This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05 रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ;एनद्ध 04/0007/2003—05 प्राध्किार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 22] नई दिल्ली, मई 22—मई 28, 2016, शनिवार/ज्येष्ठ 1— ज्येष्ठ 7, 1938

No. 22] NEW DELHI, MAY 22—MAY 28, 2016, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 1— JYAISTHA7, 1938

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके

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

भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड ;iiद्ध

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्राालयों ;रक्षा मंत्राालय को छोड़करद्ध द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविध्कि आदेश और अध्सिूचनाएं

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

गृह मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 18 मई, 2016

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1020102010201020....————के न्(cid:12)ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 (यथा संशोिधत 1987) के िनयम 10 के उप-िनयम (4) के अनुसरण में, गृह मंत्रालय के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों में हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक .ान रखने वाले कर्मचारियों की संख्या 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक हो जाने के फलस्वरूप इन कार्यालयों को एत8ारा अिधसूिचत करती है:-

1.1.1.1. के न्(cid:5)ीके न्(cid:5)ीके न्(cid:5)ीके न्(cid:5)ीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल य रिजर्व पुलिस बल य रिजर्व पुलिस बल य रिजर्व पुलिस बल

1. पुलिस उप महानिरीक्षक प्रतिवि(cid:12)ोहिता एवं आतंकवाद विरोधी स्कू ल, के न्(cid:12)ीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल, शिवपुरी (मध्य प्रदेश)

2. कार्यालय पुलिस उप महानिरीक्षक/प्राचार्य, रंगरूट प्रशिक्षण के न्(cid:12), के न्(cid:12)ीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल, अमेठी (उत्तर प्रदेश) 2.2.2.2. के न्(cid:5)ीके न्(cid:5)ीके न्(cid:5)ीके न्(cid:5)ीय औद्योगिक सुरक्षा बल य औद्योगिक सुरक्षा बल य औद्योगिक सुरक्षा बल य औद्योगिक सुरक्षा बल

1. के औसुब समूह खदान बोलानी (ओिडशा)

2. के औसुब इकाई जीओएम गुआ (झारखंड)

2461 GI/2016

(2271)2272 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2016/ JYAISTHA 7, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3. के औसुब इकाई आरआईएल जामनगर (गुजरात)

4. के औसुब डीओएस मुख्यालय, बेंगलुरू (कर्नाटक)

5. के औसुब इकाई भा.वि.नि. कलपाक्कम (तिमलनाडु)

6. के औसुब 6वH आरक्षित वाहिनी देवली (राजस्थान)

7. के औसुब इकाई आरजीआईए, एएसजी हैदराबाद (आंK प्रदेश)

8. के औसुब इकाई के के एनपीपी कु डनकु लम (तिमलनाडु)

9. के औसुब इकाई एसएमपीएल राजकोट (गुजरात)

10. के औसुब आईपीआरसी महेन्(cid:12)िगरी (तिमलनाडु)

11. के औसुब इकाई सीसीएल एनके एवं िपपरवार, रांची (झारखंड)

3.3.3.3. भारतभारतभारतभारत----तिब्बतिब्बतिब्बतिब्बत सीमा पुिलस त सीमा पुिलस त सीमा पुिलस त सीमा पुिलस

1. 47वH वाहिनी भा. ति. सी. पुलिस बल, जिला साम्बा (जम्मू व कश्मीर)

2. 51वH वाहिनी भा. ति. सी. पुलिस बल, पटियाला (पंजाब)

3. 52वH वाहिनी भा. ति. सी. पुलिस बल, भोपाल (मध्य प्रदेश)

4. 53वH वाहिनी भा. ति. सी. पुलिस बल, जिला-चित्तूर (आंK प्रदेश)

5. 55वH वाहिनी भा. ति. सी. पुलिस बल, जिला-लोअर दिवांग वैली (अOणाचल प्रदेश)

6. 56वH वाहिनी भा. ति. सी. पुलिस बल, जिला-खुर्दा (ओिडशा)

7. क्षे. मु. (बेंगलुO/ए. एन. ओ) वाहिनी भा. ति. सी. पुलिस बल, बेंगलुO (कर्नाटक)

8. आर. टी. सी. वािहनी भा. ित. सी. पुिलस बल, िजला: िशवगंगई (तिमलनाडु)

[सं. 12017/01/2012-हिन्दी]

राके श कु मार, संयुक्त िनदेशक (राजभाषा)

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

New Delhi , the 18th May, 2016

S.O. 1020.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies the following office of the Ministry of Home Affairs, wherein the percentage of the staff, having working knowledge of Hindi has gone above 80%.

1. Central Reserve Police Force

i) Office of Dy. Inspector General of Police, Counter Insurgency and Anti Terrorism School, Central Reserve Police Force, Shivpuri (M.P.)

ii) Office of Dy. Inspector General of Police/Principal, Recruits Training Center, Central Reserve Police Force, Amethi (U.P.)

2. Central Industrial Security Force

(i) CISF Group, Mines Bolani (Odisha)

(ii) CISF Unit, GOM Gua (Jharkhand)

(iii) CISF Unit, RIL Jamnagar (Gujrat)

(iv) CISF DOS HQrs., Bangalore (Karnatak)

(v) CISF Unit BVN Kalpakkam (Tamil Nadu)2273 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 28, 2016/ज्येष्ठ 7, 1938 (vi) CISF 6th Res. Bn. Deoli (Rajasthan)

(vii) CISF Unit RGIA, ASG Hyderbad (Andra Pradesh)

(viii) CISF Unit, KKNPP Koodankulam (Tamil Nadu)

(ix) CISF Unit, SMPL Rajkot (Gujrat)

(x) CISF Unit, IPRC Mehendragiri (Tamil Nadu)

(xi) CISF Unit, CCL NK & Piparwar, Ranchi (Jharkhand)

3. Indo-Tibetan Border Police

(i) 47th Battalion I.T.B.P., Distt- Sambha (J&K)

(ii) 51st Battalion I.T.B.P, Patiala (Punjab)

(iii) 52nd Battalion I.T.B.P, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh)

(iv) 53rd Battalion I.T.B.P, Chittoor (Andra Pradesh)

(v) 55th Battalion I.T.B.P, Distt-Lower Dibang Valley (Arunachal Pradesh)

(vi) 56th Battalion I.T.B.P, Distt-Khordha (Odisha)

(vii) Regional Hqrs. (Bangaluru/ ANO), I.T.B.P, Bangaluru (Karnatak)

(viii) RTC, I.T.B.P, Distt-Shivgangai

[No. 12017/01/2012-Hindi]

RAKESH KUMAR, Jt. Director (OL)

विदेश मंत्राालय

;सी.पी.वी. प्रभागद्ध

नई दिल्ली, 17 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1021.—राजनयिक और कोंसुलीय अध्किारी ;शपथ एवं पफीसद्ध के अध्निियम, 1948 ;1948 का 41द्ध की धरा 2 के ख्ांड ;कद्ध के अनुसरण में वैधानिक आदेश ।

एतद्‌द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार भारत के प्रधन कोंसलावास, जद्दा में श्री जगमोहन सह, वरिष्ठ सचिवालय सहायक को दिनांक 17 मई, 2016 से सहायक कोंसुलर अध्किारी के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के निर्वहन के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[सं. टी-4330/01/2016]

प्रकाश चन्द, उप सचिव ;कोंसुलरद्ध

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2016

S.O. 1021.—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 Jagmohan Singh, Senior Secretariat Assistant as Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate General of India, Jeddah to perform the Consular services with effect from 17th May, 2016.

[No. T-4330/01/2016]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

नई दिल्ली, 19 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1022.—राजनयिक और कोंसुलीय अध्किारी ;शपथ एवं पफीसद्ध के अध्निियम, 1948 ;1948 का 41द्ध की धरा 2 के ख्ांड ;कद्ध के अनुसरण में वैधानिक आदेश ।

एतद्‌द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार भारतीय वाणिज्य दूतावास, जाहिदन में श्री सुनील कुमार सूद, सहायक अनुभाग अध्किारी को दिनांक 19 मई, 2016 से सहायक कोंसुलर अध्किारी के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के निर्वहन के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[सं. टी-4330/01/2016]

प्रकाश चन्द, उप सचिव ;कोंसुलरद्ध

New Delhi, the 19th May, 2016

S.O. 1022.—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 Sunil Kumar Sood, ASO as Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate of India, Zahidan to perform the Consular services with effect from 19th May, 2016.

[No. T-4330/01/2016]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

वित्तवित्तवित्तवित्त मंत्रालयमंत्रालयमंत्रालयमंत्रालय

((((राजस्वराजस्वराजस्वराजस्व िवभागिवभागिवभागिवभाग))))

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2016

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1023102310231023....————िवत्त मंत्रालय, राजस्व विभाग द्वारा दिनांक 24.12.2014 की अधिसूचना (फा. सं. ए- 35011/6/2013-प्रशा.ईडी) की निरंतरता में और विदेशी मु(cid:12)ा प्रबंधन अधिनियम, 1999 (1999 का 42) की धारा 37 की उप धारा (2) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Sए कें (cid:12) सरकार एतदद्वारा Tीमती नीता एन. बेहरामUाम, सहायक महाप्रबंधक, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक, जो वतर्मान में प्रवर्तन निदेशालय, मुख्यालय कार्यालय, नई दिल्ली में उप निदेशक के स्तर पर परामर्शदाता के रूप में तैनात हैं, को 16.12.2014 से एक वर्ष की अवधि के लिए या प्रवर्तन निदेशालय में उनकी तैनाती तक विदेशी मु(cid:12)ा प्रबंधन अधिनियम,1999 (1999 का 42) की धारा 13 में उल्लिखित किसी उल्लंघन की जांच करने के लिए प्राधिकृ त करती है।

[फा. सं. ए-35011/06/2013-प्रशा.-ईडी]

वी. Tीकु मार, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2016

S.O. 1023.—In continuation of Notification dated 24.12.2014 issued by Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue (F.No.A-35011/6/2013-Ad.ED) and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 37 of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999), the Central Government hereby authorizes Smt. Neeta N. Behramfram, Assistant General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, presently posted as Consultant at the level of Deputy Director in the Directorate of Enforcement, Head Quarters Office, New Delhi to investigate any contravention referred to in section 13 of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999) for a period of one year from 16.12.2014 or till her posting in Enforcement Directorate.

[F. No. A-35011/06/2013-Ad.ED]

V. SREEKUMAR, Under Secy.

कार्मिक, लोक षिकायत तथा पेंषन मंत्रालयकार्मिक, लोक षिकायत तथा पेंषन मंत्रालयकार्मिक, लोक षिकायत तथा पेंषन मंत्रालयकार्मिक, लोक षिकायत तथा पेंषन मंत्रालय

(कार्मिक और प्रषिक्षण विभाग) (कार्मिक और प्रषिक्षण विभाग) (कार्मिक और प्रषिक्षण विभाग) (कार्मिक और प्रषिक्षण विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 19 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1024.—केन्द्र सरकार एतदद्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 (1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2) की धारा 24 की उपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए महाराश्ट्र राज्य के पुणे, अहमदनगर, औरंगाबाद, बीड, जलना, कराड, कोल्हापुर, मालेगांव, माजलगांव, ओस्मानाबाद, सांगली,2275 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 28, 2016/ज्येष्ठ 7, 1938 सतारा एवं शोलापुर में केन्द्रीय अन्वेशण ब्यूरो द्वारा उन्हें सौंपे गए दिल्ली विषेश पुलिस स्थापना (के.अ. ब्यूरो) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों का विचारण न्यायालयों में अभियोजन का संचालन करने तथा विधि द्वारा संस्थापित पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपीलीय न्यायालयों में उन मामलों से उत्पन्न प्रासंगिक अन्य मामलों में अपील/पुनरीक्षण हेतु निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ताओं को उनकी नियुक्ति की तारीख से तीन वर्श की अवधि तक अथवा अगले आदेषों तक, जो भी पहले हो, विषेश लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती हैः

सर्वश्री

(1) आनंद गोपाल कुरूडकर

(2) विजयकुमार भुजंगराव धकाने

[फा. सं. 225/05/2016-ए.वी.डी.-II]

मो0 नदीम, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 19th May, 2016

S.O. 1024.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints following Advocates as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of cases instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) in the State of Maharashtra at Pune, Ahmednagar, Aurangabad, Beed, Jalna, Karad, Kolhapur, Malegaon, Majalgaon, Osmanabad, Sangli, Satara and Solapur as entrusted to them by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the trial courts and appeals/revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate courts established by law for a period of three years from the date of appointment of further orders, whichever is earlier.

S/Shri (1) Anand Gopal Kurdukar

(2) Vijay Kumar Bhujangrao Dhakane

[F.No. 225/05/2016-AVD-II]

Md. NADEEM, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 26 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1025.—केन्द्र सरकार एतदद्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 (1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2) की धारा 24 की उपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए कोहिमा और दिमापुर स्थित नागालैंड राज्य में केन्द्रीय अन्वेशण ब्यूरो द्वारा उन्हें सौंपे गए दिल्ली विषेश पुलिस स्थापना (सीबीआई) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों का ट्र्‌्‌ायल न्यायालयों तथा कोहिमा स्थित गुवाहाटी उच्च न्यायालय की कोहिमा पीठ में अभियोजन का संचालन करने तथा विधि और कोहिमा स्थित गुवाहाटी उच्च न्यायालय की कोहिमा पीठ द्वारा संस्थापित पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपीलीय न्यायालयों में उन मामलों से उत्पन्न प्रासंगिक अन्य मामलों में अपील/पुनरीक्षण संचालन करने के लिए श्री बेंगडैंगवाबैंग, अधिवक्ता को विषेश लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।

[फा. सं. 225/02/2016-ए.वी.डी.-II]

मो. नदीम, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016

S.O. 1025.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Bengdangwabang, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of cases instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) in the state of Nagaland at Kohima and Dimapur as entrusted to him by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the trial courts and in the Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court at Kohima and appeals/revisions or other matters arising out of the cases in revisional or appellate courts established by law and Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court at Kohima.

[F. No. 225/02/2016-AVD-II]

Md. NADEEM, Under Secy.

उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभागउपभोक्ता मामले विभागउपभोक्ता मामले विभागउपभोक्ता मामले विभाग)

((((भारतीय मानक ब्यूरोभारतीय मानक ब्यूरोभारतीय मानक ब्यूरोभारतीय मानक ब्यूरो))))

नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल, 2016

का.आ. 1026.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए है, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :

अनुअनुअनुअनुसूचीसूचीसूचीसूची

डॉ.... एस.... एल.... पालकर, , , , र् ै6ाननक 'ए' र्एं ;मुख

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2016

S.O. 1026.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:11]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल, 2016

का.आ. 1027.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम (5) के उपविनियम (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्‌द/स्थगित कर दिया गया है :-

अनअनअनअनुुुुसूचीसूचीसूचीसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13ः13]

डॉ.... एस.... एल.... पालकर, , , , र् ै6ाननक 'ए' र्एं ;मुख

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2016

S.O. 1027.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards( Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:13]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल, 2016

का.आ. 1028.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए है, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :

अनुअनुअनुअनुसूचीसूचीसूचीसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13ः11]

डॉ.... एस.... एल.... पालकर, , , , र् ै6ाननक 'ए' र्एं ;मुख

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2016

S.O. 1028.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards( Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:11]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल, 2016

का.आ. 1029.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम (5) के उपविनियम (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्‌द/स्थगित कर दिया गया है :-

अनअनअनअनुुुुसूचीसूचीसूचीसूची

[सं. सी एम डी 13ः13]

डॉ.... एस.... एल.... पालकर, , , , र् ै6ाननक 'ए' र्एं ;मुख

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2016

S.O. 1029.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards( Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:13]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head2292 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2016/ JYAISTHA 7, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल, 2016

का.आ. 1030.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए है, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :

अनुअनुअनुअनुसूचीसूचीसूचीसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13ः11]

डॉ.... एस.... एल.... पालकर, , , , र् ै6ाननक 'ए' र्एं ;मुख

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2016

S.O. 1030.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:11]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल, 2016

का.आ. 1031.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम (5) के उप-विनियम (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्‌द/स्थगित कर दिया गया है :-

अनअनअनअनुुुुसूचीसूचीसूचीसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13ः13]

डॉ.... एस.... एल.... पालकर, , , , र् ै6ाननक 'ए' र्एं ;मुख

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2016

S.O. 1031.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:13]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल, 2016

का.आ. 1032.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए है, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :

अनुअनुअनुअनुसूचीसूचीसूचीसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13ः11]

डॉ.... एस.... एल.... पालकर, , , , र् ै6ाननक 'ए' र्एं ;मुख

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2016

S.O. 1032.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:11]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल, 2016

का.आ. 1033.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम (5) के उपविनियम (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्‌द/स्थगित कर दिया गया है :-

अनअनअनअनुुुुसूचीसूचीसूचीसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13ः13]

डॉ.... एस.... एल.... पालकर, , , , र् ै6ाननक 'ए' र्एं ;मुख

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2016

S.O. 1033.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:13]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1034.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 6 के उपविनियम (3) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए उत्पाद की मुहरांकन शुल्क अधिसूचित करता है :-

