'kiFk&i= izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k vkSj fnukad 15-3-16 vxyh frFkh lk{; esa 'kiFk&i=
izLrqr djus ds fy, fu;r dh x;hA
8-
fnuakd 15-3-16 dks foi{k dh muds fo:) fnuakd 13-10-14 ds ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh dks fujLr djus dk vkosnu
Lohdkj dh x;h ,oa foi{k ds fo:) ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh dk vkns’k fnukad 13-10-14 fujLr fd;k x;kA tfj;s izfrfuf/k
mHk;i{k dh rjQ ls lqygukek izLrqr gqvk rFkk lqygukek ds lkFk vkosnu izLrqr gqbZ fd lqygukes ds vk/kkj ij ,okMZ
ikfjr fd;k tk;A vkosnu Lohdkj dh x;h rFkk i=koyh fnukad 19-3-16 dks yksd vnkyr esa lqygukes ds vk/kkj ij
fuLrkj.k gsrq fu;r dh x;hA fnukad 15-3-16 dks i{kdkjksa dh rjQ ls izLrqr vkosnu rFkk lqygukek fuEuor~ gS%&
U;k;ky; dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
fo|k/kj uxj] t;iqj jktLFkku
vkS|ksfxd fookn la[;k&37@2014
jk"Vªh; etnwj la?k baVd jkexat e.Mh ftyk dksVk
& Jfed i{k
cuke
cuke
cuke
cuke
Jh iadt dqekj ¼[kku ekfyd½ iq= Jh jkeLo:Ik th tkVok] [kku ykbZe LVksu ekbUl]
ihik [ksM+h] lkFky[ksM+h] rglhy jkexate.Mh] ftyk dksVk
vkS|ksfxd fookn jSQjsUl ua
vkS|ksfxd fookn jSQjsUl ua
vkS|ksfxd fookn jSQjsUl ua
vkS|ksfxd fookn jSQjsUl ua- ,y&29011@50@2013 vkbZvkj,e fnukad 21
,y&29011@50@2013 vkbZvkj,e fnukad 21
,y&29011@50@2013 vkbZvkj,e fnukad 21
,y&29011@50@2013 vkbZvkj,e fnukad 21-04
0404
04-2014 esa izkFkZuk i=
2014 esa izkFkZuk i=
2014 esa izkFkZuk i=
2014 esa izkFkZuk i=
ekU;oj]
mijksDr muoku ds fookn esa vkt rkjh[k is’kh fu;r gSA mijksDr izdj.k esa Jfed vkSj izcU/ku i{k esa yksd vnkyr
dh Hkkouk vkSj vkilh le>kb’k ls le>kSrk gks x;k gS] tks QkWeZ ,p esa layXu gSA
vr% izkFkZuk gS fd mDr izdj.k esa le>kSrs dks fjdkWMZ ij ysdj mDr le>kSrs dks rLnhd djrs gq, vokWMZ ikfjr
djus dh d`ik djsaA
LFkku & t;iqj
izkFkh
izkFkh
izkFkh
izkFkhZ Jfed i{k
Z Jfed i{k
Z Jfed i{k
Z Jfed i{k
fnukad % 15-03-2016
gLrk{kj viBuh;
jk"Vªh; etnwj la?k baVd jkexat e.Mh] ftyk dksVk }kjk ea=h
jkexksiky xqIrk & Jfed i{k
fu;kstd i{k
gLrk{kj viBuh;
Jh iadt dqekj iq= Jh jkeLo:Ik th tkVok]
gLrk{kj viBuh;
gLrk{kj viBuh;
¼igpku drkZ ½
2076
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
le>kSrk&i=
le>kSrk&i=
le>kSrk&i=
le>kSrk&i=
QkWeZ&**,p**
QkWeZ&**,p**
QkWeZ&**,p**
QkWeZ&**,p**
% nsf[k, fu;e 58 %
vkt fnukad 20-02-2016 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr le>kSrs dh izfdz;k ds nkSjku] jk"Vªh;
etnwj la?k % baVd % jkexate.Mh ,oa eSa eSllZ iadt dqekj iq= Jh jkeLo:Ik th tkVok] [kku ekfyd ykbZe LVksu ekbUl]
ihik [ksM+h] lkFky[ksM+h] rglhy jkexate.Mh] ftyk dksVk ds e/; le>kSrk fuEu izdkj ls lEiUu gqvk gSA
;wfu;u izfrfuf/k %&
Jh jkexksiky xqIrk ea=h jk"Vªh; etnwj la?k baVd jkexat e.Mh] ftyk dksVk & Jfed i{k
izcU/kd izfrfuf/k %&
Jh iadt dqekj ¼[kku ekfyd½ iq= Jh jkeLo:Ik th tkVok] [kku ykbZe LVksu ekbUl] ihik
[ksM+h] lkFky[ksM+h] rglhy jkexate.Mh] ftyk dksVk
fookn dk laf{kIr fooj.k
fookn dk laf{kIr fooj.k
fookn dk laf{kIr fooj.k
fookn dk laf{kIr fooj.k
;g fd jk"Vªh; etnwj la?k baVd jkexate.Mh] ftyk dksVk }kjk izcU/kd Jh iadt dqekj ([kku ekfyd) iq= Jh jkeLo:Ik
th tkVok] [kku ekfyd ykbZe LVksu ekbUl] ihik [ksM+h] lkFky[ksM+h] rglhy jkexate.Mh] ftyk dksVk dks Jfedksa dh vksj
ls izsf"kr ekax i= fnukad 09-03-2013 ds lUnHkZ esa vkS|ksfxd fookn jsQjsULk ua- ,y&29011@50@2013 vkbZvkj,e fnukad
21-04-2014 ij lafLFkr izdj.k la[;k 37@2014 bl ekuuh; U;k;kf/kdj.k ds lUnHkZ eas fofRr; o"kZ 01-04-2013 ls 31-03-2014
rd ds fy;s izcU/kd dh [kku esa dk;Zjr Jfedksa ds fy, fuEu izdkj lEk>kSrk gks x;k gSa] mDr fookn esa nksuks i{kksa esa fopkj
foe’kZ ds Ik'pkr le>kSrs ds fuEu pj.k vafdr gSa&
1-
;g fd mHk;i{k lger gS fd dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k fo|k/kj uxj t;iqj jktLFkku esa yfEcr izdj.k dks
yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls uks fMLI;wV vokMZ ds :Ik esa ikfjr djkosaxsA
2-
;g fd izcU/ku dh vksj ls Jfed ,oa deZpkfj;ksa dks] dqyh csynkj dks 154 :- izfrfnu rFkk Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk
?kksf"kr ifjorZu’khy egaxkbZ HkRrk] fcyks xzkm.M dk Hkqxrku iqFkd ls fd;k tkosxk] deZdkj }kjk 100 QhV dkjhxj dks 183
:- izfrfnu jsV ,oa 100 QhV vf/kd dkVus okys dks 185 :- dh vfrfjDr jsV iznku Hkqxrku i`Fkd ls fd;k tkosxk] deZdkj
}kjk 100 QhV dkjhxj dks 183 :- izfrfnu jsV ,oa 100 QhV vf/kd dkVus okys dks 185 :- dh vfrfjDr jsV iznku dh
tkosxh] Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk ?kksf"kr ifjorZu'khy egaxkbZ HkRrk izfrfnu fn;k tkosxk] ftu deZpkfj;kas dks 6]000@& :- ls de
osru ikus okyksa dks 125 :- izfrfnu i`Fkd ls Hkqxrku fd;k tkosxk] Jfedksa ,oa deZpkfj;ksa ds vkfJr cPpksa dks o"kZ dh
ijh{kk esa 60 izfr'kr o mlls vf/kd vad izkIr djus okyksa dks fu;ekuqlkj Nk=o`fr nh tkosxh] laLFkku esa dk;Zjr Jfed o
deZpkfj;ksa ftUgksus 31-12-2015 rd nks lky dh lsok;sa iwjh dj yh gSa] mudks LFkk;h fd;k tkosxk ,oa 20 ih,y vodk’k ,oa
15 lh,y vodk'k iznku fd;k tkosxkA mijksDr le>kSrs dh ikyuk 31-05-2016 ls vFkok U;k;ky; vokMZ ikfjr gksus ls nks
ekg ds vUnj&vUnj iwjk fd;k tkosxk rFkk ,fj;j dh jkf'k dk Hkqxrku 31-05-2016 rd la?k ds izfrfu/kh ds lkeus dj fn;k
tkosxkA
3-
;g fd nksuksa i{kksa us Lohdkj fd;k fd le>kSrs ds vuq:Ik leLRk Hkqxrku ;wfu;u izfrfu/kh;ksa ds le{k dj fn;k
tkosxkA
4-
;g fd bl fookn esa vU; dksbZ fcUnq 'ks"k ugha jgk gSA
gLrk{kj fu;kstd i{k [knku
gLrk{kj ;wfu;u izfrfuf/k
gLrk{kj viBuh;
gLrk{kj viBuh;
iadt dqekj iq= Jh jkeLo:Ik tkVok]
jkexksiky xqIrk ea=h jk"Vªh;
[kku ekfyd ykbZe LVksu ekbUl]
etnwj la?k baVd jkexate.Mh]
ihik [ksM+h] lkFky[ksM+h] rglhy
ftyk dksVk
& Jfed i{k
jkexate.Mh] ftyk dksVk
Lkk{kh % & 1
gLrk{kj viBuh;
Lkk{kh % & 2 gLrk{kj viBuh;
Jh jtuh’k ’kekZ
lrh'k ipksjh
10-
fnukad 19-03-2016 dks i=koyh yksd vnkyr esa izLrqr gqbZA yksd vnkyr esa ekeys dks lqyg ds vk/kkj ij
fuLrkfjr djrs gq, fuEu vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k %&
^^19-03-16 ¼yksd vnkyr½
vkt i=koyh yksd vnkyr esa izLrqr gqbZA mHk;i{k dh rjQ ls izfrfuf/kRo gsrq foi{k dh rjQ ls Jh jtuh'k 'kekZ
ds fo}ku dfu"d izfrfuf/k Jh ;ksxs’k dqekj] ,MoksdsV mifLFkr gSA fnukad 15-3-16 dks mHk;i{k dh rjQ ls izLrqr lqygukek
ij fo}ku dfu"d izfrfuf/k dks lqukA lqyg dh 'krZ fo}ku izfrfuf/k dks i<+dj lqukbZ o le>k;h x;hA mHk;i{k }kjk lqyg
djuk rFkk mldh 'krZs fo}ku izfrfuf/k }kjk Lohdkj dh x;hA
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2077
lqygukek LosPNk ik;k x;kA vr% bl ekeys dk fuLrkj.k lqygukek fnukafdr 15-3-16 dh 'krksZa ds vuqlkj lqyg ds vk/kkj
ij fd;k tkrk gSA lqygukek fnukafdr 15-3-16 iapkV dk va'k gksxkA
gLrk{kj viBuh;
¼ihBklhu vf/kdkjh½**
11-
U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr funsZ'k dk mRrj mDr izdkj fn;k tkrk gSA iapkV rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA
12-
iapkV dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrxZr izdk'kukFkZ
izsf"kr dh tk;A
Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-919-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ fgUnqLrku
¯td fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 46@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
04-05-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&43012@15@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2016
S.O.919.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jaipur now
as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s.
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 04-05-2016.
[No. L-43012/15/2014-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
I.D. 46/2015
Reference No.L-43012/15/2014-IR(M) dated: 7.5.2015
Sh. Mukesh Kumar Dadhich
S/o sh. Chotaram Dadhich
Vill. Akeli-A, Post- Mertacity
Distt. Nagaur, Rajasthan.
V/s
The Manager
Hindustan Zinc Limited
Rampura Agucha Mines
Bhilwara (Rajasthan).
AWARD
31.3.2016
1.
The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub;Section 1 & 2(A)
of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:-
“Whether the action of the management of Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Rampura in terminating the services of Shri
Mukesh Kumar Dadhich S/o Sh. Chottaram Dadhich is legal and /or justified? If not, what relief the workman
is entitled to ?”
2078
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
Pursuant to the receipt of the reference order, registered notices were sent to the parties as per the order of the
tribunal fixing 23.11.2015 for filing statement of claim. On 23.11.2015 applicant was dully served with registered notice
& acknowledgement was received back which is available on file but applicant neither appeared nor filed statement of
claim. From the opposite party authority was filed which was kept on record of the file. Case was adjourned by tribunal
on its own motion in interest of justice furnishing opportunity to the applicant for filing statement of claim by
24.12.2015.
3.
24.12.2015 & 25.12.2015 was holiday & 26.12.2015 & 27.12.2015 were Saturday & Sunday respectively.
Case was taken up on 28.12.2015. The Presiding Officer was on leave. None appeared for applicant & opposite party
was in presence. 29.2.2016 was next date fixed for filing statement of claim by applicant. On 29.2.2016 both the parties
were absent. Adjourning the case in interest of justice next date 28.3.2016 was fixed with last opportunity for filing
statement of claim by applicant. After order opposite party came in appearance who was informed about next date
28.3.2016.
4.
On 28.3.2016 both the parties were absent & presiding officer was on leave. Next date 31.3.2016 was fixed for
filing statement of claim by applicant. On 31.3.2016 none appeared from both the side & till the closure for the day
neither applicant appeared nor statement of claim was filed. Further opportunity to the applicant for filing statement of
claim was closed in view of the fact that applicant though served on first date of notice for filing claim failed to file
statement of claim till date.
5.
It is pertinent to note that reference order dated 7.5.2015 was sent by Ministry to applicant with direction to file
statement of claim within 15 days from the date of receipt of reference. Applicant has neither filed statement of claim on
the direction of Ministry nor on notice & knowledge of the proceeding pending before the tribunal. It appears that
applicant is not interested & willing in submitting the claim for adjudication. In the circumstances & in the absence of
material evidence brought on record, tribunal is unable to record the finding on the issues referred to it on merit.
Accordingly, “No Claim Award” is passed in this matter. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
6.
Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-920-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ es?kkgkVwc:
vk;ju vksj ekbu ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 144@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
06-05-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&29011@26@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2016
S.O. 920.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 144/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-2,
Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management
of M/s. Meghahatuburu Iron Ore Mine and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
06-05-2016.
[No. L-29011/26/2013-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2079
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT : Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D.Act., 1947.
REFERENCE No. 144 OF 2013
PARTIES
:
The General Secretary,
Jharkhand Mines Workers Union
PO: Meghahatuburu,
Distt: Singhbhum (W)
Vs.
The General Manager (Mines),
M/s Meghahatuburu Iron Ore Mine,
PO: Meghahatuburu, Distt: Singhbhum (W)
Order No. L-29011/26/2013-IR(M) dt16.07.2013
APPEARANCES
:
On behalf of the workman/Union
:
None
On behalf of the Management
:
Mr. D .K. Verma, Ld.Advocate .
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 15th Mar., 2016
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order
No. L-29011/26/2013-IR (M) dt16.07.2013.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Meghahatuburu Iron Ore Mine, SAIL is justified for not giving promotion to the
employees of CPO/Electrician in every two years under cluster promotion policy system? If not, what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
2.
Neither the Representative of the Union was reregistered presence nor did file much awaited W.S. on their
part. Though three Notices dt. 30.10.2013, 19.06.2014 and 11.08.2014were sent at the address of the union referred in
the Order of the Reference itself by the Registered post but could not be able to get any response .Despite the much
initiatives the case was not advanced even the very first step, i.e., filing the W.S., since its registration. It all seems
scrawling over a snail’s pace over filing the W.S. to till date (01.2.2016) as reflected through the materials available on
record. Whereas the Management side registered its presence as appearance in person by Mr.D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate
on their behalf not for this time abut almost all along after filing his authority.
From the perusal of the record concerned, it apparently drops sufficient hints that the case have lost its merits
whatsoever as of now; and in real sense it does not seem in existence either to have been settled or reached an amicable
settlement between the Union and the Management through mutual negotiations and deliberations .As the utter
reluctance by the Union for not moving further to set the case even rolling for final adjudication proved beyond doubt.
The Tribunal also does not confront the conception of keeping the case alive or set it rolling on record for unlimited
period consuming its precious time and energy will be moving towards void . So in essence, for the end of the natural
justice the Case needs no further time but to be wrapped up immediately presuming non-existence of real issue. Under
such circumstances the case is closed; and hence accordingly, an order of ‘No Dispute Award’ is passed.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-921-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,u-,-,y-
lh-vks- (ukydks) vkSj nwljs ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 26@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 06-05-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&43011@6@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
2080
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2016
S.O.921.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. NALCO and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
06-05-2016.
[No. L-43011/6/2013-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 26/2014
L-43011/6/2013-IR(M), dated 21.02.2014
Date of Passing Order – 25th April, 2016
Between:
1.
The General Manager (Smelter)
NALCO, (Smelter) Nalco Nagar,
Po. & Dist. Angul, Odisha.
2.
Shri N.K. Dhir,
M/s. Leenu Construction,
Contractor, Nalco (Smelter),
At. Kulad, Nalco Nagar, Angul,
Angul – 759 145
…1st Party-Management.
(And)
The General Secretary,
Nalco Industrial Workers Union (CITU),
Nalco Nagar, Po. & Dist. Angul, Odisha
…2nd Party-Union.
Appearances:
Shri R.N. Upadhyaya,
…
For the 1st Party- Management
Asst. General Manager.
None
…
For the 2nd Party- Union
ORDER
Case taken up. Parties are absent. The 2nd Party-Union has not filed any statement of claim despite sending
notices through post. In order to give a last opportunity to the 2nd party-Union notice was issued on 15.3.2016 fixing
25.4.2016 for appearance and for filing of statement of claim, but neither the 2nd party-Union caused appearance today
has filed any statement of claim. As such it seems that the 2nd party-Union is not interested in prosecuting its case.
However the dispute cannot be adjudicated upon for want of pleadings on behalf of the parties. As such there is no
alternative except to return the reference to the Government for necessary action at its end.
2.
Accordingly the reference is returned to the Government unanswered for necessary action at its end.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B.C. RATH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-922-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos 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]
vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 46@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41012@166@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]
j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2081
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2016
S.O.922.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Western Railway and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.
[No. L-41012/166/2004-IR (B-I)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 17th December, 2015
Reference: (CGITA) No. 46/2005
1. The General Manager,
Western Railway,
Churchgate, Mumbai
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway, Pratapnagar,
Baroda-390004
…First Party
Vs.
Their Workman,
Sh. Robin R. Chauhan,
Through the divisional secretary,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,
Shastri Pole, Kothi, Baroda-390001
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
For the Second Party
:
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-
41012/166/2004-IR(B-I) dated 29.04.2005 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Baroda
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Railway Administration through the Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Western
Railway, Baroda in terminating the services of Shri Robin R. Chauhan, Pointsman by way of punishment of
removal from service with immediate effect is legal, proper and justified? And ‘Wheather the punishment of
Removal from service with immediate effect is proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct? If not, to what
relief concerned workman Shri Robin R. Chauhan is entitled to and what other directions are necessary in the
matter?”
2.
This reference dates back to 29.04.2005 despite the service to both the partiesand neither of the parties have
been responding since last several dates. Thus, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in default of the
workman (second party).
The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
2082
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-923-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos 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]
vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 66@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41012@148@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]
j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2016
S.O. 923.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Western Railway and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.
[No. L-41012/148/2004-IR (B-I)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 18th December, 2015
Reference: (CGITA) No. 66/2005
1. The Senior Divisional Mechancal Engineer,
Western Railway,
Diesel Shed,Vatva,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat)
2. The General Manager,
Western Railway,
Churchgate,
Mumbai
…First Party
Vs.
Their Workman,
Sh. Rajkumar K.
Through the Divisional Secretary,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,
E/209, Sarvottam Nagar, Nr. New Railway Colony, Sabarmati
Ahmedabad(Gujarat)-380019
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Sh. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate
For the Second Party
:
Sh. R.S. Sisodia, C/o. P.R.K.P
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-
41012/148/2004-IR(B-I) dated 11.08.2005 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of Senior D.M.E., Diesel Vatva Western Railway by imposing penalty of down gradation
from ELF-I to ELF-III to Shri Rajkumar K., ELF is legal and justified? If not what relief the workman is
entitled to?”
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2083
2.
This reference dates back to 11.08.2005. First party has been represented by their advocate Rakesh Sharma.
Second party appear onn 29.11.2011 so its representative R.S. Sisodia but he did not prefer to file statement of claim.
Thereafter, second party neither appeared nor filed the statement of claim. Thus, it appears that both parties are not
interested in the proceedings of the reference. Therefore, Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in default of
the parties.
The reference is dismissed in default of the parties.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-924-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ
lkSjk"Vª 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] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 154@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@128@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]
j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2016
S.O.924.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 154/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of Saurastra
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.
[No. L-12012/128/2005-IR (B-I)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 30th December, 2015
Reference: (CGITA) No. 154/2006
3.
The Asst. General Manager,
State Bank of Saurastra,
Region IV,
Sardar Baug, Near Rajkot House,
Rajkot (Gujarat)
4.
The Branch Manager,
State Bank of Saurashtra, Mandvi Branch,
Kutch
…First Party
Vs.
Their Workman,
Sh. Kamlesh V. Bhanusali
…Second Party
AWARD
The
Government
of
India/Ministry
of
Labour
,New
Delhi
by
reference
adjudication
Order
No. L-12012/128/2005-IR(B-I) dated 21.07.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
2084
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Branch Manager of State Bank of Saurastra, Mandvi Branch, Kutch and the AGM,
Rajkot in terminating the services of Shri Kamlesh V. Bhanushali, a full time worker, working in Mandvi
Branch w.e.f. 31.05.2004 orally without following the provisions of law is legal and justified? If not, what relief
the workman concerned is entitled to?”
2.
This reference dates back to 21.07.2006. Parties were served. First partyfiled vakilpatra but second party did not
respond to the notice send by the registered post and has also not filed the statement of claim. Thus, it appears that the
second party has no interest in proceedings of the reference.Therefore, Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the
reference in default of the second party
The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-925-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj d:j oS'k; cSad
fy- 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] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 436@2004) (vkbZVhlh 102@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-05-
2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@374@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]
j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2016
S.O. 925.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 436/2004) (ITC No. 102/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Karur
Vyasya Bank Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.
[No. L-12012/374/2001-IR (B-I)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 17th December, 2015
Reference: (CGITA) No. 436/2004
Reference: (ITC) No. 102/2001
The Sr. General Manager,
Karur Vyasya Bank Ltd.,
Central Office,
Erode Road,
P.B. No. 21, Karur-639002
…First Party
Vs.
Their Workman,
Shri Naresh K. Dave,
C/o. Chetan Manuprasad Pandya,
Mahadevlal Mulchand Ni Dharmshala,
Nr. Sarswati Temple, River Road,
Dist: Patan (Gujarat)
…Second Party
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2085
For the First Party
:
Sh. Uday K. Bhatt, Advocate
For the Second Party
:
Sh. V.K. Jani, Advocate
AWARD
The
Government
of
India/Ministry
of
Labour
,New
Delhi
by
reference
adjudication
Order
No. L-12012/374/2001-IR(B-I) dated 26.11.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of The Karur Vyasya Bank Ltd, Karur in giving the punishment of dismissal from the
services of the Bank to Shri Naresh K. Dave is justified? If not, what relief the concerned employee is
entitled?”
2.
This reference dates back to 26.11.2001. Both the parties have not been responding since last several dates.
Thus it appears that both the parties have no inclination or willingness to proceed with the reference.Thus, the Tribunal
has no option but to dismiss the reference in default of the workman (second party).
The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-926-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
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]
vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 311@2004) (vkbZVhlh 72@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-05-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@462@99&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]
j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2016
S.O.926.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 311/2004) (ITC No. 72/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State
Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.
[No. L-12012/462/99-IR (B-I)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 4th January, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 311/2004
Reference: (ITC) No. 72/2000
The Regional Manager,
State Bank of India,
LHO, Bhadra,
Ahmedabad
…First Party
Vs.
2086
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Their Workman
Sh. KishorbhaiSadabhai Parmar,
GirdharnagarShantipura, ManubhaiChali,
Nr. Ankur Textile Marwadi ZLine,
Ahmedabad
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
KumMeenabhen Shah, Advocate
For the Second Party
:
Sh. B.B. Thesia, Advocate
AWARD
The
Government
of
India/Ministry
of
Labour
,New
Delhi
by
reference
adjudication
Order
No. L- 12012/462/99/IR(B-I) dated 13.07.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Regional Office, Bhadra Ahmedabad in orally
terminating Shri KishorbhaiSadabhai Parmar from the services of the Bank without observing the provisions of
section 25 F,G, & H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the concerned
workman is entitled?”
2.
This reference dates back to 13.07.2000 . Second party submitted statement of claim (Ext.7) first party filed
their written statement (Ext.9) Despite the same second party has been absent since last several dates. On 30.11.2015,
second party was also given last opportunity to lead evidence but did not turn up. Thus, it appears that both parties are
not interested in the proceedings of the reference. Therefore, Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in
default of the second party.
The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-927-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos 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]
vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1103@2004) (vkbZVhlh 4@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-05-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41012@118@98&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]
j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2016
S.O. 927.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1103/2004) (ITC No. 4/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
Western Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.
[No. L-41012/118/98-IR (B-I)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 4th January, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1103/2004
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2087
Reference: (ITC) No. 4/1999
1.
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway,
Divisional Office,
Kothi Compound,
Rajkot-360001
2.
The Chief Project Manager (construction),
Western Railway,
B.G. Station Building,
Second Floor, P.O.-Railwypra,
Ahmedabad-380002
…First Party
Vs.
Their Workman
Smt. Angamma Govindan,
Through the Secretary,
Railway Pensioners’Association,
‘Ashirwar’11,-Bajranjwadi,
Jamnagar Road,
Rajkot-360006
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
For the Second Party
:
Sh. R.C. Pathak, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L- 41012/118/98-IR(B-I) dated 12.03.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Divisional Railway Manager, Rajkot/Chief Project Manager (C) , Ahmedabad in
denying pensionary benefits to Smt. Angamma Govindan, Ext. Gangwoman under P.W.I. Khambhalia, is valid
and legal? If not, to what benefits the workman is entitled to and what directions are necessary in the matter?”
2.
This reference dates back to 12.03.1999. Second party submitted his statement of claim in reply to it first party
did not filed written statement. Despite the after giving the number of opportunities to the second party to proceed with
the reference, second party did not turn up for leading evidence. Thus, the conduct of the second party appears to be
casual. Thus, considering the in different attitude of the second party, Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the
reference in default of the second party.
The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-928-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos 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]
vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 791@2004) (vkbZVhlh 02@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-05-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41011@26@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]
j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
2088
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2016
S.O.928.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 791/2004) (ITC No. 02/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Western
Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.
[No. L-41011/26/2002-IR (B-I)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 11th January, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 791/2004
Reference: (ITC) No. 02/2003
1.
The Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (power),
Western Railway,
Pratapnagar,
Baroda-390004
2.
The Sr. Section Engineer (electric- Rail Lighting Inspector)
Western Railway,
Pratapnagar,
Baroda-390004
3.
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway,
Pratapnagar,
Baroda-390004
…First Party
Vs.
Their Workman
Sh. Laxman M.
Through the Divisional Secretary,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,
Shastri Pole,
Kothi,
Baroda-390001 (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party:
-
For the Second Party:
-
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L- 41011/26/2002-IR(B-I) dated 10.12.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Baroda(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Railway Administration, Western Railway, Baroda through its officers by awarding
a penalty of stoppage of one increment for one year is proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief the
concerned workman Shri Laxman M. is entitled?”
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2089
2.
This reference dates back to 10.12.2002. First party filed his vakilpatra by Advocate Smt. K.J. Parekh but
second party filed the vakilpatra of his advocate Sh. H.D. Kathrotia and Sh. R.S. Sisodia, General Secretary, P.R.K.P.
but second party did not prefer to submit the statement of claim despite giving dozens of opportunities. Thus, it appears
that second party is not interested in the proceedings of the reference. Therefore, Tribunal has no option but to dismiss
the reference in default of the second party.
The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-929-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos 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]
vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 826@2004) (vkbZVhlh la- 38@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-05-2016 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41012@144@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]
j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2016
S.O. 929.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 826/2004) (ITC No. 38/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Western
Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.
[No. L-41012/144/2003-IR (B-I)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 11th January, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 826/2004
Reference: (ITC) No. 38/2003
1.
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway,
Pratapnagar,
Baroda-390004
2.
The Assistant Mechanical Engineer (C &W),
Western Railway,
Karechiya Yard,
Pratapnagar,
Baroda-390004
…First Party
Vs.
Their Workman
Sh. Shantilal C.
Through the Divisional Secretary,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,
Shastri Pole,
Kothi,
Baroda
…Second Party
2090
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
For the First Party
:
Smt. K. J. Parikh, Advocate
For the Second Party
:
-
AWARD
The
Government
of
India/Ministry
of
Labour
,New
Delhi
by
reference
adjudication
Order
No. L- 41012/144/2003-IR(B-I) dated 28.11.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Baroda(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Divisional Railway Administration, Western Railway, Baroda in not granting the
promotion to Shri Shantilal C. to the post of Fitter Gr. II is legal, proper and justified? If not, what relief the
concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?”
3.
This reference dates back to 28.11.2003. Despite service to both parties, second party did not prefer to submit
statement of claim. First party filed the vakilpatra of his advocate Smt. K. J. Parikh. Thus, it appears that second party is
not interested in the proceedings of the reference. Therefore, Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in
default of the second party.
The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk-930-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dukZVdk cSad fy-
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]
vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 156@2004) (vkbZVhlh la- 40@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-05-2016 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@212@98&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]
j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2016
S.O. 930.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 156/2004) (ITC No. 40/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
Karnataka Bank Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.
[No. L-12012/212/98-IR (B-I)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 13th January, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 156/2004
Reference: (ITC) No. 40/1999
1.
The Branch Manager,
Karnataka Bank Ltd.,
Relief Road Branch,
Ahmedabad-380001
…First Party
Vs.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2091
Their Workman
Sh.Kishore J. Solanki,
1645, Chandra Nivas,
B/h Saraspur Post Office,
Saraspur, Ahmedabad
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
For the Second Party
:
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L- 12012/212/98-IR(B-I) dated 22.01.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Karnataka Bank Ltd. Ahmedabad is justified in terminating the
services of Shri Kishore J. Solanki, ex-employee w.e.f. 15.7.7? If not, what relief the workman concerned is
entitled to?”
4.
This reference dates back to 22.01.1999. Second party submitted statement of claim (Ext.3) on 09.03.1999. First
party also filed written statement 18.11.1999. after submitting aforesaid documents both the parties have been absent
since last several dates. Thus, it appears that second party is not interested in the proceedings of the reference.
Therefore, Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in default of the both the parties.
The reference is dismissed in default of the both the parties.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 931-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos 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]
vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 374@2004) (vkbZVhlh la- 22@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-05-2016 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41011@7@2000&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]
j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2016
S.O. 931.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 374/2004) (ITC No. 22/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Western
Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.
[No. L-41011/7/2000-IR (B-I)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 91th January, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 374/2004
Reference: (ITC) No. 22/2001
2092
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1.
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway,
Divisional Office,
Kothi Compound,
Rajkot (Gujarat) -360001
……….First Party
Vs.
Their Workmen
Through the general secretary,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad ,
E/209,
Sarvottam Nagar,
Nr. New Railway Colony,
Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380019
……….Second Party
For the First Party
:
Sh. H.B. Shah, Advocate
For the Second Party
:
Sh. B.K. Oza, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 41011/7/2000/-IR(B-I)
dated 30.01.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad(Gujarat) in respect of the
matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“1. Whether the action of the Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway , Rajkot to issue SF-11 and stop
an annual Increment w.e.f. 24.10.1997 of Shri S.C. Pandey, Clerk is just, valid and legal? If not to what
benefits the workman is entitled?”
“2. Whether the action of the DivisiobalRaiwlay Manager, Western Railway, Rajkot to issue SF-11 and stop
one set of pass w.e.f. 5-5-1998 of Shri Harishchandra S. , Driver is just, valid and legal?”
“3. Whether the action of the Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Rajkot to give N.R.F. allowance
instead of Running Room allowanceto Shri Bhanwarlal R. Sunter is just, valid and legal? If not to what benefits
the workman is entitled?”
“4. Whether the demand of the Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad ,Ahmedabad against the management of
Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway Rajkot to credit 4 days leave instead of 221 days leave in
account of Shri Kishan Lal R. r, Ex. Chief Train Examiner, Ahmedabad is just valid and legal? If so, to what
benefits the workman is entitled?”
2.
This reference dates back to 30.01.2001. Second party submitted statement of claim (Ext.7) on 08.08.2001.
First party filed the vakalatnama of his advocate Sh. Janak R. Pandya of Rajkot who did not prefer to file the written
statement but second party has not been responding since last several dates.Thus, it appears that second party is not
interested in the proceedings of the reference. Therefore, Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in default of
the both parties.
The reference is dismissed in default of the both parties.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2016
dk-vk- 932-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,p Mh ,iQ lh
cSad 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] v:ukdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 3@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@73@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]
j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2093
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2016
S.O. 932.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/2012) of the Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of HDFC and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.
[No. L-12011/73/2011-IR (B-I)]
RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri.K. Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer
(Thursday the 31st day of December, 2015/10th Pausha, 1937)
ID 3/2012
Union
:
The General Secretary,
HDFC Bank Employees’ Union,
Central Office,
Narayana Smruthi Buildings,
Peruvaram,
North Paravur – 683513.
By Adv. Shri H.B. Shenoy
Management
:
The Vice President,
HDFC Bank,
Indian Express Building,
Kaloor,
Kochi – 682017.
By Adv. Shri Saji Varghese
This case coming up for final hearing on 04.12.2015 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 31.12.2015 passed the
following:
AWARD
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India/Ministry of Labour vide its Order No-L-
12011/73/2011-IR(B-I) dated 09.01.2012 referred the industrial dispute scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this
tribunal.
2.
The dispute is:
“Whether the action of the management of the HDFC Bank Limited in stopping the increments for 48 days in
r/o all the workman of the Bank, is legal and justified? To what relief the Union is entitled?”
3.
On receipt of the order of reference No.L-12011/73/2011-IR(B-I) dated 09.01.2012 from the Ministry of
Labour, summons was issued to the parties to appear and answer all material questions relating to dispute and to produce
documents to substantiate their respective contentions. Before this Tribunal the union as well as the management
entered appearance through counsels and submitted their pleadings.
4.
The contentions of the union in brief are as follows:-
The union has stated that the management, which is a banking company has illegally enforced the stoppage of
increments by 48 days with cumulative effect on all their workmen after the merger of the erstwhile Centurion Bank Ltd.
with the present management – HDFC Bank Ltd. The management did so without issuing any memo, show cause notice
or chargesheet to the workmen. The management did not conduct any enquiry before initiating the stringent action even
though the union submitted repeated representation before the management to review and revoke the stoppage of
increments and to restore the increments withheld to the workmen. The union has stated that the action of the
management is illegal, unjust and it was enforced without affording an opportunity of being heard and in violation of the
principles of natural justice. According to the union the action of the management in stopping the increment for the
period from 06.09.2006 to 23.10.2006 is illegal, against the terms and conditions of the Bipartite Settlements and also
2094
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
against the awards to which the management is a party. It is stated that the terms of amalgamation is approved by the
Reserve Bank of India and it is valid and binding on the management. It is stated that the action of the management is
illegal, contrary to the understanding and undertaking entered into between the management and the union while
recalling the strike. Therefore, the union has requested to pass an award to the effect that the action of the management
HDFC Bank Ltd. in stopping increments for 48 days in respect of all workmen of the bank as illegal and unjust
and that the workmen are entitled to restoration of the increments withheld by the management for 48 days and to direct
them to pay all other benefits incidental thereto.
5.
The management filed written statement denying the claim of the union. They have stated that the claim by the
union is not sustainable either in law or on facts. They have stated that the Lord Krishna Bank was amalgamated with
the Centurion Bank of Punjab on 29.08.2007 and the Centurion Bank of Punjab was amalgamated with the HDFC Bank
Ltd. on 23.05.2008. It is stated that the employees of the Lord Krishna Bank Ltd., including the workmen went on
illegal strike from 06.09.2006 to 23.10.2006 and they have abstained from the duties for 48 days without notice. As a
result of the illegal strike by the employees, the business of the bank was badly affected causing great loss to the bank
and its customers including the loss of damage to its recognition. In view of the illegal strike and unauthorized absence
for 48 days, the increment of all employees including the workmen who abstained from work were postponed by 48
days. The increment was released effective from the first day of the month in which due date of increment which fell
due after postponement, strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the Bipartite Settlement. Since
the workmen absented from work for 48 days, they have not earned wages during that period and that the management
did not pay any wages to them during the said period of 48 days of strike. The contention of the union that the
management unilaterally postponed the increment by 48 days, is false and incorrect. If no wages is earned or payable no
increment in the wages is earned and payable. The contention that the management has not issued any memo, show
cause notice or chargesheet before the impugned action is incorrect. Since the workmen has admitted that they were on
strike for 48 days and that they have abstained from doing work during those 48 days, they have not earned salary during
that period and hence the postponement of increment during the strike period is just and proper. The management has
not violated any of the terms and conditions in the scheme of amalgamation. The management has requested to disallow
the claim by the union.
6.
The union has filed a replication refuting the claims by the management. They have reiterated the contentions
in the claim statement.
7.
On behalf of the union WW1 was examined and Exts.W1 to W3 are the documents marked on their side. On
behalf of the management no oral evidence is adduced. Ext.M1 is the document marked on behalf of the management.
Heard Counsel for the Union and that of the Management.
8.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the action of the management of the HDFC Bank Ltd. in stopping the increments for 48 days
(from 06.09.2006 to 23.10.2006) in respect of all the workmen of the bank is legal and justifiable?
(ii)
To what relief the union is entitled?
9.
Point Nos.(i) and (ii):-
The Union is representing the workmen in the management of HDFC Bank Ltd. The
workmen on whose behalf the union has raised the dispute were employees of the Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. The Lord
Krishna Bank Ltd was amalgamated with the Centurion Bank of Punjab on 29.08.2007. Subsequently the Centurion
Bank of Punjab was amalgamated with the management – HDFC Bank Ltd. on 23.05.2008. Against the amalgamation,
the employees of the Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. went on strike for a period of 48 days from 06.09.2006 to 23.10.2006.
They abstained from duty during that period and when the strike was recalled they rejoined duty. The strike period was
for 48 days. After the amalgamation process the management bank refused to reckon the 48 days from 06.09.2006 to
23.10.2006 for calculating the increment payable to the employees. According to the union the unilateral action on the
part of the management in stopping the increments/postponing the increments by 48 days during the strike period, that
too without issuing any memo, show cause notice, chargesheet or without conducting any enquiry is illegal, against the
terms of the Bipartite Settlements and the awards binding on the parties. They have sought restoration of the increment
withheld by the management bank and to grant all other benefits incidental thereto.
10.
The management has contended that the employees went on strike without issuing notice and they abstained
from duty from 06.09.2006 to 23.10.2006 i.e., 48 days and as a result the business of the bank was severely affected,
which caused loss to the bank and its customers including loss of business and damage to its reputation. It is stated that
all the employees including the workmen have not paid wages during the strike period of 48 days. According to them
the employees are not entitled to the increment claimed for the reason that the workmen have not earned any salary
during the strike period of 48 days. It is stated while withdrawing the strike there was no agreement or arrangement to
treat the strike period as period of duty. According to the management since the workmen have not earned any wages
during the strike period of 48 days they are not entitled to get increment during that period. They have stated that the
claim of the union is unsustainable in law.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2095
11. While examined as WW1 the General Secretary of the union has stated that the management illegally enforced
the stoppage of increments for 48 days with cumulative effect on all their workmen. He has further stated that before
imposing the punishment the management has not issued any memo, chargesheet or any written order and hence their
action is clear violation of the principles of natural justice. During cross examination WW1 has stated that all the
employees in the management bank below the cadre of Assistant Manager were on strike from 06.09.2006 to
23.10.2006. He has admitted that the union has challenged the amalgamation scheme before the Hon’ble High Court of
Kerala. WW1 has stated that the amalgamation scheme was approved by the Reserve Bank of India. WW1 has
admitted that during the strike period the management has not paid salary to any of the employees who were on strike.
According to WW1 the postponement of increment by 48 days by the management is a punishment.
12.
Learned counsel for the union submitted that the postponement/withholding of increment by the management is
against the terms of the Bipartite Settlement and that it is against the guidelines in the Awards binding on the parties.
The learned counsel submitted that increments can be withheld only for substantially impressing or proved misconduct
or inefficiency. According to the learned counsel for the union the action of the management in postponing the
increment is a penal action and it was imposed on the workmen without serving notice, without hearing them, without
issuing any chargesheet or conducting any enquiry.
13.
The learned counsel for the management submitted that the workmen went on illegal strike without notice and
that they have not earned any wages during the strike period of 48 days. It is also stated that the postponement of
increment by 48 days for the period during which the workmen had not earned any salary or wages, is perfectly legal,
just and proper. The learned counsel for the management submitted that the increment for the period of unauthorized
absence or the period went on illegal strike is not allowable. The learned counsel relied on the ruling reported in
A.P.SRTC AND ANOTHER Versus S.NARSAGOUD - (2003) 2 SCC 212 and BANK OF INDIA Versus
T.S.KELAWALA AND OTHERS (1990) 4 SCC 744 and submitted that the workmen are not entitled to get increments
for the period during which they were on strike. In the second decision referred above the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held that:
“Deliberate abstention from work, whether by resort to strike or go slow or any other method, legitimate or
illegitimate, resulting in no work for the whole day or days or part of a day or days, will entitle the management
to deduct, pro rata or otherwise, wages of the participating workmen notwithstanding absence of any
stipulation in the contract of employment or any provision in the service rules, regulations or Standing Orders –
In cases of such undisputed mass misconduct deduction of wages will not require disciplinary proceedings –
Amount of deduction of wages will depend on facts and circumstances – Payment of Wages Act, 1936,
Sections 7(2)(b) and 9”.
14. The learned counsel also referred to the ruling reported in STATE OF PUNJAB Versus JASWANT SINGH
KANWAR - (2014) 13 SCC 622. In that ruling the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:
“Increment is an incidence of employment and an employee gets an increment by working the full year and
drawing full salary, while on duty”.
The dictum laid down in the decision referred above is to the effect that an employee is entitled to get increment
by working the full year and drawing full salary while on duty.
15.
In this case admittedly the workmen have not done any work during the strike period of 48 days from
06/09/2006 to 23/10/2006.They have not earned any salary during the strike period.
16.
Ext.W3 is copy of the minutes of the bilateral discussion between the management of the Lord Krishna Bank
and the representative of the United Forum of Lord Krishna Bank unions. As per the decision in that meeting the strike
was called off and the parties agreed to restore complete normalcy. In Ext.W3 there is no mention regarding the
payment of wages during the striking period of 48 days from 06.09.2006 to 23.10.2006. As a goodwill measure the
management agreed to sanction interest free salary advance to the staff members equivalent to one month’s gross salary,
to be repaid in 12 monthly instalments.
17.
Since the workmen have not done any work during the strike period from 06.09.2006 to 23.10.2006 and that
they have not earned any salary during the strike period, their claim for increments during the strike period of 48 days, is
not sustainable in law. Therefore, the issue referred for adjudication is answered to the effect that the workmen of the
management bank are not entitled to get increments for 48 days from 06.09.2006 to 23.10.2006. It follows that the
union is not entitled to any of the relief as per this reference. The reference is answered accordingly.
The award will come into force one month from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 31st
day of December, 2015.
SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer
2096
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
APPENDIX
Witness for the union
WW1
30.12.2014
Shri N. Rajendrakumar
Witness for the management
-
NIL
Exhibits for the union
W1
-
Copy of NOTICE dated 01.04.2006 issued by the Lord Krishna Bank Limited, Kaloor, Kochi along
with copy of Scheme of Amalgamation of Lord Krishna Bank Limited with Centurion Bank of
Punjab Limited
W2
-
Copy of Scheme of Amalgamation dated 01.04.2008 of Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited with
HDFC Bank Limited
W3
-
Copy of Minutes of the bi-lateral discussions held on 18.10.2006 & 23.10.2006 in pursuance of the
advice of Regional Labour Commissioner(Central), Cochin, between the management of Lord
Krishna Bank Ltd and the representatives of the United Forum of LKB unions – Lord Krishna Bank
Officers Association(AIBOC), Lord Krishna Bank Officers Association (AIBOA), Lord Krishna
Bank Employees Union (AIBEA), Lord Krishna Bank Workers Organisation (NOBW)
Exhibits for the management
M1
-
Copy of Notification dated 22.03.2006 issued by the Ministry of Labour & Employment,
Government of India to the Manager, Government of India Press, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Ring
Road, New Delhi – 110064.
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.933
933
933
933.—tcfd eSllZ jkSud vkVkseksfVo dEiksusaV~l fyfeVsM ¼cjsyh mi{ks= esa dksM la[;k ;wih@16621 ds
varxZr½ ¼,rnqijkar izfr"Bku ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k vkSj izdh.kZ mica/k vf/kfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½
¼,rnqijkar vf/kfu;e ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ dh /kkjk 17 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k
gSA
2.
और जबक केीय सरकार के िवचार म, अंशदान क दर के संबंध म उ ितान के भिवय िनिध िनयम उ अिधिनयम क
धारा 6 म िविनद िनयम क तुलना म कमचारय के िलए कम उपयु नह# ह$ और कमचारी उ अिधिनयम अथवा कमचारी भिवय
िनिध योजना, 1952 (एतदुपरांत योजना के %प म संद(भत) के अंतगत सदृश +व%प के कसी अय ितान म कमचारय के संबंध म दी
जाने वाली अय भिवय िनिध सुिवधा- का भी लाभ उठा रहे ह$।
3.
अत:, अब, के सरकार, उ अिधिनयम क धारा 17 क उप धारा (1) के ख0ड (क) 2ारा द3 शिय का योग करते 6ए,
इस संबंधाम समय-समय पर िविनद ट शत: के अ; सधीन, उ< त ित ठान को अगली अिधसूचना के साथ सल? शत: के अ;याधीन उ
ितान को अगली अिधसूचना तक 01.04.1993 से उ योजना के सभी उपबंध के भाव से छूट दान करती है।
[सं. एस-35015/12/2015-एसएस-II]
सुभाष कुमार, अवर सिचव
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ िवय
िवय
िवय
िवय िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
1.
िनयोा समय-समय पर केीय सरकार अथवा केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु, जैसी भी िथित हो, ारा दए जाने
वाले ऐसे िनदेश$ के अनुसार भ िवय िनिध के %बंधन हेतु अपनी अ(य)ता म* एक यासी बोड, ग .ठत करेगा। भ िवय िनिध
यासी बोड, म* िविहत होगी जो अय बात$ के साथ-साथ कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध संगठन के % ित भ िवय िनिध म* %ा ि2य$ और
उसम* से भुगतान के उ िचत लेख$ और उनक7 अ िभर)ा म* शेष रा िश के िलए उ9रदायी होगा। इस %योजनाथ, " िनयोा" से:-
(i) कसी % ित;ान, जो एक कारखाना हो, उसके संबंध म*, कारखाने का वामी अथवा अ िध;ाता अ िभ%ेत होगा; और
(ii) कसी अय % ित;ान के संबंध म*, वह < ि, अथवा %ा िधकारी अ िभ%ेत होगा, िजसका उस % ित;ान के कामकाज
पर अं ितम िनयं=ण हो।
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2097
2.
यासी बोड, हरेक ितमाही म* कम से कम एक बार बैठक करेगा और वह के सरकार/केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु
(सीपीएफसी) अथवा उसके ारा %ा िधकृत कसी अ िधकारी ारा समय-समय पर जारी कए जाने वाले दशा िनदCश$ के
अनुसार काय, करेगा।
3.
अ िधिनयम क7 धारा 2(च) म* यथा प .रभा िषत सभी कम,चारी, जो भ िवय िनिध के सदय बनने के पा= रह* हE, य द
% ित;ान को छूट %दान नहI क7 होती, उह* सदय$ के Jप म* नामां कत कया जाएगा।
4.
जहां कोई कम,चारी जो पहले ही कसी अय छूट-%ा2 % ित;ान के कसी कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध अथवा भ िवय
िनिध का सदय हो, उसे उसके % ित;ान म* िनयो िजत कया जाता है, तो िनयोा उसे तLकाल िनिध के सदय के Jप म*
नामां कत करेगा। िनयोा ऐसे कम,चारी के भ िवय िनिध खाते म* उसके पहले िनयोा से संचय रा िशयां अंत .रत और जमा
करवाने क7 भी <वथा करेगा।
5.
िनयोा भ िवय िनिध को उसके ारा और कम,चारी के ारा समय—समय पर अ िधिनयम के अंतग,त िनधा, .रत दर
से देय अंशदान को, िजस माह के िलए अंशदान देय ह$ उसके बाद के माह क7 15 तारीख तक यासी बोड, को अंत .रत करेगा।
िनयोा यासी बोड, को कही देय$ के भुगतान म* कसी िवलPब के िलए अ िधिनयम क7 धारा 7 थ के उपबंध$ के अनुसार
साधारण Rयाज अदा करने का दायी होगा।
6.
िनयोा भ िवय िनिध के %शासन के सभी <य वहन करेगा और चोरी, डकैती, गबन, दु Sव िनयोग अथवा कसी
अय कारण से भ िवय िनिध को हो सकने वाले कसी घाटे क7 भी भरपाई करेगा।
7.
यासी बोड, ारा घो िषत Rयाज म* कसी कमी को भी िनयोा ारा पूरा कया जाना होगा और उसे सां िविधक
सीमा तक लाना होगा।
8.
िनयोा जब कभी िनयम संशो िधत कए जाएं, समु िचत %ा िधकारी ारा यथा अनुमो दत, िनिध के िनयम$ क7 एक
% ित अ िधसंUयक कम,चा .रय$ क7 भाषा म* उनके अनुवाद स िहत % ित;ान के सूचना पट पर %द Sशत करेगा।
9.
% ित;ान के भ िवय िनिध िनयम$ के अंतग,त िनधा, .रत देय अंशदान क7 दर, अ िVम क7 शतW और मा=ा तथा अय
मामले और सदय के मा िसक चालू शेष पर संग िणत और यासी बोड, ारा घो िषत, %Lयेक सदय के खाते म* जमा कया गया
Rयाज, अ िधिनयम और उसके अंतग,त िनSमत योजना म* िनधा, .रत िविभX उपबंध$ के अंतग,त के सरकार ारा घो िषत दर से
कम नहI होगा।
10.
योजना म* कोई संशोधन, जो % ित;ान के िवYमान िनयम$ क7 तुलना म* कम,चा .रय$ के िलए अ िधक लाभदा यक हो,
उसे यास के िनयम$ म* औपचा .रक संशोधन के लं िबत रहते उन पर वत: लागू कया जाएगा।
11.
िनयोा ारा िनयम$ म* कोई भी संशोधन )े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु के पूव, अनुमोदन के िबना नहI कया
जाएगा। )े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु अपना अनुमोदन देने से पूव, कम,चा .रय$ को अपना Jख प[ करने का वा िजब अवसर
देगा।
12.
िनकासी, अ िVम और अंतरण के सभी दावे कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध संगठन ारा िनधा, .रत अ िधकतम समय सीमा के
भीतर, शी\ता से िनपटाए जाएंगे।
13.
यासी बोड, %Lयेक कम,चारी के संबंध म* जमा कए गए अंशदान, िनकासी और Rयाज दशा,ने के िलए िवत .रत लेख$
का रख-रखाव करेगा। ऐसे अ िभलेख$ का रख-रखाव अ िधमानत: इलै]^ो िनक Jप से रखा जाएगा। % ित;ान आव िधक Jप से
जब कभी केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु/)े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु ारा िनदेश दया जाए, सदय$ के लेख$ को इलै]^ॉ िनक
Jप से सP%े िषत कर*गे।
14.
यासी बोड, वष, म* एक बार िव9ीय/लेखा वष, के समा2 होने के छ: माह के भीतर %Lयेक कम,चारी को िन:शु`क लेख$
का वा Sषक िववरण अथवा पासबुक जारी करेगा। जब कभी सदय चाह*, अ ित.र a%टऑउट नाममा= के %भार के साथ
उपलRध कराए जा सकते हE। पासबुक के मामले म* वह कम,चारी के पास रहेगी िजसे %तुत कए जाने पर या िसय$ ारा
आव िधक Jप से अYतन कया जाएगा।
15.
िनयोा सभी सदय$ को उनक7 आवcयकतानुसार कPdयूटर टSमनल$ से अपने खाते म* पड़ी शेष रािश को देखने के
समथ, बनाने के िलए आवcयक %ावधान कर*गे।
2098
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
16.
यासी बोड, और िनयोा कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा यथा िविहत eप म* ये िववरिणयां िविनfद[ समय
सीमा के भीतर मािसक/वाSषक eप से दायर कर*गे, िजसे न करने पर इसे चूक माना जाएगा तथा यासी बोड, और िनयोा
संयु eप से और अलग-अलग, कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा क7 जाने वाली उपयु दािgडक कार,वाई के भागी ह$गे।
17.
यासी बोड, समय-समय पर सरकार के िनदCश$ के अनुसार भिवय िनिध के पैसे का िनवेश करेगा। सरकार के िनदCश$
के अनुसार िनवेश करने म* असफल होने पर यासी बोड, अलग-अलग और संयु eप से केीय भिवय िनिध आयु या
उसके %ितिनिध ारा यथा अिधरोिपत अिधशु`क का भागी बन जाएगा।
18.
(क) %ितभूितयां यास के नाम से %ा2 क7 जाएंगी। इस %कार %ा2 क7 गई %ितभूितयां अभौितक (डीमेट) eप म*
होनी चािहए तथा यास के काय,चािलत रहने वाले )े=$ म* अपेि)त सुिवधा के उपलRध न होने क7 िथित म* यासी बोड,
संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को इसक7 सूचना द*गे।
(ख) यासी बोड, िलिप-वार रिजटर बनाएगा तथा Rयाज क7 समय पर उगाही सुिनिiत करेगा।
(ग) डीमेट खाता इस संबंध म* केीय सरकार ारा जारी अनुदेश$ के अनुसार भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय
सरकार ारा अनुमो दत िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$ के मा(यम से खोला जाए।
(घ) डीमेट खाते का खच, यास ारा कए जाने वाले िनवेश का %ासंिगक <य <य माना जाए। %ितभूितय$ आ द
क7 खरीद क7 दलाली जैसे िनवेश$ के सभी %कार के खचj को भी यास ारा कए जाने वाले िनवेश का %ासंिगक <य माना
जाएगा।
19.
%ितभूितय$ और बाgड$ क7 खरीद जैसे ऐसे सभी िनवेश भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय सरकार ारा अनुमो दत
िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$ क7 सुर)ा अिभर)ा म* दज, कए जाएं, जो इसके संर)क ह$गे। थापना क7 बंदी या प.रसमापन या
कम,चारी भिवय िनिध, 1952 से छूट पर यह संर)क, यास के नाम पर %ा2 तथा अपने जमा म* पड़े िनवेश को संबंिधत
)े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु के, इस आशय के, अनुरोध पर संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को सीधे अंत.रत करेगा।
20.
थापना संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को उन िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$(भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय
सरकार ारा अनुमो दत) के िववरण से सूिचत करेगी, िजनके पास तथा िजनक7 सुर)ा अिभर)ा म* यास के नाम पर कए
गए िनवेश अथा,त %ितभूितय$, बाgड$ आ द म* कए गए िनवेश दज, कए गए हE। तथािप, यासी बोड, उस धनरािश क7 उगाही
कर सकता है, जो दाव$ के िनपटान, िनयमानुसार अिVम$ क7 मंजूरी और िनयोा क7 सेवा छोड़ने क7 िथित म* सदय के
भिवय िनिध संचयन के अंतरण और %ितभूितय$ क7 िबm7 ारा अय कसी %ाि2य$ अथवा )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु के
पूव, अनुमोदन के शता,धीन िनिध के नाम म* पड़े अय िनवेश$ जैसे बा(यकारी <य$ को पूरा करने के िलए अपेि)त ह$।
21.
यास ारा कए गए िनवेश$ के िलए कसी िव9ीय या अय संथाn ारा दए जाने वाले कसी कमीशन,
%ोLसाहन, बोनस या अय आSथक लाभ इसके खाते म* डाले जाएं।
22.
िनयोा और यासी बोड, के सदय शतj का पालन करने क7 सहमित देते oए िलिखत वचन द*गे तथा यह वैिधक eप
से िनयोा और यासी बोड, के उ9रािधका.रय$ और समनुदेिशत$ पर उनके साथ-साथ बा(यकारी होगा।
23.
िनयोा और यासी बोड, छूट के रp होने क7 िथित म* संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु ारा िविहत समय
सीमा के भीतर तLकाल िनिधय$ का अंतरण करने का वचन भी देगा। यह उन पर कानूनी eप से बा(यकारी होगा तथा उह*
िनिधय$ के अंतरण म* कोई िवलंब होने क7 िथित म* अिभयोजन का भागी बनाएगा।
24.
(क) यासी बोड, ारा अनुरि)त भिवय िनिध खाता कसी योqय वतं= चाट,ड, लेखाकार ारा वाSषक eप से लेखा-
परी)ा करने के शता,धीन होगा। जहां भी आवcयक समझा जाए, वहां कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन को अिधकार होगा क
यह कसी अय योqय लेखा-परी)क ारा खात$ क7 लेखा-परी)ा कराए तथा इस %कार oए खच, िनयोा ारा वहन कए
जाएंगे।
(ख) लेखा-परी)क$ ारा िव9ीय वष, अथा,त 1 अ%ैल से 31 माच, तक क7 समाि2 के बाद छह महीने के भीतर लेखा-
परी)ीत तुलन-प= सिहत लेखा-परी)क क7 .रपोट, क7 %ित सीधे इस काया,लय म* %तुत क7 जाए। तुलन-प= का %ाeप और
इस .रपोट, म* %तुत क7 जाने वाली जानकारी कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा िनधा,.रत क7 जाएगी तथा संबंिधत )े=ीय
भिवय िनिध आयु के काया,लय म* इलै]^ॉिनक %ाeप के साथ हता).रत %ितिलिप म* उपलRध कराई जाएगी।
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2099
(ग) एक ही लेखा-परी)क$ को लगातार दो वष, के िलए तथा अगले िव9ीय वष, के पहले दन से िमली छूट से अिधक
के िलए िनयु न कया जाए।
25.
लगातार तीन िव9ीय वषj तक कोई हािन या पूंजी आधार म* कटौती को अगले िव9ीय वष, के पहले दन से िमली
छूट %ा2 होगी।
26.
िनयोा %Lयेक माह क7 समाि2 से 15 दन के भीतर िनरी)ण हेतु ऐसी सुिवधाn का %ावधान करेगा तथा ऐसे
िनरी)ण %भार$ का भुगतान करेगा जो केीय सरकार ारा अिधिनयम क7 धारा 17 के उप-खgड (3) के खgड(क) के अंतग,त
समय-समय पर दए िनदCश$ के अनुसार ह$।
27.
यासी बोड, या िनयोा ारा छूट देने के िलए शतj के कसी उ`लंघन क7 िथित म* दी गई छूट संबंिधत <ि को
इस संबंध म* कारण बताओ नो.टस जारी करने के बाद रp कर दी जाएगी।
28.
कसी भी धोखे, गबन, गलत िनवेश िनण,य$ आ द के फलवeप ^ट को oए कसी भी नुकसान क7 िथित म*
िनयोा नुकसान पूरा करने का भागी होगा।
29.
कसी िवलय, अिवलय, अिभVहण, िबm7, एक7करण, सहायक कंपनी का गठन चाहे पूण,त: वािमLव वाली हो या
नहI इLया द के फलवeप य द %ित;ान क7 कानूनी िथित म* कोई भी बदलाव होता है तो दी गई छूट िनरत होगी एवं
%ित;ान को तुरंत नई छूट देने के िलए मामले क7 .रपोट, करनी चािहए।
30.
एक ही भिवय िनिध ^ट म* एक से अिधक इकाई/%ित;ान$ के भाग लेने क7 िथित म* भाग लेने वाली इकाईय$ के
कसी भी ^टी/िनयोा ारा कोई भी चूक होने पर सभी ^टी संयु eप से एवं अलग से िजPमेदार/उ9रदायी ह$गे और
आरपीएफसी आम भिवय िनिध ^ट के सभी यािसय$ के िवeu उपयु कानूनी कार,वाई करेगा।
31. छूट %ा2 यास िनिध के अिधVहण के मामले म*, अंतरीय Rयाज के कारण हािन के अनुमािनत िनवल वत,मान मू`य क7
वसूली %ित;ान से क7 जानी चािहए।
32.
के सरकार ितान क छूट क िनरंतरता के िलए शत को बढ़ा सकती है और जब भी इनको सं ेिषत
"कया जाएगा ये ितान इन अित&र' शत का अनुपालन करने के िलए बा*य ह+गे।
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2016
S.O. 933.— Whereas M/s. Raunaq Automotive Components Limited [under Code No. UP/16621 in Bareilly
sub region] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of
section 17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred
to as the Act).
2.
And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment
with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in section 6 of
the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or
under the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in relation to the
employees in any other establishment of similar character.
3.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said Act
and subject to the conditions specified in this regard from time to time, the Central Government, herewith, exampts the
said establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 01.04.1993 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/12/2015-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
2100
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1.
The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees under his Chairmanship for the management of the Provident
Fund according to such directions as may be given by the Central Government or the Central Provident Fund
Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time. The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees who will
be responsible for and accountable to the Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for proper accounts of
the receipts into and payment from the Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For this purpose, the
“employer” shall mean:-
(i) In relation to an establishment, which is a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory: and
(ii) In relation to any other establishment, the person who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control over the affairs
of the establishment.
2.
The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in every three months and shall function in accordance with the
guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the Central Government/Central Provident Fund
Commissioner(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3.
All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the Act, who have been eligible to become members of the
Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4.
Where an employee who is already a member of Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any other
exempted establishment is employed in his establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him as a member of the
fund. The employer should also arrange to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account of such employee
with his previous employer transferred and credited into his account.
5.
The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself
and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from time to time by the 15th of each month following the month for
which the contributions are payable. The employer shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of
Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6
The employer shall bear all the expenses of the administration of Provident Fund and also make good any other
loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any other reason.
7.
Any deficiency in the interest declared by the Board of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to bring it
up to the statutory limit.
8.
The employer shall display on the notice board of the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when amended thereto along with a translation in the language of the
majority of the employees.
9.
The rate of contributions payable, the conditions and quantum of advances and other matters laid down under
the provident fund rules of the establishment and the interest credited to the account of each member, calculated on the
monthly running balance of the member and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower than those declared by
the Central Government under the various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme framed thereunder.
10.
Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of the Trust.
11.
No amendment in the rules shall be made by the employer without the prior approval of the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give a reasonable
opportunity to the employees to explain their point of view.
12.
All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
13.
The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal and
interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance of such records should preferably be done electronically. The
establishments should periodically transmit the details of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed by the
Central Provident Commissioner/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
14.
The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual statement of accounts or pass books to every employee within six
months of the close of financial/accounting year free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be made
available as and when the members want, subject to nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain in
custody of employee to be updated periodically by the Trustees when presented to them.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2101
15.
The employer shall make necessary provisions to enable all the members to be able to see their account balance
from the computer terminals as and when required by them.
16.
The Board of Trustees and the employer shall file such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within the specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a default and
the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the Employees’
Provident Fund Organisation.
17.
The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of the provident fund as per the directions of the Government
from time to time. Failure to make investments as per directions of the Government shall make the Board of Trustees
separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or his
representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of Trust. The securities so obtained should be in dematerialized
(DEMAT) form and in case the required facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates the Board of
Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script wise register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India and
Central Government in accordance with the instructions issued by the Central Government in this regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust. Also all
types of cost of investments like brokerage for purchase of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental cost of investment
by the Trust.
19.
All such investments made like purchase of securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody of
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian of the
same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such custodian
shall transfer the investment obtained in the name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional PF
Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that effect.
20.
The establishment shall intimate to the Regional P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government), with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments made
in the name of trust, viz., investments made in securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the Board of Trustees
may raise such sum of sums of money as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such as settlement of claims,
grant of advances as per rules and transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/her leaving service of the
employer and any other receipts by sale of the securities or other investments standing in the name of the Fund subject to
the prior approval of the Regional PF Commissioner.
21.
Any commission, incentive, bonus or other pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other institutions for
the investments made by the Trust should be credited to its account.
22.
The employer and the members of the Board of Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to abide
by the conditions and this shall be legally binding on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their successors
and assignees.
23.
The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within the
time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally binding on
them and will make them liable for prosecution in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a qualified
independent chartered accountant annually. Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right to have the
accounts re-audited by any other qualified auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the audited balance sheet should be submitted to this office by the Auditors
directly within six months after the closing of the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The format of the balance
sheet and the information to be furnished in the report shall be prescribed by the Employees’ Provident fund
Organisation and made available with the RPFC office in electronic format as well as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation withdrawn
from the first day of the next succeeding financial year.
25.
Any loss for the three consecutive financial years or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding financial year.
2102
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
26.
The employer shall provide for such facilities for inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central
Government may from time to time direct under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15 days
from the close of every month.
27.
In the event of any violation of the conditions for grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of Trustees,
the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned persons.
28.
In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc. the
employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29.
In case of any change of legal status of the establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition, sale,
amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand revoked
and the establishment should promptly report the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30.
In case there are more than one unit/establishment participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all the
trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/responsible for any default committed by any of the trustees/employer of
any of the participating units and the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the trustees of the common
Provident Fund Trust.
31. In case of takeover of the exempted Trust Fund, estimated net present value of the loss due to differential interest
should be recovered from the establishment.
32.
The Central Government may lay down further conditions for continuation of exemption of the establishment
and the establishment shall be bound to comply with these additional conditions as and when the same are
communicated.
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.934
934
934
934.—tcfd eSllZ ,YdkVsy yqlsaV bafM;k fyfeVsM ¼xqM+xkao {ks= esa dksM la[;k ,pvkj@9202 ds
varxZr½ ¼,rnqijkar izfr"Bku ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k vkSj izdh.kZ mica/k vf/kfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½
¼,rnqijkar vf/kfu;e ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ dh /kkjk 17 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k
gSA
2.
और जबक केीय सरकार के िवचार म, अंशदान क दर के संबंध म उ ितान के भिवय िनिध िनयम उ अिधिनयम क
धारा 6 म िविनद िनयम क तुलना म कमचारय के िलए कम उपयु नह# ह$ और कमचारी उ अिधिनयम अथवा कमचारी भिवय
िनिध योजना, 1952 (एतदुपरांत योजना के %प म संद(भत) के अंतगत सदृश +व%प के कसी अय ितान म कमचारय के संबंध म दी
जाने वाली अय भिवय िनिध सुिवधा- का भी लाभ उठा रहे ह$।
3.
अत:, अब, के सरकार, उ अिधिनयम क धारा 17 क उप धारा (1) के ख0ड (क) 2ारा द3 शिय का योग करते 6ए,
इस अिधसूचना के साथ सल? शत: के अ;याधीन उ ितान को अगली अिधसूचना तक 01.08.2007 से उ योजना के सभी उपबंध
के भाव से छूट दान करती है।
[सं. एस-35015/112/2014-एसएस-II]
सुभाष कुमार, अवर सिचव
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ िवय
िवय
िवय
िवय िनिध योजना, 19
िनिध योजना, 19
िनिध योजना, 19
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
52 के उपबंध से
52 के उपबंध से
52 के उपबंध से
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
1.
िनयोा समय-समय पर केीय सरकार अथवा केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु, जैसी भी िथित हो, ारा दए जाने
वाले ऐसे िनदेश$ के अनुसार भ िवय िनिध के %बंधन हेतु अपनी अ(य)ता म* एक यासी बोड, ग .ठत करेगा। भ िवय िनिध
यासी बोड, म* िविहत होगी जो अय बात$ के साथ-साथ कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध संगठन के % ित भ िवय िनिध म* %ा ि2य$ और
उसम* से भुगतान के उ िचत लेख$ और उनक7 अ िभर)ा म* शेष रा िश के िलए उ9रदायी होगा। इस %योजनाथ, " िनयोा" से:-
(i) कसी % ित;ान, जो एक कारखाना हो, उसके संबंध म*, कारखाने का वामी अथवा अ िध;ाता अ िभ%ेत होगा; और
(ii) कसी अय % ित;ान के संबंध म*, वह < ि, अथवा %ा िधकारी अ िभ%ेत होगा, िजसका उस % ित;ान के कामकाज
पर अं ितम िनयं=ण हो।
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2103
2.
यासी बोड, हरेक ितमाही म* कम से कम एक बार बैठक करेगा और वह के सरकार/केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु
(सीपीएफसी) अथवा उसके ारा %ा िधकृत कसी अ िधकारी ारा समय-समय पर जारी कए जाने वाले दशा िनदCश$ के
अनुसार काय, करेगा।
3.
अ िधिनयम क7 धारा 2(च) म* यथा-प .रभा िषत सभी कम,चारी, जो भ िवय िनिध के सदय बनने के पा= रह* हE, य द
% ित;ान को छूट %दान नहI क7 होती, उह* सदय$ के Jप म* नामां कत कया जाएगा।
4.
जहां कोई कम,चारी जो पहले ही कसी अय छूट-%ा2 % ित;ान के कसी कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध अथवा भ िवय
िनिध का सदय हो, उसे उसके % ित;ान म* िनयो िजत कया जाता है, तो िनयोा उसे तLकाल िनिध के सदय के Jप म*
नामां कत करेगा। िनयोा ऐसे कम,चारी के भ िवय िनिध खाते म* उसके पहले िनयोा से संचय रा िशयां अंत .रत और जमा
करवाने क7 भी <वथा करेगा।
5.