अनअनअनअनुुुुसूचीसूचीसूचीसूची

[संदर्भ सं. सी एम डी-2/जी-18]

सी. के. महेश्वरी, वैज्ञानिक 'जी' एवं उपमहानिदेशक (प्रमाणन)

New Delhi, the 20th May, 2016

S.O. 1034.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (3) of the regulation 6 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the Marking fee for the product given in the Schedule :

SCHEDULE

[Ref. No. CMD-2/G-18]

C. K. MAHESHWARI, Scientist 'G' & DDG (Certification)

नई दिल्ली, 24 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1035.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए है, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :

अनुअनुअनुअनुसूचीसूचीसूचीसूची

डॉ.... एस.... एल.... पालकर, , , , र् ै6ाननक 'ए' र्एं ;मुख

New Delhi, the 24th May, 2016

S.O. 1035.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards( Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:11]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 24 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1036.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम (5) के उपविनियम (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्‌द/स्थगित कर दिया गया है :-

अनअनअनअनुुुुसूचीसूचीसूचीसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13ः13]

डॉ.... एस.... एल.... पालकर, , , , र् ै6ाननक 'ए' र्एं ;मुख

New Delhi, the 24th May, 2016

S.O. 1036.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:13]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 24 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1037.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए है, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :

अनुअनुअनुअनुसूचीसूचीसूचीसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13ः11]

डॉ.... एस.... एल.... पालकर, , , , र् ै6ाननक 'ए' र्एं ;मुख

New Delhi, the 24th May, 2016

S.O. 1037.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:11]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 24 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1038.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम (5) के उपविनियम (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्‌द/स्थगित कर दिया गया है :-

अनअनअनअनुुुुसूचीसूचीसूचीसूची

[सं. सीएमडी/13ः13]

डॉ.... एस.... एल.... पालकर, , , , र् ै6ाननक 'ए' र्एं ;मुख

New Delhi, the 24th May, 2016

S.O. 1038.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards( Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:13]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 24 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1039.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए है, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :

अनुअनुअनुअनुसूचीसूचीसूचीसूची

[सं. सीएमडी/13ः11]

डॉ.... एस.... एल.... पालकर, , , , वैvानिक ''''एफ'''' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 24th May, 2016

S.O. 1039.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:11]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 24 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1040.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम (5) के उपविनियम (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्‌द/स्थगित कर दिया गया है :-

अनअनअनअनुुुुसूचीसूचीसूचीसूची

[सं. सीएमडी/13ः13]

डॉ.... एस.... एल.... पालकर, , , , वैvानिक ''''एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 24th May, 2016

S.O. 1040.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:13]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

स्वास्वास्वास्वास्थ्यस्थ्यस्थ्यस्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्या एवं परिवार कल्या एवं परिवार कल्या एवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालयण मंत्रालयण मंत्रालयण मंत्रालय

(स्वा(स्वा(स्वा(स्वास्थ्यस्थ्यस्थ्यस्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्या एवं परिवार कल्या एवं परिवार कल्या एवं परिवार कल्याण िवभाग)ण िवभाग)ण िवभाग)ण िवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 16 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1041.—जबकि भारतीय आयुवि.ान परिषद (संशोधन) अध्यादेश, 2013 की धारा 3क की उप-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Sए दिनांक 6 नवम्बर, 2013 को भारतीय आयु\व.ान परिषद का पुनर्गठन किया गया था;

और, जबकि कें (cid:12) सरकार ने भारतीय आयु\व.ान परिषद अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा (1) के खंड (ग) के अनुसरण में पंजीकृ त चिकित्सा स्नातक निर्वाचन क्षेत्र में चुनाव करवाए हैं तथा निम्न को इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से 4 वर्ष के लिए भारतीय आयुवि.ान परिषद के सदस्य के रूप में निर्वाचित किया गया है।

अब, इसिलए, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप-धारा (1) के प्रावधान के अनुसरण में कें (cid:12) सरकार एतद् द्वारा दिनांक 9 जनवरी, 1960 को स्वास्थ्य मंत्रालय के तात्कािलक सा.आ. 138 में भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना में निम्न संशोधन करती है, नामत: :-

भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना में स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय के दिनांक 6 नवंबर, 2013 के सा.आ. सं.

3324 (अ.) में, अंतिम प्रविष्टि तथा इससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित को शामिल किया जाए, नामत:-

[सं. वी.-11013/04/2015-एमईपी (भाग)]

अिमत बिस्वास, अवर सिचव2334 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2016/ JYAISTHA 7, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] पाद टिप्पपाद टिप्पपाद टिप्पपाद टिप्पणी:णी:णी:णी:---- मूल अधिसूचना को दिनांक 9 जनवरी, 1960 के सा.आ. सं. 138 के तहत भारत के राजपत्र में प्रकाशित किया गया था तथा इसमें अंतिम संशोधन भारतीय आयु\व.ान परिषद (संशोधन) वित्तीय अध्यादेश, 2013 (2013 का 11) द्वारा किया गया था।

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2016

S.O. 1041.— Whereas on 06th November, 2013, the Medical Council of India was re-constituted in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3A of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013;

And, whereas the Central Government, in pursuance of Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) has conducted the election from the Registered Medical Graduate Constituency and the following has been elected to be a member of the Medical Council of India for four years with effect from the date of issue of this notification.

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry of Health number S.O. 138 dated 9th January, 1960, namely:-

In the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare number S.O. 3324(E) dated 06th November, 2013, after the last entry and entry relating thereto, the following shall be inserted, namely:

[No.V.-11013/04/2015-MEP(Pt.)]

AMIT BISWAS,Under Secy.

Foot Note : The principal notification was published in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 138 dated the 9th January, 1960 and was last amended vide Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2013 (11 of 2013).

मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालयमानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालयमानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालयमानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय

((((उ(cid:8)चउ(cid:8)चउ(cid:8)चउ(cid:8)चतर शिक्षा विभागतर शिक्षा विभागतर शिक्षा विभागतर शिक्षा विभाग))))

((((राजभाषा यूिनटराजभाषा यूिनटराजभाषा यूिनटराजभाषा यूिनट))))

नई दिल्ली, 19 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1042.—के न्(cid:12)ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप-िनयम 4 के अनुसरण में, मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय (स्कू ल शिक्षा एवं साक्षरता विभाग) के अंतर्गत निम्निलिखत कार्यालयों को, ऐसे कार्यालय के रूप में, जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारी-वृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक .ान प्राप्त कर िलया है, अिधसूिचत करती है :-

1. कें (cid:12)ीय विद्यालय, बालीगंज,

बालीगंज मैदान कैं प,

कोलकाता- 700019 (पiिम बंगाल)2335 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 28, 2016/ज्येष्ठ 7, 1938 2. कें (cid:12)ीय विद्यालय, मालदा,

पोस्ट– मिलहा, िजला– मालदा- 732102 (पiिम बंगाल)

3. कें (cid:12)ीय विद्यालय के .रि.पु.बल,

िजला– बjर्मान, दुर्गापुर- 713214 (पiिम बंगाल)

4. कें (cid:12)ीय विद्यालय, बैरकपुर (वायुसेना स्टेशन),

पोस्ट-बंगाल इनामेल, िजला-24 परगना (उत्तर) -743122

(पiिम बंगाल)

5. कें (cid:12)ीय विद्यालय, बीरभूम जोलबारी कॉम्पलेक्स,

िनकट नगरपािलका कार्यालय, िसउड़ी बीरभूम - 731101

(पiिम बंगाल)

6. कें (cid:12)ीय विद्यालय, सालबनी,

पोस्ट – रिबैनोमूलि,

िजला - मेदिनीपुर (पiिम) 721132 (पiिम बंगाल)

7. कें (cid:12)ीय विद्यालय,

फोर्टविलियम, कोलकाता- 700021

[सं.11011-2/2015-रा.भा.ए.]

सुखबीर सिह संधु, संयुक्त सिचव

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education)

(O.L. UNIT)

New Delhi, the 19th May, 2016

S.O. 1042.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, (Department of School Education & Literacy) as office, whose more than 80% members of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

1. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ballygunge,

Ballygunge Maidan Camp, Kolkata-700019 (West Bengal)

2. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Malda, PO- Maliha,

Distt- Malda- 732102 (West Bengal)

3. Kendriya Vidyalaya CRPF,

Dist- Burdwan, Durgapur-713214 (West Bengal)

4. Kendriya Vidyalaya Barrackpore (AFS),

P.O. Bengal Enamel, Dist- 24 Parganas (N) 743122 (West Bengal)

5. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Birbhum Golbari Complex,

Near Municipality Office, Suri Birbhum - 731101 (West Bengal)

6. Kendriya Vidyalaya Salboni, P.O.- RBNM

Dist – Medinipore (west) 721132, (West Bengal)

7. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Fort William

Kolkata- 700021

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

SUKHBIR SINGH SANDHU, Jt. Secy.

वस्त्रा मंत्राालय

नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1043.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, ;संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोगद्ध राजभाषा नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप-नियम ;4द्ध के अनुसरण में, वस्त्रा मंत्राालय के अंतर्गत आने वाले निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को जिसके 80% से अध्कि कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाध्क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, अधिसूचित करती है :

1. क्षेत्राीय कार्यालय, केंद्रीय रेशम बोर्ड, 5वां तल, विकास दीप, लखनऊ-226001 ;उ.प्र.द्ध

2. पिफन्ले मिल्स, नेशनल टेक्सटाइल्स कार्पोरेशन लि., अमरावती रोड, अचनपुर, जिला अमरावती, पिन कोड 444805 ;महाराश्ट्रद्ध

3. राजनगर टेक्सटाइल मिल्स, नेशनल टेक्सटाइल्स कार्पोरेशन लि., उत्तर गुजरात पटेल नगर सोसाइटी के सामने, बाबुपुरा, हरिपुरा, असारवा, अहमदाबाद-380016 ;गुजरातद्ध

[सं. ई.-11016/01/2015-हदी]

गीता नारायण, संयुक्त सचिव

MINISTRY OF TEXTILES

New Delhi, the 20th May, 2016

S.O. 1043.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for the Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notify the following offices of the Ministry of Textiles, more than 80% staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :

1. Regional Office, Central Silk Board, 5th Floor, Vikas Deep, 22 Station Road, Lucknow-226001 (Uttar Pradesh)

2. Finlay Mills, National Textiles Corporation Ltd., Amravati Road, Achalpur, District-Amravati, Pin 444805 (Maharashtra)

3. Rajnagar Textile Mills, National Textiles Corporation Ltd., Opp. Uttar Gujarat Patelnagar Society, Babupura, Haripura, Asarwa, Ahmedabad-380016 (Gujarat).

[No. E.-11016/01/2015-Hindi]

GEETA NARAYAN, Jt. Secy.

युवा कार्यक्रम और खेल मंत्राालय

नई दिल्ली, 18 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1044.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्‌द्वारा राजभाषा ;संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोगद्ध नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप-नियम ;4द्ध के अनुसरण में, युवा कार्यक्रम और खेल मंत्राालय के स्वायत्तशासी कार्यालय भारतीय खेल प्राध्किरण, राजीव गांध्ी उच्च शिखर प्रशिक्षण केंद्र, शिलारु ;हि.प्रद्ध, जिसके 80% से अध्कि कर्मचारी-वन्ृद ने हिंदी का कार्यसाध्क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को अधिसूचित करती है ।

[मि. सं.-11011/02/2008-हि.ए.]

एस. एल. मीना, उप सचिव MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS

New Delhi, the 18th May, 2016

S.O. 1044.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for the Official Purposes of the Union) Rule, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notify Sports Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi High Altitute Training Centre, Shilaru (H.P.), an Autonomous office of Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, whereof more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E-11011/02/2008-H.U.]

S. L. MEENA, Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 18 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1045.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्‌द्वारा राजभाषा ;संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोगद्ध नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप-नियम ;4द्ध के अनुसरण में, युवा कार्यक्रम और खेल मंत्राालय के अध्ीनस्थ कार्यालय राष्ट्रीय सेवा योजना क्षेत्राीय निदेशालय, दिल्ली जिसके 80% से अध्कि कर्मचारीवृंद ने हिंदी का कार्यसाध्क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को अधिसूचित करती है ।

[मि. सं. 11011/02/2008-हि.ए.] एस. एल. मीना, उप सचिव

New Delhi, the 18th May, 2016

S.O. 1045.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for the Official Purposes of the Union) Rule, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notify National Service Scheme Regional Directorate, Delhi, a Subordinate office of Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, whereof more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E-11011/02/2008-H.U.]

S. L. MEENA, Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 18 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1046.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्‌द्वारा राजभाषा ;संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोगद्ध नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप-नियम ;4द्ध के अनुसरण में, युवा कार्यक्रम और खेल मंत्राालय के अध्ीनस्थ कार्यालय राष्ट्रीय सेवा योजना क्षेत्राीय निदेशालय, चंडीगढ़ जिसके 80% से अध्कि कर्मचारीवृंद ने हिंदी का कार्यसाध्क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को अधिसूचित करती है ।

[मि. सं. 11011/02/2008-हि.ए.]

एस. एल. मीना, उप सचिव

New Delhi, the 18th May, 2016

S.O. 1046.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for the Official Purposes of the Union) Rule, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notify National Service Scheme Regional Directorate, Chandigarh, a Subordinate office of Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, whereof more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E-11011/02/2008-H.U.]

S. L. MEENA, Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 18 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1047.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्‌द्वारा राजभाषा ;संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोगद्ध नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप-नियम ;4द्ध के अनुसरण में, युवा कार्यक्रम और खेल मंत्राालय के अध्ीनस्थ कार्यालय राष्ट्रीय सेवा योजना क्षेत्राीय निदेशालय, तिरुवनन्तपुरम जिसके 80% से अध्कि कर्मचारीवृंद ने हिंदी का कार्यसाध्क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को अधिसूचित करती है ।

[मि. सं. 11011/02/2008-हि.ए.]

एस. एल. मीना, उप सचिव

New Delhi, the 18th May, 2016

S.O. 1047.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for the Official Purposes of the Union) Rule, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notify National Service Scheme Regional Directorate, Thiruvananthapuram, a Subordinate office of Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, whereof more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E-11011/02/2008-H.U.]

S. L. MEENA, Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1048.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्‌द्वारा राजभाषा ;संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोगद्ध नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप-नियम ;4द्ध के अनुसरण में, युवा कार्यक्रम और खेल मंत्राालय के स्वायत्तशासी कार्यालय, नेहरू युवा केंद्र, केलांग ;लाहौल स्पीतिद्ध, ;हि.

प्र.द्ध, जिसके 80% से अध्कि कर्मचारी-वन्ृद ने हिंदी का कार्यसाध्क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को अधिसूचित करती है ।

[मि. सं. 11011/02/2008-हि.ए.] एस. एल. मीना, उप सचिव2338 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2016/ JYAISTHA 7, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2016

S.O. 1048.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for the Official Purposes of the Union) Rule, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notify Nehru Yuva Kendra, Keylong, (Lahul Spiti) (H.P.), an Autonomous office of Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, whereof more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E-11011/02/2008-H.U.]

S. L. MEENA, Dy. Secy.

संचार और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्राालय

;इलेक्ट्रॉनिकी और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी विभागद्ध

नई दिल्ली, 23 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1049.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्‌द्वारा राजभाषा ;संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोगद्ध नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप-नियम ;4द्ध के अनुसरण में, इलेक्ट्रॉनिकी और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी विभाग के संब( कार्यालय मानकीकरण परीक्षण तथा गुणवत्ता प्रमाणन निदेशालय के गुवाहाटी स्थित अध्ीनस्थ कार्यालय, इलेक्ट्रॉनिकी परीक्षण तथा विकास केंद्र, जिसके 80% से अध्कि कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाध्क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को अधिसूचित करती है ।

[सं. 7;2द्ध/2005-हि.अ.] राजीव कुमार, संयुक्त सचिव MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(Department of Electronics and Information Technology)

New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2016

S.O. 1049.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for the Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies the Electronics Test and Development Centre, a subordinate office of the Standardisation Testing and Quality Certification Directorate, and attached office of the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, located at Guwahati, whose more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. 7(2)/2005-H.S.]

RAJIV KUMAR, Jt. Secy.