िनयोा भ िवय िनिध को उसके ारा और कम,चारी के ारा समय—समय पर अ िधिनयम के अंतग,त िनधा, .रत दर
से देय अंशदान को, िजस माह के िलए अंशदान देय ह$ उसके बाद के माह क7 15 तारीख तक यासी बोड, को अंत .रत करेगा।
िनयोा यासी बोड, को कही देय$ के भुगतान म* कसी िवलPब के िलए अ िधिनयम क7 धारा 7 थ के उपबंध$ के अनुसार
साधारण Rयाज अदा करने का दायी होगा।
6.
िनयोा भ िवय िनिध के %शासन के सभी <य वहन करेगा और चोरी, डकैती, गबन, दु Sव िनयोग अथवा कसी
अय कारण से भ िवय िनिध को हो सकने वाले कसी घाटे क7 भी भरपाई करेगा।
7.
यासी बोड, ारा घो िषत Rयाज म* कसी कमी को भी िनयोा ारा पूरा कया जाना होगा और उसे सां िविधक
सीमा तक लाना होगा।
8.
िनयोा जब कभी िनयम संशो िधत कए जाएं, समु िचत %ा िधकारी ारा यथा-अनुमो दत, िनिध के िनयम$ क7 एक
% ित अ िधसंUयक कम,चा .रय$ क7 भाषा म* उनके अनुवाद स िहत % ित;ान के सूचना पट पर %द Sशत करेगा।
9.
% ित;ान के भ िवय िनिध िनयम$ के अंतग,त िनधा, .रत देय अंशदान क7 दर, अ िVम क7 शतW और मा=ा तथा अय
मामले और सदय के मा िसक चालू शेष पर संग िणत और यासी बोड, ारा घो िषत, %Lयेक सदय के खाते म* जमा कया गया
Rयाज, अ िधिनयम और उसके अंतग,त िनSमत योजना म* िनधा, .रत िविभX उपबंध$ के अंतग,त के सरकार ारा घो िषत दर से
कम नहI होगा।
10.
योजना म* कोई संशोधन, जो % ित;ान के िवYमान िनयम$ क7 तुलना म* कम,चा .रय$ के िलए अ िधक लाभदा यक हो,
उसे यास के िनयम$ म* औपचा .रक संशोधन के लं िबत रहते उन पर वत: लागू कया जाएगा।
11.
िनयोा ारा िनयम$ म* कोई भी संशोधन )े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु के पूव, अनुमोदन के िबना नहI कया
जाएगा। )े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु अपना अनुमोदन देने से पूव, कम,चा .रय$ को अपना Jख प[ करने का वा िजब अवसर
देगा।
12.
िनकासी, अ िVम और अंतरण के सभी दावे कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध संगठन ारा िनधा, .रत अ िधकतम समय-सीमा के
भीतर, शी\ता से िनपटाए जाएंगे।
13.
यासी बोड, %Lयेक कम,चारी के संबंध म* जमा कए गए अंशदान, िनकासी और Rयाज दशा,ने के िलए िवत .रत लेख$
का रख-रखाव करेगा। ऐसे अ िभलेख$ का रख-रखाव अ िधमानत: इलै]^ो िनक Jप से रखा जाएगा। % ित;ान आव िधक Jप से
जब कभी केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु/)े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु ारा िनदेश दया जाए, सदय$ के लेख$ को इलै]^ॉ िनक
Jप से सP%े िषत कर*गे।
14.
यासी बोड, वष, म* एक बार िव9ीय/लेखा वष, के समा2 होने के छ: माह के भीतर %Lयेक कम,चारी को िन:शु`क लेख$
का वा Sषक िववरण अथवा पासबुक जारी करेगा। जब कभी सदय चाह*, अ ित.र a%टऑउट नाममा= के %भार के साथ
उपलRध कराए जा सकते हE। पासबुक के मामले म* वह कम,चारी के पास रहेगी िजसे %तुत कए जाने पर या िसय$ ारा
आव िधक Jप से अYतन कया जाएगा।
15.
िनयोा सभी सदय$ को उनक7 आवcयकतानुसार कPdयूटर टSमनल$ से अपने खाते म* पड़ी शेष रािश को देखने के
समथ, बनाने के िलए आवcयक %ावधान कर*गे।
2104
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
16.
यासी बोड, और िनयोा कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा यथा-िविहत eप म* ये िववरिणयां िविनfद[ समय
सीमा के भीतर मािसक/वाSषक eप से दायर कर*गे, िजसे न करने पर इसे चूक माना जाएगा तथा यासी बोड, और िनयोा
संयु eप से और अलग-अलग, कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा क7 जाने वाली उपयु दािgडक कार,वाई के भागी ह$गे।
17.
यासी बोड, समय-समय पर सरकार के िनदCश$ के अनुसार भिवय िनिध के पैसे का िनवेश करेगा। सरकार के िनदCश$
के अनुसार िनवेश करने म* असफल होने पर यासी बोड, अलग-अलग और संयु eप से केीय भिवय िनिध आयु या
उसके %ितिनिध ारा यथा अिधरोिपत अिधशु`क का भागी बन जाएगा।
18.
(क) %ितभूितयां यास के नाम से %ा2 क7 जाएंगी। इस %कार %ा2 क7 गई %ितभूितयां अभौितक (डीमेट) eप म*
होनी चािहए तथा यास के काय,चािलत रहने वाले )े=$ म* अपेि)त सुिवधा के उपलRध न होने क7 िथित म* यासी बोड,
संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को इसक7 सूचना द*गे।
(ख) यासी बोड, िलिप-वार रिजटर बनाएगा तथा Rयाज क7 समय पर उगाही सुिनिiत करेगा।
(ग) डीमेट खाता इस संबंध म* केीय सरकार ारा जारी अनुदेश$ के अनुसार भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय
सरकार ारा अनुमो दत िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$ के मा(यम से खोला जाए।
(घ) डीमेट खाते का खच, यास ारा कए जाने वाले िनवेश का %ासंिगक <य <य माना जाए। %ितभूितय$ आ द
क7 खरीद क7 दलाली जैसे िनवेश$ के सभी %कार के खचj को भी यास ारा कए जाने वाले िनवेश का %ासंिगक <य माना
जाएगा।
19.
%ितभूितय$ और बाgड$ क7 खरीद जैसे ऐसे सभी िनवेश भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय सरकार ारा अनुमो दत
िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$ क7 सुर)ा अिभर)ा म* दज, कए जाएं, जो इसके संर)क ह$गे। थापना क7 बंदी या प.रसमापन या
कम,चारी भिवय िनिध, 1952 से छूट पर यह संर)क, यास के नाम पर %ा2 तथा अपने जमा म* पड़े िनवेश को संबंिधत
)े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु के, इस आशय के, अनुरोध पर संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को सीधे अंत.रत करेगा।
20.
थापना संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को उन िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$(भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय
सरकार ारा अनुमो दत) के िववरण से सूिचत करेगी, िजनके पास तथा िजनक7 सुर)ा अिभर)ा म* यास के नाम पर कए
गए िनवेश अथा,त %ितभूितय$, बाgड$ आ द म* कए गए िनवेश दज, कए गए हE। तथािप, यासी बोड, उस धनरािश क7 उगाही
कर सकता है, जो दाव$ के िनपटान, िनयमानुसार अिVम$ क7 मंजूरी और िनयोा क7 सेवा छोड़ने क7 िथित म* सदय के
भिवय िनिध संचयन के अंतरण और %ितभूितय$ क7 िबm7 ारा अय कसी %ाि2य$ अथवा )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु के
पूव, अनुमोदन के शता,धीन िनिध के नाम म* पड़े अय िनवेश$ जैसे बा(यकारी <य$ को पूरा करने के िलए अपेि)त ह$।
21.
यास ारा कए गए िनवेश$ के िलए कसी िव9ीय या अय संथाn ारा दए जाने वाले कसी कमीशन,
%ोLसाहन, बोनस या अय आSथक लाभ इसके खाते म* डाले जाएं।
22.
िनयोा और यासी बोड, के सदय शतj का पालन करने क7 सहमित देते oए िलिखत वचन द*गे तथा यह वैिधक eप
से िनयोा और यासी बोड, के उ9रािधका.रय$ और समनुदेिशत$ पर उनके साथ-साथ बा(यकारी होगा।
23.
िनयोा और यासी बोड, छूट के रp होने क7 िथित म* संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु ारा िविहत समय
सीमा के भीतर तLकाल िनिधय$ का अंतरण करने का वचन भी देगा। यह उन पर कानूनी eप से बा(यकारी होगा तथा उह*
िनिधय$ के अंतरण म* कोई िवलंब होने क7 िथित म* अिभयोजन का भागी बनाएगा।
24.
(क) यासी बोड, ारा अनुरि)त भिवय िनिध खाता कसी योqय वतं= चाट,ड, लेखाकार ारा वाSषक eप से लेखा-
परी)ा करने के शता,धीन होगा। जहां भी आवcयक समझा जाए, वहां कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन को अिधकार होगा क
यह कसी अय योqय लेखा-परी)क ारा खात$ क7 लेखा-परी)ा कराए तथा इस %कार oए खच, िनयोा ारा वहन कए
जाएंगे।
(ख) लेखा-परी)क$ ारा िव9ीय वष, अथा,त 1 अ%ैल से 31 माच, तक क7 समाि2 के बाद छह महीने के भीतर लेखा-
परी)ीत तुलन-प= सिहत लेखा-परी)क क7 .रपोट, क7 %ित सीधे इस काया,लय म* %तुत क7 जाए। तुलन-प= का %ाeप और
इस .रपोट, म* %तुत क7 जाने वाली जानकारी कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा िनधा,.रत क7 जाएगी तथा संबंिधत )े=ीय
भिवय िनिध आयु के काया,लय म* इलै]^ॉिनक %ाeप के साथ हता).रत %ितिलिप म* उपलRध कराई जाएगी।
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2105
(ग) एक ही लेखा-परी)क$ को लगातार दो वष, के िलए तथा अगले िव9ीय वष, के पहले दन से िमली छूट से अिधक
के िलए िनयु न कया जाए।
25.
लगातार तीन िव9ीय वषj तक कोई हािन या पूंजी आधार म* कटौती को अगले िव9ीय वष, के पहले दन से िमली
छूट %ा2 होगी।
26.
िनयोा %Lयेक माह क7 समाि2 से 15 दन के भीतर िनरी)ण हेतु ऐसी सुिवधाn का %ावधान करेगा तथा ऐसे
िनरी)ण %भार$ का भुगतान करेगा जो केीय सरकार ारा अिधिनयम क7 धारा 17 के उप-खgड (3) के खgड(क) के अंतग,त
समय-समय पर दए िनदCश$ के अनुसार ह$।
27.
यासी बोड, या िनयो ारा छूट देने के िलए शतj के कसी उ`लंघन क7 िथित म* दी गई छूट संबंिधत <ि को
इस संबंध म* कारण बताओ नो.टस जारी करने के बाद रp कर दी जाएगी।
28.
कसी भी धोखे, गबन, गलत िनवेश िनण,य$ आ द के फलवeप ^ट को oए कसी भी नुकसान क7 िथित म*
िनयोा नुकसान पूरा करने का भागी होगा।
29.
कसी िवलय, अिवलय, अिभVहण, िबm7, एक7करण, सहायक कंपनी का गठन चाहे पूण,त: वािमLव वाली हो या
नहI इLया द के फलवeप य द %ित;ान क7 कानूनी िथित म* कोई भी बदलाव होता है तो दी गई छूट िनरत होगी एवं
%ित;ान को तुरंत नई छूट देने के िलए मामले क7 .रपोट, करनी चािहए।
30.
एक ही भिवय िनिध ^ट म* एक से अिधक इकाई/%ित;ान$ के भाग लेने क7 िथित म* भाग लेने वाली इकाईय$ के
कसी भी ^टी/िनयोा ारा कोई भी चूक होने पर सभी ^टी संयु eप से एवं अलग से िजPमेदार/उ9रदायी ह$गे और
आरपीएफसी आम भिवय िनिध ^ट के सभी यािसय$ के िवeu उपयु कानूनी कार,वाई करेगा।
31. छूट %ा2 यास िनिध के अिधVहण के मामले म*, अंतरीय Rयाज के कारण हािन के अनुमािनत िनवल वत,मान मू`य क7
वसूली %ित;ान से क7 जानी चािहए।
32.
के सरकार %ित;ान क7 छूट क7 िनरंतरता के िलए शतj को बढ़ा सकती है और जब भी इनको सं%ेिषत कया
जाएगा ये %ित;ान इन अित.र शतj का अनुपालन करने के िलए बा(य ह$गे।
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2016
S.O. 934.— Whereas M/s. Alcatel Lucent India Limited [under Code No. HR/9202 in Gurgaon region]
(hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17
of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the
Act).
2.
And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment
with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in section 6 of
the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or
under the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in relation to the
employees in any other establishment of similar character.
3.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said Act
and subject to the conditions annexed with this notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the said
establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 01.08.2007 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/112/2014-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1.
The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees under his Chairmanship for the management of the Provident
Fund according to such directions as may be given by the Central Government or the Central Provident Fund
Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time. The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees who will
be responsible for and accountable to the Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for proper accounts of
the receipts into and payment from the Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For this purpose, the
“employer” shall mean:-
(i) In relation to an establishment, which is a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory: and
2106
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(ii) In relation to any other establishment, the person who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control over the affairs
of the establishment.
2.
The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in every three months and shall function in accordance with the
guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the Central Government/Central Provident Fund
Commissioner(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3.
All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the act, who have been eligible to become members of the
Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4.
Where an employee who is already a member of Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any other
exempted establishment is employed in his establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him as a member of the
fund. The employer should also arrange to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account of such employee
with his previous employer transferred and credited into his account.
5.
The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself
and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from time to time by the 15th of each month following the month for
which the contributions are payable. The employer shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of
Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6
The employer shall bear all the expenses of the administration of Provident Fund and also make good any other
loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any other reason.
7.
Any deficiency in the interest declared by the Board of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to bring it
up to the statutory limit.
8.
The employer shall display on the notice board of the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when amended thereto along with a translation in the language of the
majority of the employees.
9.
The rate of contributions payable, the conditions and quantum of advances and other matters laid down under
the provident fund rules of the establishment and the interest credited to the account of each member, calculated on the
monthly running balance of the member and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower than those declared by
the Central Government under the various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme framed thereunder.
10.
Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of the Trust.
11.
No amendment in the rules shall be made by the employer without the prior approval of the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give a reasonable
opportunity to the employees to explain their point of view.
12.
All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
13.
The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal and
interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance of such records should preferably be done electronically. The
establishments should periodically transmit the details of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed by the
Central Provident Commissioner/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
14.
The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual statement of accounts or pass books to every employee within six
months of the close of financial/accounting year free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be made
available as and when the members want, subject to nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain in
custody of employee to be updated periodically by the Trustees when presented to them.
15.
The employer shall make necessary provisions to enable all the members to be able to see their account balance
from the computer terminals as and when required by them.
16.
The Board of Trustees and the employer shall file such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within the specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a default and
the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the Employees’
Provident Fund Organisation.
17.
The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of the provident fund as per the directions of the Government
from time to time. Failure to make investments as per directions of the Government shall make the Board of Trustees
separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or his
representative.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2107
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of Trust. The securities so obtained should be in dematerialized
(DEMAT) form and in case the required facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates the Board of
Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script wise register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India and
Central Government in accordance with the instructions issued by the Central Government in this regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust. Also all
types of cost of investments like brokerage for purchase of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental cost of investment
by the Trust.
19.
All such investments made like purchase of securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody of
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian of the
same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such custodian
shall transfer the investment obtained in the name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional PF
Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that effect.
20.
The establishment shall intimate to the Regional P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government), with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments made
in the name of trust, viz., investments made in securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the Board of Trustees
may raise such sum of sums of money as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such as settlement of claims,
grant of advances as per rules and transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/her leaving service of the
employer and any other receipts by sale of the securities or other investments standing in the name of the Fund subject to
the prior approval of the Regional PF Commissioner.
21.
Any commission, incentive, bonus or other pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other institutions for
the investments made by the Trust should be credited to its account.
22.
The employer and the members of the Board of Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to abide
by the conditions and this shall be legally binding on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their successors
and assignees.
23.
The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within the
time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally binding on
them and will make them liable for prosecution in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a qualified
independent chartered accountant annually. Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right to have the
accounts re-audited by any other qualified auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the audited balance sheet should be submitted to this office by the Auditors
directly within six months after the closing of the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The format of the balance
sheet and the information to be furnished in the report shall be prescribed by the Employees’ Provident fund
Organisation and made available with the RPFC office in electronic format as well as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation withdrawn
from the first day of the next succeeding financial year.
25.
Any loss for the three consecutive financial years or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding financial year.
26.
The employer shall provide for such facilities for inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central
Government may from time to time direct under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15 days
from the close of every month.
27.
In the event of any violation of the conditions for grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of Trustees,
the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned persons.
28.
In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc. the
employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29.
In case of any change of legal status of the establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition, sale,
amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand revoked
and the establishment should promptly report the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
2108
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
30.
In case there are more than one unit/establishment participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all the
trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/responsible for any default committed by any of the trustees/employer of
any of the participating units and the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the trustees of the common
Provident Fund Trust.
31. In case of takeover of the exempted Trust Fund, estimated net present value of the loss due to differential interest
should be recovered from the establishment.
32.
The Central Government may lay down further conditions for continuation of exemption of the establishment
and the establishment shall be bound to comply with these additional conditions as and when the same are
communicated.
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.935
935
935
935.—tcfd eSllZ tqfcysaV baMLVªht fyfeVsM ¼uks,Mk mi{ks= esa dksM la[;k ;wih@49271 ds varxZr½
¼,rnqijkar izfr"Bku ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k vkSj izdh.kZ mica/k vf/kfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½ ¼,rnqijkar
vf/kfu;e ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ dh /kkjk 17 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA
2.
और जबक केीय सरकार के िवचार म, अंशदान क दर के संबंध म उ ितान के भिवय िनिध िनयम उ अिधिनयम क
धारा 6 म िविनद िनयम क तुलना म कमचारय के िलए कम उपयु नह# ह$ और कमचारी उ अिधिनयम अथवा कमचारी भिवय
िनिध योजना, 1952 (एतदुपरांत योजना के %प म संद(भत) के अंतगत सदृश +व%प के कसी अय ितान म कमचारय के संबंध म दी
जाने वाली अय भिवय िनिध सुिवधा- का भी लाभ उठा रहे ह$।
3.
अत:, अब, के सरकार, उ अिधिनयम क धारा 17 क उप धारा (1) के ख0ड (क) 2ारा द3 शिय का योग करते 6ए,
इस अिधसूचना के साथ सल? शत: के अ;याधीन उ ितान को अगली अिधसूचना तक 01.11.2010 से उ योजना के सभी उपबंध
के भाव से छूट दान करती है।
[सं. एस-35015/104/2014-एसएस-II]
सुभाष कुमार, अवर सिचव
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ िवय
िवय
िवय
िवय िनिध योज
िनिध योज
िनिध योज
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
ना, 1952 के उपबंध से
ना, 1952 के उपबंध से
ना, 1952 के उपबंध से
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
1.
िनयोा समय-समय पर केीय सरकार अथवा केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु, जैसी भी िथित हो, ारा दए जाने
वाले ऐसे िनदेश$ के अनुसार भ िवय िनिध के %बंधन हेतु अपनी अ(य)ता म* एक यासी बोड, ग .ठत करेगा। भ िवय िनिध
यासी बोड, म* िविहत होगी जो अय बात$ के साथ-साथ कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध संगठन के % ित भ िवय िनिध म* %ा ि2य$ और
उसम* से भुगतान के उ िचत लेख$ और उनक7 अ िभर)ा म* शेष रा िश के िलए उ9रदायी होगा। इस %योजनाथ, " िनयोा" से:-
(i) कसी % ित;ान, जो एक कारखाना हो, उसके संबंध म*, कारखाने का वामी अथवा अ िध;ाता अ िभ%ेत होगा; और
(ii) कसी अय % ित;ान के संबंध म*, वह < ि, अथवा %ा िधकारी अ िभ%ेत होगा, िजसका उस % ित;ान के कामकाज
पर अं ितम िनयं=ण हो।
2.
यासी बोड, हरेक ितमाही म* कम से कम एक बार बैठक करेगा और वह के सरकार/केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु
(सीपीएफसी) अथवा उसके ारा %ा िधकृत कसी अ िधकारी ारा समय-समय पर जारी कए जाने वाले दशा िनदCश$ के
अनुसार काय, करेगा।
3.
अ िधिनयम क7 धारा 2(च) म* यथा प .रभा िषत सभी कम,चारी, जो भ िवय िनिध के सदय बनने के पा= रह* हE, य द
% ित;ान को छूट %दान नहI क7 होती, उह* सदय$ के Jप म* नामां कत कया जाएगा।
4.
जहां कोई कम,चारी जो पहले ही कसी अय छूट-%ा2 % ित;ान के कसी कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध अथवा भ िवय
िनिध का सदय हो, उसे उसके % ित;ान म* िनयो िजत कया जाता है, तो िनयोा उसे तLकाल िनिध के सदय के Jप म*
नामां कत करेगा। िनयोा ऐसे कम,चारी के भ िवय िनिध खाते म* उसके पहले िनयोा से संचय रा िशयां अंत .रत और जमा
करवाने क7 भी <वथा करेगा।
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2109
5.
िनयोा भ िवय िनिध को उसके ारा और कम,चारी के ारा समय—समय पर अ िधिनयम के अंतग,त िनधा, .रत दर
से देय अंशदान को, िजस माह के िलए अंशदान देय ह$ उसके बाद के माह क7 15 तारीख तक यासी बोड, को अंत .रत करेगा।
िनयोा यासी बोड, को कही देय$ के भुगतान म* कसी िवलPब के िलए अ िधिनयम क7 धारा 7 थ के उपबंध$ के अनुसार
साधारण Rयाज अदा करने का दायी होगा।
6.
िनयोा भ िवय िनिध के %शासन के सभी <य वहन करेगा और चोरी, डकैती, गबन, दु Sव िनयोग अथवा कसी
अय कारण से भ िवय िनिध को हो सकने वाले कसी घाटे क7 भी भरपाई करेगा।
7.
यासी बोड, ारा घो िषत Rयाज म* कसी कमी को भी िनयोा ारा पूरा कया जाना होगा और उसे सां िविधक
सीमा तक लाना होगा।
8.
िनयोा जब कभी िनयम संशो िधत कए जाएं, समु िचत %ा िधकारी ारा यथा अनुमो दत, िनिध के िनयम$ क7 एक
% ित अ िधसंUयक कम,चा .रय$ क7 भाषा म* उनके अनुवाद स िहत % ित;ान के सूचना पट पर %द Sशत करेगा।
9.
% ित;ान के भ िवय िनिध िनयम$ के अंतग,त िनधा, .रत देय अंशदान क7 दर, अ िVम क7 शतW और मा=ा तथा अय
मामले और सदय के मा िसक चालू शेष पर संग िणत और यासी बोड, ारा घो िषत, %Lयेक सदय के खाते म* जमा कया गया
Rयाज, अ िधिनयम और उसके अंतग,त िनSमत योजना म* िनधा, .रत िविभX उपबंध$ के अंतग,त के सरकार ारा घो िषत दर से
कम नहI होगा।
10.
योजना म* कोई संशोधन, जो % ित;ान के िवYमान िनयम$ क7 तुलना म* कम,चा .रय$ के िलए अ िधक लाभदा यक हो,
उसे यास के िनयम$ म* औपचा .रक संशोधन के लं िबत रहते उन पर वत: लागू कया जाएगा।
11.
िनयोा ारा िनयम$ म* कोई भी संशोधन )े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु के पूव, अनुमोदन के िबना नहI कया
जाएगा। )े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु अपना अनुमोदन देने से पूव, कम,चा .रय$ को अपना Jख प[ करने का वा िजब अवसर
देगा।
12.
िनकासी, अ िVम और अंतरण के सभी दावे कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध संगठन ारा िनधा, .रत अ िधकतम समय सीमा के
भीतर, शी\ता से िनपटाए जाएंगे।
13.
यासी बोड, %Lयेक कम,चारी के संबंध म* जमा कए गए अंशदान, िनकासी और Rयाज दशा,ने के िलए िवत .रत लेख$
का रख-रखाव करेगा। ऐसे अ िभलेख$ का रख-रखाव अ िधमानत: इलै]^ो िनक Jप से रखा जाएगा। % ित;ान आव िधक Jप से
जब कभी केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु/)े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु ारा िनदेश दया जाए, सदय$ के लेख$ को इलै]^ॉ िनक
Jप से सP%े िषत कर*गे।
14.
यासी बोड, वष, म* एक बार िव9ीय/लेखा वष, के समा2 होने के छ: माह के भीतर %Lयेक कम,चारी को िन:शु`क लेख$
का वा Sषक िववरण अथवा पासबुक जारी करेगा। जब कभी सदय चाह*, अ ित.र a%टऑउट नाममा= के %भार के साथ
उपलRध कराए जा सकते हE। पासबुक के मामले म* वह कम,चारी के पास रहेगी िजसे %तुत कए जाने पर या िसय$ ारा
आव िधक Jप से अYतन कया जाएगा।
15.
िनयोा सभी सदय$ को उनक7 आवcयकतानुसार कPdयूटर टSमनल$ से अपने खाते म* पड़ी शेष रािश को देखने के
समथ, बनाने के िलए आवcयक %ावधान कर*गे।
16.
यासी बोड, और िनयोा कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा यथा िविहत eप म* ये िववरिणयां िविनfद[ समय
सीमा के भीतर मािसक/वाSषक eप से दायर कर*गे, िजसे न करने पर इसे चूक माना जाएगा तथा यासी बोड, और िनयोा
संयु eप से और अलग-अलग, कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा क7 जाने वाली उपयु दािgडक कार,वाई के भागी ह$गे।
17.
यासी बोड, समय-समय पर सरकार के िनदCश$ के अनुसार भिवय िनिध के पैसे का िनवेश करेगा। सरकार के िनदCश$
के अनुसार िनवेश करने म* असफल होने पर यासी बोड, अलग-अलग और संयु eप से केीय भिवय िनिध आयु या
उसके %ितिनिध ारा यथा अिधरोिपत अिधशु`क का भागी बन जाएगा।
18.
(क) %ितभूितयां यास के नाम से %ा2 क7 जाएंगी। इस %कार %ा2 क7 गई %ितभूितयां अभौितक (डीमेट) eप म*
होनी चािहए तथा यास के काय,चािलत रहने वाले )े=$ म* अपेि)त सुिवधा के उपलRध न होने क7 िथित म* यासी बोड,
संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को इसक7 सूचना द*गे।
(ख) यासी बोड, िलिप-वार रिजटर बनाएगा तथा Rयाज क7 समय पर उगाही सुिनिiत करेगा।
2110
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(ग) डीमेट खाता इस संबंध म* केीय सरकार ारा जारी अनुदेश$ के अनुसार भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय
सरकार ारा अनुमो दत िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$ के मा(यम से खोला जाए।
(घ) डीमेट खाते का खच, यास ारा कए जाने वाले िनवेश का %ासंिगक <य <य माना जाए। %ितभूितय$ आ द
क7 खरीद क7 दलाली जैसे िनवेश$ के सभी %कार के खचj को भी यास ारा कए जाने वाले िनवेश का %ासंिगक <य माना
जाएगा।
19.
%ितभूितय$ और बाgड$ क7 खरीद जैसे ऐसे सभी िनवेश भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय सरकार ारा अनुमो दत
िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$ क7 सुर)ा अिभर)ा म* दज, कए जाएं, जो इसके संर)क ह$गे। थापना क7 बंदी या प.रसमापन या
कम,चारी भिवय िनिध, 1952 से छूट पर यह संर)क, यास के नाम पर %ा2 तथा अपने जमा म* पड़े िनवेश को संबंिधत
)े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु के, इस आशय के, अनुरोध पर संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को सीधे अंत.रत करेगा।
20.
थापना संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को उन िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$(भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय
सरकार ारा अनुमो दत) के िववरण से सूिचत करेगी, िजनके पास तथा िजनक7 सुर)ा अिभर)ा म* यास के नाम पर कए
गए िनवेश अथा,त %ितभूितय$, बाgड$ आ द म* कए गए िनवेश दज, कए गए हE। तथािप, यासी बोड, उस धनरािश क7 उगाही
कर सकता है, जो दाव$ के िनपटान, िनयमानुसार अिVम$ क7 मंजूरी और िनयोा क7 सेवा छोड़ने क7 िथित म* सदय के
भिवय िनिध संचयन के अंतरण और %ितभूितय$ क7 िबm7 ारा अय कसी %ाि2य$ अथवा )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु के
पूव, अनुमोदन के शता,धीन िनिध के नाम म* पड़े अय िनवेश$ जैसे बा(यकारी <य$ को पूरा करने के िलए अपेि)त ह$।
21.
यास ारा कए गए िनवेश$ के िलए कसी िव9ीय या अय संथाn ारा दए जाने वाले कसी कमीशन,
%ोLसाहन, बोनस या अय आSथक लाभ इसके खाते म* डाले जाएं।
22.
िनयोा और यासी बोड, के सदय शतj का पालन करने क7 सहमित देते oए िलिखत वचन द*गे तथा यह वैिधक eप
से िनयोा और यासी बोड, के उ9रािधका.रय$ और समनुदेिशत$ पर उनके साथ-साथ बा(यकारी होगा।
23.
िनयोा और यासी बोड, छूट के रp होने क7 िथित म* संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु ारा िविहत समय
सीमा के भीतर तLकाल िनिधय$ का अंतरण करने का वचन भी देगा। यह उन पर कानूनी eप से बा(यकारी होगा तथा उह*
िनिधय$ के अंतरण म* कोई िवलंब होने क7 िथित म* अिभयोजन का भागी बनाएगा।
24.
(क) यासी बोड, ारा अनुरि)त भिवय िनिध खाता कसी योqय वतं= चाट,ड, लेखाकार ारा वाSषक eप से लेखा-
परी)ा करने के शता,धीन होगा। जहां भी आवcयक समझा जाए, वहां कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन को अिधकार होगा क
यह कसी अय योqय लेखा-परी)क ारा खात$ क7 लेखा-परी)ा कराए तथा इस %कार oए खच, िनयोा ारा वहन कए
जाएंगे।
(ख) लेखा-परी)क$ ारा िव9ीय वष, अथा,त 1 अ%ैल से 31 माच, तक क7 समाि2 के बाद छह महीने के भीतर लेखा-
परी)ीत तुलन-प= सिहत लेखा-परी)क क7 .रपोट, क7 %ित सीधे इस काया,लय म* %तुत क7 जाए। तुलन-प= का %ाeप और
इस .रपोट, म* %तुत क7 जाने वाली जानकारी कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा िनधा,.रत क7 जाएगी तथा संबंिधत )े=ीय
भिवय िनिध आयु के काया,लय म* इलै]^ॉिनक %ाeप के साथ हता).रत %ितिलिप म* उपलRध कराई जाएगी।
(ग) एक ही लेखा-परी)क$ को लगातार दो वष, के िलए तथा अगले िव9ीय वष, के पहले दन से िमली छूट से अिधक
के िलए िनयु न कया जाए।
25.
लगातार तीन िव9ीय वषj तक कोई हािन या पूंजी आधार म* कटौती को अगले िव9ीय वष, के पहले दन से िमली
छूट %ा2 होगी।
26.
िनयोा %Lयेक माह क7 समाि2 से 15 दन के भीतर िनरी)ण हेतु ऐसी सुिवधाn का %ावधान करेगा तथा ऐसे
िनरी)ण %भार$ का भुगतान करेगा जो केीय सरकार ारा अिधिनयम क7 धारा 17 के उप-खgड (3) के खgड(क) के अंतग,त
समय-समय पर दए िनदCश$ के अनुसार ह$।
27.
यासी बोड, या िनयोा ारा छूट देने के िलए शतj के कसी उ`लंघन क7 िथित म* दी गई छूट संबंिधत <ि को
इस संबंध म* कारण बताओ नो.टस जारी करने के बाद रp कर दी जाएगी।
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2111
28.
कसी भी धोखे, गबन, गलत िनवेश िनण,य$ आ द के फलवeप ^ट को oए कसी भी नुकसान क7 िथित म*
िनयोा नुकसान पूरा करने का भागी होगा।
29.
कसी िवलय, अिवलय, अिभVहण, िबm7, एक7करण, सहायक कंपनी का गठन चाहे पूण,त: वािमLव वाली हो या
नहI इLया द के फलवeप य द %ित;ान क7 कानूनी िथित म* कोई भी बदलाव होता है तो दी गई छूट िनरत होगी एवं
%ित;ान को तुरंत नई छूट देने के िलए मामले क7 .रपोट, करनी चािहए।
30.
एक ही भिवय िनिध ^ट म* एक से अिधक इकाई/%ित;ान$ के भाग लेने क7 िथित म* भाग लेने वाली इकाईय$ के
कसी भी ^टी/िनयोा ारा कोई भी चूक होने पर सभी ^टी संयु eप से एवं अलग से िजPमेदार/उ9रदायी ह$गे और
आरपीएफसी आम भिवय िनिध ^ट के सभी यािसय$ के िवJu उपयु कानूनी कार,वाई करेगा।
31. छूट %ा2 यास िनिध के अिधVहण के मामले म*, अंतरीय Rयाज के कारण हािन के अनुमािनत िनवल वत,मान मू`य क7
वसूली %ित;ान से क7 जानी चािहए।
32.
के सरकार ितान क छूट क िनरंतरता के िलए शत को बढ़ा सकती है और जब भी इनको सं ेिषत
"कया जाएगा ये ितान इन अित&र' शत का अनुपालन करने के िलए बा*य ह+गे।
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2016
S.O.935.— Whereas M/s. Jubilant Industries Limited [under Code No. UP/49271 in Noida sub region]
(hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17
of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the
Act).
2.
And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment
with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in section 6 of
the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or
under the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in relation to the
employees in any other establishment of similar character.
3.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said Act
and subject to the conditions annexed with this notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the said
establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 01.11.2010 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/104/2014-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1.
The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees under his Chairmanship for the management of the Provident
Fund according to such directions as may be given by the Central Government or the Central Provident Fund
Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time. The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees who will
be responsible for and accountable to the Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for proper accounts of
the receipts into and payment from the Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For this purpose, the
“employer” shall mean:-
(i) In relation to an establishment, which is a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory: and
(ii) In relation to any other establishment, the person who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control over the affairs
of the establishment.
2.
The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in every three months and shall function in accordance with the
guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the Central Government/Central Provident Fund
Commissioner(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3.
All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the act, who have been eligible to become members of the
Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4.
Where an employee who is already a member of Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any other
exempted establishment is employed in his establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him as a member of the
2112
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
fund. The employer should also arrange to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account of such employee
with his previous employer transferred and credited into his account.
5.
The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself
and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from time to time by the 15th of each month following the month for
which the contributions are payable. The employer shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of
Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6
The employer shall bear all the expenses of the administration of Provident Fund and also make good any other
loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any other reason.
7.
Any deficiency in the interest declared by the Board of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to bring it
up to the statutory limit.
8.
The employer shall display on the notice board of the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when amended thereto along with a translation in the language of the
majority of the employees.
9.
The rate of contributions payable, the conditions and quantum of advances and other matters laid down under
the provident fund rules of the establishment and the interest credited to the account of each member, calculated on the
monthly running balance of the member and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower than those declared by
the Central Government under the various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme framed thereunder.
10.
Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of the Trust.
11.
No amendment in the rules shall be made by the employer without the prior approval of the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give a reasonable
opportunity to the employees to explain their point of view.
12.
All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
13.
The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal and
interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance of such records should preferably be done electronically. The
establishments should periodically transmit the details of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed by the
Central Provident Commissioner/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
14.
The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual statement of accounts or pass books to every employee within six
months of the close of financial/accounting year free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be made
available as and when the members want, subject to nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain in
custody of employee to be updated periodically by the Trustees when presented to them.
15.
The employer shall make necessary provisions to enable all the members to be able to see their account balance
from the computer terminals as and when required by them.
16.
The Board of Trustees and the employer shall file such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within the specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a default and
the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the Employees’
Provident Fund Organisation.
17.
The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of the provident fund as per the directions of the Government
from time to time. Failure to make investments as per directions of the Government shall make the Board of Trustees
separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or his
representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of Trust. The securities so obtained should be in dematerialized
(DEMAT) form and in case the required facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates the Board of
Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script wise register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India and
Central Government in accordance with the instructions issued by the Central Government in this regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust. Also all
types of cost of investments like brokerage for purchase of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental cost of investment
by the Trust.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2113
19.
All such investments made like purchase of securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody of
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian of the
same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such custodian
shall transfer the investment obtained in the name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional PF
Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that effect.
20.
The establishment shall intimate to the Regional P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government), with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments made
in the name of trust, viz., investments made in securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the Board of Trustees
may raise such sum of sums of money as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such as settlement of claims,
grant of advances as per rules and transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/her leaving service of the
employer and any other receipts by sale of the securities or other investments standing in the name of the Fund subject to
the prior approval of the Regional PF Commissioner.
21.
Any commission, incentive, bonus or other pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other institutions for
the investments made by the Trust should be credited to its account.
22.
The employer and the members of the Board of Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to abide
by the conditions and this shall be legally binding on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their successors
and assignees.
23.
The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within the
time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally binding on
them and will make them liable for prosecution in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a qualified
independent chartered accountant annually. Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right to have the
accounts re-audited by any other qualified auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the audited balance sheet should be submitted to this office by the Auditors
directly within six months after the closing of the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The format of the balance
sheet and the information to be furnished in the report shall be prescribed by the Employees’ Provident fund
Organisation and made available with the RPFC office in electronic format as well as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation withdrawn
from the first day of the next succeeding financial year.
25.
Any loss for the three consecutive financial years or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding financial year.
26.
The employer shall provide for such facilities for inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central
Government may from time to time direct under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15 days
from the close of every month.
27.
In the event of any violation of the conditions for grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of Trustees,
the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned persons.
28.
In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc. the
employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29.
In case of any change of legal status of the establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition, sale,
amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand revoked
and the establishment should promptly report the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30.
In case there are more than one unit/establishment participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all the
trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/responsible for any default committed by any of the trustees/employer of
any of the participating units and the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the trustees of the common
Provident Fund Trust.
31. In case of takeover of the exempted Trust Fund, estimated net present value of the loss due to differential interest
should be recovered from the establishment.
32.
The Central Government may lay down further conditions for continuation of exemption of the establishment
and the establishment shall be bound to comply with these additional conditions as and when the same are
communicated.
2114
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.936
936
936
936.—tcfd eSllZ Mst esfMdy ¼;wih½ izk- fyfeVsM ¼bykgkckn mi{ks= esa dksM la[;k ;wih@4386 ds
varxZr½ ¼,rnqijkar izfr"Bku ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k vkSj izdh.kZ mica/k vf/kfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½
¼,rnqijkar vf/kfu;e ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ dh /kkjk 17 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k
gSA
2.
और जबक केीय सरकार के िवचार म, अंशदान क दर के संबंध म उ ितान के भिवय िनिध िनयम उ अिधिनयम क
धारा 6 म िविनद िनयम क तुलना म कमचारय के िलए कम उपयु नह# ह$ और कमचारी उ अिधिनयम अथवा कमचारी भिवय
िनिध योजना, 1952 (एतदुपरांत योजना के %प म संद(भत) के अंतगत सदृश +व%प के कसी अय ितान म कमचारय के संबंध म दी
जाने वाली अय भिवय िनिध सुिवधा- का भी लाभ उठा रहे ह$।
3.
अत:, अब, के सरकार, उ अिधिनयम क धारा 17 क उप धारा (1) के ख0ड (क) 2ारा द3 शिय का योग करते 6ए,
इस अिधसूचना के साथ सल? शत: के अ;याधीन उ ितान को अगली अिधसूचना तक 01.07.1974 से उ योजना के सभी उपबंध
के भाव से छूट दान करती है।
[सं. एस-35015/29/2015-एसएस-II]
सुभाष कुमार, अवर सिचव
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ िवय
िवय
िवय
िवय िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
1.
िनयोा समय-समय पर केीय सरकार अथवा केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु, जैसी भी िथित हो, ारा दए जाने
वाले ऐसे िनदेश$ के अनुसार भ िवय िनिध के %बंधन हेतु अपनी अ(य)ता म* एक यासी बोड, ग .ठत करेगा। भ िवय िनिध
यासी बोड, म* िविहत होगी जो अय बात$ के साथ-साथ कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध संगठन के % ित भ िवय िनिध म* %ा ि2य$ और
उसम* से भुगतान के उ िचत लेख$ और उनक7 अ िभर)ा म* शेष रा िश के िलए उ9रदायी होगा। इस %योजनाथ, " िनयोा" से:-
(i) कसी % ित;ान, जो एक कारखाना हो, उसके संबंध म*, कारखाने का वामी अथवा अ िध;ाता अ िभ%ेत होगा; और
(ii) कसी अय % ित;ान के संबंध म*, वह < ि, अथवा %ा िधकारी अ िभ%ेत होगा, िजसका उस % ित;ान के कामकाज
पर अं ितम िनयं=ण हो।
2.
यासी बोड, हरेक ितमाही म* कम से कम एक बार बैठक करेगा और वह के सरकार/केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु
(सीपीएफसी) अथवा उसके ारा %ा िधकृत कसी अ िधकारी ारा समय-समय पर जारी कए जाने वाले दशा िनदCश$ के
अनुसार काय, करेगा।
3.
अ िधिनयम क7 धारा 2(च) म* यथा प .रभा िषत सभी कम,चारी, जो भ िवय िनिध के सदय बनने के पा= रह* हE, य द
% ित;ान को छूट %दान नहI क7 होती, उह* सदय$ के Jप म* नामां कत कया जाएगा।
4.
जहां कोई कम,चारी जो पहले ही कसी अय छूट-%ा2 % ित;ान के कसी कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध अथवा भ िवय
िनिध का सदय हो, उसे उसके % ित;ान म* िनयो िजत कया जाता है, तो िनयोा उसे तLकाल िनिध के सदय के Jप म*
नामां कत करेगा। िनयोा ऐसे कम,चारी के भ िवय िनिध खाते म* उसके पहले िनयोा से संचय रा िशयां अंत .रत और जमा
करवाने क7 भी <वथा करेगा।
5.
िनयोा भ िवय िनिध को उसके ारा और कम,चारी के ारा समय—समय पर अ िधिनयम के अंतग,त िनधा, .रत दर
से देय अंशदान को, िजस माह के िलए अंशदान देय ह$ उसके बाद के माह क7 15 तारीख तक यासी बोड, को अंत .रत करेगा।
िनयोा यासी बोड, को कही देय$ के भुगतान म* कसी िवलPब के िलए अ िधिनयम क7 धारा 7 थ के उपबंध$ के अनुसार
साधारण Rयाज अदा करने का दायी होगा।
6.
िनयोा भ िवय िनिध के %शासन के सभी <य वहन करेगा और चोरी, डकैती, गबन, दु Sव िनयोग अथवा कसी
अय कारण से भ िवय िनिध को हो सकने वाले कसी घाटे क7 भी भरपाई करेगा।
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2115
7.
यासी बोड, ारा घो िषत Rयाज म* कसी कमी को भी िनयोा ारा पूरा कया जाना होगा और उसे सां िविधक
सीमा तक लाना होगा।
8.
िनयोा जब कभी िनयम संशो िधत कए जाएं, समु िचत %ा िधकारी ारा यथा अनुमो दत, िनिध के िनयम$ क7 एक
% ित अ िधसंUयक कम,चा .रय$ क7 भाषा म* उनके अनुवाद स िहत % ित;ान के सूचना पट पर %द Sशत करेगा।
9.
% ित;ान के भ िवय िनिध िनयम$ के अंतग,त िनधा, .रत देय अंशदान क7 दर, अ िVम क7 शतW और मा=ा तथा अय
मामले और सदय के मा िसक चालू शेष पर संग िणत और यासी बोड, ारा घो िषत, %Lयेक सदय के खाते म* जमा कया गया
Rयाज, अ िधिनयम और उसके अंतग,त िनSमत योजना म* िनधा, .रत िविभX उपबंध$ के अंतग,त के सरकार ारा घो िषत दर से
कम नहI होगा।
10.
योजना म* कोई संशोधन, जो % ित;ान के िवYमान िनयम$ क7 तुलना म* कम,चा .रय$ के िलए अ िधक लाभदा यक हो,
उसे यास के िनयम$ म* औपचा .रक संशोधन के लं िबत रहते उन पर वत: लागू कया जाएगा।
11.
िनयोा ारा िनयम$ म* कोई भी संशोधन )े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु के पूव, अनुमोदन के िबना नहI कया
जाएगा। )े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु अपना अनुमोदन देने से पूव, कम,चा .रय$ को अपना Jख प[ करने का वा िजब अवसर
देगा।
12.
िनकासी, अ िVम और अंतरण के सभी दावे कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध संगठन ारा िनधा, .रत अ िधकतम समय सीमा के
भीतर, शी\ता से िनपटाए जाएंगे।
13.
यासी बोड, %Lयेक कम,चारी के संबंध म* जमा कए गए अंशदान, िनकासी और Rयाज दशा,ने के िलए िवत .रत लेख$
का रख-रखाव करेगा। ऐसे अ िभलेख$ का रख-रखाव अ िधमानत: इलै]^ो िनक Jप से रखा जाएगा। % ित;ान आव िधक Jप से
जब कभी केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु/)े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु ारा िनदेश दया जाए, सदय$ के लेख$ को इलै]^ॉ िनक
Jप से सP%े िषत कर*गे।
14.
यासी बोड, वष, म* एक बार िव9ीय/लेखा वष, के समा2 होने के छ: माह के भीतर %Lयेक कम,चारी को िन:शु`क लेख$
का वा Sषक िववरण अथवा पासबुक जारी करेगा। जब कभी सदय चाह*, अ ित.र a%टऑउट नाममा= के %भार के साथ
उपलRध कराए जा सकते हE। पासबुक के मामले म* वह कम,चारी के पास रहेगी िजसे %तुत कए जाने पर या िसय$ ारा
आव िधक Jप से अYतन कया जाएगा।
15.
िनयोा सभी सदय$ को उनक7 आवcयकतानुसार कPdयूटर टSमनल$ से अपने खाते म* पड़ी शेष रािश को देखने के
समथ, बनाने के िलए आवcयक %ावधान कर*गे।
16.
यासी बोड, और िनयोा कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा यथा िविहत eप म* ये िववरिणयां िविनfद[ समय
सीमा के भीतर मािसक/वाSषक eप से दायर कर*गे, िजसे न करने पर इसे चूक माना जाएगा तथा यासी बोड, और िनयोा
संयु eप से और अलग-अलग, कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा क7 जाने वाली उपयु दािgडक कार,वाई के भागी ह$गे।
17.
यासी बोड, समय-समय पर सरकार के िनदCश$ के अनुसार भिवय िनिध के पैसे का िनवेश करेगा। सरकार के िनदCश$
के अनुसार िनवेश करने म* असफल होने पर यासी बोड, अलग-अलग और संयु eप से केीय भिवय िनिध आयु या
उसके %ितिनिध ारा यथा अिधरोिपत अिधशु`क का भागी बन जाएगा।
18.
(क) %ितभूितयां यास के नाम से %ा2 क7 जाएंगी। इस %कार %ा2 क7 गई %ितभूितयां अभौितक (डीमेट) eप म*
होनी चािहए तथा यास के काय,चािलत रहने वाले )े=$ म* अपेि)त सुिवधा के उपलRध न होने क7 िथित म* यासी बोड,
संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को इसक7 सूचना द*गे।
(ख) यासी बोड, िलिप-वार रिजटर बनाएगा तथा Rयाज क7 समय पर उगाही सुिनिiत करेगा।
(ग) डीमेट खाता इस संबंध म* केीय सरकार ारा जारी अनुदेश$ के अनुसार भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय
सरकार ारा अनुमो दत िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$ के मा(यम से खोला जाए।
(घ) डीमेट खाते का खच, यास ारा कए जाने वाले िनवेश का %ासंिगक <य <य माना जाए। %ितभूितय$ आ द
क7 खरीद क7 दलाली जैसे िनवेश$ के सभी %कार के खचj को भी यास ारा कए जाने वाले िनवेश का %ासंिगक <य माना
जाएगा।
2116
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
19.
%ितभूितय$ और बाgड$ क7 खरीद जैसे ऐसे सभी िनवेश भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय सरकार ारा अनुमो दत
िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$ क7 सुर)ा अिभर)ा म* दज, कए जाएं, जो इसके संर)क ह$गे। थापना क7 बंदी या प.रसमापन या
कम,चारी भिवय िनिध, 1952 से छूट पर यह संर)क, यास के नाम पर %ा2 तथा अपने जमा म* पड़े िनवेश को संबंिधत
)े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु के, इस आशय के, अनुरोध पर संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को सीधे अंत.रत करेगा।
20.
थापना संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को उन िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$(भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय
सरकार ारा अनुमो दत) के िववरण से सूिचत करेगी, िजनके पास तथा िजनक7 सुर)ा अिभर)ा म* यास के नाम पर कए
गए िनवेश अथा,त %ितभूितय$, बाgड$ आ द म* कए गए िनवेश दज, कए गए हE। तथािप, यासी बोड, उस धनरािश क7 उगाही
कर सकता है, जो दाव$ के िनपटान, िनयमानुसार अिVम$ क7 मंजूरी और िनयोा क7 सेवा छोड़ने क7 िथित म* सदय के
भिवय िनिध संचयन के अंतरण और %ितभूितय$ क7 िबm7 ारा अय कसी %ाि2य$ अथवा )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु के
पूव, अनुमोदन के शता,धीन िनिध के नाम म* पड़े अय िनवेश$ जैसे बा(यकारी <य$ को पूरा करने के िलए अपेि)त ह$।
21.
यास ारा कए गए िनवेश$ के िलए कसी िव9ीय या अय संथाn ारा दए जाने वाले कसी कमीशन,
%ोLसाहन, बोनस या अय आSथक लाभ इसके खाते म* डाले जाएं।
22.
िनयोा और यासी बोड, के सदय शतj का पालन करने क7 सहमित देते oए िलिखत वचन द*गे तथा यह वैिधक eप
से िनयोा और यासी बोड, के उ9रािधका.रय$ और समनुदेिशत$ पर उनके साथ-साथ बा(यकारी होगा।
23.
िनयोा और यासी बोड, छूट के रp होने क7 िथित म* संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु ारा िविहत समय
सीमा के भीतर तLकाल िनिधय$ का अंतरण करने का वचन भी देगा। यह उन पर कानूनी eप से बा(यकारी होगा तथा उह*
िनिधय$ के अंतरण म* कोई िवलंब होने क7 िथित म* अिभयोजन का भागी बनाएगा।
24.
(क) यासी बोड, ारा अनुरि)त भिवय िनिध खाता कसी योqय वतं= चाट,ड, लेखाकार ारा वाSषक eप से लेखा-
परी)ा करने के शता,धीन होगा। जहां भी आवcयक समझा जाए, वहां कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन को अिधकार होगा क
यह कसी अय योqय लेखा-परी)क ारा खात$ क7 लेखा-परी)ा कराए तथा इस %कार oए खच, िनयोा ारा वहन कए
जाएंगे।
(ख) लेखा-परी)क$ ारा िव9ीय वष, अथा,त 1 अ%ैल से 31 माच, तक क7 समाि2 के बाद छह महीने के भीतर लेखा-
परी)ीत तुलन-प= सिहत लेखा-परी)क क7 .रपोट, क7 %ित सीधे इस काया,लय म* %तुत क7 जाए। तुलन-प= का %ाeप और
इस .रपोट, म* %तुत क7 जाने वाली जानकारी कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा िनधा,.रत क7 जाएगी तथा संबंिधत )े=ीय
भिवय िनिध आयु के काया,लय म* इलै]^ॉिनक %ाeप के साथ हता).रत %ितिलिप म* उपलRध कराई जाएगी।
(ग) एक ही लेखा-परी)क$ को लगातार दो वष, के िलए तथा अगले िव9ीय वष, के पहले दन से िमली छूट से अिधक
के िलए िनयु न कया जाए।
25.
लगातार तीन िव9ीय वषj तक कोई हािन या पूंजी आधार म* कटौती को अगले िव9ीय वष, के पहले दन से िमली
छूट %ा2 होगी।
26.
िनयोा %Lयेक माह क7 समाि2 से 15 दन के भीतर िनरी)ण हेतु ऐसी सुिवधाn का %ावधान करेगा तथा ऐसे
िनरी)ण %भार$ का भुगतान करेगा जो केीय सरकार ारा अिधिनयम क7 धारा 17 के उप-खgड (3) के खgड(क) के अंतग,त
समय-समय पर दए िनदCश$ के अनुसार ह$।
27.
यासी बोड, या िनयोा ारा छूट देने के िलए शतj के कसी उ`लंघन क7 िथित म* दी गई छूट संबंिधत <ि को
इस संबंध म* कारण बताओ नो.टस जारी करने के बाद रp कर दी जाएगी।
28.
कसी भी धोखे, गबन, गलत िनवेश िनण,य$ आ द के फलवeप ^ट को oए कसी भी नुकसान क7 िथित म*
िनयोा नुकसान पूरा करने का भागी होगा।
29.
कसी िवलय, अिवलय, अिभVहण, िबm7, एक7करण, सहायक कंपनी का गठन चाहे पूण,त: वािमLव वाली हो या
नहI इLया द के फलवeप य द %ित;ान क7 कानूनी िथित म* कोई भी बदलाव होता है तो दी गई छूट िनरत होगी एवं
%ित;ान को तुरंत नई छूट देने के िलए मामले क7 .रपोट, करनी चािहए।
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2117
30.
एक ही भिवय िनिध ^ट म* एक से अिधक इकाई/%ित;ान$ के भाग लेने क7 िथित म* भाग लेने वाली इकाईय$ के
कसी भी ^टी/िनयोा ारा कोई भी चूक होने पर सभी ^टी संयु eप से एवं अलग से िजPमेदार/उ9रदायी ह$गे और
आरपीएफसी आम भिवय िनिध ^ट के सभी यािसय$ के िवeu उपयु कानूनी कार,वाई करेगा।
31. छूट %ा2 यास िनिध के अिधVहण के मामले म*, अंतरीय Rयाज के कारण हािन के अनुमािनत िनवल वत,मान मू`य क7
वसूली %ित;ान से क7 जानी चािहए।
32.
के सरकार ितान क छूट क िनरंतरता के िलए शत को बढ़ा सकती है और जब भी इनको सं ेिषत
"कया जाएगा ये ितान इन अित&र' शत का अनुपालन करने के िलए बा*य ह+गे।
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2016
S.O.936.— Whereas M/s. Dey’s Medical (UP) Pvt. Limited [under Code No. UP/4386 in Allahabad sub
region] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of
section 17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred
to as the Act).
2.
And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment
with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in section 6 of
the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or
under the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in relation to the
employees in any other establishment of similar character.
3.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said Act
and subject to the conditions annexed with this notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the said
establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 01.07.1974 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/29/2015-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1.
The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees under his Chairmanship for the management of the Provident
Fund according to such directions as may be given by the Central Government or the Central Provident Fund
Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time. The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees who will
be responsible for and accountable to the Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for proper accounts of
the receipts into and payment from the Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For this purpose, the
“employer” shall mean:-
(i) In relation to an establishment, which is a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory; and
(ii) In relation to any other establishment, the person who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control over the affairs
of the establishment.
2.
The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in every three months and shall function in accordance with the
guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the Central Government/Central Provident Fund
Commissioner(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3.
All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the act, who have been eligible to become members of the
Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4.
Where an employee who is already a member of Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any other
exempted establishment is employed in his establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him as a member of the
fund. The employer should also arrange to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account of such employee
with his previous employer transferred and credited into his account.
5.
The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself
and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from time to time by the 15th of each month following the month for
which the contributions are payable. The employer shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of
Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6
The employer shall bear all the expenses of the administration of Provident Fund and also make good any other
loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any other reason.
2118
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7.
Any deficiency in the interest declared by the Board of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to bring it
up to the statutory limit.
8.
The employer shall display on the notice board of the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when amended thereto along with a translation in the language of the
majority of the employees.
9.
The rate of contributions payable, the conditions and quantum of advances and other matters laid down under
the provident fund rules of the establishment and the interest credited to the account of each member, calculated on the
monthly running balance of the member and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower than those declared by
the Central Government under the various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme framed thereunder.
10.
Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of the Trust.
11.
No amendment in the rules shall be made by the employer without the prior approval of the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give a reasonable
opportunity to the employees to explain their point of view.
12.
All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
13.
The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal and
interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance of such records should preferably be done electronically. The
establishments should periodically transmit the details of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed by the
Central Provident Commissioner/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
14.
The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual statement of accounts or pass books to every employee within six
months of the close of financial/accounting year free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be made
available as and when the members want, subject to nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain in
custody of employee to be updated periodically by the Trustees when presented to them.
15.
The employer shall make necessary provisions to enable all the members to be able to see their account balance
from the computer terminals as and when required by them.
16.
The Board of Trustees and the employer shall file such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within the specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a default and
the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the Employees’
Provident Fund Organisation.
17.
The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of the provident fund as per the directions of the Government
from time to time. Failure to make investments as per directions of the Government shall make the Board of Trustees
separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or his
representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of Trust. The securities so obtained should be in dematerialized
(DEMAT) form and in case the required facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates the Board of
Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script wise register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India and
Central Government in accordance with the instructions issued by the Central Government in this regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust. Also all
types of cost of investments like brokerage for purchase of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental cost of investment
by the Trust.
19.
All such investments made like purchase of securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody of
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian of the
same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such custodian
shall transfer the investment obtained in the name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional PF
Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that effect.
20.
The establishment shall intimate to the Regional P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government), with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments made
in the name of trust, viz., investments made in securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the Board of Trustees
may raise such sum of sums of money as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such as settlement of claims,
grant of advances as per rules and transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/her leaving service of the
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2119
employer and any other receipts by sale of the securities or other investments standing in the name of the Fund subject to
the prior approval of the Regional PF Commissioner.
21.
Any commission, incentive, bonus or other pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other institutions for
the investments made by the Trust should be credited to its account.
22.
The employer and the members of the Board of Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to abide
by the conditions and this shall be legally binding on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their successors
and assignees.
23.
The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within the
time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally binding on
them and will make them liable for prosecution in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a qualified
independent chartered accountant annually. Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right to have the
accounts re-audited by any other qualified auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the audited balance sheet should be submitted to this office by the Auditors
directly within six months after the closing of the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The format of the balance
sheet and the information to be furnished in the report shall be prescribed by the Employees’ Provident fund
Organisation and made available with the RPFC office in electronic format as well as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation withdrawn
from the first day of the next succeeding financial year.
25.
Any loss for the three consecutive financial years or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding financial year.
26.
The employer shall provide for such facilities for inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central
Government may from time to time direct under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15 days
from the close of every month.
27.
In the event of any violation of the conditions for grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of Trustees,
the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned persons.
28.
In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc. the
employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29.
In case of any change of legal status of the establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition, sale,
amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand revoked
and the establishment should promptly report the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30.
In case there are more than one unit/establishment participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all the
trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/responsible for any default committed by any of the trustees/employer of
any of the participating units and the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the trustees of the common
Provident Fund Trust.
31. In case of takeover of the exempted Trust Fund, estimated net present value of the loss due to differential interest
should be recovered from the establishment.
32.
The Central Government may lay down further conditions for continuation of exemption of the establishment
and the establishment shall be bound to comply with these additional conditions as and when the same are
communicated.
2120
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 937
937
937
937.—tcfd eSllZ dkWeohok VsDukykWthl fyfeVsM [fnYyh ¼nf{k.k½ {ks= esa dksM la[;k Mh,y@23780 ds
varxZr] ¼,rnqijkar izfr"Bku ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k vkSj izdh.kZ mica/k vf/kfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½
¼,rnqijkar vf/kfu;e ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ dh /kkjk 17 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k
gSA
2.
और जबक केीय सरकार के िवचार म, अंशदान क दर के संबंध म उ ितान के भिवय िनिध िनयम उ अिधिनयम क
धारा 6 म िविनद िनयम क तुलना म कमचारय के िलए कम उपयु नह# ह$ और कमचारी उ अिधिनयम अथवा कमचारी भिवय
िनिध योजना, 1952 (एतदुपरांत योजना के %प म संद(भत) के अंतगत सदृश +व%प के कसी अय ितान म कमचारय के संबंध म दी
जाने वाली अय भिवय िनिध सुिवधा- का भी लाभ उठा रहे ह$।
3.
अत:, अब, के सरकार, उ अिधिनयम क धारा 17 क उप धारा (1) के ख0ड (क) 2ारा द3 शिय का योग करते 6ए,
इस अिधसूचना के साथ सल9 शत: के अ;याधीन उ ितान को अगली अिधसूचना तक 01.03.2009 से उ योजना के सभी उपबंध
के भाव से छूट दान करती है।
[सं. एस-35015/22/2015-एसएस-II]
सुभाष कुमार, अवर सिचव
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ िवय
िवय
िवय
िवय िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
1.
िनयोा समय-समय पर केीय सरकार अथवा केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु, जैसी भी िथित हो, ारा दए जाने
वाले ऐसे िनदेश$ के अनुसार भ िवय िनिध के %बंधन हेतु अपनी अ(य)ता म* एक यासी बोड, ग .ठत करेगा। भ िवय िनिध
यासी बोड, म* िविहत होगी जो अय बात$ के साथ-साथ कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध संगठन के % ित भ िवय िनिध म* %ा ि2य$ और
उसम* से भुगतान के उ िचत लेख$ और उनक7 अ िभर)ा म* शेष रा िश के िलए उ9रदायी होगा। इस %योजनाथ, " िनयोा" से:-
(i) कसी % ित;ान, जो एक कारखाना हो, उसके संबंध म*, कारखाने का वामी अथवा अ िध;ाता अ िभ%ेत होगा; और
(ii) कसी अय % ित;ान के संबंध म*, वह < ि, अथवा %ा िधकारी अ िभ%ेत होगा, िजसका उस % ित;ान के कामकाज
पर अं ितम िनयं=ण हो।
2.
यासी बोड, हरेक ितमाही म* कम से कम एक बार बैठक करेगा और वह के सरकार/केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु
(सीपीएफसी) अथवा उसके ारा %ा िधकृत कसी अ िधकारी ारा समय-समय पर जारी कए जाने वाले दशा िनदCश$ के
अनुसार काय, करेगा।
3.
अ िधिनयम क7 धारा 2(च) म* यथा प .रभा िषत सभी कम,चारी, जो भ िवय िनिध के सदय बनने के पा= रह* हE, य द
% ित;ान को छूट %दान नहI क7 होती, उह* सदय$ के Jप म* नामां कत कया जाएगा।
4.
जहां कोई कम,चारी जो पहले ही कसी अय छूट-%ा2 % ित;ान के कसी कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध अथवा भ िवय
िनिध का सदय हो, उसे उसके % ित;ान म* िनयो िजत कया जाता है, तो िनयोा उसे तLकाल िनिध के सदय के Jप म*
नामां कत करेगा। िनयोा ऐसे कम,चारी के भ िवय िनिध खाते म* उसके पहले िनयोा से संचय रा िशयां अंत .रत और जमा
करवाने क7 भी <वथा करेगा।
5.
िनयोा भ िवय िनिध को उसके ारा और कम,चारी के ारा समय—समय पर अ िधिनयम के अंतग,त िनधा, .रत दर
से देय अंशदान को, िजस माह के िलए अंशदान देय ह$ उसके बाद के माह क7 15 तारीख तक यासी बोड, को अंत .रत करेगा।
िनयोा यासी बोड, को कही देय$ के भुगतान म* कसी िवलPब के िलए अ िधिनयम क7 धारा 7 थ के उपबंध$ के अनुसार
साधारण Rयाज अदा करने का दायी होगा।
6.
िनयोा भ िवय िनिध के %शासन के सभी <य वहन करेगा और चोरी, डकैती, गबन, दु Sव िनयोग अथवा कसी
अय कारण से भ िवय िनिध को हो सकने वाले कसी घाटे क7 भी भरपाई करेगा।
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2121
7.
यासी बोड, ारा घो िषत Rयाज म* कसी कमी को भी िनयोा ारा पूरा कया जाना होगा और उसे सां िविधक
सीमा तक लाना होगा।
8.
िनयोा जब कभी िनयम संशो िधत कए जाएं, समु िचत %ा िधकारी ारा यथा अनुमो दत, िनिध के िनयम$ क7 एक
% ित अ िधसंUयक कम,चा .रय$ क7 भाषा म* उनके अनुवाद स िहत % ित;ान के सूचना पट पर %द Sशत करेगा।
9.
% ित;ान के भ िवय िनिध िनयम$ के अंतग,त िनधा, .रत देय अंशदान क7 दर, अ िVम क7 शतW और मा=ा तथा अय
मामले और सदय के मा िसक चालू शेष पर संग िणत और यासी बोड, ारा घो िषत, %Lयेक सदय के खाते म* जमा कया गया
Rयाज, अ िधिनयम और उसके अंतग,त िनSमत योजना म* िनधा, .रत िविभX उपबंध$ के अंतग,त के सरकार ारा घो िषत दर से
कम नहI होगा।
10.
योजना म* कोई संशोधन, जो % ित;ान के िवYमान िनयम$ क7 तुलना म* कम,चा .रय$ के िलए अ िधक लाभदा यक हो,
उसे यास के िनयम$ म* औपचा .रक संशोधन के लं िबत रहते उन पर वत: लागू कया जाएगा।
11.
िनयोा ारा िनयम$ म* कोई भी संशोधन )े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु के पूव, अनुमोदन के िबना नहI कया
जाएगा। )े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु अपना अनुमोदन देने से पूव, कम,चा .रय$ को अपना Jख प[ करने का वा िजब अवसर
देगा।
12.
िनकासी, अ िVम और अंतरण के सभी दावे कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध संगठन ारा िनधा, .रत अ िधकतम समय सीमा के
भीतर, शी\ता से िनपटाए जाएंगे।
13.
यासी बोड, %Lयेक कम,चारी के संबंध म* जमा कए गए अंशदान, िनकासी और Rयाज दशा,ने के िलए िवत .रत लेख$
का रख-रखाव करेगा। ऐसे अ िभलेख$ का रख-रखाव अ िधमानत: इलै]^ो िनक Jप से रखा जाएगा। % ित;ान आव िधक Jप से
जब कभी केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु/)े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु ारा िनदेश दया जाए, सदय$ के लेख$ को इलै]^ॉ िनक
`प से सP%े िषत कर*गे।
14.
यासी बोड, वष, म* एक बार िव9ीय/लेखा वष, के समा2 होने के छ: माह के भीतर %Lयेक कम,चारी को िन:शुaक लेख$
का वा Sषक िववरण अथवा पासबुक जारी करेगा। जब कभी सदय चाह*, अ ित.र b%टऑउट नाममा= के %भार के साथ
उपलRध कराए जा सकते हE। पासबुक के मामले म* वह कम,चारी के पास रहेगी िजसे %तुत कए जाने पर या िसय$ ारा
आव िधक Jप से अYतन कया जाएगा।
15.
िनयोा सभी सदय$ को उनक7 आवdयकतानुसार कPeयूटर टSमनल$ से अपने खाते म* पड़ी शेष रािश को देखने के
समथ, बनाने के िलए आवdयक %ावधान कर*गे।
16.
यासी बोड, और िनयोा कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा यथा िविहत `प म* ये िववरिणयां िविनfद[ समय
सीमा के भीतर मािसक/वाSषक `प से दायर कर*गे, िजसे न करने पर इसे चूक माना जाएगा तथा यासी बोड, और िनयोा
संयु `प से और अलग-अलग, कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा क7 जाने वाली उपयु दािgडक कार,वाई के भागी ह$गे।
17.
यासी बोड, समय-समय पर सरकार के िनदCश$ के अनुसार भिवय िनिध के पैसे का िनवेश करेगा। सरकार के िनदCश$
के अनुसार िनवेश करने म* असफल होने पर यासी बोड, अलग-अलग और संयु `प से केीय भिवय िनिध आयु या
उसके %ितिनिध ारा यथा अिधरोिपत अिधशुaक का भागी बन जाएगा।
18.
(क) %ितभूितयां यास के नाम से %ा2 क7 जाएंगी। इस %कार %ा2 क7 गई %ितभूितयां अभौितक (डीमेट) `प म*
होनी चािहए तथा यास के काय,चािलत रहने वाले )े=$ म* अपेि)त सुिवधा के उपलRध न होने क7 िथित म* यासी बोड,
संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को इसक7 सूचना द*गे।
(ख) यासी बोड, िलिप-वार रिजटर बनाएगा तथा Rयाज क7 समय पर उगाही सुिनिiत करेगा।
(ग) डीमेट खाता इस संबंध म* केीय सरकार ारा जारी अनुदेश$ के अनुसार भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय
सरकार ारा अनुमो दत िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$ के मा(यम से खोला जाए।
(घ) डीमेट खाते का खच, यास ारा कए जाने वाले िनवेश का %ासंिगक <य <य माना जाए। %ितभूितय$ आ द
क7 खरीद क7 दलाली जैसे िनवेश$ के सभी %कार के खचj को भी यास ारा कए जाने वाले िनवेश का %ासंिगक <य माना
जाएगा।
2122
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
19.