कोयला मंत्रालयकोयला मंत्रालयकोयला मंत्रालयकोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2016

काकाकाका....आआआआ. 1050. 1050. 1050. 1050....—के न्(cid:12)ीय सरकार, कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास) अिधिनयम 1957 (1957 का 20) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अिधिनयम कहा गया है) की धारा 9 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी भारत के राजपत्र, असाधारण, भाग ।।, खंड 3, उपखंड (ii), तारीख 8 फरवरी,2016 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना द्वारा का. आ. संख्यांक 397(अ), तारीख 8 फरवरी, 2016 के प्रकाशन पर, उक्त अधिसूचना से उपाबj अनुसूची में व\णत भूमि (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त भूमि कहा गया है) और भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर, आत्यंतिक रूप में के न्(cid:12)ीय सरकार में िनिहत हो गए थे;

और, के न्(cid:12)ीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है, कि सेंट्रल कोलफील्mस िलिमटेड, रांची, (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् सरकारी कं पनी कहा गया है), ऐसे निबंधनों और शतn का जिन्हें के न्(cid:12)ीय सरकार इस निमित्त अिधरोिपत करना उिचत समझे, अनुपालन करने के लिये रजामंद हैं ;

अत: अब, के न्(cid:12)ीय सरकार, कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास) अिधिनयम 1957 की धारा 11 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Sए, यह निदoश देती है, कि उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकार के न्(cid:12)ीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने के बजाए, 8 फरवरी, 2016 से निम्नलिखित निबंधनों और शतn के अधीन रहते Sए, उक्त सरकारी कं पनी में निहित हो जाएंगे, अर्थात् -2339 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 28, 2016/ज्येष्ठ 7, 1938 1. सरकारी कं पनी, उक्त अधिनियम के उपबंधों के अधीन यथा अवधारित प्रतिकर, ब्याज, नुकसानियों और वैसी ही

मदों की बाबत् किए गए संदायों की के न्(cid:12)ीय सरकार को प्रतिपू\त करेगी ;

2. सरकारी कम्पनी द्वारा शर्त (1) के अधीन के न्(cid:12)ीय सरकार को संदेय रकमों का अवधारण करने के प्रयोजनों के िलए

उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 के अधीन एक अधिकरण का गठन किया जाएगा और ऐसे किसी अधिकरण और

अधिकरण की सहायता के लिए नियुक्त qयक्तियों के संबंध में उपगत सभी qयय, सरकारी कं पनी द्वारा वहन किए

जाrगे और इसी प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के लिए या उनके संबंध में अपीलें आदि सभी

विधिक कार्यवाहियों की बाबत् उपगत, सभी qयय भी, सरकारी कं पनी द्वारा वहन किए जाएंगे ;

3. सरकारी कं पनी, के न्(cid:12)ीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों की, ऐसे किसी अन्य qयय के संबंध में क्षतिपू\त करेगी, जो

इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के बारें में, के न्(cid:12)ीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों द्वारा या

उनके विरूj किन्हH कार्यवाहियों के संबंध में आवश्यक हो ;

4. सरकारी कं पनी को के न्(cid:12)ीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन के बिना उक्त भूमि को किसी अन्य qयक्ति को अंतरित करने

की शक्ति नहH होगी ; और

5. सरकारी कं पनी, ऐसे निदoशों और शतn का पालन करेगी, जो के न्(cid:12)ीय सरकार द्वारा,जब कभी आवश्यक हो, उक्त

भूमि के विशिष्ट क्षेत्रों के लिए दिए जाएं या अधिरोपित किए जाएं ।

[फा. सं. 43015/17/2014-पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-I]

सुजीत कु मार , अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2016

S.O. 1050.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal, number S.O. 397 (E), dated the 8th February, 2016, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 8th February, 2016, issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the land and all rights in or over the land described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land) are vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act;

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that all rights in or over the said land so vested, shall, with effect from the 8th February, 2016, instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government shall vest in the Government company, subject to the following terms and conditions, namely:-

1. The Government Company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of compensation, interest, damages, and the like, as determined under the provisions of the said Act;

2. A Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of the said Act, for the purpose of determining the amounts payable to the Central Government by the said Government Company under condition (1) and all expenditure incurred in connection with any such tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal shall be borne by the said Government Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals, etc. for or in connection with the rights, in or over the said land, so vested, shall also be borne by the Government Company;

3. The Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its officials regarding the aforesaid rights in or over the said land so vested;

4. The Government Company shall have no power to transfer the aforesaid rights in the said lands so vested, to any other person without the prior approval of the Central Government; and

5. The Government Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the Central Government for particular areas of the said land as and when necessary.

[F. No. 43015/17/2014- PRIW-I]

SUJEET KUMAR, Under Secy.

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्राालय

नई दिल्ली, 2 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1051.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार अशोक

होटल, नई दिल्ली के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकार के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार

औद्योगिक अध्किरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, दिल्ली के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 68/2012द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28.04.

2016 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42025/03/2016-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अध्किारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2016

S.O. 1051.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 68/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum- Labour-Court No.-1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Ashok Hotel, New Delhi and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 28.04.2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2016-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. 68/2012

Shri Arjun Singh, through The President Ashok Hotel Mazdoor Janta Union, Ashok Hotel Staff Quarter No.C-48-49, 50-B, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi – 110 021

…Workman

Versus

The General Manager, Ashok Hotel, 50-B, Chanakyapuri, Delhi 110 021

…Management

AWARD

Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that the workman herein directly raised a dispute before this Tribunal under provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) inasmuch as period of 45 days stood expired from the date of making his application before the Conciliation Officer and no reference is required under the Act by the Tribunal from the appropriate Government after the said period.

2. It is averred in the statement of claim that the workman herein, Shri Arjun Singh, was working in Ashok Hotel since October 2006 to the satisfaction of the management of Ashok Hotel. There was no complaint against the said workman and their group leader has also appreciated his services. The workman herein was working in the premises of Ashok Hotel against permanent post lying vacant in Ashok Hotel. Officials of Ashok Hotel used to assign the job or work to the workman herein and also used to mark his attendance and supervision of the work/job was under the control of management of Ashok Hotel.

3. It is further the case of the workman herein that he has filed proper applications and was also interviewed by the officials of Ashok Hotel before his appointment. However, instead of giving direct letter of appointment through management of Ashok Hotel, he was issued letter through the contractor, M/s. Recruitment Bureau so as to deprive him of proper pay-scales as well as other benefits applicable to the post of cashier. Workman herein was working in the restaurants of Ashok Hotel, dealing with cash. However, he was not paid cash handling allowance of Rs.200.00 per2341 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 28, 2016/ज्येष्ठ 7, 1938 month, which he was entitled as per rules. It is pertinent to mention here that the workman was working with the permanent cashiers appointed by the management of Ashok Hotel , who were being paid regular pay scale of cashier, alongwith other allowances whereas the workman herein was paid less salary starting from Rs.7000.00 per month whereas permanent employees working as cashiers are getting salary of Rs.30,000.00 per month. Job carried out by the workman herein was perennial in nature and the same should have not been done through contractor, as such, contrary to the provisions of Contract Labour Act, 1970. For the purpose of making payment of salary, management of Ashok Hotel was using services of middleman contractor M/s. Recruitment Bureau, who was making payment to the workman after receiving the said salary from the management of Ashok Hotel every month. It is further alleged that as per Payment of Wages Act, 1948 workman is entitled to double the wages for extra duty performed by them, which was also denied to the workman herein. EPF of the workman herein as per rule of Ashok Hotel should have been deposited in Ashok Hotel Employees Provident Fund Trust No.DL-522, which was not done. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (North Delhi) cancelled the Ashok Hotel Employees PF Trust No.DL-522 on account of non-deposit of PF money of the employees in the EPF Trust of Ashok Hotel, who were working through contractor, vide letter dated 28.12.2010, which was subsequently restored vide order dated 14.07.2011. Workman herein was also entitled for bonus as per Bonus Act, 1965 for the financial years working since 2004 but the management of Ashok Hotel paid only Rs.3000.00 once in the entire service of the workmen. Workman has completed 240 days in each calendar year and thus was entitled for regularization of his services with the management of Ashok Hotel. However, instead of regularizing services of the workman, his services were illegally terminated in September 2011. While removing the workman from service no notice or pay in lieu thereof, nor any service compensation for the service rendered by the workmen was given to him; as such, it violates provisions of Section 25F of the Act.

4. There are also averments that as per Standing Orders of Ashok Hotel under Section No. 3 there is a classification of the employees, i.e. Permanent, Temporary, Badlis, casuals, probationers and apprentices and the management of Ashok Hotel cannot use services of employees through contractor and have to employ or appoint employees in the above categories. Workmen were working in the premises of Ashok Hotel , who were beneficiary of their services. As such, they were employees of Ashok Hotel for all purposes. The workman has also written letter to the General Manager of Ashok Hotel on 30.12.2011 requesting them to take them on duty, but Ashok Hotel has not responded to the said letter so far. President of Ashok Hotel Mazdoor Janta Union wrote a letters 07.01.2012 but the same was not responded by the management of Ashok Hotel. In the end, Workman has prayed that the management of Ashok Hotel be directed to reinstate him with full back wages.

5. Management was put to notice, who filed written statement taking preliminary objections, claiming that the present claim is totally misconceived, ill conceived and not tenable. It is further alleged that the workman herein was an employee of M/s. Recruitment Bureau, as such, there is no cause of action against the management of Ashok Hotel. The answering management is neither necessary nor a proper party for adjudication of the claim and name of the answering management should be deleted and substituted with M/s. Recruitment Bureau, which is necessary party. Answering management has entered into an agreement with M/s. Recruitment Bureau for providing manpower for job works which was on principal to principal basis. Workman herein was permanent employee of M/s. Recruitment Bureau. Liability towards all the relief of the workman is that of M/s. Recruitment Bureau and the answering management has no role in the present dispute.

6. On merits, management has denied most of the averments contained in the statement of claim. It is specifically denied that the workman herein was working for the management of Ashok Hotel as he was an employee of M/s. Recruitment Bureau under whose control and supervision he was working. It is also denied that attendance of workman was being marked in I. Card section. Answering management has no rule with regard to marking of attendance of workmen of Recruitment Bureau, who were deployed for rendering service under the contract. Answering management, being principal employer, has no authority to make salary slip of the employees of Recruitment Bureau. Salary bill is raised by the service provider is required to be verified by the concerned officer of Ashok Hotel to establish their authenticity and to ensure compliance of statutory provisions. Averments made in the other paras in relation to deployment, payment of wages, bonus etc. has also been denied by the management. Finally, it has been prayed that this Tribunal may dismiss the claim filed by the workman herein.

7. Against this factual background, my learned predecessor, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 30.05.2012, framed the following issues:

(i) Whether there is relationship of employer and employee between Ashok Hotel and the claimant?

(ii) Whether the claimant is an employee of M/s. Recruitment Bureau to whom annual maintenance contract has been given by M/s. Ashok Hotel?

(iii) Whether the claimant rendered continuous service of more than 240 days with M/s. Ashok Hotel in the preceding 12 months from the date of termination of his services?

(iv) Whether termination of services of the claimant amounts to retrenchment?

(v) Whether the claimant is entitled for reinstatement in the services of the management ?

8. Workmen, in order to prove his case against the management examined himself as WW1 and Shri S.S. Upadhyay as WW2, whose affidavits areEx.WW1/A and Ex.WW2/A respectively and they have also adduced several documents in evidence and I would be discussing the same while rendering findings in the subsequent paras on various issues.

9. Management, in order to rebut the case of the workmen, examined Shri Lohit Joshi, Manager(HR) as MW1 and also filed affidavit, Ex.MW1/A. He has also tendered in evidence certificate of registration under the Contract Labour Act and copies of bills raised by Recruitment Bureau etc. and the documents are Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/8.

10. I have heard Shri S.S. Upadhyay, authorized representative for the claimant and Shri B.K. Singh, authorized representative for the management.

Findings on Issue No.1, 2 and 3

11. All these issues are being taken up together for the purpose of discussion as they are inter-related and can be conveniently disposed of.

12. Shri Arjun Singh examined himself as WW1, whose affidavit is Ex.WW1/A. He has deposed that he was working since October 2006 as cashier. It was the Manager who assigned duty to him as per duty roster. He used to record time of his arrival as well as departure in the attendance register. His attendance was recorded by the Manager. He used to work in shifts and his wages used to be paid through contractor. Photocopy of the Identity card issued to him is Ex.WW1/7. He has not received any notice regarding details for the amount of deposits in his provident fund. He specifically deposed that no termination letter was issued to him . There were regular employees in the Hotel who were doing similar job of cashier. He has admitted that his wages were paid by M/s. Recruitment Bureau after getting bill passed from the management. He further admitted that the management had not signed any documents with him relating to his service conditions. He has denied other suggestions made by the management.

13. It is clear from the affidavit filed by Shri S.S. Upadhyay, copy of which is Ex.WW2/A that the same is on similar lines as the averments made in the statement of claim. During the course of arguments, it was not disputed that Ashok Hotel Mazdoor Janta Union is recognized union by the management of Ashok Hotel and there are several cases which have been filed by the workmen through the said union. Admittedly, Ashok Hotel is a public sector undertaking being run by Board of Directors under the Ministry of Tourism. It has its own rules and regulations regarding working of the Hotel. It was also not disputed that Certified Standing Orders modified from time to time are full applicable governing services of the employees working in the said Hotel. During the course of arguments, attention of this Tribunal was invited to Section 3 of the Sanding Order, Ex.WW2/1, which deals with the classification of the employees, which clearly provides that all employees of the company shall be classified as under:

a) Permanent

b) Temporary

c) Badlis

d) Casuals

e) Probationers

14. Certified standing orders is a complete code so far as services of the employees working in Ashok Hotel is concerned and it contains specific provisions relating to the procedure for dealing with cases of misconduct. The term permanent, temporary, badlis, casuals and probationer workmen has also been fully defined in the said standing orders. It is specifically averred in para 8 of affidavit Ex.WW2/A that the strength of employees approved by the Board of Directors is 1494 in all and employees are appointed in respective categories as per strength of the category. There is also specific mention of the vacant posts and it is specifically alleged that so far as post of cashiers/clerks were concerned, 50 posts of cashiers/clerks were vacant in 2012 against sanctioned post of about 100. Further, management of Ashok Hotel utilizes services of workmen through M/s. Recruitment Bureau. However, supervision and control over the workmen was that of the management of Ashok Hotel. Admittedly, workman herein was working in the premises of Ashok Hotel. Shri S.S. Upadhyay has admitted that on number of occasions, payment of wages was made when he happened to be present there. Payment of wages was made through M/s. Recruitment Bureau to the workmen. He has further admitted that the workman herein was engaged by M/s. Recruitment Bureau and his services were dispensed with by the said Bureau. He has tendered in evidence duty chart Ex.WW2/13, which shows that the workmen used to work in the premises of Ashok Hotel and officials of Ashok Hotel used to mark their attendance. This witness also tendered in evidence document Ex.WW2/5 which shows that management has awarded job contract to the agency2343 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 28, 2016/ज्येष्ठ 7, 1938 mentioned in the said document. There is also letter dated 26.08.2008 Ex.WW2/6 written by Manager, Ashok Hotel to M/s. Recruitment Bureau wherein requirement of 16 candidates has been mentioned to the needful work. There is yet another letter Ex.WW2/7 dated 28.07.2008 which shows that deployment of Shri Satveer Nimesh as Cashier was done by the management of Ashok Hotel. Another letter Ex.WW2/8 addressed by the General Manager to M/s. Sparkling Enterprises shows that the management of Ashok Hotel complained to the contractor that the employees mentioned in the said letter were found to be sleeping during surprise check carried out by officials of the management. Competent authority has directed to take major penalty action against the delinquent employees. This again shows that so far as working of the employees is concerned, supervision and control over them was that of the management of Ashok Hotel and the so called contractor was engaged by the principal employee, i.e. Ashok Hotel was simply a service provider on paper who has forwarded name of workmen for the purpose of deployment in the various units of the Hotel. Ex.WW2/9 shows that surprise check was carried out by officials of the Hotel on the night of 24/25.08.2008 and the workers whose names are mentioned in the said list were found sleeping. Ex.WW2/12 shows list of workmen employed in Ashok Hotel.

15. After termination of the job of the workman herein, Shri S.S. Upadhyay, President of the Union has written letter to the General Manager, Ashok Hotel, informing the management that cashier, namely Shri Arjun Singh who was working under the management of Ashok Hotel since October 2006 has now been removed from service in an illegal manner. However, there is force in the contention of the workman herein that no such notice before termination or payment of salary in lieu of the notice was made to the workman before removal or terminating his services.

16. Management, in order to rebut the case of the workman, examined Shri Lohit Joshi as MW1, whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A. He has tendered documents relating to Certificate of Registration Ex./MW1/1 and other documents Ex.MW1/2, to Ex.MW1/8. He was posted at Ashok Hotel in October 2012. He has admitted that Certified Standing Orders are applicable to employees of Ashok Hotel. He has admitted the various categories of the employees as mentioned in the said Standing Orders. He further admitted creation of provident fund trust pertaining to employees of Ashok Hotel. He admitted that as per rule 14, Ex.WW2/2, duty is cast on the principal employer to deposit contribution of the provident fund in respect of employees of the contractor in the Trust. He has further deposed that wages were paid to all the employees through M/s. Recruitment Bureau and said employees were working in Ashok Hotel. He has admitted that duty chart Ex.WW1/4 bears signatures of the Bills Manager at point A. To a court question as to why signature of Bills Manager appears at point A, witness sought further time to explain the said fact. He has admitted that Ex.WW2/13 nowhere bears signatures of the contractor. It is clear from perusal of duty chart Ex.WW2/13 that duty chart does not bear signature of the contractor or any of his agent. Bills Manager as signed the same at the end. Thus, there is no force in the contention of the management that it was M/s Recruitment Bureau who was having overall control on the working as well as supervision over the workmen herein. There is amply evidence on record, as discussed above, to show that above contractor was simply a name lender and the workman herein was actually working under complete control and supervision of the management of Ashok Hotel. Their placement on duty as well as nature of duty was duly determined by the management from time to time and they were also shifted from one place to another within the premises of Ashok Hotel by the officials of the management so as to get work from them.

17. Now, the primary question which arises for consideration is whether the workman were in the employment of Ashok Hotel or were employed by M/s. Recruitment Bureau. Equally important is the fact that agreement between the management of Ashok Hotel and the contractor is genuine or simply a sham and camouflage so as to deny status of workmen under the principal employer herein. In this regard, strong reliance was placed by Shri Upadhyay, learned authorized representative appearing on behalf of the workman upon Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and others (2001) 7 SCC 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered extensively various provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as Contract Labour Act, 1970 alongwith relevant notification issued under Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act, 1970. A critical appraisal of the above judgement would show that the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken into consideration the entire spectrum of the case law on the subject and held in para 107 as under:

107. An analysis of the cases, discussed above, shows that they fall in three classes: (i) where contract labour is engaged in or in connection with the work of an establishment and employment of contract labour is prohibited either because the industrial adjudicator/court ordered abolition of contract labour or because the appropriate Government issued notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, no automatic absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment was ordered; (ii) where the contract was found to be a sham and nominal, rather a camouflage, in which case the contract labour working in the establishment of the principal employer were held, in fact and in reality, the employees of the principal employer himself. Indeed, such cases do not relate to abolition of contract labour but present instances wherein the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct position as a fact at the stage after employment of contract labour stood prohibited; (iii) where in discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining a canteen in an establishment the principal employer availed2344 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2016/ JYAISTHA 7, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the services of a contractor the courts have held that the contract labour would indeed be the employees of the principal employer.

18. Ratio of the above judgement has been cited with approval in all the subsequent pronouncement by the various High Courts as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court and while making various conclusions, ratio of he law in Hussanbhai case (three judgements decision) was approved and ratio of the judgement in Air India Statutory Corporation Vs. United Labour Union (1997) 9 SCC 377 was partly overruled prospectively. It was also made clear that neither Section 10 of the Contract Labour Ac nor any other provisions under the Act, whether expressly or by necessary implication provides for automatic absorption of the contact labour on issuance of notification by the appropriate Government under sub- section 1 of Section 10 prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. Mater is to be decided judiciously by the Industrial Adjudicator where a contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for the work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is merely a ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit there-under. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour will be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned, subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in the light of para 6 hereunder:

(6) If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act in respect of the concerned establishment has been issued by the appropriate Government, prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work of any establishment and where in such process, operation or other work of the establishment the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications.

19. This Tribunal has to keep one thing in mind that the Industrial Disputes Act as well as Contract Labour Act. Essential and beneficial legislation of the scheme of the Contract Labour Act 1970 is to regulate conditions of workers under the contract labour system and to provide for its abolition by the appropriate Government as provided under Section 10 of the said Act. Section 12 of the said Act bars a contractor from undertaking or executing any work through contract labour, except under and in accordance with a licence issued. Section 23, 24 and 25 of the Act makes contravention of provisions of the Act punishable there-under. There is also requirement for the principal employer of the establishment to get itself registered under the Act so as to avail the benefit of provisions of the Act.

20. Reliance was also placed upon the case of Management of Ashok Hotel vs Their Workmen decided on 19.02.2013 in WP(C) No.14828/2006 wherein similar question was involved. It was a case where various workmen were working continuously as safaiwala/Housemen in the kitchen department etc. and they were alleged to be working directly under the contactor who has entered into a contract with the principal employer, i.e. Ashok Hotel. Strong reliance was placed on behalf of the workmen upon ratio of the case in Steel Authority of India (supra) and contention of the management to the effect that workmen were employees of the contractor was rejected. Further, contract in the said case was also held to be sham and camouflage so as to deny direct relationship of employer (Ashok Hotel) and the workmen.

21. Lastly, reliance was placed upon the case of J. Elangovan vs. CGIT cum Labour Court Chennai decided on 13.12.2010 wherein workmen who were engaged as lift operators through contractor by the principal employer, i.e Airport Authority of India, were held to be employees of the contractor by the Industrial Tribunal and an appeal against the same was filed before the Hon'ble High Court wherein same plea was taken as in the case in hand that the workmen were getting salary through contractor and were not engaged by the principal employer, who was not having any effective control over them. However, this plea was rejected by the Hon'ble High Court by heavily relying upon the ratio of the case of Hussain Bhai Calicut Vs. The Alath Factory Thezhilali Union, Kozhikode & others (1978 4 SCC 257), Catering Cleaners of Southern Railway Vs. Union of India and another (1987 1 SCC 700), Silver Jubilee Tailoring House and others vs. Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments and another (1974 (3) SCC 498, Mishra Chatu Nigam Ltd. and others V.M. Venkataiah and others ( 2003 7 SCC 488), Sankar Mukherjee and others vs. Union of India and others ((1990(Supp.) SCC 668 and Ram Singh and others Vs. Union Territory Chandigarh & others ( 2004 1 SCC 126). It was also observed that the test for determining as to whether workers hired through contractor can be treated as employees of the principal employer rests on the nature of the activity entrusted. Where nature of work entrusted to the contract workers are integral part of the activity of the management and intervention of intermediary or contractor, absence of direct relationship between worker and principal employer, including control by the principal employer, payment of salary by the contractor and maintenance of attendance register by the contractor are not of any consequence, particularly more so when the nature of job entrusted to such contract workers is the same as one done by regular employees. Agreement in the said case was held to be sham and camouflage. Situation in the case in hand is in no way2345 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 28, 2016/ज्येष्ठ 7, 1938 different. It is clear from evidence on record that workman herein was being paid salary by the contractor through officials of Ashok Hotel. Work of cashier, as per statement of MW1 is regular and perennial in nature. It is further clear that contract Ex.WW2/5 was awarded to M/s Recruitment Bureau initially for a period of three years and he has simply provided workforce to Ashok Hotel, whose officials were supervising and were having effective control over working of such employees. Further, job of casher is very delicate and is in fact being performed by regular employees of Ashok Hotel also. As a result of the discussions above and in the light of the ratio of decisions in the above judgements coupled with evidence on record, contract in the case is held to be sham and a mere camouflage so as to deny relationship of employer (Ashok Hotel) and workmen herein.

22. It is further clear from the critical appraisal of the above judgements that services of the workman is taken in connection with the work of the establishment, by the principal employer through contractor, in that eventuality, contractor merely acts as an agent or a broker on behalf of the principal employer and the workman in such a situation would continue to the a direct employee of the principal employer and not that of the agent or the broker. In the case in hand also, it is clear from the evidence on record, that the workmen herein were admittedly working as Cashiers with the management regularly, though alleged to be in the employment of M/s Recruitment Bureau. Supervisory control upon him remained with that of the management.

23. It is also clear from perusal of the Certified Standing Orders Ex.WW1/1 that Section III details with the classification of employees and the same is reproduced as under:

Section 3 : Classification of Employees

a) Permanent

b) Temporary

c) Badlis

d) Casuals

e) Probationers

24. Since appointment of contact labour is not contemplated in the above Certified Standing Orders, as such, the engagement of workmen through contract labour is patently against the law and Standing Orders Ex.WW2/1.

25. Workman herein has also filed documents Ex.WW2/2 which deals with the deposit of provident fund of the employees engaged by the employer. Similarly, document Ex.WW2/3 shows that contractor or the employer was not depositing the provident fund etc. with the Trust so constituted under the Regulation, as a result of which exemption granted to the management was withdrawn by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Delhi, North. There is another document, Ex.WW2/4, which shows the position of employees who were working in the establishment of the management. During the course of arguments, it was not disputed that several posts of various categories are lying vacant in the establishment of the management and have not been filled up so far as the Central Government has not granted permission to fill up the same. In such a situation, one thing is crystal clear that though the work of the workman herein who were admittedly working as Cashiers with the management is regular in nature, yet the management is deploying workers through contractors. It is further clear that management has adopted this devise so as to deprive the workmen of regular employment and deprive them of their permanent livelihood, which is totally against the spirit of Contract Labour Act, 1970 wherein it is clearly provided that when a work is regular or permanent in nature, there is no question of employing contract labour, particular when such labour is not covered by any clause mentioned in Section III of the Certified Standing Order. This also amount to unfair labour practice.

26. Admittedly, no notice whatsoever was served upon the workman herein before ordering his termination, as he has been working since October 2006. Thus, in the case in hand, there is violation of Section 25F of the Act, which requires that if a workman has worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year, then the management is required to issue notice to such workman, which has not been done in the case in hand. Thus, there is no merit in the contention of the management that the workman herein was directly employed by M/s Recruitment Bureau. when the overall control and supervision remained with the management.

27. So far as question of regularization of the workman herein is concerned, this Tribunal cannot give directions for regularization of the workman in view of the clear cut ratio of law in Steel Authority of India (supra) wherein it was held that question of regularization is to be decided by the principal employer after taking into consideration the minimum qualification, age as well as availability of posts. There is no such evidence to this effect brought on record, either by the workman or the management. As such, plea of the workman for regularization cannot be entertained at this stage. This is to be decided by the management after taking into consideration the necessary rules applicable to such employees governing such regulation.

Issue No.(iv)

28. During the course of arguments, it was strongly urged on behalf of the management that M/s Recruitment Bureau was a necessary party to the controversy and in the absence of its impleadment as a necessary party, reference filed by the workman herein is not legally maintainable. Shri Upadhyay, authorized representative on behalf of the workman countered the above submissions by urging that the workman herein was in the employment of the management and that payment of wages were made to him through contractor with the prior approval of the management, as such M/s. Recruitment Bureau is not a necessary party. To my mind, when reference has been made under Section 10 of the Act by the appropriate Government, , this Tribunal does not have the power to implead a party. Hence, there is no force in the contention of the management inasmuch as the management should have examined the contractor M/s Recruitment Bureau so as to ascertain its terms and conditions. Moreover, M/s Recruitment Bureau is simply a proper party and is not the necessary party for the adjudication of the controversy in question. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.

Relief

29. Consequently, it is held that termination of the workman herein, i.e. from 20.09.2011 is held to be illegal and workman herein are entitled to be reinstated. Since it has come in the evidence of the workman that he is unemployed since the date of his termination and there being no evidence to the contrary led by the management, as such, the workman herein is liable to be reinstated with full 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.

Dated : April 21, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 6 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1052.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी.डब्ल्यू.

डी. के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकार के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अध्किरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, दिल्ली के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 101/2013द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 05.05.2016 को

प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/237/2010-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2016

S.O. 1052.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 101/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum- Labour-Court No.1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of C.P.W.D. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 05.05.2016.

[No. L-42012/237/2010-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. 101/2013

Radhey Shyam Saini, S/o Shri Rattan Lal Singh, through General Secretary, CPWD Mazdoor Union, A/o Room No.95, Barracks No.1/10, Jam Nagar House, Shah Jahan Road, New Delhi-110 001

…Workmen

Versus

The Director General , C.P.W.D., Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001

…Managements2347 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 28, 2016/ज्येष्ठ 7, 1938

AWARD

Reference was received under Section 10 of sub-section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication from the Central Government vide letter No.L-42012/237/2010-IR(DU) dated 22.03.2016 and the terms of reference are as under:

'Whether the action of the management of CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Radhey Shyam Saini S/o Shri Rattan Lal Singh, ex-wireman, without any notice or pay in lieu of notice period and retrenchment compensation is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?

2. Backgrounds facts giving rise to the above reference are that Shri Radhey Shyam Saini (in short the workman herein) was initially engaged as wireman with effect from 30.08.1999 and was performing his duties as pump operator under the Executive Engineer, (Electrical), Electrical Division, XIV Sub Division IV, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi. Later on, services of the workman herein were terminated without one months' notice or salary in lieu thereof with effect from 14.10.2009.

3. Workman herein had earlier filed a writ petition bearing No.2671 of 2000 in the High Court of Delhi for regularization of his services directly under the management of CPWD as contract in the case was alleged to be sham and camouflage. Hon'ble High Court vide judgement dated 26.11.2001 has given liberty to the workman herein to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Steel Authority of India vs. National Union Water Front Workers Union (2001 Lab.I.C 3556). Copy of the above judgement is enclosed as Annexure A with the statement of claim.

4. Further, it is averred that the workman herein was working through a fake contractor, M/s Multi Trading Engineers on a job of perennial nature and was designated as Generator Operator on 30.08.1999 but basically the workman was performing major job of wireman and electrician as he was holding a valid licence from the Secretary (Labour) Government of NCT Delhi. He was posted at Andaman and Nicobar Bhawan, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi under Executive Engineer(Electrical) and he was under the direct employment of the respondent management through the contractor. Relative details of the workman herein are as under:

'Radhey Shyam Saini, the workman herein is passed 9th standard and at present is working as Operator/Wireman with CPWD. The workman therein entered the services in the office of CPWD on 3008.1999 through M/s Multi Trading Engineers, the contractor. The workman has been working for more than 240 days in each of the calendar year under the control and supervision of the Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer etc.

5. Workman herein had also raised an industrial dispute for regularization of his services after judgement of the Hon'ble High Court dated 26.08.2001 and the same is still pending before the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi. Workman is in the employment of CPWD for more than 10 years and it is totally a misnomer to call services of the workman as being one through contractor. Officers of CPWD alongwith the contractor are working in collusion with each other by adopting unfair means and to deny the benefits of regular employment of the management of CPWD to the workman herein. Ministry of Labour, vide notification dated 21.07.2002, has prohibited employment of work, i.e. wiremen, electrician etc. and copy of the same is Annexure B. Daily rated workers in CPWD who are performing similar work as that of the workman herein are getting regular salary/wages from the date of their initial employment alongwith allowances etc. Copy of order of payment equal pay to the daily rated persons is filed alongwith the claim. When the workman herein demanded regularization of his services, management terminated his services, without following due procedure under the law. It is also the case of the workman that after abolition of contract labour vide notification dated 21.07.2002, workman herein is to be treated as direct employee of management of CPWD. Workman has also annexed his licence/certification of completing Class 10.

6. Claim of the workman was resisted by the management by filing reply thereto and have taken preliminary objections, including that the claim is liable to be dismissed as office of DG((W) CPWD is not an industry nor an industrial establishment or industrial undertaking so as to attract provisions of the ID Act. CPWD is a Central Government Department and is performing sovereign functions of the State as enshrined in Constitution of India. Copy of judgement passed by CGIT, Jaipur is also filed with the reply. It is further alleged that the reference is devoid of any merits and as such this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to try the present dispute.. Reference was made to the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in which the case of the workman was dismissed vide order dated 26.09.2001. On merits, material averments have been denied by the management. It is denied that the workman herein has worked with the management at any point of time. Workman was engaged by the contractor, M/s Parmar Electricals who was assigned the contract. It is also denied that the workman herein was under the employment of the management for more than 10 years. It is further denied that the workman was working under Multi Trading Engineers. Since the2348 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2016/ JYAISTHA 7, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] workman has never been directly in the employment of the management, hence question of his completing 240 days in a calendar year does not arise at all. Workman is not even a casual worker of CPWD. Management has also made reference to Surinder Singh & Others vs. The Engineer-in-Chief stating that said judgement is not applicable to the case of the workman herein in view of the ratio of judgement in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) (4) SCC I) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court observed that when a workman is not engaged in accordance with due procedure, his services cannot be regularized nor he can claim any relief. Further, judgement of the Apex Court in Airport Authority of India has been prospectively overruled by the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India and others Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and others (2001) 7 SCC 1) wherein it is observed that section 10 of the CLRA Act empowers the employer to engage contract labour and principal employ canoe be ordered absorption of contract labour as a matter of right. Management has denied other averments contained in the remaining paras. It has been specifically alleged that in the present case, work was allotted to CPWD for carrying out electrical services at Andaman and Nicobar Bhawan, Chanakyapuri. Since CPWD could not perform the said work, it was awarded to a contractor. Workman was directly under the control and supervision of the Contraction , who in turn was answerable to CPWD. Against this factual background, my learned predecessor vide order dated 07.10.2013 framed the following issues from the pleadings of the parties:

(1) Whether there exists relationship of employer and employee between the parties?

(2) Whether claimant was an employee of the contractor?

(3) As in terms of reference

7. Workman in support of his case examined himself and tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.WW1/A and also tendered in evidence various documents, i.e. Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/4 and management in order to rebut the case of the workman examined Shri M.P. Sharma as MW1 and his affidavit is Ex.MW1/A. He has tendered in evidence documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/12. Initially the management examined Shri Roop Lal who tendered in evidence his affidavit. However, later on, he was not available for his cross examination, as such, Shri M.P. Sharma was examined by the management as MW1. I would be adverting to the same in the subsequent paras while drawing my conclusions.

Findings on Issue No.1 and 2

8. Both these issues are being taken up together for the purpose of discussion as they are inter related and can be conveniently disposed of.

9. Shri B.K. Prasad, authorized representative appearing on behalf of the workman herein urged that the workman was initially engaged by the management on 30.08.1999 and thereafter he is regularly performing his job under the supervision and control of the management of CPWD. The so called agreement executed by the management with the contractor is a fake document and workman is not aware of the same. Workman was performing job in the manner being directed by officials of CPWD and the workman has not even seen the face of the contractor during his entire service.