%ितभूितय$ और बाgड$ क7 खरीद जैसे ऐसे सभी िनवेश भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय सरकार ारा अनुमो दत
िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$ क7 सुर)ा अिभर)ा म* दज, कए जाएं, जो इसके संर)क ह$गे। थापना क7 बंदी या प.रसमापन या
कम,चारी भिवय िनिध, 1952 से छूट पर यह संर)क, यास के नाम पर %ा2 तथा अपने जमा म* पड़े िनवेश को संबंिधत
)े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु के, इस आशय के, अनुरोध पर संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को सीधे अंत.रत करेगा।
20.
थापना संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को उन िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$(भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय
सरकार ारा अनुमो दत) के िववरण से सूिचत करेगी, िजनके पास तथा िजनक7 सुर)ा अिभर)ा म* यास के नाम पर कए
गए िनवेश अथा,त %ितभूितय$, बाgड$ आ द म* कए गए िनवेश दज, कए गए हE। तथािप, यासी बोड, उस धनरािश क7 उगाही
कर सकता है, जो दाव$ के िनपटान, िनयमानुसार अिVम$ क7 मंजूरी और िनयोा क7 सेवा छोड़ने क7 िथित म* सदय के
भिवय िनिध संचयन के अंतरण और %ितभूितय$ क7 िबm7 ारा अय कसी %ाि2य$ अथवा )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु के
पूव, अनुमोदन के शता,धीन िनिध के नाम म* पड़े अय िनवेश$ जैसे बा(यकारी <य$ को पूरा करने के िलए अपेि)त ह$।
21.
यास ारा कए गए िनवेश$ के िलए कसी िव9ीय या अय संथाn ारा दए जाने वाले कसी कमीशन,
%ोLसाहन, बोनस या अय आSथक लाभ इसके खाते म* डाले जाएं।
22.
िनयोा और यासी बोड, के सदय शतj का पालन करने क7 सहमित देते oए िलिखत वचन द*गे तथा यह वैिधक `प
से िनयोा और यासी बोड, के उ9रािधका.रय$ और समनुदेिशत$ पर उनके साथ-साथ बा(यकारी होगा।
23.
िनयोा और यासी बोड, छूट के रp होने क7 िथित म* संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु ारा िविहत समय
सीमा के भीतर तLकाल िनिधय$ का अंतरण करने का वचन भी देगा। यह उन पर कानूनी `प से बा(यकारी होगा तथा उह*
िनिधय$ के अंतरण म* कोई िवलंब होने क7 िथित म* अिभयोजन का भागी बनाएगा।
24.
(क) यासी बोड, ारा अनुरि)त भिवय िनिध खाता कसी योqय वतं= चाट,ड, लेखाकार ारा वाSषक `प से लेखा-
परी)ा करने के शता,धीन होगा। जहां भी आवdयक समझा जाए, वहां कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन को अिधकार होगा क
यह कसी अय योqय लेखा-परी)क ारा खात$ क7 लेखा-परी)ा कराए तथा इस %कार oए खच, िनयोा ारा वहन कए
जाएंगे।
(ख) लेखा-परी)क$ ारा िव9ीय वष, अथा,त 1 अ%ैल से 31 माच, तक क7 समाि2 के बाद छह महीने के भीतर लेखा-
परी)ीत तुलन-प= सिहत लेखा-परी)क क7 .रपोट, क7 %ित सीधे इस काया,लय म* %तुत क7 जाए। तुलन-प= का %ा`प और
इस .रपोट, म* %तुत क7 जाने वाली जानकारी कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा िनधा,.रत क7 जाएगी तथा संबंिधत )े=ीय
भिवय िनिध आयु के काया,लय म* इलै]^ॉिनक %ा`प के साथ हता).रत %ितिलिप म* उपलRध कराई जाएगी।
(ग) एक ही लेखा-परी)क$ को लगातार दो वष, के िलए तथा अगले िव9ीय वष, के पहले दन से िमली छूट से अिधक
के िलए िनयु न कया जाए।
25.
लगातार तीन िव9ीय वषj तक कोई हािन या पूंजी आधार म* कटौती को अगले िव9ीय वष, के पहले दन से िमली
छूट %ा2 होगी।
26.
िनयोा %Lयेक माह क7 समाि2 से 15 दन के भीतर िनरी)ण हेतु ऐसी सुिवधाn का %ावधान करेगा तथा ऐसे
िनरी)ण %भार$ का भुगतान करेगा जो केीय सरकार ारा अिधिनयम क7 धारा 17 के उप-खgड (3) के खgड(क) के अंतग,त
समय-समय पर दए िनदCश$ के अनुसार ह$।
27.
यासी बोड, या िनयो ारा छूट देने के िलए शतj के कसी उaलंघन क7 िथित म* दी गई छूट संबंिधत <ि को
इस संबंध म* कारण बताओ नो.टस जारी करने के बाद रp कर दी जाएगी।
28.
कसी भी धोखे, गबन, गलत िनवेश िनण,य$ आ द के फलव`प ^ट को oए कसी भी नुकसान क7 िथित म*
िनयोा नुकसान पूरा करने का भागी होगा।
29.
कसी िवलय, अिवलय, अिभVहण, िबm7, एक7करण, सहायक कंपनी का गठन चाहे पूण,त: वािमLव वाली हो या
नहI इLया द के फलव`प य द %ित;ान क7 कानूनी िथित म* कोई भी बदलाव होता है तो दी गई छूट िनरत होगी एवं
%ित;ान को तुरंत नई छूट देने के िलए मामले क7 .रपोट, करनी चािहए।
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2123
30.
एक ही भिवय िनिध ^ट म* एक से अिधक इकाई/%ित;ान$ के भाग लेने क7 िथित म* भाग लेने वाली इकाईय$ के
कसी भी ^टी/िनयोा ारा कोई भी चूक होने पर सभी ^टी संयु `प से एवं अलग से िजPमेदार/उ9रदायी ह$गे और
आरपीएफसी आम भिवय िनिध ^ट के सभी यािसय$ के िव`u उपयु कानूनी कार,वाई करेगा।
31. छूट %ा2 यास िनिध के अिधVहण के मामले म*, अंतरीय Rयाज के कारण हािन के अनुमािनत िनवल वत,मान मूaय क7
वसूली %ित;ान से क7 जानी चािहए।
32.
के सरकार ितान क छूट क िनरंतरता के िलए शत को बढ़ा सकती है और जब भी इनको सं ेिषत
"कया जाएगा ये ितान इन अित&र' शत का अनुपालन करने के िलए बा*य ह+गे।
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2016
S.O.937.— Whereas M/s. Comviva Technologies Limited [under Code No. DL/23780 in Delhi (South) region]
(hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17
of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the
Act).
2.
And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment
with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in section 6 of
the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or
under the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in relation to the
employees in any other establishment of similar character.
3.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said Act
and subject to the conditions annexed with this notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the said
establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 01.03.2009 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/22/2015-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1.
The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees under his Chairmanship for the management of the Provident
Fund according to such directions as may be given by the Central Government or the Central Provident Fund
Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time. The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees who will
be responsible for and accountable to the Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for proper accounts of
the receipts into and payment from the Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For this purpose, the
“employer” shall mean:-
(i) In relation to an establishment, which is a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory: and
(ii) In relation to any other establishment, the person who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control over the affairs
of the establishment.
2.
The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in every three months and shall function in accordance with the
guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the Central Government/Central Provident Fund
Commissioner(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3.
All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the act, who have been eligible to become members of the
Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4.
Where an employee who is already a member of Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any other
exempted establishment is employed in his establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him as a member of the
fund. The employer should also arrange to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account of such employee
with his previous employer transferred and credited into his account.
5.
The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself
and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from time to time by the 15th of each month following the month for
which the contributions are payable. The employer shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of
Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6
The employer shall bear all the expenses of the administration of Provident Fund and also make good any other
loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any other reason.
2124
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7.
Any deficiency in the interest declared by the Board of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to bring it
up to the statutory limit.
8.
The employer shall display on the notice board of the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when amended thereto along with a translation in the language of the
majority of the employees.
9.
The rate of contributions payable, the conditions and quantum of advances and other matters laid down under
the provident fund rules of the establishment and the interest credited to the account of each member, calculated on the
monthly running balance of the member and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower than those declared by
the Central Government under the various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme framed thereunder.
10.
Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of the Trust.
11.
No amendment in the rules shall be made by the employer without the prior approval of the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give a reasonable
opportunity to the employees to explain their point of view.
12.
All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
13.
The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal and
interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance of such records should preferably be done electronically. The
establishments should periodically transmit the details of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed by the
Central Provident Commissioner/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
14.
The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual statement of accounts or pass books to every employee within six
months of the close of financial/accounting year free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be made
available as and when the members want, subject to nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain in
custody of employee to be updated periodically by the Trustees when presented to them.
15.
The employer shall make necessary provisions to enable all the members to be able to see their account balance
from the computer terminals as and when required by them.
16.
The Board of Trustees and the employer shall file such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within the specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a default and
the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the Employees’
Provident Fund Organisation.
17.
The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of the provident fund as per the directions of the Government
from time to time. Failure to make investments as per directions of the Government shall make the Board of Trustees
separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or his
representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of Trust. The securities so obtained should be in dematerialized
(DEMAT) form and in case the required facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates the Board of
Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script wise register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India and
Central Government in accordance with the instructions issued by the Central Government in this regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust. Also all
types of cost of investments like brokerage for purchase of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental cost of investment
by the Trust.
19.
All such investments made like purchase of securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody of
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian of the
same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such custodian
shall transfer the investment obtained in the name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional PF
Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that effect.
20.
The establishment shall intimate to the Regional P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government), with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments made
in the name of trust, viz., investments made in securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the Board of Trustees
may raise such sum of sums of money as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such as settlement of claims,
grant of advances as per rules and transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/her leaving service of the
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2125
employer and any other receipts by sale of the securities or other investments standing in the name of the Fund subject to
the prior approval of the Regional PF Commissioner.
21.
Any commission, incentive, bonus or other pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other institutions for
the investments made by the Trust should be credited to its account.
22.
The employer and the members of the Board of Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to abide
by the conditions and this shall be legally binding on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their successors
and assignees.
23.
The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within the
time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally binding on
them and will make them liable for prosecution in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a qualified
independent chartered accountant annually. Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right to have the
accounts re-audited by any other qualified auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the audited balance sheet should be submitted to this office by the Auditors
directly within six months after the closing of the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The format of the balance
sheet and the information to be furnished in the report shall be prescribed by the Employees’ Provident fund
Organisation and made available with the RPFC office in electronic format as well as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation withdrawn
from the first day of the next succeeding financial year.
25.
Any loss for the three consecutive financial years or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding financial year.
26.
The employer shall provide for such facilities for inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central
Government may from time to time direct under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15 days
from the close of every month.
27.
In the event of any violation of the conditions for grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of Trustees,
the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned persons.
28.
In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc. the
employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29.
In case of any change of legal status of the establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition, sale,
amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand revoked
and the establishment should promptly report the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30.
In case there are more than one unit/establishment participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all the
trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/responsible for any default committed by any of the trustees/employer of
any of the participating units and the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the trustees of the common
Provident Fund Trust.
31. In case of takeover of the exempted Trust Fund, estimated net present value of the loss due to differential interest
should be recovered from the establishment.
32.
The Central Government may lay down further conditions for continuation of exemption of the establishment
and the establishment shall be bound to comply with these additional conditions as and when the same are
communicated.
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.938
938
938
938.—tcfd eSllZ vkbZ,Qth,y fjQszDVksfjt fyfeVsM ¼jkmjdsyk mi{ks= esa dksM la[;k vksvkj@3480 ds
varxZr½ ¼,rnqijkar izfr"Bku ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k vkSj izdh.kZ mica/k vf/kfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½
¼,rnqijkar vf/kfu;e ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ dh /kkjk 17 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k
gSA
2.
और जबक केीय सरकार के िवचार म, अंशदान क दर के संबंध म उ ितान के भिवय िनिध िनयम उ अिधिनयम क
धारा 6 म िविनद िनयम क तुलना म कमचारय के िलए कम उपयु नह# ह$ और कमचारी उ अिधिनयम अथवा कमचारी भिवय
िनिध योजना, 1952 (एतदुपरांत योजना के %प म संद(भत) के अंतगत सदृश +व%प के कसी अय ितान म कमचारय के संबंध म दी
जाने वाली अय भिवय िनिध सुिवधा- का भी लाभ उठा रहे ह$।
2126
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
अत:, अब, के सरकार, उ अिधिनयम क धारा 17 क उप धारा (1) के ख0ड (क) 2ारा द3 शिय का योग करते 6ए,
इस अिधसूचना के साथ सल9 शत: के अ;याधीन उ ितान को अगली अिधसूचना तक 01.08.1988 से उ योजना के सभी उपबंध
के भाव से छूट दान करती है।
[सं. एस-35015/87/2014-एसएस-II]
सुभाष कुमार, अवर सिचव
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ िवय
िवय
िवय
िवय िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
1.
िनयोा समय-समय पर केीय सरकार अथवा केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु, जैसी भी िथित हो, ारा दए जाने
वाले ऐसे िनदेश$ के अनुसार भ िवय िनिध के %बंधन हेतु अपनी अ(य)ता म* एक यासी बोड, ग .ठत करेगा। भ िवय िनिध
यासी बोड, म* िविहत होगी जो अय बात$ के साथ-साथ कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध संगठन के % ित भ िवय िनिध म* %ा ि2य$ और
उसम* से भुगतान के उ िचत लेख$ और उनक7 अ िभर)ा म* शेष रा िश के िलए उ9रदायी होगा। इस %योजनाथ, " िनयोा" से:-
(i) कसी % ित;ान, जो एक कारखाना हो, उसके संबंध म*, कारखाने का वामी अथवा अ िध;ाता अ िभ%ेत होगा; और
(ii) कसी अय % ित;ान के संबंध म*, वह < ि, अथवा %ा िधकारी अ िभ%ेत होगा, िजसका उस % ित;ान के कामकाज
पर अं ितम िनयं=ण हो।
2.
यासी बोड, हरेक ितमाही म* कम से कम एक बार बैठक करेगा और वह के सरकार/केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु
(सीपीएफसी) अथवा उसके ारा %ा िधकृत कसी अ िधकारी ारा समय-समय पर जारी कए जाने वाले दशा िनदCश$ के
अनुसार काय, करेगा।
3.
अ िधिनयम क7 धारा 2(च) म* यथा प .रभा िषत सभी कम,चारी, जो भ िवय िनिध के सदय बनने के पा= रह* हE, य द
% ित;ान को छूट %दान नहI क7 होती, उह* सदय$ के Jप म* नामां कत कया जाएगा।
4.
जहां कोई कम,चारी जो पहले ही कसी अय छूट-%ा2 % ित;ान के कसी कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध अथवा भ िवय
िनिध का सदय हो, उसे उसके % ित;ान म* िनयो िजत कया जाता है, तो िनयोा उसे तLकाल िनिध के सदय के Jप म*
नामां कत करेगा। िनयोा ऐसे कम,चारी के भ िवय िनिध खाते म* उसके पहले िनयोा से संचय रा िशयां अंत .रत और जमा
करवाने क7 भी <वथा करेगा।
5.
िनयोा भ िवय िनिध को उसके ारा और कम,चारी के ारा समय—समय पर अ िधिनयम के अंतग,त िनधा, .रत दर
से देय अंशदान को, िजस माह के िलए अंशदान देय ह$ उसके बाद के माह क7 15 तारीख तक यासी बोड, को अंत .रत करेगा।
िनयोा यासी बोड, को कही देय$ के भुगतान म* कसी िवलPब के िलए अ िधिनयम क7 धारा 7 थ के उपबंध$ के अनुसार
साधारण Rयाज अदा करने का दायी होगा।
6.
िनयोा भ िवय िनिध के %शासन के सभी <य वहन करेगा और चोरी, डकैती, गबन, दु Sव िनयोग अथवा कसी
अय कारण से भ िवय िनिध को हो सकने वाले कसी घाटे क7 भी भरपाई करेगा।
7.
यासी बोड, ारा घो िषत Rयाज म* कसी कमी को भी िनयोा ारा पूरा कया जाना होगा और उसे सां िविधक
सीमा तक लाना होगा।
8.
िनयोा जब कभी िनयम संशो िधत कए जाएं, समु िचत %ा िधकारी ारा यथा अनुमो दत, िनिध के िनयम$ क7 एक
% ित अ िधसंUयक कम,चा .रय$ क7 भाषा म* उनके अनुवाद स िहत % ित;ान के सूचना पट पर %द Sशत करेगा।
9.
% ित;ान के भ िवय िनिध िनयम$ के अंतग,त िनधा, .रत देय अंशदान क7 दर, अ िVम क7 शतW और मा=ा तथा अय
मामले और सदय के मा िसक चालू शेष पर संग िणत और यासी बोड, ारा घो िषत, %Lयेक सदय के खाते म* जमा कया गया
Rयाज, अ िधिनयम और उसके अंतग,त िनSमत योजना म* िनधा, .रत िविभX उपबंध$ के अंतग,त के सरकार ारा घो िषत दर से
कम नहI होगा।
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2127
10.
योजना म* कोई संशोधन, जो % ित;ान के िवYमान िनयम$ क7 तुलना म* कम,चा .रय$ के िलए अ िधक लाभदा यक हो,
उसे यास के िनयम$ म* औपचा .रक संशोधन के लं िबत रहते उन पर वत: लागू कया जाएगा।
11.
िनयोा ारा िनयम$ म* कोई भी संशोधन )े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु के पूव, अनुमोदन के िबना नहI कया
जाएगा। )े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु अपना अनुमोदन देने से पूव, कम,चा .रय$ को अपना Jख प[ करने का वा िजब अवसर
देगा।
12.
िनकासी, अ िVम और अंतरण के सभी दावे कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध संगठन ारा िनधा, .रत अ िधकतम समय सीमा के
भीतर, शी\ता से िनपटाए जाएंगे।
13.
यासी बोड, %Lयेक कम,चारी के संबंध म* जमा कए गए अंशदान, िनकासी और Rयाज दशा,ने के िलए िवत .रत लेख$
का रख-रखाव करेगा। ऐसे अ िभलेख$ का रख-रखाव अ िधमानत: इलै]^ो िनक Jप से रखा जाएगा। % ित;ान आव िधक Jप से
जब कभी केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु/)े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु ारा िनदेश दया जाए, सदय$ के लेख$ को इलै]^ॉ िनक
Jप से सP%े िषत कर*गे।
14.
यासी बोड, वष, म* एक बार िव9ीय/लेखा वष, के समा2 होने के छ: माह के भीतर %Lयेक कम,चारी को िन:शुaक लेख$
का वा Sषक िववरण अथवा पासबुक जारी करेगा। जब कभी सदय चाह*, अ ित.र b%टऑउट नाममा= के %भार के साथ
उपलRध कराए जा सकते हE। पासबुक के मामले म* वह कम,चारी के पास रहेगी िजसे %तुत कए जाने पर या िसय$ ारा
आव िधक Jप से अYतन कया जाएगा।
15.
िनयोा सभी सदय$ को उनक7 आवdयकतानुसार कPeयूटर टSमनल$ से अपने खाते म* पड़ी शेष रािश को देखने के
समथ, बनाने के िलए आवdयक %ावधान कर*गे।
16.
यासी बोड, और िनयोा कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा यथा िविहत `प म* ये िववरिणयां िविनfद[ समय
सीमा के भीतर मािसक/वाSषक `प से दायर कर*गे, िजसे न करने पर इसे चूक माना जाएगा तथा यासी बोड, और िनयोा
संयु `प से और अलग-अलग, कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा क7 जाने वाली उपयु दािgडक कार,वाई के भागी ह$गे।
17.
यासी बोड, समय-समय पर सरकार के िनदCश$ के अनुसार भिवय िनिध के पैसे का िनवेश करेगा। सरकार के िनदCश$
के अनुसार िनवेश करने म* असफल होने पर यासी बोड, अलग-अलग और संयु `प से केीय भिवय िनिध आयु या
उसके %ितिनिध ारा यथा अिधरोिपत अिधशुaक का भागी बन जाएगा।
18.
(क) %ितभूितयां यास के नाम से %ा2 क7 जाएंगी। इस %कार %ा2 क7 गई %ितभूितयां अभौितक (डीमेट) `प म*
होनी चािहए तथा यास के काय,चािलत रहने वाले )े=$ म* अपेि)त सुिवधा के उपलRध न होने क7 िथित म* यासी बोड,
संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को इसक7 सूचना द*गे।
(ख) यासी बोड, िलिप-वार रिजटर बनाएगा तथा Rयाज क7 समय पर उगाही सुिनिiत करेगा।
(ग) डीमेट खाता इस संबंध म* केीय सरकार ारा जारी अनुदेश$ के अनुसार भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय
सरकार ारा अनुमो दत िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$ के मा(यम से खोला जाए।
(घ) डीमेट खाते का खच, यास ारा कए जाने वाले िनवेश का %ासंिगक <य <य माना जाए। %ितभूितय$ आ द
क7 खरीद क7 दलाली जैसे िनवेश$ के सभी %कार के खचj को भी यास ारा कए जाने वाले िनवेश का %ासंिगक <य माना
जाएगा।
19.
%ितभूितय$ और बाgड$ क7 खरीद जैसे ऐसे सभी िनवेश भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय सरकार ारा अनुमो दत
िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$ क7 सुर)ा अिभर)ा म* दज, कए जाएं, जो इसके संर)क ह$गे। थापना क7 बंदी या प.रसमापन या
कम,चारी भिवय िनिध, 1952 से छूट पर यह संर)क, यास के नाम पर %ा2 तथा अपने जमा म* पड़े िनवेश को संबंिधत
)े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु के, इस आशय के, अनुरोध पर संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को सीधे अंत.रत करेगा।
20.
थापना संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को उन िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$(भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय
सरकार ारा अनुमो दत) के िववरण से सूिचत करेगी, िजनके पास तथा िजनक7 सुर)ा अिभर)ा म* यास के नाम पर कए
गए िनवेश अथा,त %ितभूितय$, बाgड$ आ द म* कए गए िनवेश दज, कए गए हE। तथािप, यासी बोड, उस धनरािश क7 उगाही
कर सकता है, जो दाव$ के िनपटान, िनयमानुसार अिVम$ क7 मंजूरी और िनयोा क7 सेवा छोड़ने क7 िथित म* सदय के
2128
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
भिवय िनिध संचयन के अंतरण और %ितभूितय$ क7 िबm7 ारा अय कसी %ाि2य$ अथवा )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु के
पूव, अनुमोदन के शता,धीन िनिध के नाम म* पड़े अय िनवेश$ जैसे बा(यकारी <य$ को पूरा करने के िलए अपेि)त ह$।
21.
यास ारा कए गए िनवेश$ के िलए कसी िव9ीय या अय संथाn ारा दए जाने वाले कसी कमीशन,
%ोLसाहन, बोनस या अय आSथक लाभ इसके खाते म* डाले जाएं।
22.
िनयोा और यासी बोड, के सदय शतj का पालन करने क7 सहमित देते oए िलिखत वचन द*गे तथा यह वैिधक `प
से िनयोा और यासी बोड, के उ9रािधका.रय$ और समनुदेिशत$ पर उनके साथ-साथ बा(यकारी होगा।
23.
िनयोा और यासी बोड, छूट के रp होने क7 िथित म* संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु ारा िविहत समय
सीमा के भीतर तLकाल िनिधय$ का अंतरण करने का वचन भी देगा। यह उन पर कानूनी `प से बा(यकारी होगा तथा उह*
िनिधय$ के अंतरण म* कोई िवलंब होने क7 िथित म* अिभयोजन का भागी बनाएगा।
24.
(क) यासी बोड, ारा अनुरि)त भिवय िनिध खाता कसी योqय वतं= चाट,ड, लेखाकार ारा वाSषक `प से लेखा-
परी)ा करने के शता,धीन होगा। जहां भी आवdयक समझा जाए, वहां कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन को अिधकार होगा क
यह कसी अय योqय लेखा-परी)क ारा खात$ क7 लेखा-परी)ा कराए तथा इस %कार oए खच, िनयोा ारा वहन कए
जाएंगे।
(ख) लेखा-परी)क$ ारा िव9ीय वष, अथा,त 1 अ%ैल से 31 माच, तक क7 समाि2 के बाद छह महीने के भीतर लेखा-
परी)ीत तुलन-प= सिहत लेखा-परी)क क7 .रपोट, क7 %ित सीधे इस काया,लय म* %तुत क7 जाए। तुलन-प= का %ा`प और
इस .रपोट, म* %तुत क7 जाने वाली जानकारी कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा िनधा,.रत क7 जाएगी तथा संबंिधत )े=ीय
भिवय िनिध आयु के काया,लय म* इलै]^ॉिनक %ा`प के साथ हता).रत %ितिलिप म* उपलRध कराई जाएगी।
(ग) एक ही लेखा-परी)क$ को लगातार दो वष, के िलए तथा अगले िव9ीय वष, के पहले दन से िमली छूट से अिधक
के िलए िनयु न कया जाए।
25.
लगातार तीन िव9ीय वषj तक कोई हािन या पूंजी आधार म* कटौती को अगले िव9ीय वष, के पहले दन से िमली
छूट %ा2 होगी।
26.
िनयोा %Lयेक माह क7 समाि2 से 15 दन के भीतर िनरी)ण हेतु ऐसी सुिवधाn का %ावधान करेगा तथा ऐसे
िनरी)ण %भार$ का भुगतान करेगा जो केीय सरकार ारा अिधिनयम क7 धारा 17 के उप-खgड (3) के खgड(क) के अंतग,त
समय-समय पर दए िनदCश$ के अनुसार ह$।
27.
यासी बोड, या िनयो ारा छूट देने के िलए शतj के कसी उaलंघन क7 िथित म* दी गई छूट संबंिधत <ि को
इस संबंध म* कारण बताओ नो.टस जारी करने के बाद रp कर दी जाएगी।
28.
कसी भी धोखे, गबन, गलत िनवेश िनण,य$ आ द के फलव`प ^ट को oए कसी भी नुकसान क7 िथित म*
िनयोा नुकसान पूरा करने का भागी होगा।
29.
कसी िवलय, अिवलय, अिभVहण, िबm7, एक7करण, सहायक कंपनी का गठन चाहे पूण,त: वािमLव वाली हो या
नहI इLया द के फलव`प य द %ित;ान क7 कानूनी िथित म* कोई भी बदलाव होता है तो दी गई छूट िनरत होगी एवं
%ित;ान को तुरंत नई छूट देने के िलए मामले क7 .रपोट, करनी चािहए।
30.
एक ही भिवय िनिध ^ट म* एक से अिधक इकाई/%ित;ान$ के भाग लेने क7 िथित म* भाग लेने वाली इकाईय$ के
कसी भी ^टी/िनयोा ारा कोई भी चूक होने पर सभी ^टी संयु `प से एवं अलग से िजPमेदार/उ9रदायी ह$गे और
आरपीएफसी आम भिवय िनिध ^ट के सभी यािसय$ के िव`u उपयु कानूनी कार,वाई करेगा।
31. छूट %ा2 यास िनिध के अिधVहण के मामले म*, अंतरीय Rयाज के कारण हािन के अनुमािनत िनवल वत,मान मूaय क7
वसूली %ित;ान से क7 जानी चािहए।
32.
के सरकार %ित;ान क7 छूट क7 िनरंतरता के िलए शतj को बढ़ा सकती है और जब भी इनको सं%ेिषत कया
जाएगा ये %ित;ान इन अित.र शतj का अनुपालन करने के िलए बा(य ह$गे।
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2129
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2016
S.O.938.— Whereas M/s. IFGL Refractories Limited [under Code No. OR/3480 in Rourkela sub region]
(hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17
of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the
Act).
2.
And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment
with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in section 6 of
the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or
under the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in relation to the
employees in any other establishment of similar character.
3.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said Act
and subject to the conditions annexed with this notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the said
establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 01.08.1988 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/87/2014-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1.
The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees under his Chairmanship for the management of the Provident
Fund according to such directions as may be given by the Central Government or the Central Provident Fund
Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time. The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees who will
be responsible for and accountable to the Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for proper accounts of
the receipts into and payment from the Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For this purpose, the
“employer” shall mean:-
(i) In relation to an establishment, which is a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory: and
(ii) In relation to any other establishment, the person who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control over the affairs
of the establishment.
2.
The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in every three months and shall function in accordance with the
guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the Central Government/Central Provident Fund
Commissioner(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3.
All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the act, who have been eligible to become members of the
Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4.
Where an employee who is already a member of Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any other
exempted establishment is employed in his establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him as a member of the
fund. The employer should also arrange to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account of such employee
with his previous employer transferred and credited into his account.
5.
The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself
and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from time to time by the 15th of each month following the month for
which the contributions are payable. The employer shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of
Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6
The employer shall bear all the expenses of the administration of Provident Fund and also make good any other
loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any other reason.
7.
Any deficiency in the interest declared by the Board of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to bring it
up to the statutory limit.
8.
The employer shall display on the notice board of the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when amended thereto along with a translation in the language of the
majority of the employees.
9.
The rate of contributions payable, the conditions and quantum of advances and other matters laid down under
the provident fund rules of the establishment and the interest credited to the account of each member, calculated on the
monthly running balance of the member and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower than those declared by
the Central Government under the various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme framed thereunder.
2130
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10.
Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of the Trust.
11.
No amendment in the rules shall be made by the employer without the prior approval of the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give a reasonable
opportunity to the employees to explain their point of view.
12.
All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
13.
The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal and
interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance of such records should preferably be done electronically. The
establishments should periodically transmit the details of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed by the
Central Provident Commissioner/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
14.
The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual statement of accounts or pass books to every employee within six
months of the close of financial/accounting year free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be made
available as and when the members want, subject to nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain in
custody of employee to be updated periodically by the Trustees when presented to them.
15.
The employer shall make necessary provisions to enable all the members to be able to see their account balance
from the computer terminals as and when required by them.
16.
The Board of Trustees and the employer shall file such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within the specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a default and
the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the Employees’
Provident Fund Organisation.
17.
The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of the provident fund as per the directions of the Government
from time to time. Failure to make investments as per directions of the Government shall make the Board of Trustees
separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or his
representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of Trust. The securities so obtained should be in dematerialized
(DEMAT) form and in case the required facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates the Board of
Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script wise register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India and
Central Government in accordance with the instructions issued by the Central Government in this regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust. Also all
types of cost of investments like brokerage for purchase of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental cost of investment
by the Trust.
19.
All such investments made like purchase of securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody of
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian of the
same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such custodian
shall transfer the investment obtained in the name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional PF
Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that effect.
20.
The establishment shall intimate to the Regional P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government), with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments made
in the name of trust, viz., investments made in securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the Board of Trustees
may raise such sum of sums of money as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such as settlement of claims,
grant of advances as per rules and transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/her leaving service of the
employer and any other receipts by sale of the securities or other investments standing in the name of the Fund subject to
the prior approval of the Regional PF Commissioner.
21.
Any commission, incentive, bonus or other pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other institutions for
the investments made by the Trust should be credited to its account.
22.
The employer and the members of the Board of Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to abide
by the conditions and this shall be legally binding on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their successors
and assignees.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2131
23.
The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within the
time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally binding on
them and will make them liable for prosecution in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a qualified
independent chartered accountant annually. Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right to have the
accounts re-audited by any other qualified auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the audited balance sheet should be submitted to this office by the Auditors
directly within six months after the closing of the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The format of the balance
sheet and the information to be furnished in the report shall be prescribed by the Employees’ Provident fund
Organisation and made available with the RPFC office in electronic format as well as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation withdrawn
from the first day of the next succeeding financial year.
25.
Any loss for the three consecutive financial years or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding financial year.
26.
The employer shall provide for such facilities for inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central
Government may from time to time direct under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15 days
from the close of every month.
27.
In the event of any violation of the conditions for grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of Trustees,
the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned persons.
28.
In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc. the
employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29.
In case of any change of legal status of the establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition, sale,
amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand revoked
and the establishment should promptly report the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30.
In case there are more than one unit/establishment participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all the
trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/responsible for any default committed by any of the trustees/employer of
any of the participating units and the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the trustees of the common
Provident Fund Trust.
31. In case of takeover of the exempted Trust Fund, estimated net present value of the loss due to differential interest
should be recovered from the establishment.
32.
The Central Government may lay down further conditions for continuation of exemption of the establishment
and the establishment shall be bound to comply with these additional conditions as and when the same are
communicated.
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.939
939
939
939.—tcfd eSllZ lqfeVkseks dkWiksZjs”ku bafM;k izk- fyfeVsM [fnYyh ¼mÙkjh½ {ks= esa dksM la[;k
Mh,y@1654 ds varxZr] ¼,rnqijkar izfr"Bku ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k vkSj izdh.kZ mica/k vf/kfu;e] 1952
¼1952 dk 19½ ¼,rnqijkar vf/kfu;e ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ dh /kkjk 17 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr NwV ds fy,
vkosnu fd;k gSA
2.
और जबक केीय सरकार के िवचार म, अंशदान क दर के संबंध म उ ितान के भिवय िनिध िनयम उ अिधिनयम क
धारा 6 म िविनद िनयम क तुलना म कमचारय के िलए कम उपयु नह# ह$ और कमचारी उ अिधिनयम अथवा कमचारी भिवय
िनिध योजना, 1952 (एतदुपरांत योजना के %प म संद(भत) के अंतगत सदृश +व%प के कसी अय ितान म कमचारय के संबंध म दी
जाने वाली अय भिवय िनिध सुिवधा- का भी लाभ उठा रहे ह$।
3.
अत:, अब, के सरकार, उ अिधिनयम क धारा 17 क उप धारा (1) के ख0ड (क) 2ारा द3 शिय का योग करते 6ए,
इस अिधसूचना के साथ सल9 शत: के अ;याधीन उ ितान को अगली अिधसूचना तक 27.03.1967 से उ योजना के सभी उपबंध
के भाव से छूट दान करती है।
[सं. एस-35015/88/2009-एसएस-II]
सुभाष कुमार, अवर सिचव
2132
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ िवय
िवय
िवय
िवय िनिध योजना, 19
िनिध योजना, 19
िनिध योजना, 19
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
52 के उपबंध से
52 के उपबंध से
52 के उपबंध से छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
1.