10. Case of contractor Multi Trading Engineers and job which the workman was performing is regular and perennial nature. He was designated as generator operator after 30.08.1999 and he was also performing major job of Electrician/wireman as he was having valid licence or the same. Learned authorized representative also placed reliance upon Steel Authority of India and others Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and others(supra) and a few other judgements in support of his submission so as to allege that the so called contract between the management and the contractor is only a fake and sham document. Contractor is simply a name lender and has no control over the working of the workman herein, whose work in fact was being directly scrutinized and supervised by the officials of CPWD. Work of the workman was technical in nature and could not have been supervised by the contractor, who has no knowledge of the same.

11. Per contra, Ms.Avtar Kaur Dhingra, authorized representative appearing on behalf of the management urged the workman herein was never in the direct employment of CPWD nor he was recruited in a regular manner by inviting application from eligible candidates. He has never appeared before any Board or gave interview nor any letter of appointment was issued to him. Status of the workman herein, at the most, is that of casual or contract labour whose services have been terminated by the contractor who has engaged him. Attention of this Tribunal was also invited to the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi(supra), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where recruitment has not been made in accordance with the rules or regulations or his employment is through back door entry, there is no question of giving any regular employment to such employees.

12. Before I proceed to consider the comparative merits of the submissions raised on behalf of either of the parties, it is necessary to mention here that during the course of arguments, it was not disputed that contract was awarded by the management to different contractors, though the management witness, MW1 has feigned ignorance whether Shri Radhey Shyam Saini was operating pump of CPWD from 30.09.1999. However, no evidence was brought on record by the2349 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 28, 2016/ज्येष्ठ 7, 1938 management to show as to who was performing this function. It was admitted that matter was also taken before making reference to this Tribunal to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, as is clear from the failure report, Ex.WW1/7. Shri M.P. Sharma MW1 has also admitted that no notice before termination was given to the workman herein as he was not directly employed by the management. However, he has admitted that CPWD has assigned the work of operation of pump to the contractor, who has employed the workman. The work at Andaman and Nicobar Bhawan, Chanakyapuri was allotted to CPWD, which was being done through contractor. He further admitted that CPWD was the owner of the said pump. Later on, this witness made a vital admission, after Ex.WW1/2 was shown, that the workman herein was doing the work of wireman/electrician. He further admitted that Ex.WW1/4 is licence of the workman herein. It is not out of place to mention here that even in the affidavit, it is admitted that in the present case work was allotted to CPWD to carry out maintenance work of electric services at Andaman and Nicobar Bhawan, Chanakyapuri of CPWD at New Delhi. Further it is clear from agreements, Ex,MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/12 that from 1999-2000 till 2009-2010, work of maintenance etc, has been given to M/s Multi Trading Engineers, M/s Paramjit Singh Walia, M/s Naini Electricals, SK Consumer Services etc. Perusal of certificate of the workman herein shows that his date of birth is 16.06.1965 and he has studied upto the 10th class. There is another letter Ex.WW1/6 issued by Government of India to all the Superintendent Engineers regarding regularization of the muster roll/casual workers of CPWD as a one-time measure. There is nothing on record to show that the case of the workman herein was not considered in view of the above letter. Perusal of letter Ex.MW1/14 shows that no complaint of any labour was received against the contractor and award letter shows that the work was awarded to M/s Multi Engineering Works, whose tender was accepted from 01.05.1999. Management has not taken care to examine any of the contractors who were awarded works from time to time from 1999 till 2010, so as to show that the work was being directly done through contractors, who were having full and effective control over such workmen who were working for the benefit of the management of CPWD. Examination of the contractor in the case was also necessary so as to ascertain as to who was marking attendance of the said workmen or making payment of salary, whether EPF and ESI were being deducted from the salary of the workmen. There is no merit in the contention of the management that examination of the contractor should have been from the side of the workman, who has to prove the contract. Since the workman herein has from the very beginning alleged that the above contracts are fake/sham, therefore, it was imperative for the management to have examined the contractor to whom the management had awarded the works from time to time. Admittedly, the workman herein is not a party to such contract. Therefore, the workman is not aware of the terms and conditions contained in the above agreement, which were filed very late during the course of evidence of the management.

13. Now, the vital question which arises for determination is as to whether the workman herein was an employee of the contractor or contracts in the present case from 1999 onwards as placed on record by the management are fake, sham and nominal.

14. Equally vital is the question whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties, in case it is held that the contract in the above case is fake. During the course of arguments, strong reliance was placed upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Vs. National Union Water Front Workers Union (supra). In the above case, Hon'ble Apex Court has considered extensively various provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act as well As contract Labour Act 1970, alongwith relevant notification issued under Section 10 of the CLRA Act, 1970. One of the questions which arose in the above case was regarding ambit and scope of 'appropriate Government' as defined in Section 2 (1)(a) of the CLRA Act. Incidentally, Hon'ble Apex Court also dealt with the question of sham and camouflage contracts/agreements. Critical appraisal of the above judgements also shows that Hon'ble Apex Court has taken into consideration the entire spectrum of the case law on the subject and held in Para 107 as under:

107. An analysis of the cases, discussed above, shows that they fall in three classes: (i) where contract labour is engaged in or in connection with the work of an establishment and employment of contract labour is prohibited either because the industrial adjudicator/court ordered abolition of contract labour or because the appropriate Government issued notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, no automatic absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment was ordered; (ii) where the contract was found to be a sham and nominal, rather a camouflage, in which case the contract labour working in the establishment of the principal employer were held, in fact and in reality, the employees of the principal employer himself. Indeed, such cases do not relate to abolition of contract labour but present instances wherein the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct position as a fact at the stage after employment of contract labour stood prohibited; (iii) where in discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining a canteen in an establishment the principal employer availed the services of a contractor the courts have held that the contract labour would indeed be the employees of the principal employer.

15. The Court ruled that neither section 10 of the Contract Labour Act nor any other provision in that Act, whether expressly or by necessary implication, provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuance of a notification by the appropriate Government under sub section (1) of section 10, prohibiting employment of contract labour, in any2350 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2016/ JYAISTHA 7, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] process, operation or other work in any establishment. Consequently the principal employer cannot be required to order for absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment concerned. It was further ruled therein that in Saraspur Mills case (1974 (3) SCC 66), the workman engaged for working in the canteen run by the Cooperative Society for the appellant were the employees of the appellant mills. In Basti Sugar Mills (AIR 1964 S.C. 355) a canteen was run in the factory by the Co-operative Society and as such the workers working in the canteen were held to be employees of the establishment. The Apex Court ruled that these cases fall in class (3) mentioned above. Judgment in Hussainbhai (1978 Lab.I.C. 1264) was considered by the Apex Court in the said precedent and it was ruled therein that the said precedent falls in class (2), referred above. The Apex Court concluded that on issuance of prohibitive notification under section 10 of the Contract Labour Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the Industrial Adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislation so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned, subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose.

16. As announced by the Apex Court, on issuance of a prohibitive notification , prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise in any industrial dispute brought before it by the contract labour in regard to conditions of his service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result in the establishment or for supply of the contract labour for the work of the establishment under a genuine contract or it is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of beneficial legislation so as to deprive the workers of the benefits therein. Thus it was ruled that a contract labour can raise a dispute before the industrial adjudicator in regard to his conditions of service and in case the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer. Also see Standard Vacuum Refining Co. of India Ltd. (1960 (II) LLJ. 233), which was referred with approval in Steel Authority of India.

17. In Shivnandan Sharma (1955(1) LLJ 688), the respondent Bank entrusted its Cash Department under a contract to the Treasures who appointed cashiers, including the appellant Head Cashier. The question before the Apex Court was: was the appellant an employee of the Bank? On construction of the agreement entered into the Bank and the Treasure, the Court laid down:

"If a master employs a servant and authorizes him to employ a number of persons to do a particular job and to guarantee their fidelity and efficiency for a cash consideration, the employees thus appointed by the servant would be equally with the employer, servant of the master."

18. In the above precedent the Hon'ble Apex Court for the first time laid down the crucial test of supervision and control for determining the relationship of employer and employee.

19. In Hussainbhai (supra) the petitioner, who was manufacturing ropes, entrusted the work to a contractor who engaged his own workers. When, after some time, the workers were not engaged, they raised an industrial dispute that they were denied employment by the petitioner. On reference of that dispute, the labour court passed an award against the petitioner. When matter reached the Apex Court, on examination of various factors and applying the effective control test, it was held that though there was no direct relationship between the petitioner and the workers yet on lifting the veil and looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment, the naked truth, though draped in different perfect paper arrangement, was that the real employer was the petitioner, not the immediate contractor. The Apex Court stated law in following words:

"Where a worker or group of workers labours to produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another, that other is, in fact, the employer. He has economic control over the workers' subsistence, skill, and continued employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off, the worker is, virtually, laid off. The presence of intermediate contractor with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex- contractu is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment, we discern the naked truth, though draped in different perfect paper arrangement, that the real employer is the management, not the immediate contractor***. If the livelihood of the workmen substantially depends on labour rendered to produce goods and services for the benefit and satisfaction of an enterprise, the absence of direct relationship or the presence of dubious intermediaries or the make-believe trappings of detachment from the management cannot snap the real-life bond. The story may vary but the inference defies ingenuity. The liability cannot be shaken off. Of course, if there is total dissociation in fact between the disowning management and the aggrieved workmen, the employment is, in substance and real-life terms, by another. The management's adventitious connections cannot ripen into real employment."2351 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 28, 2016/ज्येष्ठ 7, 1938 20. As noted above, this precedent does not present an illustration of abolition of contract labour but an instance where the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct position to the effect that the contract labours were employees of the principal employer and not of the contractor.

21. In Steel Authority of India (supra) it has been ruled that the term "contract labour" is a species of workman. A workman may be hired : (1) in an establishment by the principal employer or by his agent with or without the knowledge of the principal employer, or (2) in connection with the work of an establishment by the principal employer through a contractor or by a contractor with or without the knowledge of principal employer. Where a workman is hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment by the principal employer through a contractor, he merely acts as an agent so there will be master and servant relationship between the principal employer and the workman. But when a workman is hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment by a contractor, either because he has undertaken to produce a given result for the establishment or because he supplies workmen for any work of the establishment, a question might arise whether the contractor is a mere camouflage as in Hussainbhai's case (supra) and in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation case (1999 (6) S.C.C. 439) etc.; if the answer is in affirmative, the workman will be in fact an employee of the principal employer, but if the answer is in the negative, the workman will be a contract labour.

22. This Tribunal has to keep one thing in mind that the Industrial Disputes Act as well as Contract Labour Act are essentially social and beneficial legislation. The scheme of the Contract Labour Act 1970 is to regulate conditions of workers under the contract labour system and to provide for its abolition by the appropriate Government as provided under Section 10 of the said Act. Section 7 of the Act requires the principal employer to get itself registered. Section 12 of the said Act bars a contractor from undertaking or executing any work through contract labour, except under and in accordance with a licence issued. Section 23, 24 and 25 of the Act makes contravention of provisions of the Act punishable there-under. There is also requirement for the principal employer of the establishment to get itself registered under the Act so as to avail the benefit of provisions of the Act.

23. Reliance was also placed upon the case of Management of Ashok Hotel vs. Their Workmen decided on 19.02.2013 in WP(C) No.14828/2006 wherein similar question was involved. It was a case where various workmen were working continuously as safaiwala/Housemen in the kitchen department etc. and they were alleged to be working directly under the contactor who has entered into a contract with the principal employer, i.e. Ashok Hotel. Strong reliance was placed on behalf of the workmen upon ratio of the case in Steel Authority of India (supra) and contention of the management to the effect that workmen were employees of the contractor was rejected. Further, contract in the said case was also held to be sham and camouflage so as to deny direct relationship of employer (Ashok Hotel) and the workmen.

24. In the case of Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Suresh, 1999 LLJ 1086) Hon'ble Apex Court again dealt with the question of engagement of contract labour. It was a case where Haryana State Electricity Board had outsourced work of maintenance of electricity to a private contractor who was not a duly lilcenced contractor under the Contract Labour & Regulations Act, 1970. The workers engaged had put in more than 240 days in a calendar year and they were doing the work under supervision and control of the Electricity Board. After discussing the ratio of various authorities on the subject, Hon'ble Apex Court lifted the veil for determination of real employer-employee relationship and held that maintenance work is not seasonal work and the employees as a matter of fact were doing work under supervision of the Board. Even their attendance was being marked by officials of the Board. As such, the said contract was held to be sham and camouflage. The contractor was held to be merely a name lender or a broker. Thus, it is clear from ratio of the above authority that the Tribunal has ample power to peep into contract and ascertain the real nature of the work being done by the employees who are alleged by the management to be employees of the contractor.

25. Again in BHEL vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2003 Lab.IC 2630 (4) , question of contract labour was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein emphasis was laid upon the control test and it was held that where the contract on the face of it is sham and nominal, rather camouflage, then the workman working in the establishment of the principal employer, who is having control over the nature of work, in that eventuality, having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it was held that the workman was directly the employee of the principal employer and not the contractor.

26. In the case in hand also, the workman herein was admittedly working in the premises of the principal employer at Andaman and Nicobar Bhawan, Chanakyapuri and was doing similar work which the other workmen were doing. This Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that no evidence of the contractor has been led so as to show that the workman herein was not working since 1999. Rather, employment of the workman herein has been admitted in so many words indirectly by the management, who has come with the plea that he was in the employment of the contractor and not directly under the management. There is nothing on record to show that any notice was served on the workman herein as required under Section 25F of the Act, before his termination, nor there is any direct proof of payment of wages of one month in lieu of notice. No contractor to whom work was allotted after 1999 till 2010 has been examined by the management so as to show that the contractor was directly responsible for supervisory control over the workman herein2352 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2016/ JYAISTHA 7, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] and that he was also paying wages to such workers. Under the CLRA Act, it is the duty of the principal employer to ensure compliance of various provisions of the Act and Section 21 of the said Act postulates that the contractor shall be responsible for payment of wages of the workmen and in case contractor fails to make payment of wages within the prescribed period, then the principal employer shall be liable to make payment of such wages. Thus, termination of the job of the workman herein also amounts to unfair labour practice, particularly when there is nothing adverse against the workman since his employment in 1998-99. Work performed by the workman herein is not casual or seasonal in nature as is clear from pleadings on record. Moreover, the said work is regular and perennial in nature. In such a situation, it can be concluded that the so called award of work to the various contractors is simply a device invented by the management to deny the workman herein the status of being directly under the control of the management.

27. There is no merit in the contention of the management that the workman was not precluded by inviting application in accordance with law. I have carefully gone through the ratio of judgement in State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi(supra) and the same is not applicable so far as question of engagement of contract labour through contractor is concerned.

28. The learned authorized representative of management No.1 and 2 also relied upon the case of State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi(1998) SCC 1. I have carefully gone through the ratio of the above authority and the same is not applicable so far as the question of engagement of contract labour through contractor is concerned. Hon'ble Apex Court in ONGC vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union (2015) Lab IC 2483, has considered the ratio in Uma Devi (supra) and held that even if due procedure was not followed in the appointment of concerned workmen in the post of watch and ward security, this does not disentitle them of their right to seek regularization of their services by the Corporation under the provisions of certified standings orders as they have rendered more than 240 days of service in a calendar year from the date of their appointment in the year 1988. In the said case also, Corporation has outsourced security to private contractor. However, in 1976, notification was issued for abolition of contract labour for the post of watch and security men etc. In the said case also strong plea was raised on behalf of the management that in view of ratio of law in Uma Devi case, workers are not entitled to be regularized after abolition of contract labour. This contention of the management/Government was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ONGC(supra):

'Uma Devi does not denude the Industrial and Labour Courts of their statutory power under Section 30 read with Section 32 of the MRTU and PULP Act to order permanency of the workers who have been victims of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV where the posts on which they have been working exist. Umadevi cannot be held to have overridden the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts in passing appropriate order under Section 30 of the MRTU and the PULP Act, once unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV is established."

29. There are specific observations in the above judgement that provision of the Industrial Disputes Act and the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts were not at all under consideration in Uma Devi case. Issue pertaining to unfair labour practice was neither the subject matter of decision nor the same was denuded in Uma Devi Case. Therefore, reliance placed by the management herein upon Uma Dev Case so far as question of contract labour being sham or camouflage agreement is concerned, is totally misplaced and is of no help to Management No.1 and 2. Since in the case in hand, engagement of contract labour through private contractor is specifically prohibited in view of the notification issued by the Central Government, as such deployment of wiremen through so called contractor is held to be of no use and the said contract as stated above are stated to be legally null and void. Act of the management are means of unfair labour practice.

30. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Pal Singh vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation (2015) 6 SC 321 again considered ratio of Uma Devi case (supra) relied upon by the management and held as under:

'When no such plea is taken by the employer in the order of retrenchment that the workman was appointed in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India or in violation of any statutory rule or his appointment was a backdoor appointment, while Page 15 granting relief, the employer cannot take a plea that initial appointment was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, in absence of a reference made by the appropriate Government for determination of question whether the initial appointment of the workman was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India or statutory rules. Only if such reference is made, a workman is required to lead evidence to prove that he was appointed by following procedure prescribed under the Rules and his initial appointment was legal."

31. Since in the case in hand, there is no reference made by the appropriate Government for determination of the question whether appointment of the workmen herein is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution or their initial appointment is illegal or against the statutory rule, as such, Uma Devi case is not at all of any legal help to the case of the management. It is also necessary to mention here that there is ample evidence on record that the workmen herein were not even being paid minimum wages, which is statutory requirement under the Minimum Wages Act and the same amounts to commission of unfair labour practice. Net result of the above discussion is that the contracts which2353 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 28, 2016/ज्येष्ठ 7, 1938 have been referred by Shri M.P. Sharma, Executive Engineer, in his statement, are not of any use so as to hold the workmen hereunder to be in the employment of the contractor inasmuch as issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act 1970, where post of wiremen is mentioned in the prohibition clause. After issuance of the above notification, management was required to fill up the post (wiremen) in accordance with rules and regulations. Management has admitted that still there are some regular workmen working in the department. It also shows that the work of wiremen is regular and perennial in nature. In such situation, the so called agreements between the contractor and the management herein are held to be legally void, sham and camouflage so as to bar the workmen herein from claiming status of being in the employment and control of CPWD.

32. It is clear from perusal of contracts/agreements Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/12 that the same were entered between the Management of CPWD and various contractors from 1999 to 2010, a careful perusal of the which would show that they are same in every respect. They are standard documents and only name of the contractors from to time has been changed and all these agreements are admittedly for a period of one year. As already held, the above documents are simply sham and camouflage so as to deprive the workmen of their status of being directly under employment of the principal employer, i.e. CPWD, as such, these documents/agreements are even otherwise contrary to the notification, issued under Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act, 1970, as such legally void. As a result of the above discussion, it is held that there is no privity of contract between the workmen and CPWD. As such issue No.1 and 2 are decided against the management and reference is answered in favour of the workman herein.

Issue No.3 - Relief

33. As a sequitur to my aforesaid discussions, it is held that the workman is entitled to be reinstated after their so called termination without any notice with effect from 14.10.2009 and payment of back wages with all consequential benefits since he remained unemployed after his termination on 14.10.2009 till date. 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 29, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 18 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1053.—कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अध्निियम, 1948(1948 का 34) की धरा-1 की उप-धरा (3) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा 01 जून, 2016 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसको उक्त अध्निियम के अध्याय-4 (44 व 45 धरा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी हैं) अध्याय-5 और 6 [धरा-76 की उप धरा (1) और धरा -77, 78 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी हैं] के उपबंध् तेलंगाना राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे, अर्थात्‌ः

''समय-समय पर कार्यान्वित किए गए तेलंगाना राज्य के क्षेत्रों को छोड़कर, तेलंगाना राज्य के रंगारेड्‌डी जिले के राजस्व गांवों के सभी क्षेत्र''

[सं. एस-38013/21/2016-एस.एस.-1]

अजय मलिक, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 18th May, 2016

S.O. 1053.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st June, 2016, as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Telangana, namely:—

"All areas falling within the revenue villages of Ranga Reddy District of Telangana State except the areas which have already been implemented from time to time."

[No. S-38013/21/2016-S.S.-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 18 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1054.—कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अध्निियम, 1948(1948 का 34) की धरा-1 की उप-धरा (3) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा 01 जून, 2016 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसको उक्त अध्निियम के अध्याय-IV2354 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2016/ JYAISTHA 7, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (44 व 45 धरा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी हैं) अध्याय- V और VI [धरा-76 की उप धरा (1) और धरा -77, 78 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी हैं] के उपबंध् झारखंड राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे, नामत्‌ःः-

क्र.सं. जिला का नाम

1. राँची

2. रामगढ़

3. गिरिडीह

4. कोडरमा

5. बोकारो

6. देवघर

7. सरायकेला-खरसावाँ

8. पूर्वी सहभूम

9. धनबाद

[सं॰ एस-38013/20/2016-एस.एस.-1]

अजय मलिक, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 18th May, 2016

S.O. 1054.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st June, 2016, as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following entire district (including already implemented) areas in the State of Jharkhand, namely:—

Sl. No. Name of the District

1. Ranchi

2. Ramgarh

3. Girdih

4. Kderma

5. Bokaro

6. Deoghar

7. Saraikella-Kharsawan

8. East Singhbhum

9. Dhanbad

[No. S-38013/20/2016-S.S.-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1055.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बीबीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, ध्नबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 03/2001द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25.05.2016 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/111/2000-आईआर ;सीएम-Iद्ध]

एम. के. सह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2016

S.O. 1055.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad2355 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 28, 2016/ज्येष्ठ 7, 1938 (Ref. No. 03 of 2001) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 25.05.2016.

[No. L-20012/111/2000-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

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

Ref. No. 03 of 2001

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

And

Their Workmen

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers          :    Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the Workman            :    None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 23.11.2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/111/2000-IR(CM-I), dated 18.12.2000, 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 Dispute Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the Union to provide employment to Shri Dukhan S/o Sri Remeshwar Mandal from the management of P.B. Area M/s. BCCL, P.O. Kusunda, Dist. Dhanbad in terms of Award in Ref. 71/85 is proper and justified? If so, to what relief is the person concerned entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference, parties are noticed, though they took steps for certain dates, subsequently did not take any interest in the case by the workman. It is presumed that the disputes between parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence, No Dispute Award is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1056.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एसईसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 85/2012द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25.05.2016 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/87/2012-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]

राजेन्द्र सह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2016

S.O. 1056.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 85/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of SECL Hq., Seepat Road,2356 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2016/ JYAISTHA 7, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Bilaspur, Central Excavation Workshop of SECL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25.05.2016.

[No. L-22012/87/2012-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

NO. CGIT/LC/R/85/12

The President/ Secretary, Bhartiya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangthan (BMS), Gevra Area, PO Gevra Project, Distt. Korba, CG.

…Workman/ Union

Versus

General Manager, Central Excavation Workshop of SECL, Gevra Area, PO Gevra Project, Korba, CG

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 7th day of April 2016

1. As per letter dated 25-7-12 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/87/2012- IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the General Manager, Central Excavation workshop of SECL, Gevra, Distt. Korba (CG) in not giving the 16 holidays ( i.e. 8 paid holidays, 6 gazetted holidays and 2 Restricted holidays) and half day working on satyurday to their employees working in CEWS, Gevra as that of given to Central Workshop SECL, Korba is legal, proper and justified? To what relief the said workman is entitled and from what date/ period?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman failed to appear in the reference proceeding. Workman was proceeded exparte on 28-3-2015.

3. 2nd party filed exparte Written Statement. Case of 2nd party is that Union raised present dispute demanding 16 holidays ( 8 paid holidays, 6 gazetted holidays, 2 RH)and half day working on Saturday in CWS Gevra Project. That the demand made by Union is incorrect and denied. Central Workshop is of SECL. The employees in said workshop are under control of General Manager of workshop. It is independent unit of SECL. The workshop is under administrative and functional control of Chief General Manager excavation as per office order dated 31-8-02. The service conditions of employees working in SECL are covered by certified standing orders. The certified standing orders applicable to SECL Clause 11 provides that there shall be 8 paid festival holidays. Out of these 8 days, the Republic day, Miners day, independence day and Mahatma Gandhi Birthday shall be allowed without option and remaining paid holidays shall be fixed by agreement or local custom. Present practice in respect of Festival Holidays will however continue. That 16 holidays at Central Workshop Korba are restricted to only few employees as Executive and Monthly Staff of Administrative Building of Central Workshop Korba and majority of executives staff and all daily rated workers engaged in production in various shops get only 8 paid holidays.. w.r.t. half working day at CEWS Gevra is not violating any rules or regulations in taking 8 hours work from employees at CEWS Gevra on Saturdays.

4. The coal mines were owned by private owners. The coal mines were nationalized to provide for the acquisition and transfer of rights, title and interest of the owners in respect of coal mines specified in the schedule with a view to re organizing and reconstructing such coal mines so as to ensure the rational coordinated and scientific development and utilization of coal resources. For the purpose of proper administration and operation of the mines a company namely Coal India Ltd is constituted which is a Govt of India undertaking having its 6 subsidiary companies, WCL, SECL, Central Coalfields Ltd. BCCL, Eastern Coalfields Ltd. And NCL. The Central Govt. constituted a Central Wage Board for Coal Industry. Both the workman and management appeared before the Wage Board and after examining the cases of both parties, Wage Board submitted its recommendations fixing service conditions of employees and wages. The service conditions of employees in the Industry is governed by the Wage Board Recommendations as accepted by the2357 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 28, 2016/ज्येष्ठ 7, 1938 Central Govt. There are more than 5 lacs of employees working in the coal industry in the State of Assam, Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, UP, MP and Maharashtra. NCDC was a public sector company. Government colliery followed the central Govt. Pay scale and working pattern which resulted in following Central Govt. pattern of working hours and holidays. Due to some misunderstanding, ignorance and oversight in some collieries of NCDC a wrong working hours of clerical staff were adopted as 6 hours and holidays were given on government pattern. It was stopped after nationalization but some of the government companies taken over by NCDC service conditions were protected under certain understanding as per agreement. The protection was some time misunderstood creating a wrong working hours and holidays for some of the employees in NCDC Mines. That thousands of workers who were working 8 hours a day and having 8 holidays protested against the illegal benefit given for few selected workers. It was necessary to have common working hours, the service conditions, pay, service working in the same industry. Any discrimination is impermissible. There can be no justification for giving favour/ advantage to selected workman. The universal practice in India and other countries is of 8 hours working 48 hours in a week. The service conditions of employees working in coal industry are covered by NCWA. For implementation of provisions of NCWA, there is a committee known as JBCCI. Said committee is consisting of equal strength of members of recognized Central Trade Union and management. The forum of JBCCI meant for making policy decision in respect of entire coal industry. The issue about working hours discussed in the Committee on 3-6-88, 2-9-88 by representative of Union and management. The management summarized the stand that enforcement of mandatory provisions of Mine Act Regulation notice under Section 9-A of IDS Act and doesnot amount to change in service conditions. The employees covered under wage board are given enhanced benefit under NCWA like LTC, LLTC, free supply of fuel, electricity, special leave for six months to those who suffer from TB, Cancer, Leprosy etc. and benefits under social security scheme. The number of paid holidays in each 9 establishment is restricted to 8 days as per NCWA.

5. 2nd party has also referred to NCWA-I – 1975, NCWA-III – 1983 leave and festival holidays continued as at present. Vide clause 6.6 of NCWA-3, it was agreed that 7 paid holidays, Ist day of every year as paid holidays total 8 holidays. In NCWA-IV 1987, existing 8 national holidays will continue as at present.. it is reiterated that 8 paid holidays were allowed which included Republic Day, Miners Day, Independence day and Birthday of Mahatma Gandhi without option and remaining 4 paid holidays were to be allowed as per agreement. That the service conditions of employees also provides for 8 paid holidays only the demand of Union for 16/18 holidays has no merit. On such ground, 2nd party prays to answer reference in its favour.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

7. Ist party Union did not participate in reference, it was proceeded exparte on 25-3-2015. Exparte Written Statement is filed by management. Affidavit of evidence of management's witness Shri G.L.N.Durga Prasad is filed supporting contentions of management in Written Statement.

8. Management's witness has reiterated that as per NCWA & wage board recommendations, the service conditions of the employees are covering the benefit of 8 paid holidays are allowed. The evidence of management's witness remained unchallenged as Ist party workman failed to participate in reference proceeding, I find no reason to discard evidence of management's witness. As Ist party failed to file statement of claim or adduce evidence in support of the dispute raised by it, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

9. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The action of the management is proper and legal.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer2358 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2016/ JYAISTHA 7, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1057.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार ईसीएल के

प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम

न्यायालय, आसनसोल के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 06/2010द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25.05.2016 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/50/2009-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]

राजेन्द्र सह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2016

S.O. 1057.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 06/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Kumardihi A Colliery of M/s. ECL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25.05.2016.

[No. L-22012/50/2009-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. 06 OF 2010

PARTIES:

The management of Kumardihi 'A' Colliery of M/s. ECL.

Vs.

Sri Ghena Pradhan & 14 others

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management          :     Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate
For the union (Workman)     :     Sri Sushil Banerjee

INDUSTRY: COAL

STATE : WEST BENGAL

Dated: 02.05.2016

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- 22012/50/2009-IR(CM-II) dated 21.01.2010 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Kumardihi A Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, in denying group wages of Piece Rated Trammers w.e.f. 29.11.2005 till regularization i.e. 16.08.2008 to Sri Ghena Pradhan & 14 others (as per list enclosed) is legal and justified? To what relief is the workman concerned entitled? "

1. Having received the Order NO. L-22012/50/2009-IR(CM-II) dated 21.01.2010 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 06 of 2010 was registered on 11.02.2010 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. Das, learned advocate is present on behalf of the management but none appears on behalf of the workmen / union.

3. On perusal of the case record, I find that the workmen / union last appeared before the Tribunal on 26.06.2013. Thereafter more than 2½ (Two and a half) years and 13 (Thirteen) dates have passed but neither the workmen nor the union appeared before the Tribunal to contest the case. Registered notice was issued to the union on 12.08.2014 and2359 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 28, 2016/ज्येष्ठ 7, 1938 seven more dates were granted after the notice but none appeared to represent the workmen or union. It seems that the union/workmen do not want to proceed with the case further. 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

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1058.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार ईसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 09/2008द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25.05.2016 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/02/2008-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]

राजेन्द्र सह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2016

S.O. 1058.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 09/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Dhanbad Colliery of M/s. ECL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25.05.2016.

[No. L-22012/02/2008-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. 06 OF 2010

PARTIES:

The management of Dalurband Colliery of M/s. E.C.L.

Vs.

Sri Upendra Bhuia

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management         :     Sri P. K. Goswami, Ld. Advocate
For the union (Workman)    :     Sri S. K. Pandey, Gen. Secy. (CMC)

INDUSTRY : COAL

STATE : WEST BENGAL

Dated : 10.05.2016

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- 22012/2/2008–IR(CM-II) dated 11.03.2008 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. ECL in dismissing Sri Upendra Bhuia w.e.f. 20.10.2004 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled? "

1. Having received the Order NO. L-22012/2/2008–IR(CM-II) dated 11.03.2008 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 09 of 2008 was registered on 17.03.2008. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to2360 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2016/ JYAISTHA 7, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 workman Sri Upendra Bhuiya has in brief, stated in his written statement that he was in employment of the company as Trammer at Dalurband Colliery under Pandeswar Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. Due to his sickness he was absent from duty w.e.f 17.02.2004. The management issued him Charge Sheet vide Charge Sheet No. DBC/CS/47/87 dated 06/07.04.2004. The Charge Sheet and Enquiry Notice was not served to workman. But enquiry was completed ex-parte without giving him any opportunity to defend himself, ignoring the principal of natural justice. The service of the workman was dismissed w.e.f. 20.10.2004 without serving him 2nd Show Cause Notice. The workman is sitting idle without any employment till date. Dismissal of Sri Upendra Bhuiya form the service of the company is illegal and unjustified. The workman has prayed that the tribunal may kindly direct the management of Dalurband Colliery under Pandeswar Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited to reinstate the workman in service with payment of full back wages from the period of dismissal with all consequential benefits.

3. The Agent of Dalurband Colliery of Pandeswar Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields has stated in his written statement, in brief that Mr. Bhuiya was found absent from 17.02.2004 without any reasons. For unauthorized absence as well as due to habitual absence under clause 26.5, 26.23 and 26.29 of Standing Order applicable to the colliery Mr. Bhuiya was charge sheeted. In the year 2000 the attendance was marked for 55 days, in 2001 for 14 days, in 2002 attendance was 85 days and in 2003 his attendance was 83 days. His performance was very bad therefore he was awarded lenient punishment deducting at least 28 SPRA. Mr. Bhuiya did not reply to the charge sheet issued to him. Management conducted domestic enquiry. But even after receiving the notice of enquiry he did not appear therefore the enquiry was conducted ex-parte. From the Enquiry Report & other materials the charges levelled against him were proved. Management having no other alternative terminated the services of Mr. Bhuiya. Punishment of dismissal took place due to latches of concerned workman. The agent of Dalurband Colliery under Pandeswar Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has prayed the action of management in dismissing Mr. Bhuiya is justified and legal. Workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Neither party to reference has filed any documentary evidence. The workman Sri Upendra Bhuiya has filed affidavit dated 10.01.2013 in his oral evidence. He has been cross-examined by learned Advocate of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The agent Dalurband Colliery under Pandeswar Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed any affidavit in his oral evidence.

5. The reference belongs to year 2008. Notice was served on Dalurband Colliery under Pandeswar Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The learned advocate of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited appeared on 13.05.2010. After appearance of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited through advocate, even after fixing more than 30 dates M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited did not care to file authorization of his advocate. On 20.01.2015 the tribunal directed the management to file authorization of his advocate and copy of Enquiry Proceeding, Enquiry Report, and Dismissal Order and fixed 24.02.2015 as last chance. On 24.02.2015 and five dates thereafter M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited neither files any documents regarding domestic enquiry nor authorization of his advocate. Since M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has precluded himself to be represented by an advocate tribunal has no option but to proceed further. Tribunal reserved the reference for order. The union representative was present. The reference is being decided on merit.