िनयोा समय-समय पर केीय सरकार अथवा केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु, जैसी भी िथित हो, ारा दए जाने
वाले ऐसे िनदेश$ के अनुसार भ िवय िनिध के %बंधन हेतु अपनी अ(य)ता म* एक यासी बोड, ग .ठत करेगा। भ िवय िनिध
यासी बोड, म* िविहत होगी जो अय बात$ के साथ-साथ कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध संगठन के % ित भ िवय िनिध म* %ा ि2य$ और
उसम* से भुगतान के उ िचत लेख$ और उनक7 अ िभर)ा म* शेष रा िश के िलए उ9रदायी होगा। इस %योजनाथ, " िनयोा" से:-
(i) कसी % ित;ान, जो एक कारखाना हो, उसके संबंध म*, कारखाने का वामी अथवा अ िध;ाता अ िभ%ेत होगा; और
(ii) कसी अय % ित;ान के संबंध म*, वह < ि, अथवा %ा िधकारी अ िभ%ेत होगा, िजसका उस % ित;ान के कामकाज
पर अं ितम िनयं=ण हो।
2.
यासी बोड, हरेक ितमाही म* कम से कम एक बार बैठक करेगा और वह के सरकार/केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु
(सीपीएफसी) अथवा उसके ारा %ा िधकृत कसी अ िधकारी ारा समय-समय पर जारी कए जाने वाले दशा िनदCश$ के
अनुसार काय, करेगा।
3.
अ िधिनयम क7 धारा 2(च) म* यथा प .रभा िषत सभी कम,चारी, जो भ िवय िनिध के सदय बनने के पा= रह* हE, य द
% ित;ान को छूट %दान नहI क7 होती, उह* सदय$ के Jप म* नामां कत कया जाएगा।
4.
जहां कोई कम,चारी जो पहले ही कसी अय छूट-%ा2 % ित;ान के कसी कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध अथवा भ िवय
िनिध का सदय हो, उसे उसके % ित;ान म* िनयो िजत कया जाता है, तो िनयोा उसे तLकाल िनिध के सदय के Jप म*
नामां कत करेगा। िनयोा ऐसे कम,चारी के भ िवय िनिध खाते म* उसके पहले िनयोा से संचय रा िशयां अंत .रत और जमा
करवाने क7 भी <वथा करेगा।
5.
िनयोा भ िवय िनिध को उसके ारा और कम,चारी के ारा समय—समय पर अ िधिनयम के अंतग,त िनधा, .रत दर
से देय अंशदान को, िजस माह के िलए अंशदान देय ह$ उसके बाद के माह क7 15 तारीख तक यासी बोड, को अंत .रत करेगा।
िनयोा यासी बोड, को कही देय$ के भुगतान म* कसी िवलPब के िलए अ िधिनयम क7 धारा 7 थ के उपबंध$ के अनुसार
साधारण Rयाज अदा करने का दायी होगा।
6.
िनयोा भ िवय िनिध के %शासन के सभी <य वहन करेगा और चोरी, डकैती, गबन, दु Sव िनयोग अथवा कसी
अय कारण से भ िवय िनिध को हो सकने वाले कसी घाटे क7 भी भरपाई करेगा।
7.
यासी बोड, ारा घो िषत Rयाज म* कसी कमी को भी िनयोा ारा पूरा कया जाना होगा और उसे सां िविधक
सीमा तक लाना होगा।
8.
िनयोा जब कभी िनयम संशो िधत कए जाएं, समु िचत %ा िधकारी ारा यथा अनुमो दत, िनिध के िनयम$ क7 एक
% ित अ िधसंUयक कम,चा .रय$ क7 भाषा म* उनके अनुवाद स िहत % ित;ान के सूचना पट पर %द Sशत करेगा।
9.
% ित;ान के भ िवय िनिध िनयम$ के अंतग,त िनधा, .रत देय अंशदान क7 दर, अ िVम क7 शतW और मा=ा तथा अय
मामले और सदय के मा िसक चालू शेष पर संग िणत और यासी बोड, ारा घो िषत, %Lयेक सदय के खाते म* जमा कया गया
Rयाज, अ िधिनयम और उसके अंतग,त िनSमत योजना म* िनधा, .रत िविभX उपबंध$ के अंतग,त के सरकार ारा घो िषत दर से
कम नहI होगा।
10.
योजना म* कोई संशोधन, जो % ित;ान के िवYमान िनयम$ क7 तुलना म* कम,चा .रय$ के िलए अ िधक लाभदा यक हो,
उसे यास के िनयम$ म* औपचा .रक संशोधन के लं िबत रहते उन पर वत: लागू कया जाएगा।
11.
िनयोा ारा िनयम$ म* कोई भी संशोधन )े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु के पूव, अनुमोदन के िबना नहI कया
जाएगा। )े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु अपना अनुमोदन देने से पूव, कम,चा .रय$ को अपना Jख प[ करने का वा िजब अवसर
देगा।
12.
िनकासी, अ िVम और अंतरण के सभी दावे कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध संगठन ारा िनधा, .रत अ िधकतम समय सीमा के
भीतर, शी\ता से िनपटाए जाएंगे।
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2133
13.
यासी बोड, %Lयेक कम,चारी के संबंध म* जमा कए गए अंशदान, िनकासी और Rयाज दशा,ने के िलए िवत .रत लेख$
का रख-रखाव करेगा। ऐसे अ िभलेख$ का रख-रखाव अ िधमानत: इलै]^ो िनक Jप से रखा जाएगा। % ित;ान आव िधक Jप से
जब कभी केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु/)े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु ारा िनदेश दया जाए, सदय$ के लेख$ को इलै]^ॉ िनक
Jप से सP%े िषत कर*गे।
14.
यासी बोड, वष, म* एक बार िव9ीय/लेखा वष, के समा2 होने के छ: माह के भीतर %Lयेक कम,चारी को िन:शुaक लेख$
का वा Sषक िववरण अथवा पासबुक जारी करेगा। जब कभी सदय चाह*, अ ित.र b%टऑउट नाममा= के %भार के साथ
उपलRध कराए जा सकते हE। पासबुक के मामले म* वह कम,चारी के पास रहेगी िजसे %तुत कए जाने पर या िसय$ ारा
आव िधक Jप से अYतन कया जाएगा।
15.
िनयोा सभी सदय$ को उनक7 आवdयकतानुसार कPeयूटर टSमनल$ से अपने खाते म* पड़ी शेष रािश को देखने के
समथ, बनाने के िलए आवdयक %ावधान कर*गे।
16.
यासी बोड, और िनयोा कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा यथा िविहत `प म* ये िववरिणयां िविनfद[ समय
सीमा के भीतर मािसक/वाSषक `प से दायर कर*गे, िजसे न करने पर इसे चूक माना जाएगा तथा यासी बोड, और िनयोा
संयु `प से और अलग-अलग, कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा क7 जाने वाली उपयु दािgडक कार,वाई के भागी ह$गे।
17.
यासी बोड, समय-समय पर सरकार के िनदCश$ के अनुसार भिवय िनिध के पैसे का िनवेश करेगा। सरकार के िनदCश$
के अनुसार िनवेश करने म* असफल होने पर यासी बोड, अलग-अलग और संयु `प से केीय भिवय िनिध आयु या
उसके %ितिनिध ारा यथा अिधरोिपत अिधशुaक का भागी बन जाएगा।
18.
(क) %ितभूितयां यास के नाम से %ा2 क7 जाएंगी। इस %कार %ा2 क7 गई %ितभूितयां अभौितक (डीमेट) `प म*
होनी चािहए तथा यास के काय,चािलत रहने वाले )े=$ म* अपेि)त सुिवधा के उपलRध न होने क7 िथित म* यासी बोड,
संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को इसक7 सूचना द*गे।
(ख) यासी बोड, िलिप-वार रिजटर बनाएगा तथा Rयाज क7 समय पर उगाही सुिनिiत करेगा।
(ग) डीमेट खाता इस संबंध म* केीय सरकार ारा जारी अनुदेश$ के अनुसार भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय
सरकार ारा अनुमो दत िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$ के मा(यम से खोला जाए।
(घ) डीमेट खाते का खच, यास ारा कए जाने वाले िनवेश का %ासंिगक <य <य माना जाए। %ितभूितय$ आ द
क7 खरीद क7 दलाली जैसे िनवेश$ के सभी %कार के खचj को भी यास ारा कए जाने वाले िनवेश का %ासंिगक <य माना
जाएगा।
19.
%ितभूितय$ और बाgड$ क7 खरीद जैसे ऐसे सभी िनवेश भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय सरकार ारा अनुमो दत
िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$ क7 सुर)ा अिभर)ा म* दज, कए जाएं, जो इसके संर)क ह$गे। थापना क7 बंदी या प.रसमापन या
कम,चारी भिवय िनिध, 1952 से छूट पर यह संर)क, यास के नाम पर %ा2 तथा अपने जमा म* पड़े िनवेश को संबंिधत
)े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु के, इस आशय के, अनुरोध पर संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को सीधे अंत.रत करेगा।
20.
थापना संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को उन िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$(भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय
सरकार ारा अनुमो दत) के िववरण से सूिचत करेगी, िजनके पास तथा िजनक7 सुर)ा अिभर)ा म* यास के नाम पर कए
गए िनवेश अथा,त %ितभूितय$, बाgड$ आ द म* कए गए िनवेश दज, कए गए हE। तथािप, यासी बोड, उस धनरािश क7 उगाही
कर सकता है, जो दाव$ के िनपटान, िनयमानुसार अिVम$ क7 मंजूरी और िनयोा क7 सेवा छोड़ने क7 िथित म* सदय के
भिवय िनिध संचयन के अंतरण और %ितभूितय$ क7 िबm7 ारा अय कसी %ाि2य$ अथवा )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु के
पूव, अनुमोदन के शता,धीन िनिध के नाम म* पड़े अय िनवेश$ जैसे बा(यकारी <य$ को पूरा करने के िलए अपेि)त ह$।
21.
यास ारा कए गए िनवेश$ के िलए कसी िव9ीय या अय संथाn ारा दए जाने वाले कसी कमीशन,
%ोLसाहन, बोनस या अय आSथक लाभ इसके खाते म* डाले जाएं।
22.
िनयोा और यासी बोड, के सदय शतj का पालन करने क7 सहमित देते oए िलिखत वचन द*गे तथा यह वैिधक `प
से िनयोा और यासी बोड, के उ9रािधका.रय$ और समनुदेिशत$ पर उनके साथ-साथ बा(यकारी होगा।
2134
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
23.
िनयोा और यासी बोड, छूट के रp होने क7 िथित म* संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु ारा िविहत समय
सीमा के भीतर तLकाल िनिधय$ का अंतरण करने का वचन भी देगा। यह उन पर कानूनी `प से बा(यकारी होगा तथा उह*
िनिधय$ के अंतरण म* कोई िवलंब होने क7 िथित म* अिभयोजन का भागी बनाएगा।
24.
(क) यासी बोड, ारा अनुरि)त भिवय िनिध खाता कसी योqय वतं= चाट,ड, लेखाकार ारा वाSषक `प से लेखा-
परी)ा करने के शता,धीन होगा। जहां भी आवdयक समझा जाए, वहां कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन को अिधकार होगा क
यह कसी अय योqय लेखा-परी)क ारा खात$ क7 लेखा-परी)ा कराए तथा इस %कार oए खच, िनयोा ारा वहन कए
जाएंगे।
(ख) लेखा-परी)क$ ारा िव9ीय वष, अथा,त 1 अ%ैल से 31 माच, तक क7 समाि2 के बाद छह महीने के भीतर लेखा-
परी)ीत तुलन-प= सिहत लेखा-परी)क क7 .रपोट, क7 %ित सीधे इस काया,लय म* %तुत क7 जाए। तुलन-प= का %ा`प और
इस .रपोट, म* %तुत क7 जाने वाली जानकारी कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा िनधा,.रत क7 जाएगी तथा संबंिधत )े=ीय
भिवय िनिध आयु के काया,लय म* इलै]^ॉिनक %ा`प के साथ हता).रत %ितिलिप म* उपलRध कराई जाएगी।
(ग) एक ही लेखा-परी)क$ को लगातार दो वष, के िलए तथा अगले िव9ीय वष, के पहले दन से िमली छूट से अिधक
के िलए िनयु न कया जाए।
25.
लगातार तीन िव9ीय वषj तक कोई हािन या पूंजी आधार म* कटौती को अगले िव9ीय वष, के पहले दन से िमली
छूट %ा2 होगी।
26.
िनयोा %Lयेक माह क7 समाि2 से 15 दन के भीतर िनरी)ण हेतु ऐसी सुिवधाn का %ावधान करेगा तथा ऐसे
िनरी)ण %भार$ का भुगतान करेगा जो केीय सरकार ारा अिधिनयम क7 धारा 17 के उप-खgड (3) के खgड(क) के अंतग,त
समय-समय पर दए िनदCश$ के अनुसार ह$।
27.
यासी बोड, या िनयो ारा छूट देने के िलए शतj के कसी उaलंघन क7 िथित म* दी गई छूट संबंिधत <ि को
इस संबंध म* कारण बताओ नो.टस जारी करने के बाद रp कर दी जाएगी।
28.
कसी भी धोखे, गबन, गलत िनवेश िनण,य$ आ द के फलव`प ^ट को oए कसी भी नुकसान क7 िथित म*
िनयोा नुकसान पूरा करने का भागी होगा।
29.
कसी िवलय, अिवलय, अिभVहण, िबm7, एक7करण, सहायक कंपनी का गठन चाहे पूण,त: वािमLव वाली हो या
नहI इLया द के फलव`प य द %ित;ान क7 कानूनी िथित म* कोई भी बदलाव होता है तो दी गई छूट िनरत होगी एवं
%ित;ान को तुरंत नई छूट देने के िलए मामले क7 .रपोट, करनी चािहए।
30.
एक ही भिवय िनिध ^ट म* एक से अिधक इकाई/%ित;ान$ के भाग लेने क7 िथित म* भाग लेने वाली इकाईय$ के
कसी भी ^टी/िनयोा ारा कोई भी चूक होने पर सभी ^टी संयु `प से एवं अलग से िजPमेदार/उ9रदायी ह$गे और
आरपीएफसी आम भिवय िनिध ^ट के सभी यािसय$ के िव`u उपयु कानूनी कार,वाई करेगा।
31. छूट %ा2 यास िनिध के अिधVहण के मामले म*, अंतरीय Rयाज के कारण हािन के अनुमािनत िनवल वत,मान मूaय क7
वसूली %ित;ान से क7 जानी चािहए।
32.
के सरकार ितान क छूट क िनरंतरता के िलए शत को बढ़ा सकती है और जब भी इनको सं ेिषत
"कया जाएगा ये ितान इन अित&र' शत का अनुपालन करने के िलए बा*य ह+गे।
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2016
S.O.939.— Whereas M/s. Sumitomo Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. [under Code No. DL/1654 in Delhi (North)
region] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of
section 17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred
to as the Act).
2.
And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment
with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in section 6 of
the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or
under the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in relation to the
employees in any other establishment of similar character.
3.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said Act
and subject to the conditions annexed with this notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the said
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2135
establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 27.03.1967 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/88/2009-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1.
The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees under his Chairmanship for the management of the Provident
Fund according to such directions as may be given by the Central Government or the Central Provident Fund
Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time. The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees who will
be responsible for and accountable to the Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for proper accounts of
the receipts into and payment from the Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For this purpose, the
“employer” shall mean:-
(i) In relation to an establishment, which is a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory: and
(ii) In relation to any other establishment, the person who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control over the affairs
of the establishment.
2.
The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in every three months and shall function in accordance with the
guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the Central Government/Central Provident Fund
Commissioner(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3.
All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the act, who have been eligible to become members of the
Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4.
Where an employee who is already a member of Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any other
exempted establishment is employed in his establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him as a member of the
fund. The employer should also arrange to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account of such employee
with his previous employer transferred and credited into his account.
5.
The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself
and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from time to time by the 15th of each month following the month for
which the contributions are payable. The employer shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of
Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6
The employer shall bear all the expenses of the administration of Provident Fund and also make good any other
loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any other reason.
7.
Any deficiency in the interest declared by the Board of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to bring it
up to the statutory limit.
8.
The employer shall display on the notice board of the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when amended thereto along with a translation in the language of the
majority of the employees.
9.
The rate of contributions payable, the conditions and quantum of advances and other matters laid down under
the provident fund rules of the establishment and the interest credited to the account of each member, calculated on the
monthly running balance of the member and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower than those declared by
the Central Government under the various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme framed thereunder.
10.
Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of the Trust.
11.
No amendment in the rules shall be made by the employer without the prior approval of the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give a reasonable
opportunity to the employees to explain their point of view.
12.
All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
13.
The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal and
interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance of such records should preferably be done electronically. The
establishments should periodically transmit the details of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed by the
Central Provident Commissioner/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
2136
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
14.
The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual statement of accounts or pass books to every employee within six
months of the close of financial/accounting year free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be made
available as and when the members want, subject to nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain in
custody of employee to be updated periodically by the Trustees when presented to them.
15.
The employer shall make necessary provisions to enable all the members to be able to see their account balance
from the computer terminals as and when required by them.
16.
The Board of Trustees and the employer shall file such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within the specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a default and
the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the Employees’
Provident Fund Organisation.
17.
The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of the provident fund as per the directions of the Government
from time to time. Failure to make investments as per directions of the Government shall make the Board of Trustees
separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or his
representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of Trust. The securities so obtained should be in dematerialized
(DEMAT) form and in case the required facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates the Board of
Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script wise register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India and
Central Government in accordance with the instructions issued by the Central Government in this regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust. Also all
types of cost of investments like brokerage for purchase of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental cost of investment
by the Trust.
19.
All such investments made like purchase of securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody of
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian of the
same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such custodian
shall transfer the investment obtained in the name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional PF
Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that effect.
20.
The establishment shall intimate to the Regional P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government), with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments made
in the name of trust, viz., investments made in securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the Board of Trustees
may raise such sum of sums of money as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such as settlement of claims,
grant of advances as per rules and transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/her leaving service of the
employer and any other receipts by sale of the securities or other investments standing in the name of the Fund subject to
the prior approval of the Regional PF Commissioner.
21.
Any commission, incentive, bonus or other pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other institutions for
the investments made by the Trust should be credited to its account.
22.
The employer and the members of the Board of Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to abide
by the conditions and this shall be legally binding on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their successors
and assignees.
23.
The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within the
time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally binding on
them and will make them liable for prosecution in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a qualified
independent chartered accountant annually. Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right to have the
accounts re-audited by any other qualified auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the audited balance sheet should be submitted to this office by the Auditors
directly within six months after the closing of the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The format of the balance
sheet and the information to be furnished in the report shall be prescribed by the Employees’ Provident fund
Organisation and made available with the RPFC office in electronic format as well as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation withdrawn
from the first day of the next succeeding financial year.
25.
Any loss for the three consecutive financial years or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding financial year.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2137
26.
The employer shall provide for such facilities for inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central
Government may from time to time direct under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15 days
from the close of every month.
27.
In the event of any violation of the conditions for grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of Trustees,
the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned persons.
28.
In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc. the
employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29.
In case of any change of legal status of the establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition, sale,
amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand revoked
and the establishment should promptly report the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30.
In case there are more than one unit/establishment participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all the
trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/responsible for any default committed by any of the trustees/employer of
any of the participating units and the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the trustees of the common
Provident Fund Trust.
31. In case of takeover of the exempted Trust Fund, estimated net present value of the loss due to differential interest
should be recovered from the establishment.
32.
The Central Government may lay down further conditions for continuation of exemption of the establishment
and the establishment shall be bound to comply with these additional conditions as and when the same are
communicated.
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.940
940
940
940.—tcfd eSllZ vkbZohih fyfeVsM ¼ckaæk {ks= esa dksM la[;k ,e,p@ch,,u@885 ds varxZr½
¼,rnqijkar izfr"Bku ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k vkSj izdh.kZ mica/k vf/kfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½ ¼,rnqijkar
vf/kfu;e ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ dh /kkjk 17 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA
2.
और जबक केीय सरकार के िवचार म, अंशदान क दर के संबंध म उ ितान के भिवय िनिध िनयम उ अिधिनयम क
धारा 6 म िविनद िनयम क तुलना म कमचारय के िलए कम उपयु नह# ह$ और कमचारी उ अिधिनयम अथवा कमचारी भिवय
िनिध योजना, 1952 (एतदुपरांत योजना के %प म संद(भत) के अंतगत सदृश +व%प के कसी अय ितान म कमचारय के संबंध म दी
जाने वाली अय भिवय िनिध सुिवधा- का भी लाभ उठा रहे ह$।
3.
अत:, अब, के सरकार, उ अिधिनयम क धारा 17 क उप धारा (1) के ख0ड (क) 2ारा द3 शिय का योग करते 6ए,
इस अिधसूचना के साथ सल9 शत: के अ;याधीन उ ितान को अगली अिधसूचना तक 01.05.2010 से उ योजना के सभी उपबंध
के भाव से छूट दान करती है।
[सं. एस-35015/13/2015-एसएस-II]
सुभाष कुमार, अवर सिचव
अनुबं
अनुबं
अनुबं
अनुबंध
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ िवय
िवय
िवय
िवय िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
1.
िनयोा समय-समय पर केीय सरकार अथवा केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु, जैसी भी िथित हो, ारा दए जाने
वाले ऐसे िनदेश$ के अनुसार भ िवय िनिध के %बंधन हेतु अपनी अ(य)ता म* एक यासी बोड, ग .ठत करेगा। भ िवय िनिध
यासी बोड, म* िविहत होगी जो अय बात$ के साथ-साथ कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध संगठन के % ित भ िवय िनिध म* %ा ि2य$ और
उसम* से भुगतान के उ िचत लेख$ और उनक7 अ िभर)ा म* शेष रा िश के िलए उ9रदायी होगा। इस %योजनाथ, " िनयोा" से:-
(i) कसी % ित;ान, जो एक कारखाना हो, उसके संबंध म*, कारखाने का वामी अथवा अ िध;ाता अ िभ%ेत होगा; और
(ii) कसी अय % ित;ान के संबंध म*, वह < ि, अथवा %ा िधकारी अ िभ%ेत होगा, िजसका उस % ित;ान के कामकाज
पर अं ितम िनयं=ण हो।
2.
यासी बोड, हरेक ितमाही म* कम से कम एक बार बैठक करेगा और वह के सरकार/केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु
(सीपीएफसी) अथवा उसके ारा %ा िधकृत कसी अ िधकारी ारा समय-समय पर जारी कए जाने वाले दशा िनदCश$ के
अनुसार काय, करेगा।
2138
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
अ िधिनयम क7 धारा 2(च) म* यथा प .रभा िषत सभी कम,चारी, जो भ िवय िनिध के सदय बनने के पा= रह* हE, य द
% ित;ान को छूट %दान नहI क7 होती, उह* सदय$ के `प म* नामां कत कया जाएगा।
4.
जहां कोई कम,चारी जो पहले ही कसी अय छूट-%ा2 % ित;ान के कसी कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध अथवा भ िवय
िनिध का सदय हो, उसे उसके % ित;ान म* िनयो िजत कया जाता है, तो िनयोा उसे तLकाल िनिध के सदय के Jप म*
नामां कत करेगा। िनयोा ऐसे कम,चारी के भ िवय िनिध खाते म* उसके पहले िनयोा से संचय रा िशयां अंत .रत और जमा
करवाने क7 भी <वथा करेगा।
5.
िनयोा भ िवय िनिध को उसके ारा और कम,चारी के ारा समय—समय पर अ िधिनयम के अंतग,त िनधा, .रत दर
से देय अंशदान को, िजस माह के िलए अंशदान देय ह$ उसके बाद के माह क7 15 तारीख तक यासी बोड, को अंत .रत करेगा।
िनयोा यासी बोड, को कही देय$ के भुगतान म* कसी िवलPब के िलए अ िधिनयम क7 धारा 7 थ के उपबंध$ के अनुसार
साधारण Rयाज अदा करने का दायी होगा।
6.
िनयोा भ िवय िनिध के %शासन के सभी <य वहन करेगा और चोरी, डकैती, गबन, दु Sव िनयोग अथवा कसी
अय कारण से भ िवय िनिध को हो सकने वाले कसी घाटे क7 भी भरपाई करेगा।
7.
यासी बोड, ारा घो िषत Rयाज म* कसी कमी को भी िनयोा ारा पूरा कया जाना होगा और उसे सां िविधक
सीमा तक लाना होगा।
8.
िनयोा जब कभी िनयम संशो िधत कए जाएं, समु िचत %ा िधकारी ारा यथा अनुमो दत, िनिध के िनयम$ क7 एक
% ित अ िधसंUयक कम,चा .रय$ क7 भाषा म* उनके अनुवाद स िहत % ित;ान के सूचना पट पर %द Sशत करेगा।
9.
% ित;ान के भ िवय िनिध िनयम$ के अंतग,त िनधा, .रत देय अंशदान क7 दर, अ िVम क7 शतW और मा=ा तथा अय
मामले और सदय के मा िसक चालू शेष पर संग िणत और यासी बोड, ारा घो िषत, %Lयेक सदय के खाते म* जमा कया गया
Rयाज, अ िधिनयम और उसके अंतग,त िनSमत योजना म* िनधा, .रत िविभX उपबंध$ के अंतग,त के सरकार ारा घो िषत दर से
कम नहI होगा।
10.
योजना म* कोई संशोधन, जो % ित;ान के िवYमान िनयम$ क7 तुलना म* कम,चा .रय$ के िलए अ िधक लाभदा यक हो,
उसे यास के िनयम$ म* औपचा .रक संशोधन के लं िबत रहते उन पर वत: लागू कया जाएगा।
11.
िनयोा ारा िनयम$ म* कोई भी संशोधन )े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु के पूव, अनुमोदन के िबना नहI कया
जाएगा। )े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु अपना अनुमोदन देने से पूव, कम,चा .रय$ को अपना Jख प[ करने का वा िजब अवसर
देगा।
12.
िनकासी, अ िVम और अंतरण के सभी दावे कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध संगठन ारा िनधा, .रत अ िधकतम समय सीमा के
भीतर, शी\ता से िनपटाए जाएंगे।
13.
यासी बोड, %Lयेक कम,चारी के संबंध म* जमा कए गए अंशदान, िनकासी और Rयाज दशा,ने के िलए िवत .रत लेख$
का रख-रखाव करेगा। ऐसे अ िभलेख$ का रख-रखाव अ िधमानत: इलै]^ो िनक Jप से रखा जाएगा। % ित;ान आव िधक Jप से
जब कभी केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु/)े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु ारा िनदेश दया जाए, सदय$ के लेख$ को इलै]^ॉ िनक
Jप से सP%े िषत कर*गे।
14.
यासी बोड, वष, म* एक बार िव9ीय/लेखा वष, के समा2 होने के छ: माह के भीतर %Lयेक कम,चारी को िन:शुaक लेख$
का वा Sषक िववरण अथवा पासबुक जारी करेगा। जब कभी सदय चाह*, अ ित.र b%टऑउट नाममा= के %भार के साथ
उपलRध कराए जा सकते हE। पासबुक के मामले म* वह कम,चारी के पास रहेगी िजसे %तुत कए जाने पर या िसय$ ारा
आव िधक Jप से अYतन कया जाएगा।
15.
िनयोा सभी सदय$ को उनक7 आवdयकतानुसार कPeयूटर टSमनल$ से अपने खाते म* पड़ी शेष रािश को देखने के
समथ, बनाने के िलए आवdयक %ावधान कर*गे।
16.
यासी बोड, और िनयोा कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा यथा िविहत `प म* ये िववरिणयां िविनfद[ समय
सीमा के भीतर मािसक/वाSषक `प से दायर कर*गे, िजसे न करने पर इसे चूक माना जाएगा तथा यासी बोड, और िनयोा
संयु `प से और अलग-अलग, कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा क7 जाने वाली उपयु दािgडक कार,वाई के भागी ह$गे।
17.
यासी बोड, समय-समय पर सरकार के िनदCश$ के अनुसार भिवय िनिध के पैसे का िनवेश करेगा। सरकार के िनदCश$
के अनुसार िनवेश करने म* असफल होने पर यासी बोड, अलग-अलग और संयु `प से केीय भिवय िनिध आयु या
उसके %ितिनिध ारा यथा अिधरोिपत अिधशुaक का भागी बन जाएगा।
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2139
18.
(क) %ितभूितयां यास के नाम से %ा2 क7 जाएंगी। इस %कार %ा2 क7 गई %ितभूितयां अभौितक (डीमेट) `प म*
होनी चािहए तथा यास के काय,चािलत रहने वाले )े=$ म* अपेि)त सुिवधा के उपलRध न होने क7 िथित म* यासी बोड,
संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को इसक7 सूचना द*गे।
(ख) यासी बोड, िलिप-वार रिजटर बनाएगा तथा Rयाज क7 समय पर उगाही सुिनिiत करेगा।
(ग) डीमेट खाता इस संबंध म* केीय सरकार ारा जारी अनुदेश$ के अनुसार भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय
सरकार ारा अनुमो दत िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$ के मा(यम से खोला जाए।
(घ) डीमेट खाते का खच, यास ारा कए जाने वाले िनवेश का %ासंिगक <य <य माना जाए। %ितभूितय$ आ द
क7 खरीद क7 दलाली जैसे िनवेश$ के सभी %कार के खचj को भी यास ारा कए जाने वाले िनवेश का %ासंिगक <य माना
जाएगा।
19.
%ितभूितय$ और बाgड$ क7 खरीद जैसे ऐसे सभी िनवेश भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय सरकार ारा अनुमो दत
िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$ क7 सुर)ा अिभर)ा म* दज, कए जाएं, जो इसके संर)क ह$गे। थापना क7 बंदी या प.रसमापन या
कम,चारी भिवय िनिध, 1952 से छूट पर यह संर)क, यास के नाम पर %ा2 तथा अपने जमा म* पड़े िनवेश को संबंिधत
)े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु के, इस आशय के, अनुरोध पर संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को सीधे अंत.रत करेगा।
20.
थापना संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को उन िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$(भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय
सरकार ारा अनुमो दत) के िववरण से सूिचत करेगी, िजनके पास तथा िजनक7 सुर)ा अिभर)ा म* यास के नाम पर कए
गए िनवेश अथा,त %ितभूितय$, बाgड$ आ द म* कए गए िनवेश दज, कए गए हE। तथािप, यासी बोड, उस धनरािश क7 उगाही
कर सकता है, जो दाव$ के िनपटान, िनयमानुसार अिVम$ क7 मंजूरी और िनयोा क7 सेवा छोड़ने क7 िथित म* सदय के
भिवय िनिध संचयन के अंतरण और %ितभूितय$ क7 िबm7 ारा अय कसी %ाि2य$ अथवा )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु के
पूव, अनुमोदन के शता,धीन िनिध के नाम म* पड़े अय िनवेश$ जैसे बा(यकारी <य$ को पूरा करने के िलए अपेि)त ह$।
21.
यास ारा कए गए िनवेश$ के िलए कसी िव9ीय या अय संथाn ारा दए जाने वाले कसी कमीशन,
%ोLसाहन, बोनस या अय आSथक लाभ इसके खाते म* डाले जाएं।
22.
िनयोा और यासी बोड, के सदय शतj का पालन करने क7 सहमित देते oए िलिखत वचन द*गे तथा यह वैिधक `प
से िनयोा और यासी बोड, के उ9रािधका.रय$ और समनुदेिशत$ पर उनके साथ-साथ बा(यकारी होगा।
23.
िनयोा और यासी बोड, छूट के रp होने क7 िथित म* संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु ारा िविहत समय
सीमा के भीतर तLकाल िनिधय$ का अंतरण करने का वचन भी देगा। यह उन पर कानूनी `प से बा(यकारी होगा तथा उह*
िनिधय$ के अंतरण म* कोई िवलंब होने क7 िथित म* अिभयोजन का भागी बनाएगा।
24.
(क) यासी बोड, ारा अनुरि)त भिवय िनिध खाता कसी योqय वतं= चाट,ड, लेखाकार ारा वाSषक `प से लेखा-
परी)ा करने के शता,धीन होगा। जहां भी आवdयक समझा जाए, वहां कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन को अिधकार होगा क
यह कसी अय योqय लेखा-परी)क ारा खात$ क7 लेखा-परी)ा कराए तथा इस %कार oए खच, िनयोा ारा वहन कए
जाएंगे।
(ख) लेखा-परी)क$ ारा िव9ीय वष, अथा,त 1 अ%ैल से 31 माच, तक क7 समाि2 के बाद छह महीने के भीतर लेखा-
परी)ीत तुलन-प= सिहत लेखा-परी)क क7 .रपोट, क7 %ित सीधे इस काया,लय म* %तुत क7 जाए। तुलन-प= का %ा`प और
इस .रपोट, म* %तुत क7 जाने वाली जानकारी कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा िनधा,.रत क7 जाएगी तथा संबंिधत )े=ीय
भिवय िनिध आयु के काया,लय म* इलै]^ॉिनक %ा`प के साथ हता).रत %ितिलिप म* उपलRध कराई जाएगी।
(ग) एक ही लेखा-परी)क$ को लगातार दो वष, के िलए तथा अगले िव9ीय वष, के पहले दन से िमली छूट से अिधक
के िलए िनयु न कया जाए।
25.
लगातार तीन िव9ीय वषj तक कोई हािन या पूंजी आधार म* कटौती को अगले िव9ीय वष, के पहले दन से िमली
छूट %ा2 होगी।
26.
िनयोा %Lयेक माह क7 समाि2 से 15 दन के भीतर िनरी)ण हेतु ऐसी सुिवधाn का %ावधान करेगा तथा ऐसे
िनरी)ण %भार$ का भुगतान करेगा जो केीय सरकार ारा अिधिनयम क7 धारा 17 के उप-खgड (3) के खgड(क) के अंतग,त
समय-समय पर दए िनदCश$ के अनुसार ह$।
27.
यासी बोड, या िनयो ारा छूट देने के िलए शतj के कसी उaलंघन क7 िथित म* दी गई छूट संबंिधत <ि को
इस संबंध म* कारण बताओ नो.टस जारी करने के बाद रp कर दी जाएगी।
2140
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
28.
कसी भी धोखे, गबन, गलत िनवेश िनण,य$ आ द के फलव`प ^ट को oए कसी भी नुकसान क7 िथित म*
िनयोा नुकसान पूरा करने का भागी होगा।
29.
कसी िवलय, अिवलय, अिभVहण, िबm7, एक7करण, सहायक कंपनी का गठन चाहे पूण,त: वािमLव वाली हो या
नहI इLया द के फलव`प य द %ित;ान क7 कानूनी िथित म* कोई भी बदलाव होता है तो दी गई छूट िनरत होगी एवं
%ित;ान को तुरंत नई छूट देने के िलए मामले क7 .रपोट, करनी चािहए।
30.
एक ही भिवय िनिध ^ट म* एक से अिधक इकाई/%ित;ान$ के भाग लेने क7 िथित म* भाग लेने वाली इकाईय$ के
कसी भी ^टी/िनयोा ारा कोई भी चूक होने पर सभी ^टी संयु `प से एवं अलग से िजPमेदार/उ9रदायी ह$गे और
आरपीएफसी आम भिवय िनिध ^ट के सभी यािसय$ के िव`u उपयु कानूनी कार,वाई करेगा।
31. छूट %ा2 यास िनिध के अिधVहण के मामले म*, अंतरीय Rयाज के कारण हािन के अनुमािनत िनवल वत,मान मूaय क7
वसूली %ित;ान से क7 जानी चािहए।
32.