6. It is not disputed that Sri Upendra Bhuiya was in employment of the company as Trammer at Dalurband Colliery under Pandeswar Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. It is admitted fact that Sri Upendra Bhuiya was dismissed from service w.e.f. 20.10.2004 by M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. As per allegation of the workman Sri Upendra Bhuiya the domestic enquiry was conducted against the workman ex-parte without any service of notice. He was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself. Enquiry was conducted in violation of Principle of Natural Justice.

7. At very outset, it is necessary to mention that M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed any documentary evidence regarding domestic enquiry. The Tribunal has provided ample opportunity to file copy of Enquiry Proceeding, Enquiry Report, Dismissal Order and all relevant document connected with the domestic enquiry. But even after so many dates M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited did not prefer to file even a single document in connection with the domestic enquiry against Sri Upendra Bhuiya, the delinquent workman. If any document is in possession of any party and in spite of direction of Tribunal or Court he does not file copy of those documents, which are very much relevant for just decision of the reference, the tribunal is bound to draw adverse inference u/s 114(G) of Evidence Act against the party withholding the documents. Since M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has failed to file copies of Enquiry Proceeding, Enquiry Report, Dismissal Order, Charge Sheet, Reply of Workman, Notice of Enquiry which are in possession of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. it will be presumed that either there was no enquiry at all or if enquiry was conducted against workman, it was vitiated due to non compliance of Principle of Natural Justice as alleged by workman.

8. In Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v/s Md. Haji Latif and others, AIR 1968 SC 1413, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that ;

" Even if the burden of proof does not lay on a party the Court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue."

9. The workman has stated in his affidavit that he was a permanent and bona fide employee of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and posted at Dalurband Colliery under Pandeswar Area bearing designation as Trammer, U.M. No.- 741728. He was never issued any Charge Sheet or Enquiry Notice. He was dismissed from service illegally without giving any opportunity to defend himself. After recovery from illness he was not allowed to join his duty. He belonged to Schedule Cast community. His condition was very poor. At present he was without any income. For livelihood he intends to join duty under M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. Though, without filing authorization on behalf of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited the learned advocate of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has cross-examined the workman, Sri Upendra Bhuiya. The workman has not stated any fact in his cross-examination repugnant to the statement contained in his affidavit. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the workman stated on oath.

10. The agent, Dalurband Colliery under Pandeswar Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has stated in Para-6 of his written statement that even after receiving the notice of enquiry the workman did not appear as a result of which the enquiry was conducted ex-parte. But there is no evidence on record to support this allegation. There is no documentary evidence that when notice was sent to the workman and on which date it was served on concerned workman. Even there is no evidence that in fact any notice was sent to the workman or whether the workman was kept informed for the proposed enquiry. Even if the enquiry was conducted ex-parte there is no copy of document of enquiry proceeding to substantiate the allegation of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

11. In A. K. Kraipak v/s Union of India AIR 1970 SC 150 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that;

" The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In the past it was thought that it included just two rules namely (1) no one shall be a judge in his own case (Nemo debet esse judex propria causa) and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem). Very soon, a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably and it went on to hold;

' If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative enquiries. Often times it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi judicial enquiries. Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi-judicial enquiry'. "

12. In State of U.P. v/s Saroj Kumar Sinha 2010 (124) FLR 857 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that;

" Enquiry officer acting in a quasi judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department / Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved."

13. So far as previous absence is concerned, it is settled law that if past record of a government servant, if it is intended to be relied upon by imposing a punishment then there should be specific charge in the first stage of enquiry itself. If it is not done, so it cannot be relied upon after the enquiry is closed and the report is submitted to the authority entitled to impose the punishment. The punishing authority cannot impose punishment for previous record if the delinquent employee has not been charge sheeted for previous record.

14. Every industry or establishment laid down certain rules and regulation apart from government's rules and regulation for better, effective and efficient working of an industry. For such purpose an industry also constitutes its own rules as per the provision of labour and industrial laws so as to punish those employees who commits any wrong or misconduct under the course of employment. Disciplinary proceedings will judge the degree and consequences of misconduct committed by an employee. In deciding whether in a particular case an act of misconduct is serious enough to justify the dismissal, the matter needs to be examined in the light of all the surrounding circumstances. But before reaching to this conclusion a fair and bona fide domestic enquiry is pre-condition. The compliance of natural justice is foremost requirement of domestic enquiry which has not been complied in the present reference.

15. In Deepali Gundu Surwase v/s Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others 2013 LAB. I.C. 4249 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that;

" Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants2362 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2016/ JYAISTHA 7, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee / workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he / she was drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averment about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments."

16. The workman has pleaded in Para-6 of his written statement that "the workman is sitting idle without any employment till date". In Para-8 of his affidavit the workman has stated that at present he is without any income. The workman has pleaded that during period of dismissal he was not gainfully employed anywhere else. M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not rebutted this fact in his written statement nor files any oral or documentary evidence on this fact.

17. In Deepali Gundu Surwase v/s Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others 2013 LAB. I.C. 4249 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that;

" Cases in which the tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provision or the principal of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the concerned Court or Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. The courts must keep in view that in cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee/ workman and there is no justification to give premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee / workman his dues in the form of full back wages."

18. The workman, Sri Upendra Bhuiya was dismissed w.e.f. 20.10.2004. The workman in his affidavit dated 10.01.2013 has stated his age 50 years. It indicates that he has not reached up to the age of superannuation. Had he not been dismissed from service he would have been in service at present. At this age there is no possibility for any dismissed workman to get alternate job. Therefore in view of law propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court the workman is entitled for full back wages from date of dismissal i.e. from 20.10.2004 till his reinstatement with continuity in service and all consequential service benefits.

19. In view of above discussion the action of management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields in dismissing Sri Upendra Bhuiya w.e.f. 20.10.2004 is illegal and unjustified. The order of dismissal of management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields dated 20.10.2004 is hereby set-a-side. The management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is directed to reinstate Sri Upendra Bhuiya in service and is further directed to pay full back wages from date of dismissal i.e. 20.10.2004 till date of reinstatement with continuity of service. It is further directed that Sri Upendra Bhuiya will get all consequential service benefits e.g. increment, promotion etc. Sri Upendra Bhuiya will be punished with stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect, for his unauthorized absence. 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

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1059.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार ईसीएल के

प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम

न्यायालय, आसनसोल के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 84/2006द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25.05.2016 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/59/2006-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]

राजेन्द्र सह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2016

S.O. 1059.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 84/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Lachipur Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25.05.2016.

[No. L-22012/59/2006-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer2363 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 28, 2016/ज्येष्ठ 7, 1938

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT: Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 84 OF 2006

PARTIES:

The management of Lachipur Colliery of M/s. E.C.L.

Vs.

Sri Chanda Majhi

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management         :     Sri P. K. Goswami, Ld. Advocate
For the union (Workman)    :     Sri P. C. Pandey, V.P. (KMC)

INDUSTRY : COAL

STATE : WEST BENGAL

Dated : 12.05.2016

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- 22012/59/2006–IR(CM-II) dated 30.10.2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Lachipur Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. ECL in dismissing Sri Chanda Majhi from services w.e.f. 22.11.1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled? "

1. Having received the Order NO. L-22012/59/2006–IR(CM-II) dated 30.10.2006 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 84 of 2006 was registered on 11.12.2006. 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 workman Sri Chanda Majhi, in brief, has stated in his written statement that he is member of Schedule Tribe. He was working as Driller bearing U.M. No. 058813. Sri Chanda Majhi due to his acute sickness did not attend duty from 06.09.1998 to 18.02.1999. He is illiterate person so he did not inform the colliery authority. The workman neither received any charge sheet from the colliery. Nor notice of enquiry from Enquiry Officer. But he has been illegally dismissed by the authority on the basis of ex-parte enquiry. The workman is out of employment since the date of his dismissal. He has no source of livelihood and therefore his family is facing complete starvation. The punishment of dismissal is unjust and improper. The workman has prayed that the Tribunal may direct the authority to reinstate the workman by setting aside the order of dismissal. The workman has also prayed that he should be reinstated with back wages with all consequential benefits.

3. On other hand the Agent of Lacchipur Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, in brief, has stated in his written statement that Sri Chanda Majhi Ex-Driller of Lacchipur Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited was charge sheeted by the management vide charge sheet no. ECL/LAC/P&IR/C- 6/7221 dated 18.02.1999 for his unauthorized absent from duty from 06.09.1998 without any prior permission or sanctioned leave. The above charge sheet was duly sent to the home address of the workman. But the workman failed to submit his explanation to the above charge sheet. Therefore domestic enquiry was held into the said charge sheet. The Enquiry Officer issued due notice of enquiry under registered post with A/D to home address of delinquent workman. But in spite of due service of notice of enquiry, workman failed to appear before Enquiry Office. Therefore enquiry was held ex-parte on 29.09.1999. After conclusion of enquiry, Enquiry Officer held the workman guilty for charges framed under 17(i)(d) and 17(i)(n) of model standing order. Management issued 2nd Show Cause notice vide Ref. No. KA:PM:C-6:10:3015 dated 27.10.1999 / 01.11.1999 but the workman did not submit any reply to the same. After perusal of Charge Sheet, Enquiry Proceeding, Enquiry Report and past record of the workman the management was fully satisfied. The management passed the dismissal order vide Ref. No. KM:PM:C-6:10:3271 dated 19.11.1999. The Agent of Lacchipur Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has denied that workman could not attend2364 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2016/ JYAISTHA 7, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] his duty from 06.09.1998 to 18.02.1999 due to sickness. The management has denied that the ex-workman did not receive Charge Sheet or Notice of Enquiry. Management has denied that ex-workman has been illegally dismissed from service without giving any opportunity to defend himself. Management has denied that ex-workman is out of employment from date of dismissal or that the punishment of dismissal is just and proper. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has filed 6 document in his documentary evidence:- (i) Copy of Charge Sheet, (ii) Copy of Enquiry Proceedings, (iii) Copy of Enquiry Report, (iv) Copy of Appointment of Enquiry Officer, (v) Copy of 2nd Show Cause Notice, (vi) Copy of Order of Dismissal. M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed any oral evidence. The workman has filed affidavit in his oral evidence he has been cross-examined by the learned advocate of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

5. I have heard Sri P. C. Pandey, learned Union representative on behalf of workman and Sri P. K. Das, learned Advocate on behalf of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

6. Sri P. C. Pandey argued that for mere absence of 5 months which was under compelling circumstances due to illness of workman the punishment of dismissal is too harsh. He has argued that workman was never served with Charge Sheet. He was never informed about the date and place of enquiry. He was never afforded opportunity to defend himself. There is no compliance of Natural Justice. Sri P. K. Das has argued that the workman is bound by Model Standing Order. He cannot remain absent for more than 10 days without any prior permission or leave. He has been rightly punished for unauthorized absence.

7. It is not disputed that delinquent workman Sri Chanda Majhi was an employee under Lacchipur Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. It is also not disputed that he has been dismissed from service w.e.f. 22.11.1999. The workman has alleged that he was absent from duty due to his sickness from 06.09.1998 to 12.02.1999. He has alleged that a domestic enquiry was conducted ex-parte without any service of notice to him. There is denial of Natural Justice. He has not been afforded opportunity to defend himself. Whereas the Agent of Lacchipur Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has alleged that Sri Chanda Majhi was unauthorized absent for which enquiry was conducted and notice was served on workman. But the workman did not attend the enquiry proceeding. Therefore enquiry proceeded ex-parte against the workman.

8. I have perused the Enquiry Proceeding, Enquiry Report and all relevant papers available on the file of reference. The workman was issued Charge Sheet. The Enquiry Officer has mentioned that notice of enquiry has been sent to Sri Chanda Majhi after service of Charge Sheet. But there is no document regarding sending of Notice of Enquiry. There is no Postal Receipt. There is no evidence on which date the Notice of Enquiry was received by the delinquent workman. Though Agent of Lacchipur Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has stated in his written statement that registered Acknowledgement Due notice was sent to the home address of the workman, but neither Acknowledgement Due nor Postal Receipt is filed on record. Only by Postal Receipt or Acknowledgement Due it can be confirmed that Notice of Enquiry and Charge Sheet has been served. In enquiry proceeding, the enquiry office had adjourned the proceeding for absence of Sri Chanda Majhi on enquiry date. But it has never been mentioned or observed that the Notice of Enquiry or service of Charge Sheet was really received by the delinquent workman Sri Chanda Majhi. Though the departmental enquiry proceeded ex-parte against the delinquent workman. But before proceeding ex-pate the Enquiry Officer is duty bound to ensure that before proceeding Notice of Enquiry was actually served. The enquiry officer is an independent person. He is supposed to conduct domestic enquiry impartially in fare and independent manner. The burden to establish and prove the charge against the delinquent workman is on the employer. If the employer prove the misconduct of employee by fair and valid domestic enquiry then burden shifts to employee to prove his innocence.

9. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Lucknow and others v/s Salig Ram Mandal, 2014 (140) FLR 694 has held that;

"That enquiry officer is an independent person and is not a brief holder of the department of a quasi judicial authority. He has to follow the procedure and observe the principles of evidence for proving the documents submitted by the department in enquiry against the employee. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held that departmental proceeding is like proceeding like court. Burden of proof lies on the department which can only be proved by collecting evidence and proving of the documentary evidence by oral evidence."

10. After conclusion of enquiry on receipt of Enquiry Report the delinquent workman ought to have been supplied copy of Enquiry Report and all connected papers relied on by the Enquiry Officer. But from perusal of 2nd Show Cause Notice it is apparent that delinquent workman was supplied with only finding of Enquiry Officer. Sri Chanda Majhi, the delinquent workman was never supplied with full and complete copy of proceeding of Domestic Enquiry. At the cost of repetition it is relevant to mention the delinquent workman was absent during enquiry proceeding. Therefore the statement of witness and the report of the department ought to have been supplied to the delinquent workman.

11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uttaranchal and others v/s Sri Kharak Singh, 2008 (118) FLR, 1112 has held that;

" On receipt of the Enquiry Report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary / punishing authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the Enquiry Officer to enable him to officer his views, if any."

12. From the olden time, the labour class has always been subjected to subjugation by the capital class. Being a labour and poor thereof used to be considered as a curse on human being. As society developed and as we entered into the arena of twentieth century, deep voice of protection of labour's right from illegitimate and uncontrolled act was raised. Considering the need of the hour, government enacted certain labour legislation and the objects of those legislation was to provide harmonize and fear free environment for working labours and employees. However such laws have not been enacted to provide complete immunity to labours and they cannot shield themselves behind the curtain for their misconduct. So as to balance both parties and situation, the government has incorporated certain provision relating to keep check and balance on the activities of the employees and employer. There is no specific procedure prescribed in Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and other rules made under therein, which should be complied with before inflicting disciplinary punishment upon and industrial employee. However while the disciplinary proceeding is going on against an employee, it is a mandatory and not a directory duty upon the employer to give a chance of hearing to such employee. The Employer / Enquiry Officer is duty bound to ensure that all the requirement of Principle of Natural Justice has been followed and case should be heard in a judicial spirit and in accordance with Principle of Substantial Justice. Article 14,15,19,21 and 23 of Constitution of India as well as Directive Principle of State Policy provide a better and strong framework for the protection of interest of the labour class. Employer has to keep in mind that while disciplinary proceeding is going on against an employee, it should not violate any sacred provisions of the Constitution of India.

13. By introduction of section 11(A) to the industrial Dispute Act, The Industrial Tribunals are vested with the power to decide the justification of the decision of the employers. Thus, when it is found that the domestic enquiry is not held properly, it will stand vitiated and the Industrial Tribunal would set-a-side the order of punishment by giving appropriate relief including that of lesser punishment or even no punishment resulting in reinstatement 0f the concerned workman. For disciplinary action, a domestic enquiry occupies an important position under labour law. Thus, the enquiries are required to be held with utmost regard to the Principle of Natural Justice. Without holding a valid enquiry or conducting a domestic enquiry in utter violation of Principle of Natural Justice and on the basic of such enquiry the dismissal of workman for unauthorized absence of near about 5 months is quite socking and disproportionate.

14. Sri Chanda Majhi the delinquent workman has stated in Para-7 of his written statement that he is out of employment since the date of dismissal and he being a poor man is facing a complete starvation along with his family members without having any source of livelihood. The workman has stated on oath in Para-8 of his affidavit that he is out of employment from date of dismissal and he is without any source of livelihood.

15. In Deepali Gundu Surwase v/s Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others 2013 LAB. I.C. 4249 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that;

" Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he / she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee / workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he / she was drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averment about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.

Cases in which the tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provision or the principal of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the concerned Court or Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. The courts must keep in view that in cases of wrongful / illegal termination of service the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee / workman and there is no justification to give premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee / workman his dues in the form of full back wages."