के सरकार ितान क छूट क िनरंतरता के िलए शत को बढ़ा सकती है और जब भी इनको सं ेिषत
"कया जाएगा ये ितान इन अित&र' शत का अनुपालन करने के िलए बा*य ह+गे।
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2016
S.O.940 .— Whereas M/s. IVP Limited [under Code No. MH/BAN/885 in Bandra region] (hereinafter referred
to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Employees’
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2.
And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment
with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in section 6 of
the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or
under the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in relation to the
employees in any other establishment of similar character.
3.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said Act
and subject to the conditions annexed with this notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the said
establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 01.05.2010 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/13/2015-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1.
The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees under his Chairmanship for the management of the Provident
Fund according to such directions as may be given by the Central Government or the Central Provident Fund
Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time. The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees who will
be responsible for and accountable to the Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for proper accounts of
the receipts into and payment from the Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For this purpose, the
“employer” shall mean:-
(i) In relation to an establishment, which is a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory: and
(ii) In relation to any other establishment, the person who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control over the affairs
of the establishment.
2.
The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in every three months and shall function in accordance with the
guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the Central Government/Central Provident Fund
Commissioner(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3.
All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the act, who have been eligible to become members of the
Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4.
Where an employee who is already a member of Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any other
exempted establishment is employed in his establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him as a member of the
fund. The employer should also arrange to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account of such employee
with his previous employer transferred and credited into his account.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2141
5.
The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself
and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from time to time by the 15th of each month following the month for
which the contributions are payable. The employer shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of
Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6
The employer shall bear all the expenses of the administration of Provident Fund and also make good any other
loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any other reason.
7.
Any deficiency in the interest declared by the Board of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to bring it
up to the statutory limit.
8.
The employer shall display on the notice board of the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when amended thereto along with a translation in the language of the
majority of the employees.
9.
The rate of contributions payable, the conditions and quantum of advances and other matters laid down under
the provident fund rules of the establishment and the interest credited to the account of each member, calculated on the
monthly running balance of the member and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower than those declared by
the Central Government under the various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme framed thereunder.
10.
Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of the Trust.
11.
No amendment in the rules shall be made by the employer without the prior approval of the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give a reasonable
opportunity to the employees to explain their point of view.
12.
All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
13.
The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal and
interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance of such records should preferably be done electronically. The
establishments should periodically transmit the details of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed by the
Central Provident Commissioner/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
14.
The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual statement of accounts or pass books to every employee within six
months of the close of financial/accounting year free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be made
available as and when the members want, subject to nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain in
custody of employee to be updated periodically by the Trustees when presented to them.
15.
The employer shall make necessary provisions to enable all the members to be able to see their account balance
from the computer terminals as and when required by them.
16.
The Board of Trustees and the employer shall file such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within the specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a default and
the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the Employees’
Provident Fund Organisation.
17.
The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of the provident fund as per the directions of the Government
from time to time. Failure to make investments as per directions of the Government shall make the Board of Trustees
separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or his
representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of Trust. The securities so obtained should be in dematerialized
(DEMAT) form and in case the required facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates the Board of
Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script wise register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India and
Central Government in accordance with the instructions issued by the Central Government in this regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust. Also all
types of cost of investments like brokerage for purchase of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental cost of investment
by the Trust.
19.
All such investments made like purchase of securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody of
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian of the
same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such custodian
2142
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
shall transfer the investment obtained in the name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional PF
Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that effect.
20.
The establishment shall intimate to the Regional P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government), with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments made
in the name of trust, viz., investments made in securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the Board of Trustees
may raise such sum of sums of money as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such as settlement of claims,
grant of advances as per rules and transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/her leaving service of the
employer and any other receipts by sale of the securities or other investments standing in the name of the Fund subject to
the prior approval of the Regional PF Commissioner.
21.
Any commission, incentive, bonus or other pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other institutions for
the investments made by the Trust should be credited to its account.
22.
The employer and the members of the Board of Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to abide
by the conditions and this shall be legally binding on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their successors
and assignees.
23.
The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within the
time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally binding on
them and will make them liable for prosecution in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a qualified
independent chartered accountant annually. Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right to have the
accounts re-audited by any other qualified auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the audited balance sheet should be submitted to this office by the Auditors
directly within six months after the closing of the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The format of the balance
sheet and the information to be furnished in the report shall be prescribed by the Employees’ Provident fund
Organisation and made available with the RPFC office in electronic format as well as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation withdrawn
from the first day of the next succeeding financial year.
25.
Any loss for the three consecutive financial years or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding financial year.
26.
The employer shall provide for such facilities for inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central
Government may from time to time direct under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15 days
from the close of every month.
27.
In the event of any violation of the conditions for grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of Trustees,
the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned persons.
28.
In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc. the
employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29.
In case of any change of legal status of the establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition, sale,
amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand revoked
and the establishment should promptly report the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30.
In case there are more than one unit/establishment participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all the
trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/responsible for any default committed by any of the trustees/employer of
any of the participating units and the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the trustees of the common
Provident Fund Trust.
31. In case of takeover of the exempted Trust Fund, estimated net present value of the loss due to differential interest
should be recovered from the establishment.
32.
The Central Government may lay down further conditions for continuation of exemption of the establishment
and the establishment shall be bound to comply with these additional conditions as and when the same are
communicated.
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.941
941
941
941.—tcfd eSllZ fgUnqLrku ,;jksukWfVdYl fyfeVsM ¼bykgkckn mi{ks= esa dksM la[;k ;wih@11867 ds
varxZr½ ¼,rnqijkar izfr"Bku ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k vkSj izdh.kZ mica/k vf/kfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½
¼,rnqijkar vf/kfu;e ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ dh /kkjk 17 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k
gSA
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2143
2.
और जबक केीय सरकार के िवचार म, अंशदान क दर के संबंध म उ ितान के भिवय िनिध िनयम उ अिधिनयम क
धारा 6 म िविनद िनयम क तुलना म कमचारय के िलए कम उपयु नह# ह$ और कमचारी उ अिधिनयम अथवा कमचारी भिवय
िनिध योजना, 1952 (एतदुपरांत योजना के %प म संद(भत) के अंतगत सदृश +व%प के कसी अय ितान म कमचारय के संबंध म दी
जाने वाली अय भिवय िनिध सुिवधा- का भी लाभ उठा रहे ह$।
3.
अत:, अब, के सरकार, उ अिधिनयम क धारा 17 क उप धारा (1) के ख0ड (क) 2ारा द3 शिय का योग करते 6ए,
इस अिधसूचना के साथ सल9 शत: के अ;याधीन उ ितान को अगली अिधसूचना तक 15.11.1984 से उ योजना के सभी उपबंध
के भाव से छूट दान करती है।
[सं. एस-35015/107/2014-एसएस-II]
सुभाष कुमार, अवर सिचव
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ िवय
िवय
िवय
िवय िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
1.
िनयोा समय-समय पर केीय सरकार अथवा केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु, जैसी भी िथित हो, ारा दए जाने
वाले ऐसे िनदेश$ के अनुसार भ िवय िनिध के %बंधन हेतु अपनी अ(य)ता म* एक यासी बोड, ग .ठत करेगा। भ िवय िनिध
यासी बोड, म* िविहत होगी जो अय बात$ के साथ-साथ कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध संगठन के % ित भ िवय िनिध म* %ा ि2य$ और
उसम* से भुगतान के उ िचत लेख$ और उनक7 अ िभर)ा म* शेष रा िश के िलए उ9रदायी होगा। इस %योजनाथ, " िनयोा" से:-
(i) कसी % ित;ान, जो एक कारखाना हो, उसके संबंध म*, कारखाने का वामी अथवा अ िध;ाता अ िभ%ेत होगा; और
(ii) कसी अय % ित;ान के संबंध म*, वह < ि, अथवा %ा िधकारी अ िभ%ेत होगा, िजसका उस % ित;ान के कामकाज
पर अं ितम िनयं=ण हो।
2.
यासी बोड, हरेक ितमाही म* कम से कम एक बार बैठक करेगा और वह के सरकार/केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु
(सीपीएफसी) अथवा उसके ारा %ा िधकृत कसी अ िधकारी ारा समय-समय पर जारी कए जाने वाले दशा िनदCश$ के
अनुसार काय, करेगा।
3.
अ िधिनयम क7 धारा 2(च) म* यथा प .रभा िषत सभी कम,चारी, जो भ िवय िनिध के सदय बनने के पा= रह* हE, य द
% ित;ान को छूट %दान नहI क7 होती, उह* सदय$ के Jप म* नामां कत कया जाएगा।
4.
जहां कोई कम,चारी जो पहले ही कसी अय छूट-%ा2 % ित;ान के कसी कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध अथवा भ िवय
िनिध का सदय हो, उसे उसके % ित;ान म* िनयो िजत कया जाता है, तो िनयोा उसे तLकाल िनिध के सदय के Jप म*
नामां कत करेगा। िनयोा ऐसे कम,चारी के भ िवय िनिध खाते म* उसके पहले िनयोा से संचय रा िशयां अंत .रत और जमा
करवाने क7 भी <वथा करेगा।
5.
िनयोा भ िवय िनिध को उसके ारा और कम,चारी के ारा समय—समय पर अ िधिनयम के अंतग,त िनधा, .रत दर
से देय अंशदान को, िजस माह के िलए अंशदान देय ह$ उसके बाद के माह क7 15 तारीख तक यासी बोड, को अंत .रत करेगा।
िनयोा यासी बोड, को कही देय$ के भुगतान म* कसी िवलPब के िलए अ िधिनयम क7 धारा 7 थ के उपबंध$ के अनुसार
साधारण Rयाज अदा करने का दायी होगा।
6.
िनयोा भ िवय िनिध के %शासन के सभी <य वहन करेगा और चोरी, डकैती, गबन, दु Sव िनयोग अथवा कसी
अय कारण से भ िवय िनिध को हो सकने वाले कसी घाटे क7 भी भरपाई करेगा।
7.
यासी बोड, ारा घो िषत Rयाज म* कसी कमी को भी िनयोा ारा पूरा कया जाना होगा और उसे सां िविधक
सीमा तक लाना होगा।
8.
िनयोा जब कभी िनयम संशो िधत कए जाएं, समु िचत %ा िधकारी ारा यथा अनुमो दत, िनिध के िनयम$ क7 एक
% ित अ िधसंUयक कम,चा .रय$ क7 भाषा म* उनके अनुवाद स िहत % ित;ान के सूचना पट पर %द Sशत करेगा।
2144
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9.
% ित;ान के भ िवय िनिध िनयम$ के अंतग,त िनधा, .रत देय अंशदान क7 दर, अ िVम क7 शतW और मा=ा तथा अय
मामले और सदय के मा िसक चालू शेष पर संग िणत और यासी बोड, ारा घो िषत, %Lयेक सदय के खाते म* जमा कया गया
Rयाज, अ िधिनयम और उसके अंतग,त िनSमत योजना म* िनधा, .रत िविभX उपबंध$ के अंतग,त के सरकार ारा घो िषत दर से
कम नहI होगा।
10.
योजना म* कोई संशोधन, जो % ित;ान के िवYमान िनयम$ क7 तुलना म* कम,चा .रय$ के िलए अ िधक लाभदा यक हो,
उसे यास के िनयम$ म* औपचा .रक संशोधन के लं िबत रहते उन पर वत: लागू कया जाएगा।
11.
िनयोा ारा िनयम$ म* कोई भी संशोधन )े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु के पूव, अनुमोदन के िबना नहI कया
जाएगा। )े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु अपना अनुमोदन देने से पूव, कम,चा .रय$ को अपना Jख प[ करने का वा िजब अवसर
देगा।
12.
िनकासी, अ िVम और अंतरण के सभी दावे कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध संगठन ारा िनधा, .रत अ िधकतम समय सीमा के
भीतर, शी\ता से िनपटाए जाएंगे।
13.
यासी बोड, %Lयेक कम,चारी के संबंध म* जमा कए गए अंशदान, िनकासी और Rयाज दशा,ने के िलए िवत .रत लेख$
का रख-रखाव करेगा। ऐसे अ िभलेख$ का रख-रखाव अ िधमानत: इलै]^ो िनक Jप से रखा जाएगा। % ित;ान आव िधक Jप से
जब कभी केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु/)े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु ारा िनदेश दया जाए, सदय$ के लेख$ को इलै]^ॉ िनक
Jप से सP%े िषत कर*गे।
14.
यासी बोड, वष, म* एक बार िव9ीय/लेखा वष, के समा2 होने के छ: माह के भीतर %Lयेक कम,चारी को िन:शुaक लेख$
का वा Sषक िववरण अथवा पासबुक जारी करेगा। जब कभी सदय चाह*, अ ित.र b%टऑउट नाममा= के %भार के साथ
उपलRध कराए जा सकते हE। पासबुक के मामले म* वह कम,चारी के पास रहेगी िजसे %तुत कए जाने पर या िसय$ ारा
आव िधक Jप से अYतन कया जाएगा।
15.
िनयोा सभी सदय$ को उनक7 आवdयकतानुसार कPeयूटर टSमनल$ से अपने खाते म* पड़ी शेष रािश को देखने के
समथ, बनाने के िलए आवdयक %ावधान कर*गे।
16.
यासी बोड, और िनयोा कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा यथा िविहत `प म* ये िववरिणयां िविनfद[ समय
सीमा के भीतर मािसक/वाSषक `प से दायर कर*गे, िजसे न करने पर इसे चूक माना जाएगा तथा यासी बोड, और िनयोा
संयु `प से और अलग-अलग, कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा क7 जाने वाली उपयु दािgडक कार,वाई के भागी ह$गे।
17.
यासी बोड, समय-समय पर सरकार के िनदCश$ के अनुसार भिवय िनिध के पैसे का िनवेश करेगा। सरकार के िनदCश$
के अनुसार िनवेश करने म* असफल होने पर यासी बोड, अलग-अलग और संयु `प से केीय भिवय िनिध आयु या
उसके %ितिनिध ारा यथा अिधरोिपत अिधशुaक का भागी बन जाएगा।
18.
(क) %ितभूितयां यास के नाम से %ा2 क7 जाएंगी। इस %कार %ा2 क7 गई %ितभूितयां अभौितक (डीमेट) `प म*
होनी चािहए तथा यास के काय,चािलत रहने वाले )े=$ म* अपेि)त सुिवधा के उपलRध न होने क7 िथित म* यासी बोड,
संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को इसक7 सूचना द*गे।
(ख) यासी बोड, िलिप-वार रिजटर बनाएगा तथा Rयाज क7 समय पर उगाही सुिनिiत करेगा।
(ग) डीमेट खाता इस संबंध म* केीय सरकार ारा जारी अनुदेश$ के अनुसार भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय
सरकार ारा अनुमो दत िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$ के मा(यम से खोला जाए।
(घ) डीमेट खाते का खच, यास ारा कए जाने वाले िनवेश का %ासंिगक <य <य माना जाए। %ितभूितय$ आ द
क7 खरीद क7 दलाली जैसे िनवेश$ के सभी %कार के खचj को भी यास ारा कए जाने वाले िनवेश का %ासंिगक <य माना
जाएगा।
19.
%ितभूितय$ और बाgड$ क7 खरीद जैसे ऐसे सभी िनवेश भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय सरकार ारा अनुमो दत
िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$ क7 सुर)ा अिभर)ा म* दज, कए जाएं, जो इसके संर)क ह$गे। थापना क7 बंदी या प.रसमापन या
कम,चारी भिवय िनिध, 1952 से छूट पर यह संर)क, यास के नाम पर %ा2 तथा अपने जमा म* पड़े िनवेश को संबंिधत
)े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु के, इस आशय के, अनुरोध पर संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को सीधे अंत.रत करेगा।
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2145
20.
थापना संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को उन िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$(भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय
सरकार ारा अनुमो दत) के िववरण से सूिचत करेगी, िजनके पास तथा िजनक7 सुर)ा अिभर)ा म* यास के नाम पर कए
गए िनवेश अथा,त %ितभूितय$, बाgड$ आ द म* कए गए िनवेश दज, कए गए हE। तथािप, यासी बोड, उस धनरािश क7 उगाही
कर सकता है, जो दाव$ के िनपटान, िनयमानुसार अिVम$ क7 मंजूरी और िनयोा क7 सेवा छोड़ने क7 िथित म* सदय के
भिवय िनिध संचयन के अंतरण और %ितभूितय$ क7 िबm7 ारा अय कसी %ाि2य$ अथवा )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु के
पूव, अनुमोदन के शता,धीन िनिध के नाम म* पड़े अय िनवेश$ जैसे बा(यकारी <य$ को पूरा करने के िलए अपेि)त ह$।
21.
यास ारा कए गए िनवेश$ के िलए कसी िव9ीय या अय संथाn ारा दए जाने वाले कसी कमीशन,
%ोLसाहन, बोनस या अय आSथक लाभ इसके खाते म* डाले जाएं।
22.
िनयोा और यासी बोड, के सदय शतj का पालन करने क7 सहमित देते oए िलिखत वचन द*गे तथा यह वैिधक `प
से िनयोा और यासी बोड, के उ9रािधका.रय$ और समनुदेिशत$ पर उनके साथ-साथ बा(यकारी होगा।
23.
िनयोा और यासी बोड, छूट के रp होने क7 िथित म* संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु ारा िविहत समय
सीमा के भीतर तLकाल िनिधय$ का अंतरण करने का वचन भी देगा। यह उन पर कानूनी `प से बा(यकारी होगा तथा उह*
िनिधय$ के अंतरण म* कोई िवलंब होने क7 िथित म* अिभयोजन का भागी बनाएगा।
24.
(क) यासी बोड, ारा अनुरि)त भिवय िनिध खाता कसी योqय वतं= चाट,ड, लेखाकार ारा वाSषक `प से लेखा-
परी)ा करने के शता,धीन होगा। जहां भी आवdयक समझा जाए, वहां कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन को अिधकार होगा क
यह कसी अय योqय लेखा-परी)क ारा खात$ क7 लेखा-परी)ा कराए तथा इस %कार oए खच, िनयोा ारा वहन कए
जाएंगे।
(ख) लेखा-परी)क$ ारा िव9ीय वष, अथा,त 1 अ%ैल से 31 माच, तक क7 समाि2 के बाद छह महीने के भीतर लेखा-
परी)ीत तुलन-प= सिहत लेखा-परी)क क7 .रपोट, क7 %ित सीधे इस काया,लय म* %तुत क7 जाए। तुलन-प= का %ा`प और
इस .रपोट, म* %तुत क7 जाने वाली जानकारी कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा िनधा,.रत क7 जाएगी तथा संबंिधत )े=ीय
भिवय िनिध आयु के काया,लय म* इलै]^ॉिनक %ा`प के साथ हता).रत %ितिलिप म* उपलRध कराई जाएगी।
(ग) एक ही लेखा-परी)क$ को लगातार दो वष, के िलए तथा अगले िव9ीय वष, के पहले दन से िमली छूट से अिधक
के िलए िनयु न कया जाए।
25.
लगातार तीन िव9ीय वषj तक कोई हािन या पूंजी आधार म* कटौती को अगले िव9ीय वष, के पहले दन से िमली
छूट %ा2 होगी।
26.
िनयोा %Lयेक माह क7 समाि2 से 15 दन के भीतर िनरी)ण हेतु ऐसी सुिवधाn का %ावधान करेगा तथा ऐसे
िनरी)ण %भार$ का भुगतान करेगा जो केीय सरकार ारा अिधिनयम क7 धारा 17 के उप-खgड (3) के खgड(क) के अंतग,त
समय-समय पर दए िनदCश$ के अनुसार ह$।
27.
यासी बोड, या िनयो ारा छूट देने के िलए शतj के कसी उaलंघन क7 िथित म* दी गई छूट संबंिधत <ि को
इस संबंध म* कारण बताओ नो.टस जारी करने के बाद रp कर दी जाएगी।
28.
कसी भी धोखे, गबन, गलत िनवेश िनण,य$ आ द के फलव`प ^ट को oए कसी भी नुकसान क7 िथित म*
िनयोा नुकसान पूरा करने का भागी होगा।
29.
कसी िवलय, अिवलय, अिभVहण, िबm7, एक7करण, सहायक कंपनी का गठन चाहे पूण,त: वािमLव वाली हो या
नहI इLया द के फलव`प य द %ित;ान क7 कानूनी िथित म* कोई भी बदलाव होता है तो दी गई छूट िनरत होगी एवं
%ित;ान को तुरंत नई छूट देने के िलए मामले क7 .रपोट, करनी चािहए।
30.
एक ही भिवय िनिध ^ट म* एक से अिधक इकाई/%ित;ान$ के भाग लेने क7 िथित म* भाग लेने वाली इकाईय$ के
कसी भी ^टी/िनयोा ारा कोई भी चूक होने पर सभी ^टी संयु `प से एवं अलग से िजPमेदार/उ9रदायी ह$गे और
आरपीएफसी आम भिवय िनिध ^ट के सभी यािसय$ के िव`u उपयु कानूनी कार,वाई करेगा।
31. छूट %ा2 यास िनिध के अिधVहण के मामले म*, अंतरीय Rयाज के कारण हािन के अनुमािनत िनवल वत,मान मूaय क7
वसूली %ित;ान से क7 जानी चािहए।
2146
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
32.
के सरकार ितान क छूट क िनरंतरता के िलए शत को बढ़ा सकती है और जब भी इनको सं ेिषत
"कया जाएगा ये ितान इन अित&र' शत का अनुपालन करने के िलए बा*य ह+गे।
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2016
S.O. 941.— Whereas M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited [under Code No. UP/11867 in Allahabad sub
region] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of
section 17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred
to as the Act).
2.
And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment
with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in section 6 of
the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or
under the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in relation to the
employees in any other establishment of similar character.
3.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said Act
and subject to the conditions annexed with this notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the said
establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 15.11.1984 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/107/2014-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1.
The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees under his Chairmanship for the management of the Provident
Fund according to such directions as may be given by the Central Government or the Central Provident Fund
Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time. The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees who will
be responsible for and accountable to the Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for proper accounts of
the receipts into and payment from the Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For this purpose, the
“employer” shall mean:-
(i) In relation to an establishment, which is a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory: and
(ii) In relation to any other establishment, the person who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control over the affairs
of the establishment.
2.
The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in every three months and shall function in accordance with the
guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the Central Government/Central Provident Fund
Commissioner(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3.
All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the act, who have been eligible to become members of the
Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4.
Where an employee who is already a member of Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any other
exempted establishment is employed in his establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him as a member of the
fund. The employer should also arrange to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account of such employee
with his previous employer transferred and credited into his account.
5.
The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself
and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from time to time by the 15th of each month following the month for
which the contributions are payable. The employer shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of
Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6
The employer shall bear all the expenses of the administration of Provident Fund and also make good any other
loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any other reason.
7.
Any deficiency in the interest declared by the Board of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to bring it
up to the statutory limit.
8.
The employer shall display on the notice board of the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when amended thereto along with a translation in the language of the
majority of the employees.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2147
9.
The rate of contributions payable, the conditions and quantum of advances and other matters laid down under
the provident fund rules of the establishment and the interest credited to the account of each member, calculated on the
monthly running balance of the member and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower than those declared by
the Central Government under the various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme framed thereunder.
10.
Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of the Trust.
11.
No amendment in the rules shall be made by the employer without the prior approval of the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give a reasonable
opportunity to the employees to explain their point of view.
12.
All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
13.
The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal and
interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance of such records should preferably be done electronically. The
establishments should periodically transmit the details of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed by the
Central Provident Commissioner/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
14.
The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual statement of accounts or pass books to every employee within six
months of the close of financial/accounting year free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be made
available as and when the members want, subject to nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain in
custody of employee to be updated periodically by the Trustees when presented to them.
15.
The employer shall make necessary provisions to enable all the members to be able to see their account balance
from the computer terminals as and when required by them.
16.
The Board of Trustees and the employer shall file such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within the specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a default and
the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the Employees’
Provident Fund Organisation.
17.
The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of the provident fund as per the directions of the Government
from time to time. Failure to make investments as per directions of the Government shall make the Board of Trustees
separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or his
representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of Trust. The securities so obtained should be in dematerialized
(DEMAT) form and in case the required facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates the Board of
Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script wise register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India and
Central Government in accordance with the instructions issued by the Central Government in this regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust. Also all
types of cost of investments like brokerage for purchase of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental cost of investment
by the Trust.
19.
All such investments made like purchase of securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody of
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian of the
same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such custodian
shall transfer the investment obtained in the name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional PF
Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that effect.
20.
The establishment shall intimate to the Regional P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government), with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments made
in the name of trust, viz., investments made in securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the Board of Trustees
may raise such sum of sums of money as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such as settlement of claims,
grant of advances as per rules and transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/her leaving service of the
employer and any other receipts by sale of the securities or other investments standing in the name of the Fund subject to
the prior approval of the Regional PF Commissioner.
21.
Any commission, incentive, bonus or other pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other institutions for
the investments made by the Trust should be credited to its account.
2148
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
22.
The employer and the members of the Board of Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to abide
by the conditions and this shall be legally binding on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their successors
and assignees.
23.
The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within the
time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally binding on
them and will make them liable for prosecution in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a qualified
independent chartered accountant annually. Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right to have the
accounts re-audited by any other qualified auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the audited balance sheet should be submitted to this office by the Auditors
directly within six months after the closing of the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The format of the balance
sheet and the information to be furnished in the report shall be prescribed by the Employees’ Provident fund
Organisation and made available with the RPFC office in electronic format as well as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation withdrawn
from the first day of the next succeeding financial year.
25.
Any loss for the three consecutive financial years or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding financial year.
26.
The employer shall provide for such facilities for inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central
Government may from time to time direct under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15 days
from the close of every month.
27.
In the event of any violation of the conditions for grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of Trustees,
the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned persons.
28.
In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc. the
employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29.
In case of any change of legal status of the establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition, sale,
amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand revoked
and the establishment should promptly report the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30.
In case there are more than one unit/establishment participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all the
trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/responsible for any default committed by any of the trustees/employer of
any of the participating units and the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the trustees of the common
Provident Fund Trust.
31. In case of takeover of the exempted Trust Fund, estimated net present value of the loss due to differential interest
should be recovered from the establishment.
32.
The Central Government may lay down further conditions for continuation of exemption of the establishment
and the establishment shall be bound to comply with these additional conditions as and when the same are
communicated.
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.942
942
942
942.—tcfd eSllZ okyse f”kieSustesaV ¼bafM;k½ izk- fyfeVsM ¼dkanhoyh {ks= esa dksM la[;k ,e,p@38271 ds
varxZr½ ¼,rnqijkar izfr"Bku ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k vkSj izdh.kZ mica/k vf/kfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½
¼,rnqijkar vf/kfu;e ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ dh /kkjk 17 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA
2.
और जबक केीय सरकार के िवचार म, अंशदान क दर के संबंध म उ ितान के भिवय िनिध िनयम उ अिधिनयम क
धारा 6 म िविनद िनयम क तुलना म कमचारय के िलए कम उपयु नह# ह$ और कमचारी उ अिधिनयम अथवा कमचारी भिवय
िनिध योजना, 1952 (एतदुपरांत योजना के %प म संद(भत) के अंतगत सदृश +व%प के कसी अय ितान म कमचारय के संबंध म दी
जाने वाली अय भिवय िनिध सुिवधा- का भी लाभ उठा रहे ह$।
3.
अत:, अब, के सरकार, उ अिधिनयम क धारा 17 क उप धारा (1) के ख0ड (क) 2ारा द3 शिय का योग करते 6ए,
इस अिधसूचना के साथ सल9 शत: के अ;याधीन उ ितान को अगली अिधसूचना तक 01.06.1993 से उ योजना के सभी उपबंध
के भाव से छूट दान करती है।
[सं. एस-35015/14/2015-एसएस-II]
सुभाष कुमार, अवर सिचव
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2149
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ िवय
िवय
िवय
िवय िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%
1.
िनयोा समय-समय पर केीय सरकार अथवा केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु, जैसी भी िथित हो, ारा दए जाने
वाले ऐसे िनदेश$ के अनुसार भ िवय िनिध के %बंधन हेतु अपनी अ(य)ता म* एक यासी बोड, ग .ठत करेगा। भ िवय िनिध
यासी बोड, म* िविहत होगी जो अय बात$ के साथ-साथ कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध संगठन के % ित भ िवय िनिध म* %ा ि2य$ और
उसम* से भुगतान के उ िचत लेख$ और उनक7 अ िभर)ा म* शेष रा िश के िलए उ9रदायी होगा। इस %योजनाथ, " िनयोा" से:-
(i) कसी % ित;ान, जो एक कारखाना हो, उसके संबंध म*, कारखाने का वामी अथवा अ िध;ाता अ िभ%ेत होगा; और
(ii) कसी अय % ित;ान के संबंध म*, वह < ि, अथवा %ा िधकारी अ िभ%ेत होगा, िजसका उस % ित;ान के कामकाज
पर अं ितम िनयं=ण हो।
2.
यासी बोड, हरेक ितमाही म* कम से कम एक बार बैठक करेगा और वह के सरकार/केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु
(सीपीएफसी) अथवा उसके ारा %ा िधकृत कसी अ िधकारी ारा समय-समय पर जारी कए जाने वाले दशा िनदCश$ के
अनुसार काय, करेगा।
3.
अ िधिनयम क7 धारा 2(च) म* यथा प .रभा िषत सभी कम,चारी, जो भ िवय िनिध के सदय बनने के पा= रह* हE, य द
% ित;ान को छूट %दान नहI क7 होती, उह* सदय$ के Jप म* नामां कत कया जाएगा।
4.
जहां कोई कम,चारी जो पहले ही कसी अय छूट-%ा2 % ित;ान के कसी कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध अथवा भ िवय
िनिध का सदय हो, उसे उसके % ित;ान म* िनयो िजत कया जाता है, तो िनयोा उसे तLकाल िनिध के सदय के Jप म*
नामां कत करेगा। िनयोा ऐसे कम,चारी के भ िवय िनिध खाते म* उसके पहले िनयोा से संचय रा िशयां अंत .रत और जमा
करवाने क7 भी <वथा करेगा।
5.
िनयोा भ िवय िनिध को उसके ारा और कम,चारी के ारा समय—समय पर अ िधिनयम के अंतग,त िनधा, .रत दर
से देय अंशदान को, िजस माह के िलए अंशदान देय ह$ उसके बाद के माह क7 15 तारीख तक यासी बोड, को अंत .रत करेगा।
िनयोा यासी बोड, को कही देय$ के भुगतान म* कसी िवलPब के िलए अ िधिनयम क7 धारा 7 थ के उपबंध$ के अनुसार
साधारण Rयाज अदा करने का दायी होगा।
6.
िनयोा भ िवय िनिध के %शासन के सभी <य वहन करेगा और चोरी, डकैती, गबन, दु Sव िनयोग अथवा कसी
अय कारण से भ िवय िनिध को हो सकने वाले कसी घाटे क7 भी भरपाई करेगा।
7.
यासी बोड, ारा घो िषत Rयाज म* कसी कमी को भी िनयोा ारा पूरा कया जाना होगा और उसे सां िविधक
सीमा तक लाना होगा।
8.
िनयोा जब कभी िनयम संशो िधत कए जाएं, समु िचत %ा िधकारी ारा यथा अनुमो दत, िनिध के िनयम$ क7 एक
% ित अ िधसंUयक कम,चा .रय$ क7 भाषा म* उनके अनुवाद स िहत % ित;ान के सूचना पट पर %द Sशत करेगा।
9.
% ित;ान के भ िवय िनिध िनयम$ के अंतग,त िनधा, .रत देय अंशदान क7 दर, अ िVम क7 शतW और मा=ा तथा अय
मामले और सदय के मा िसक चालू शेष पर संग िणत और यासी बोड, ारा घो िषत, %Lयेक सदय के खाते म* जमा कया गया
Rयाज, अ िधिनयम और उसके अंतग,त िनSमत योजना म* िनधा, .रत िविभX उपबंध$ के अंतग,त के सरकार ारा घो िषत दर से
कम नहI होगा।
10.
योजना म* कोई संशोधन, जो % ित;ान के िवYमान िनयम$ क7 तुलना म* कम,चा .रय$ के िलए अ िधक लाभदा यक हो,
उसे यास के िनयम$ म* औपचा .रक संशोधन के लं िबत रहते उन पर वत: लागू कया जाएगा।
11.
िनयोा ारा िनयम$ म* कोई भी संशोधन )े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु के पूव, अनुमोदन के िबना नहI कया
जाएगा। )े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु अपना अनुमोदन देने से पूव, कम,चा .रय$ को अपना Jख प[ करने का वा िजब अवसर
देगा।
2150
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
12.
िनकासी, अ िVम और अंतरण के सभी दावे कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध संगठन ारा िनधा, .रत अ िधकतम समय सीमा के
भीतर, शी\ता से िनपटाए जाएंगे।
13.
यासी बोड, %Lयेक कम,चारी के संबंध म* जमा कए गए अंशदान, िनकासी और Rयाज दशा,ने के िलए िवत .रत लेख$
का रख-रखाव करेगा। ऐसे अ िभलेख$ का रख-रखाव अ िधमानत: इलै]^ो िनक Jप से रखा जाएगा। % ित;ान आव िधक Jप से
जब कभी केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु/)े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु ारा िनदेश दया जाए, सदय$ के लेख$ को इलै]^ॉ िनक
Jप से सP%े िषत कर*गे।
14.
यासी बोड, वष, म* एक बार िव9ीय/लेखा वष, के समा2 होने के छ: माह के भीतर %Lयेक कम,चारी को िन:शुaक लेख$
का वा Sषक िववरण अथवा पासबुक जारी करेगा। जब कभी सदय चाह*, अ ित.र b%टऑउट नाममा= के %भार के साथ
उपलRध कराए जा सकते हE। पासबुक के मामले म* वह कम,चारी के पास रहेगी िजसे %तुत कए जाने पर या िसय$ ारा
आव िधक Jप से अYतन कया जाएगा।
15.
िनयोा सभी सदय$ को उनक7 आवdयकतानुसार कPeयूटर टSमनल$ से अपने खाते म* पड़ी शेष रािश को देखने के
समथ, बनाने के िलए आवdयक %ावधान कर*गे।
16.
यासी बोड, और िनयोा कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा यथा िविहत `प म* ये िववरिणयां िविनfद[ समय
सीमा के भीतर मािसक/वाSषक `प से दायर कर*गे, िजसे न करने पर इसे चूक माना जाएगा तथा यासी बोड, और िनयोा
संयु `प से और अलग-अलग, कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा क7 जाने वाली उपयु दािgडक कार,वाई के भागी ह$गे।
17.
यासी बोड, समय-समय पर सरकार के िनदCश$ के अनुसार भिवय िनिध के पैसे का िनवेश करेगा। सरकार के िनदCश$
के अनुसार िनवेश करने म* असफल होने पर यासी बोड, अलग-अलग और संयु `प से केीय भिवय िनिध आयु या
उसके %ितिनिध ारा यथा अिधरोिपत अिधशुaक का भागी बन जाएगा।
18.
(क) %ितभूितयां यास के नाम से %ा2 क7 जाएंगी। इस %कार %ा2 क7 गई %ितभूितयां अभौितक (डीमेट) `प म*
होनी चािहए तथा यास के काय,चािलत रहने वाले )े=$ म* अपेि)त सुिवधा के उपलRध न होने क7 िथित म* यासी बोड,
संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को इसक7 सूचना द*गे।
(ख) यासी बोड, िलिप-वार रिजटर बनाएगा तथा Rयाज क7 समय पर उगाही सुिनिiत करेगा।
(ग) डीमेट खाता इस संबंध म* केीय सरकार ारा जारी अनुदेश$ के अनुसार भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय
सरकार ारा अनुमो दत िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$ के मा(यम से खोला जाए।
(घ) डीमेट खाते का खच, यास ारा कए जाने वाले िनवेश का %ासंिगक <य <य माना जाए। %ितभूितय$ आ द
क7 खरीद क7 दलाली जैसे िनवेश$ के सभी %कार के खचj को भी यास ारा कए जाने वाले िनवेश का %ासंिगक <य माना
जाएगा।
19.
%ितभूितय$ और बाgड$ क7 खरीद जैसे ऐसे सभी िनवेश भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय सरकार ारा अनुमो दत
िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$ क7 सुर)ा अिभर)ा म* दज, कए जाएं, जो इसके संर)क ह$गे। थापना क7 बंदी या प.रसमापन या
कम,चारी भिवय िनिध, 1952 से छूट पर यह संर)क, यास के नाम पर %ा2 तथा अपने जमा म* पड़े िनवेश को संबंिधत
)े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु के, इस आशय के, अनुरोध पर संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को सीधे अंत.रत करेगा।
20.
थापना संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को उन िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$(भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय
सरकार ारा अनुमो दत) के िववरण से सूिचत करेगी, िजनके पास तथा िजनक7 सुर)ा अिभर)ा म* यास के नाम पर कए
गए िनवेश अथा,त %ितभूितय$, बाgड$ आ द म* कए गए िनवेश दज, कए गए हE। तथािप, यासी बोड, उस धनरािश क7 उगाही
कर सकता है, जो दाव$ के िनपटान, िनयमानुसार अिVम$ क7 मंजूरी और िनयोा क7 सेवा छोड़ने क7 िथित म* सदय के
भिवय िनिध संचयन के अंतरण और %ितभूितय$ क7 िबm7 ारा अय कसी %ाि2य$ अथवा )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु के
पूव, अनुमोदन के शता,धीन िनिध के नाम म* पड़े अय िनवेश$ जैसे बा(यकारी <य$ को पूरा करने के िलए अपेि)त ह$।
21.
यास ारा कए गए िनवेश$ के िलए कसी िव9ीय या अय संथाn ारा दए जाने वाले कसी कमीशन,
%ोLसाहन, बोनस या अय आSथक लाभ इसके खाते म* डाले जाएं।
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2151
22.
िनयोा और यासी बोड, के सदय शतj का पालन करने क7 सहमित देते oए िलिखत वचन द*गे तथा यह वैिधक `प
से िनयोा और यासी बोड, के उ9रािधका.रय$ और समनुदेिशत$ पर उनके साथ-साथ बा(यकारी होगा।
23.
िनयोा और यासी बोड, छूट के रp होने क7 िथित म* संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु ारा िविहत समय
सीमा के भीतर तLकाल िनिधय$ का अंतरण करने का वचन भी देगा। यह उन पर कानूनी `प से बा(यकारी होगा तथा उह*
िनिधय$ के अंतरण म* कोई िवलंब होने क7 िथित म* अिभयोजन का भागी बनाएगा।
24.
(क) यासी बोड, ारा अनुरि)त भिवय िनिध खाता कसी योqय वतं= चाट,ड, लेखाकार ारा वाSषक `प से लेखा-
परी)ा करने के शता,धीन होगा। जहां भी आवdयक समझा जाए, वहां कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन को अिधकार होगा क
यह कसी अय योqय लेखा-परी)क ारा खात$ क7 लेखा-परी)ा कराए तथा इस %कार oए खच, िनयोा ारा वहन कए
जाएंगे।
(ख) लेखा-परी)क$ ारा िव9ीय वष, अथा,त 1 अ%ैल से 31 माच, तक क7 समाि2 के बाद छह महीने के भीतर लेखा-
परी)ीत तुलन-प= सिहत लेखा-परी)क क7 .रपोट, क7 %ित सीधे इस काया,लय म* %तुत क7 जाए। तुलन-प= का %ा`प और
इस .रपोट, म* %तुत क7 जाने वाली जानकारी कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा िनधा,.रत क7 जाएगी तथा संबंिधत )े=ीय
भिवय िनिध आयु के काया,लय म* इलै]^ॉिनक %ा`प के साथ हता).रत %ितिलिप म* उपलRध कराई जाएगी।
(ग) एक ही लेखा-परी)क$ को लगातार दो वष, के िलए तथा अगले िव9ीय वष, के पहले दन से िमली छूट से अिधक
के िलए िनयु न कया जाए।
25.
लगातार तीन िव9ीय वषj तक कोई हािन या पूंजी आधार म* कटौती को अगले िव9ीय वष, के पहले दन से िमली
छूट %ा2 होगी।
26.
िनयोा %Lयेक माह क7 समाि2 से 15 दन के भीतर िनरी)ण हेतु ऐसी सुिवधाn का %ावधान करेगा तथा ऐसे
िनरी)ण %भार$ का भुगतान करेगा जो केीय सरकार ारा अिधिनयम क7 धारा 17 के उप-खgड (3) के खgड(क) के अंतग,त
समय-समय पर दए िनदCश$ के अनुसार ह$।
27.
यासी बोड, या िनयो ारा छूट देने के िलए शतj के कसी उaलंघन क7 िथित म* दी गई छूट संबंिधत <ि को
इस संबंध म* कारण बताओ नो.टस जारी करने के बाद रp कर दी जाएगी।
28.
कसी भी धोखे, गबन, गलत िनवेश िनण,य$ आ द के फलव`प ^ट को oए कसी भी नुकसान क7 िथित म*
िनयोा नुकसान पूरा करने का भागी होगा।
29.
कसी िवलय, अिवलय, अिभVहण, िबm7, एक7करण, सहायक कंपनी का गठन चाहे पूण,त: वािमLव वाली हो या
नहI इLया द के फलव`प य द %ित;ान क7 कानूनी िथित म* कोई भी बदलाव होता है तो दी गई छूट िनरत होगी एवं
%ित;ान को तुरंत नई छूट देने के िलए मामले क7 .रपोट, करनी चािहए।
30.
एक ही भिवय िनिध ^ट म* एक से अिधक इकाई/%ित;ान$ के भाग लेने क7 िथित म* भाग लेने वाली इकाईय$ के
कसी भी ^टी/िनयोा ारा कोई भी चूक होने पर सभी ^टी संयु `प से एवं अलग से िजPमेदार/उ9रदायी ह$गे और
आरपीएफसी आम भिवय िनिध ^ट के सभी यािसय$ के िव`u उपयु कानूनी कार,वाई करेगा।
31. छूट %ा2 यास िनिध के अिधVहण के मामले म*, अंतरीय Rयाज के कारण हािन के अनुमािनत िनवल वत,मान मूaय क7
वसूली %ित;ान से क7 जानी चािहए।
32.
के सरकार ितान क छूट क िनरंतरता के िलए शत को बढ़ा सकती है और जब भी इनको सं ेिषत
"कया जाएगा ये ितान इन अित&र' शत का अनुपालन करने के िलए बा*य ह+गे।
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2016
S.O.942.— Whereas M/s. Wallen Shipmanagement (India) Pvt. Limited [under Code No. MH/38271 in
Kandivali region] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section
(1) of section 17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter
referred to as the Act).
2.
And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment
with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in section 6 of
the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or
under the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in relation to the
employees in any other establishment of similar character.
2152
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said Act
and subject to the conditions annexed with this notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the said
establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 01.06.1993 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/14/2015-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1.
The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees under his Chairmanship for the management of the Provident
Fund according to such directions as may be given by the Central Government or the Central Provident Fund
Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time. The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees who will
be responsible for and accountable to the Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for proper accounts of
the receipts into and payment from the Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For this purpose, the
“employer” shall mean:-
(i) In relation to an establishment, which is a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory: and
(ii) In relation to any other establishment, the person who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control over the affairs
of the establishment.
2.
The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in every three months and shall function in accordance with the
guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the Central Government/Central Provident Fund
Commissioner(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3.
All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the act, who have been eligible to become members of the
Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4.
Where an employee who is already a member of Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any other
exempted establishment is employed in his establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him as a member of the
fund. The employer should also arrange to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account of such employee
with his previous employer transferred and credited into his account.
5.
The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself
and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from time to time by the 15th of each month following the month for
which the contributions are payable. The employer shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of
Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6
The employer shall bear all the expenses of the administration of Provident Fund and also make good any other
loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any other reason.
7.
Any deficiency in the interest declared by the Board of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to bring it
up to the statutory limit.
8.
The employer shall display on the notice board of the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when amended thereto along with a translation in the language of the
majority of the employees.
9.
The rate of contributions payable, the conditions and quantum of advances and other matters laid down under
the provident fund rules of the establishment and the interest credited to the account of each member, calculated on the
monthly running balance of the member and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower than those declared by
the Central Government under the various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme framed thereunder.
10.
Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of the Trust.
11.
No amendment in the rules shall be made by the employer without the prior approval of the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give a reasonable
opportunity to the employees to explain their point of view.
12.
All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
13.
The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal and
interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance of such records should preferably be done electronically. The
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2153
establishments should periodically transmit the details of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed by the
Central Provident Commissioner/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
14.
The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual statement of accounts or pass books to every employee within six
months of the close of financial/accounting year free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be made
available as and when the members want, subject to nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain in
custody of employee to be updated periodically by the Trustees when presented to them.
15.
The employer shall make necessary provisions to enable all the members to be able to see their account balance
from the computer terminals as and when required by them.
16.
The Board of Trustees and the employer shall file such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within the specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a default and
the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the Employees’
Provident Fund Organisation.
17.
The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of the provident fund as per the directions of the Government
from time to time. Failure to make investments as per directions of the Government shall make the Board of Trustees
separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or his
representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of Trust. The securities so obtained should be in dematerialized
(DEMAT) form and in case the required facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates the Board of
Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script wise register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India and
Central Government in accordance with the instructions issued by the Central Government in this regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust. Also all
types of cost of investments like brokerage for purchase of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental cost of investment
by the Trust.
19.
All such investments made like purchase of securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody of
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian of the
same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such custodian
shall transfer the investment obtained in the name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional PF
Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that effect.
20.
The establishment shall intimate to the Regional P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government), with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments made
in the name of trust, viz., investments made in securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the Board of Trustees
may raise such sum of sums of money as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such as settlement of claims,
grant of advances as per rules and transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/her leaving service of the
employer and any other receipts by sale of the securities or other investments standing in the name of the Fund subject to
the prior approval of the Regional PF Commissioner.
21.
Any commission, incentive, bonus or other pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other institutions for
the investments made by the Trust should be credited to its account.
22.
The employer and the members of the Board of Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to abide
by the conditions and this shall be legally binding on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their successors
and assignees.
23.
The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within the
time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally binding on
them and will make them liable for prosecution in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a qualified
independent chartered accountant annually. Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right to have the
accounts re-audited by any other qualified auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the audited balance sheet should be submitted to this office by the Auditors
directly within six months after the closing of the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The format of the balance
sheet and the information to be furnished in the report shall be prescribed by the Employees’ Provident fund
Organisation and made available with the RPFC office in electronic format as well as a signed hard copy.
2154
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation withdrawn
from the first day of the next succeeding financial year.
25.
Any loss for the three consecutive financial years or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding financial year.
26.
The employer shall provide for such facilities for inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central
Government may from time to time direct under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15 days
from the close of every month.
27.
In the event of any violation of the conditions for grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of Trustees,
the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned persons.
28.
In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc. the
employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29.
In case of any change of legal status of the establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition, sale,
amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand revoked
and the establishment should promptly report the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30.
In case there are more than one unit/establishment participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all the
trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/responsible for any default committed by any of the trustees/employer of
any of the participating units and the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the trustees of the common
Provident Fund Trust.
31. In case of takeover of the exempted Trust Fund, estimated net present value of the loss due to differential interest
should be recovered from the establishment.
32.
The Central Government may lay down further conditions for continuation of exemption of the establishment
and the establishment shall be bound to comply with these additional conditions as and when the same are
communicated.
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2016
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.943
943
943
943.—tcfd eSllZ lsfcd buksosfVo IykWfLVDl bafM;k izk- fyfeVsM ¼xqM+xkao {ks= esa dksM la[;k
,pvkj@thth,u@31136 ds varxZr½ ¼,rnqijkar izfr"Bku ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k vkSj izdh.kZ mica/k
vf/kfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½ ¼,rnqijkar vf/kfu;e ds :Ik esa lanfHkZr½ dh /kkjk 17 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds
varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA
2.
और जबक केीय सरकार के िवचार म, अंशदान क दर के संबंध म उ ितान के भिवय िनिध िनयम उ अिधिनयम क
धारा 6 म िविनद िनयम क तुलना म कमचारय के िलए कम उपयु नह# ह$ और कमचारी उ अिधिनयम अथवा कमचारी भिवय
िनिध योजना, 1952 (एतदुपरांत योजना के %प म संद(भत) के अंतगत सदृश +व%प के कसी अय ितान म कमचारय के संबंध म दी
जाने वाली अय भिवय िनिध सुिवधा- का भी लाभ उठा रहे ह$।
3.
अत:, अब, के सरकार, उ अिधिनयम क धारा 17 क उप धारा (1) के ख0ड (क) 2ारा द3 शिय का योग करते 6ए,
इस अिधसूचना के साथ सल9 शत: के अ;याधीन उ ितान को अगली अिधसूचना तक 01.09.2010 से उ योजना के सभी उपबंध
के भाव से छूट दान करती है।
[सं. एस-35015/62/2014-एसएस-II]
सुभाष कुमार, अवर सिचव
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
अनुबंध
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ
कमचारी भ िवय
िवय
िवय
िवय िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
िनिध योजना, 1952 के उपबंध से
छूट !दान करने संबंधी श
छूट !दान करने संबंधी श
छूट !दान करने संबंधी श
छूट !दान करने संबंधी शत%त%त%त%
1.
िनयोा समय-समय पर केीय सरकार अथवा केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु, जैसी भी िथित हो, ारा दए जाने
वाले ऐसे िनदेश$ के अनुसार भ िवय िनिध के %बंधन हेतु अपनी अ(य)ता म* एक यासी बोड, ग .ठत करेगा। भ िवय िनिध
यासी बोड, म* िविहत होगी जो अय बात$ के साथ-साथ कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध संगठन के % ित भ िवय िनिध म* %ा ि2य$ और
उसम* से भुगतान के उ िचत लेख$ और उनक7 अ िभर)ा म* शेष रा िश के िलए उ9रदायी होगा। इस %योजनाथ, " िनयोा" से:-
(i) कसी % ित;ान, जो एक कारखाना हो, उसके संबंध म*, कारखाने का वामी अथवा अ िध;ाता अ िभ%ेत होगा; और
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2155
(ii) कसी अय % ित;ान के संबंध म*, वह < ि, अथवा %ा िधकारी अ िभ%ेत होगा, िजसका उस % ित;ान के कामकाज
पर अं ितम िनयं=ण हो।
2.
यासी बोड, हरेक ितमाही म* कम से कम एक बार बैठक करेगा और वह के सरकार/केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु
(सीपीएफसी) अथवा उसके ारा %ा िधकृत कसी अ िधकारी ारा समय-समय पर जारी कए जाने वाले दशा िनदCश$ के
अनुसार काय, करेगा।
3.
अ िधिनयम क7 धारा 2(च) म* यथा प .रभा िषत सभी कम,चारी, जो भ िवय िनिध के सदय बनने के पा= रह* हE, य द
% ित;ान को छूट %दान नहI क7 होती, उह* सदय$ के Jप म* नामां कत कया जाएगा।
4.
जहां कोई कम,चारी जो पहले ही कसी अय छूट-%ा2 % ित;ान के कसी कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध अथवा भ िवय
िनिध का सदय हो, उसे उसके % ित;ान म* िनयो िजत कया जाता है, तो िनयोा उसे तLकाल िनिध के सदय के Jप म*
नामां कत करेगा। िनयोा ऐसे कम,चारी के भ िवय िनिध खाते म* उसके पहले िनयोा से संचय रा िशयां अंत .रत और जमा
करवाने क7 भी <वथा करेगा।
5.
िनयोा भ िवय िनिध को उसके ारा और कम,चारी के ारा समय—समय पर अ िधिनयम के अंतग,त िनधा, .रत दर
से देय अंशदान को, िजस माह के िलए अंशदान देय ह$ उसके बाद के माह क7 15 तारीख तक यासी बोड, को अंत .रत करेगा।
िनयोा यासी बोड, को कही देय$ के भुगतान म* कसी िवलPब के िलए अ िधिनयम क7 धारा 7 थ के उपबंध$ के अनुसार
साधारण Rयाज अदा करने का दायी होगा।
6.
िनयोा भ िवय िनिध के %शासन के सभी <य वहन करेगा और चोरी, डकैती, गबन, दु Sव िनयोग अथवा कसी
अय कारण से भ िवय िनिध को हो सकने वाले कसी घाटे क7 भी भरपाई करेगा।
7.
यासी बोड, ारा घो िषत Rयाज म* कसी कमी को भी िनयोा ारा पूरा कया जाना होगा और उसे सां िविधक
सीमा तक लाना होगा।
8.
िनयोा जब कभी िनयम संशो िधत कए जाएं, समु िचत %ा िधकारी ारा यथा अनुमो दत, िनिध के िनयम$ क7 एक
% ित अ िधसंUयक कम,चा .रय$ क7 भाषा म* उनके अनुवाद स िहत % ित;ान के सूचना पट पर %द Sशत करेगा।
9.
% ित;ान के भ िवय िनिध िनयम$ के अंतग,त िनधा, .रत देय अंशदान क7 दर, अ िVम क7 शतW और मा=ा तथा अय
मामले और सदय के मा िसक चालू शेष पर संग िणत और यासी बोड, ारा घो िषत, %Lयेक सदय के खाते म* जमा कया गया
Rयाज, अ िधिनयम और उसके अंतग,त िनSमत योजना म* िनधा, .रत िविभX उपबंध$ के अंतग,त के सरकार ारा घो िषत दर से
कम नहI होगा।
10.
योजना म* कोई संशोधन, जो % ित;ान के िवYमान िनयम$ क7 तुलना म* कम,चा .रय$ के िलए अ िधक लाभदा यक हो,
उसे यास के िनयम$ म* औपचा .रक संशोधन के लं िबत रहते उन पर वत: लागू कया जाएगा।
11.
िनयोा ारा िनयम$ म* कोई भी संशोधन )े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु के पूव, अनुमोदन के िबना नहI कया
जाएगा। )े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु अपना अनुमोदन देने से पूव, कम,चा .रय$ को अपना Jख प[ करने का वा िजब अवसर
देगा।
12.
िनकासी, अ िVम और अंतरण के सभी दावे कम,चारी भ िवय िनिध संगठन ारा िनधा, .रत अ िधकतम समय सीमा के
भीतर, शी\ता से िनपटाए जाएंगे।
13.
यासी बोड, %Lयेक कम,चारी के संबंध म* जमा कए गए अंशदान, िनकासी और Rयाज दशा,ने के िलए िवत .रत लेख$
का रख-रखाव करेगा। ऐसे अ िभलेख$ का रख-रखाव अ िधमानत: इलै]^ो िनक Jप से रखा जाएगा। % ित;ान आव िधक Jप से
जब कभी केीय भ िवय िनिध आयु/)े=ीय भ िवय िनिध आयु ारा िनदेश दया जाए, सदय$ के लेख$ को इलै]^ॉ िनक
Jप से सP%े िषत कर*गे।
14.
यासी बोड, वष, म* एक बार िव9ीय/लेखा वष, के समा2 होने के छ: माह के भीतर %Lयेक कम,चारी को िन:शुaक लेख$
का वा Sषक िववरण अथवा पासबुक जारी करेगा। जब कभी सदय चाह*, अ ित.र b%टऑउट नाममा= के %भार के साथ
उपलRध कराए जा सकते हE। पासबुक के मामले म* वह कम,चारी के पास रहेगी िजसे %तुत कए जाने पर या िसय$ ारा
आव िधक Jप से अYतन कया जाएगा।
2156
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15.
िनयोा सभी सदय$ को उनक7 आवdयकतानुसार कPeयूटर टSमनल$ से अपने खाते म* पड़ी शेष रािश को देखने के
समथ, बनाने के िलए आवdयक %ावधान कर*गे।
16.
यासी बोड, और िनयोा कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा यथा िविहत `प म* ये िववरिणयां िविनfद[ समय
सीमा के भीतर मािसक/वाSषक `प से दायर कर*गे, िजसे न करने पर इसे चूक माना जाएगा तथा यासी बोड, और िनयोा
संयु `प से और अलग-अलग, कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा क7 जाने वाली उपयु दािgडक कार,वाई के भागी ह$गे।
17.
यासी बोड, समय-समय पर सरकार के िनदCश$ के अनुसार भिवय िनिध के पैसे का िनवेश करेगा। सरकार के िनदCश$
के अनुसार िनवेश करने म* असफल होने पर यासी बोड, अलग-अलग और संयु `प से केीय भिवय िनिध आयु या
उसके %ितिनिध ारा यथा अिधरोिपत अिधशुaक का भागी बन जाएगा।
18.
(क) %ितभूितयां यास के नाम से %ा2 क7 जाएंगी। इस %कार %ा2 क7 गई %ितभूितयां अभौितक (डीमेट) `प म*
होनी चािहए तथा यास के काय,चािलत रहने वाले )े=$ म* अपेि)त सुिवधा के उपलRध न होने क7 िथित म* यासी बोड,
संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को इसक7 सूचना द*गे।
(ख) यासी बोड, िलिप-वार रिजटर बनाएगा तथा Rयाज क7 समय पर उगाही सुिनिiत करेगा।
(ग) डीमेट खाता इस संबंध म* केीय सरकार ारा जारी अनुदेश$ के अनुसार भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय
सरकार ारा अनुमो दत िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$ के मा(यम से खोला जाए।
(घ) डीमेट खाते का खच, यास ारा कए जाने वाले िनवेश का %ासंिगक <य <य माना जाए। %ितभूितय$ आ द
क7 खरीद क7 दलाली जैसे िनवेश$ के सभी %कार के खचj को भी यास ारा कए जाने वाले िनवेश का %ासंिगक <य माना
जाएगा।
19.
%ितभूितय$ और बाgड$ क7 खरीद जैसे ऐसे सभी िनवेश भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय सरकार ारा अनुमो दत
िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$ क7 सुर)ा अिभर)ा म* दज, कए जाएं, जो इसके संर)क ह$गे। थापना क7 बंदी या प.रसमापन या
कम,चारी भिवय िनिध, 1952 से छूट पर यह संर)क, यास के नाम पर %ा2 तथा अपने जमा म* पड़े िनवेश को संबंिधत
)े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु के, इस आशय के, अनुरोध पर संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को सीधे अंत.रत करेगा।
20.
थापना संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु को उन िन)ेपागार %ितभािगय$(भारतीय .रजव, बEक और केीय
सरकार ारा अनुमो दत) के िववरण से सूिचत करेगी, िजनके पास तथा िजनक7 सुर)ा अिभर)ा म* यास के नाम पर कए
गए िनवेश अथा,त %ितभूितय$, बाgड$ आ द म* कए गए िनवेश दज, कए गए हE। तथािप, यासी बोड, उस धनरािश क7 उगाही
कर सकता है, जो दाव$ के िनपटान, िनयमानुसार अिVम$ क7 मंजूरी और िनयोा क7 सेवा छोड़ने क7 िथित म* सदय के
भिवय िनिध संचयन के अंतरण और %ितभूितय$ क7 िबm7 ारा अय कसी %ाि2य$ अथवा )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु के
पूव, अनुमोदन के शता,धीन िनिध के नाम म* पड़े अय िनवेश$ जैसे बा(यकारी <य$ को पूरा करने के िलए अपेि)त ह$।
21.
यास ारा कए गए िनवेश$ के िलए कसी िव9ीय या अय संथाn ारा दए जाने वाले कसी कमीशन,
%ोLसाहन, बोनस या अय आSथक लाभ इसके खाते म* डाले जाएं।
22.
िनयोा और यासी बोड, के सदय शतj का पालन करने क7 सहमित देते oए िलिखत वचन द*गे तथा यह वैिधक `प
से िनयोा और यासी बोड, के उ9रािधका.रय$ और समनुदेिशत$ पर उनके साथ-साथ बा(यकारी होगा।
23.
िनयोा और यासी बोड, छूट के रp होने क7 िथित म* संबंिधत )े=ीय भिवय िनिध आयु ारा िविहत समय
सीमा के भीतर तLकाल िनिधय$ का अंतरण करने का वचन भी देगा। यह उन पर कानूनी `प से बा(यकारी होगा तथा उह*
िनिधय$ के अंतरण म* कोई िवलंब होने क7 िथित म* अिभयोजन का भागी बनाएगा।
24.
(क) यासी बोड, ारा अनुरि)त भिवय िनिध खाता कसी योqय वतं= चाट,ड, लेखाकार ारा वाSषक `प से लेखा-
परी)ा करने के शता,धीन होगा। जहां भी आवdयक समझा जाए, वहां कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन को अिधकार होगा क
यह कसी अय योqय लेखा-परी)क ारा खात$ क7 लेखा-परी)ा कराए तथा इस %कार oए खच, िनयोा ारा वहन कए
जाएंगे।
(ख) लेखा-परी)क$ ारा िव9ीय वष, अथा,त 1 अ%ैल से 31 माच, तक क7 समाि2 के बाद छह महीने के भीतर लेखा-
परी)ीत तुलन-प= सिहत लेखा-परी)क क7 .रपोट, क7 %ित सीधे इस काया,लय म* %तुत क7 जाए। तुलन-प= का %ा`प और
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2157
इस .रपोट, म* %तुत क7 जाने वाली जानकारी कम,चारी भिवय िनिध संगठन ारा िनधा,.रत क7 जाएगी तथा संबंिधत )े=ीय
भिवय िनिध आयु के काया,लय म* इलै]^ॉिनक %ा`प के साथ हता).रत %ितिलिप म* उपलRध कराई जाएगी।
(ग) एक ही लेखा-परी)क$ को लगातार दो वष, के िलए तथा अगले िव9ीय वष, के पहले दन से िमली छूट से अिधक
के िलए िनयु न कया जाए।
25.
लगातार तीन िव9ीय वषj तक कोई हािन या पूंजी आधार म* कटौती को अगले िव9ीय वष, के पहले दन से िमली
छूट %ा2 होगी।
26.
िनयोा %Lयेक माह क7 समाि2 से 15 दन के भीतर िनरी)ण हेतु ऐसी सुिवधाn का %ावधान करेगा तथा ऐसे
िनरी)ण %भार$ का भुगतान करेगा जो केीय सरकार ारा अिधिनयम क7 धारा 17 के उप-खgड (3) के खgड(क) के अंतग,त
समय-समय पर दए िनदCश$ के अनुसार ह$।
27.
यासी बोड, या िनयो ारा छूट देने के िलए शतj के कसी उaलंघन क7 िथित म* दी गई छूट संबंिधत <ि को
इस संबंध म* कारण बताओ नो.टस जारी करने के बाद रp कर दी जाएगी।
28.
कसी भी धोखे, गबन, गलत िनवेश िनण,य$ आ द के फलव`प ^ट को oए कसी भी नुकसान क7 िथित म*
िनयोा नुकसान पूरा करने का भागी होगा।
29.
कसी िवलय, अिवलय, अिभVहण, िबm7, एक7करण, सहायक कंपनी का गठन चाहे पूण,त: वािमLव वाली हो या
नहI इLया द के फलव`प य द %ित;ान क7 कानूनी िथित म* कोई भी बदलाव होता है तो दी गई छूट िनरत होगी एवं
%ित;ान को तुरंत नई छूट देने के िलए मामले क7 .रपोट, करनी चािहए।
30.
एक ही भिवय िनिध ^ट म* एक से अिधक इकाई/%ित;ान$ के भाग लेने क7 िथित म* भाग लेने वाली इकाईय$ के
कसी भी ^टी/िनयोा ारा कोई भी चूक होने पर सभी ^टी संयु `प से एवं अलग से िजPमेदार/उ9रदायी ह$गे और
आरपीएफसी आम भिवय िनिध ^ट के सभी यािसय$ के िव`u उपयु कानूनी कार,वाई करेगा।
31. छूट %ा2 यास िनिध के अिधVहण के मामले म*, अंतरीय Rयाज के कारण हािन के अनुमािनत िनवल वत,मान मूaय क7
वसूली %ित;ान से क7 जानी चािहए।
32.
के सरकार ितान क छूट क िनरंतरता के िलए शत को बढ़ा सकती है और जब भी इनको सं ेिषत
"कया जाएगा ये ितान इन अित&र' शत का अनुपालन करने के िलए बा*य ह+गे।
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2016
S.O. 943.— Whereas M/s. SABIC Innovative Plastics India Pvt. Limited [under Code No. HR/GGN/31136 in
Gurgaon region] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section
(1) of section 17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter
referred to as the Act).
2.
And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment
with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in section 6 of
the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or
under the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in relation to the
employees in any other establishment of similar character.
3.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said Act
and subject to the conditions annexed with this notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the said
establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 01.09.2010 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/62/2014-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
2158
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1.
The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees under his Chairmanship for the management of the Provident
Fund according to such directions as may be given by the Central Government or the Central Provident Fund
Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time. The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees who will
be responsible for and accountable to the Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for proper accounts of
the receipts into and payment from the Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For this purpose, the
“employer” shall mean:-
(i) In relation to an establishment, which is a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory: and
(ii) In relation to any other establishment, the person who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control over the affairs
of the establishment.
2.
The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in every three months and shall function in accordance with the
guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the Central Government/Central Provident Fund
Commissioner(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3.
All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the act, who have been eligible to become members of the
Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4.
Where an employee who is already a member of Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any other
exempted establishment is employed in his establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him as a member of the
fund. The employer should also arrange to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account of such employee
with his previous employer transferred and credited into his account.
5.
The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself
and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from time to time by the 15th of each month following the month for
which the contributions are payable. The employer shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of
Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6
The employer shall bear all the expenses of the administration of Provident Fund and also make good any other
loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any other reason.
7.
Any deficiency in the interest declared by the Board of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to bring it
up to the statutory limit.
8.
The employer shall display on the notice board of the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when amended thereto along with a translation in the language of the
majority of the employees.
9.
The rate of contributions payable, the conditions and quantum of advances and other matters laid down under
the provident fund rules of the establishment and the interest credited to the account of each member, calculated on the
monthly running balance of the member and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower than those declared by
the Central Government under the various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme framed thereunder.
10.
Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of the Trust.
11.
No amendment in the rules shall be made by the employer without the prior approval of the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give a reasonable
opportunity to the employees to explain their point of view.
12.
All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
13.
The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal and
interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance of such records should preferably be done electronically. The
establishments should periodically transmit the details of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed by the
Central Provident Commissioner/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
14.
The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual statement of accounts or pass books to every employee within six
months of the close of financial/accounting year free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be made
available as and when the members want, subject to nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain in
custody of employee to be updated periodically by the Trustees when presented to them.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 14] 2016@oS'kk[k 24] 1938
2159
15.
The employer shall make necessary provisions to enable all the members to be able to see their account balance
from the computer terminals as and when required by them.
16.
The Board of Trustees and the employer shall file such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within the specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a default and
the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the Employees’
Provident Fund Organisation.
17.
The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of the provident fund as per the directions of the Government
from time to time. Failure to make investments as per directions of the Government shall make the Board of Trustees
separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or his
representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of Trust. The securities so obtained should be in dematerialized
(DEMAT) form and in case the required facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates the Board of
Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script wise register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India and
Central Government in accordance with the instructions issued by the Central Government in this regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust. Also all
types of cost of investments like brokerage for purchase of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental cost of investment
by the Trust.
19.
All such investments made like purchase of securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody of
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian of the
same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such custodian
shall transfer the investment obtained in the name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional PF
Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that effect.
20.
The establishment shall intimate to the Regional P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government), with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments made
in the name of trust, viz., investments made in securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the Board of Trustees
may raise such sum of sums of money as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such as settlement of claims,
grant of advances as per rules and transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/her leaving service of the
employer and any other receipts by sale of the securities or other investments standing in the name of the Fund subject to
the prior approval of the Regional PF Commissioner.
21.
Any commission, incentive, bonus or other pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other institutions for
the investments made by the Trust should be credited to its account.
22.
The employer and the members of the Board of Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to abide
by the conditions and this shall be legally binding on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their successors
and assignees.
23.
The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within the
time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally binding on
them and will make them liable for prosecution in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a qualified
independent chartered accountant annually. Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right to have the
accounts re-audited by any other qualified auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the audited balance sheet should be submitted to this office by the Auditors
directly within six months after the closing of the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The format of the balance
sheet and the information to be furnished in the report shall be prescribed by the Employees’ Provident fund
Organisation and made available with the RPFC office in electronic format as well as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation withdrawn
from the first day of the next succeeding financial year.
25.
Any loss for the three consecutive financial years or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding financial year.
2160
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 14, 2016/ VAISAKHA 24, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
26.
The employer shall provide for such facilities for inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central
Government may from time to time direct under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15 days
from the close of every month.
27.
In the event of any violation of the conditions for grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of Trustees,
the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned persons.
28.
In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc. the
employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29.
In case of any change of legal status of the establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition, sale,
amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand revoked
and the establishment should promptly report the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30.
In case there are more than one unit/establishment participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all the
trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/responsible for any default committed by any of the trustees/employer of
any of the participating units and the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the trustees of the common
Provident Fund Trust.
31. In case of takeover of the exempted Trust Fund, estimated net present value of the loss due to differential interest
should be recovered from the establishment.
32.
The Central Government may lay down further conditions for continuation of exemption of the establishment
and the establishment shall be bound to comply with these additional conditions as and when the same are
communicated.
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.