16. In view of law propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court, the workman is entitled for full back wages from the date of dismissal till his reinstatement in service. But as per service excerpt his year of birth is 1951. At present his age is near about 65 years. He has reached rather crossed the age of superannuation therefore he cannot be reinstated. The workman has not filed any medical certificate regarding his sickness for the period of absence on the file of reference. Therefore there is no basis to accept that he was absent from duty due to his sickness.

17. In view of discussion above, the action of management of Lacchipur Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing Sri Chanda Majhi from services w.e.f. 22.11.99 is illegal and unjustified. I set-a-side the order of dismissal of Sri Chanda Majhi dated 22.11.99. Since he has reached the age of superannuation M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is directed to award full back wages from the date of dismissal i.e. 22.11.99 till the date2366 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2016/ JYAISTHA 7, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] of retirement of Sri Chanda Majhi with all consequential service benefits. The delinquent workman will be imposed the punishment of stoppage of two annual increment with cumulative effect. 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

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1060.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बीबीएमबी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 90/2012द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25.05.2016 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-23012/01/2012-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]

राजेन्द्र सह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2016

S.O. 1060.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 90/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Beas Construction Board (BBMB), Sector-19B and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25.05.2016.

[No. L-23012/01/2012-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No 90 of 2012

Reference no. L-23012/1/2012/IR(CM-II) dated 30.01.2013 and corrigendum dated 31.5.2013

Shri Basant Singh son of Shri Ram Saran, Village Kot, P.O.Chunhan, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi(HP)

…Workman.

Versus

1. The General Manager,

Beas Construction Board (BBMB), Sector-19B, Chandigarh

2. Chairman BBMB, Sector 19B,

Chandigarh

3. Chief Engineer, BSL Project,

Sundernagar, District Mandi.(HP) …Respondent Appearances :

For the Workman         :        Shri R.K.Singh.
For the Management      :        Shri Ravinder Singh Rana.

AWARD

Passed on : 06-05-2016

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L-23012/1/2012/IR (CM-II) dated 30.01.2013 and corrigendum dated 31.5.2013, the Central Govt. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the BBMB in denying re-employment to Shri Basant Singh son of Shri Ram Saran, a retrenchee of BCB is legally just and valid? If not, to what relief Shri Basant Singh is entitled for and from which date?"

2. Brief facts of the case according to the workman are that he was appointed by the Beas Construction Board after trade test as charge man special in work charged capacity and joined as such on 16.4.1964 and he was promoted as Asstt. Foreman special in 1972 and he was retrenched from service on 20.4.1984. It is pleaded by the workman that though he had worked for 19 years 5 months and 4 days with the BCB but he was paid retrenchment compensation for 19 years and as per rules he is entitled for the retrenchment compensation for 20 years and in view of the above his retrenchment is illegal, void and bad in law for non payment of full compensation as mentioned above. It is further pleaded by the workman that the post of foreman special and assistant foreman special was required by the Chief engineer BBMB Sundernagar but the workman was not offered re-employment despite senior most workman which is against the spirit of Award No.2C. It is also pleaded that one Shri Vrinder Chargeman had been given re-employment as telephone operator. It is also pleaded by the workman that earlier he approached Labour Court Dharamshala and his reference was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The workman was given liberty by the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 708/2007 to approach the Central Govt. and delay in raising the dispute shall not be counted. The workman also pleaded that management of BBMB had filled the post on which the workman was holding by according promotion from the lower categories which is against the spirit of Section 25H. It is prayed that action of the management in non providing employment to the workman is against the provisions of the ID Act and prayed for re-employment from back date with pension, back wages and all benefits.

3. The management filed reply to the claim statement. Preliminary objection has been taken that the workman is stopped by his own act and conduct to raise the present dispute in view of the fact that the workman was given liberty to raise the dispute within four weeks by the order dated 4.6.2010 of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh but the workman has raised the present dispute in 2012 and as such the workman is debarred from raising the dispute at a belated stage of about two years. It is further pleaded that the workman is in litigation with the management since 1987 and he never raised the issue that the workman was paid less retrenchment compensation in CWP 138/87 and also did not raise this issue before the Labour Court Dharamshala and even in CWP 708/2007; the workman never raised this issue. On merits it is pleaded that the workman was retrenched from service by the BCB on 20.4.1984 on the completion/part completion of the works strictly in accordance with the provisions of the ID Act 1947and the workman was paid his terminal dues as per law and this retrenchment of the employees of BCB was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaswant Singh Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1980 SC 115. The management further pleaded that as per directions in reference NO. 2C which was enforceable only for six months, the work charged employee were taken over in BBMB from BCB bit as the petitioner was not senior in the category of Assistant foreman special( automobile) and the creation of additional post in that category was denied, therefore, the workman could not be taken over in the BBMB as at best the workman can claim his right only in his category, trade and seniority and not in others. Thus it is prayed by the management that as the workman is not entitled for any claim, the reference deserves to be rejected.

4. In evidence, the workman filed his affidavit. In rebuttal the management also filed the affidavit of Shri Umesh Nayak Superintendent( Sr. Executive Engineer) Procurement, Store and Disposal Division BBMB Sunder Nagar alongwith documents Ex. M2 to M6. Both the witnesses of the parties were cross-examined.

5. I have heard the parties, gone through the evidence and record.

6. During arguments it is submitted by the learned representative of the workman that at the time of retrenchment in the year 1984, the workman was paid less retrenchment compensation as he was paid only for 19 years of service whereas he was entitled for 20 years of service as he had served19 years five months4 days before retrenchment. As the retrenchment compensation was paid less, therefore, the retrenchment is bad in law. In this regard, Section 25 F (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 is reproduced below:

"(b) The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay (for every completed year of continuous service) or any part thereof in excess of six months"

7. As per claim statement of the workman, he has put in 19 years 5 months 4 days of continuous service and admittedly the workman was paid retrenchment compensation for 19 years of services which is as per the mandate of the above provisions of the I.D.Act. During cross examination in this Tribunal, the workman also admitted that he was paid all his terminal benefits. Thus, workman was adequately paid on account of retrenchment compensation.

8. Learned representative of the workman submitted during arguments that one Vrinder chargeman was given reemployment by the BBMB as Telephone Operator and workman was left out and he was not provided re employment and this action of the management is illegal and arbitrary. Learned representative of the management submitted that as per directions in reference no.2C of 1971 workcharged employees were taken over in BBMB from the B.C.B. The2368 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2016/ JYAISTHA 7, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] workman was not taken as there was no vacancy in his cadre and no junior to the workman was given re employment. From the perusal of the evidence, during cross examination it is admitted by the workman that "it is correct that my seniority number was found in the category of Assistant Foreman Special. It is correct that no person junior to me was offered employment by the BBMB. Vrinder Kumar was engaged as Telephone Operator". Thus, it is revealed that none of the junior to the workman was appointed in the BBMB in his cadre. The above Vrinder was given re employment by the BBMB as Telephone Operator who was in the category of chargeman.

9. From the above, it is clear that the workman was rightly paid the retrenchment compensation at the time of his retrenchment in the year 1984 and none of the junior to the workman was given re employment by the BBMB. It is also pertinent to mention here that vide letter dated 10-06-1984, Chief Engineer, BSL Project Sundernagar sent a proposal to Secretary BBMB Chandigarh for creation of additional posts of foreman special, assistant foreman special in the trade of automobile but this proposal was rejected by the higher authorities. Thus, no post in the trade of assistant foreman special in the trade of automobile was available to be offered for re employment to the workman. It is pertinent to mention that the workman is presently aged about 79 years.

10. In view of the discussion made above, the action of the management of the BBMB in denying re-employment to Shri Basant Singh son of Shri Ram Saran, a retrenchee of BCB is legal, just and valid and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

11. Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh 06.05.2016

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1061.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एपफसीआई

के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 89/2007द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25.05.2016 को प्राप्त

हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/175/2007-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]

राजेन्द्र सह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2016

S.O. 1061.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 89/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation or India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25.05.2016.

[No. L-22012/175/2007-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

NO. CGIT/LC/R/89/07

Ashwani Shukla, Ashish Shukla, Bindu Shukla & Anshu Shukla, LRs of Shri Rajendra Kumar Shukla, S/o Late Shri S.N.Shukla, Srinivas, Aamapara, Behind Vivekanand Aashram, Raipur (CG)

…Workman

Versus

Distt. Manager, FCI, Distt. Office, Jabalpur.

Sr.Regional Manager, FCI, Regional Office, Chetak Bldg,. Bhopal

Zonal Officer, FCI, Dinsha Wacha Road, Church Gate, Mumbai

District Manager, FCI, District office, Raipur.

Managing Director, FCI, Head Office, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 7th day of April 2016

1. As per letter dated 7-9-07 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/175/2007-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India in terminating the services of Shri Rajendra Kumar Shukla w.e.f. 9-12-85 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workmen entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at page 2/1 to 2/6. Case of workman is that on 15-11-66, he was transferred to FCI on post of Asstt. Grade III. He was promoted to the post of Asstt. Grade II on 15-12-66. In the year 1971, he was promoted as Assistant Grade I. his service record was unblemished. On 25-2-84, workman was served with chargesheet alleging that workman while working at Railway Goods shed Raipur has issued stocks directly from Raipur Railway goods shed to Raipur Flour Mills on 10-5- 83 without any authority. The stocks were issued without proper weighment and has recorded under weighment of the stocks. That workman Shri R.K.Shukla has given under benefit of excess weight to the Raipur Flour Mills with ulterior motive in violation of Regulation No. 31 & 32 of the FCI Staff Regulations 1971. He was suspended on 19-8-83 and his headquarter was fixed Jabalpur. MP under 2nd party No.5. On 1-6-84, chargesheet was altered. Charge against Shri R.R.Nirmalkar Asstt. Grade III, FCI was altered. Chargesheet was corrected by substituting the word Railway Goods Shed, Bhatapara in place of Railway Goods Shed, Raipur. Workman was removed from service as per order dated 9-12- 85. Workman preferred appeal challenging the order of his removal from service. The appeal was rejected without applying any mind and without any proper reasons. Workman further submits that DE was conducted in short manner without giving reasonable opportunity to him. Enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. That he was not supplied documents listed with chargesheet. List of witnesses was also not supplied to him. He suffered injustice in his defence. Workman reiterates that enquiry conducted against him is illegal. He was not permitted to cross examine witnesses of management who were examined behind his back.

3. Ist party further submits that findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse and deserves to be quashed. That he has not committed any misconduct for which chargesheet was issued to him. Order of removal from service dated 9-12-85 is illegal and deserves to be quashed. Workman has further pleaded about civil suit filed by him on advice of his counsel was decreed on 20-4-92. Said judgment and decree was set aside by Court holding that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide service matter of FCI. Said judgment was challenged by workman before Chhattisgarh High Court. Hon'ble High Court upheld findings in the appeal that FCI was industry and claim of workman was under industrial dispute, workman can approach appropriate forum. Consequently the delay in raising dispute is caused. Workman reiterates that findings of Enquiry Officer are illegal. Order of removal is illegal. On such grounds, workman prays for his reinstatement and alternately compensation Rs. 25 Lakhs in lieu of reinstatement.

4. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/13 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that FCI is statutory corporation established under FCI Corporation Act 1964. That FCI deals with imports, procurement, storage and distribution of food grains throughout the country. It is bound to act in accordance with the directions issued by Central Government. The employees of FCI are covered by FCI Regulations of 1971. Workman was appointed in the Food and Civil supplies deptt. Of Government of India. He was transferred to FCI on 15-11-66. As Asstt. Grade III and then on 15-12-66, he was promoted to the post of Asstt. Grade II. In 1971, he was promoted to Asstt. Grade I. during 1983, workman was posted at Bhatapara depot of FCI. In May 1983, he issued 6 truck wheat against RO No. 9139 dated 7-5-83 directly from Railway Goods Shed on 10-5-83 to M/s Raipur Flour Mills without any authority and proper weighment. The details of quantity of wheat supplied in all those six trucks are shown in para 5 of the Written Statement. That on routine check, officers of FCI found that no weight check memo was prepared for the said issues. It was also found that the stocks issued without weighment giving undue benefit to parties by issuing excess wheat. The2370 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2016/ JYAISTHA 7, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] owner of Truck No. CPT/2823 got said truck weighed at Ashok Dharamkanta Raipur and found 138.30 quintals as against the quantity issued vide Truck Chit No. 4404 dated 10-5-83 which was excess of about 11.80 quintals for which the transporter claimed transportation charges on whole quantity of weight. That the concerned party was issued with C & D category of wheat stocks already available in godowns despite delivery was given from Railway Goods Shed directly with his ulterior motive. That two trucks No. MPS/9649 and MBR/8531 shown loaded with 100 bags wheat each vide truck Chit No.44-1 & 4402 dated 10-5-83 were actually loaded with 140 bags to 150 bags as confirmed by railway goods shed hammals. No weight check memo was prepared by Ist party workman. Less number of bags were shown to have been loaded with ulterior motive and gave undue benefit to M/S Raipur Flour Mills. That 575 MT gunnies were sent to railway goods shed for replacement of cut and torn bags and for filling loose palla against which the workman showed receipt of 352 gunnies and 105 gunnies utilized for filling palla. There was shortage of 118 gunnies. Bags were loaded in cases excess on the aforesaid two trucks. The investigation was handed over to one Assistant Manager who submitted his report. Workman was suspended on 19-7-83. Chargesheet was served on workman on 25-2-84, the articles of charges statement of implication of misconduct, list of witnesses, documents were supplied to workman. The chargesheet was issued for violation of Regulation 31, 32, 50, 58 of FCI Staff Regulation 1971. Workman had approached Disciplinary Authority for revocation of his suspension. His suspension was evoked as per order dated 5-5-84. Workman was directed to work at Jabalpur.

5. Shri K.K.Krishnan was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Shri P.M.Nair, Assistant Manager as Presenting Officer. Enquiry was conducted against workman after correcting the discripancies in chargesheet instead of mentioning Railway goods Shed, Bhatapara, it was mentioned as Railway Goods Shed, Raipur. Corrigendum was issued on 12-6-84. Enquiry was conducted on various dates. Workman was represented by defence Assistant Kailash Sahay. Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 21-11-85 holding charges against workman are proved. The Disciplinary Authority after considering report of Enquiry Officer imposed penalty of removal from service of workman on 9-12-1985. The appeal preferred by workman was rejected on 16-12-86. Written Statement is further devoted about the Civil Suit filed by workman. By looking to the judgment and the order was setaside by 4th Additional District Judge Raipur in 28-A/93. In 2nd appeal No. 534/93, the judgment setting aside said order was upheld holding that claim of workman amounts to dispute under ID Act, civil court has no jurisdiction. 2nd party submits that enquiry is properly conducted. Punishment of removal imposed against workman is illegal. Reference be answered in favour of management.

6. As per order dated 5-12-2014, enquiry conducted against workman is found proper and legal.

7. Considering pleadings on record and order on enquiry, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

REASONS

8. Enquiry conducted against workman is found proper and legal vide order dated 5-12-2014. Whether charges alleged against workman are proved needs to be proved considering evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Learned counsel for workman Shri R.K.Soni during course of argument submits that chargesheet was issued to workman alleging misconduct that goods were issued without checking on basis of complaint, the truck was seen overloaded stock was not checked. Punchnama was not done. Learned counsel further submits that transportation bill was not produced. Charge was handed over to workman. Therefore issuing weight cannot be said unauthorized. The weighment receipt was not produced only on complaint. Any documents were not verified w.r.t. overloading. Gage pass was not produced. Learned counsel also referred to judgment by Civil Court, appeal and 2nd appeal. The incident was not reported to police., charge against Shri Nirmalkar was dropped. The witness were not examined. Claim of workman was decreed by Civil Court holding charges against workman as not proved. All the witnesses in enquiry had admitted their signature on the complaint.

9. Workman died during pendency of reference. LRs are brought on record. Monetary benefits be allowed to LRs.

10. Shri S.Pandey for management submitted written notes of argument. Learned counsel further explained the workman was suspended. List of witnesses, list of documents were enclosed along with memo of articles of charges. Suspension was revoked on 5-5-84. Management's witnesses were cross-examined. Enquiry Proceeding was submitted. The appeal preferred by workman was rejected. The litigation by workman in Civil Court Ist appeal and 2nd appeal is not relevant for deciding the controversy between parties as civil court has no jurisdiction decide under Section 10 of ID Act and Hon'ble High Court has upheld the judgment of 4th Additional District Judge setting aside the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge.

11. Whether charges alleged against workman are proved needs to be decided considering evidence in Enquiry Proceedings itself. Exhibit M-8 is memo of charges issued to workman on 25-2-84. The charges alleged against workman pertains to while workman was working at Railway Goods Shed on 10-5-83 without authority issued stocks without proper weighment and recorded under weighment of stock. Workman had given undue benefit of excess weight with ulterior motive violating Article 31,32 of FCI Regulation Act, 1971. Preliminary Enquiry Report is produced at Page 9/30. Statement of witness Shri D.B.Markam is on the point that he had admitted his signature on complaint collectively made by Class IV employees. In his cross-examination, witness says that in May 83, Jagdev Singh was Assistant Manager. Shri R.K.Shukla was Technical Asstt. Of Bhatapara in May 83. No gunnies were sent from State godown to Shri R.K.Shukla and RR Nirmalkar on 10-5-83. In reply to Q.6, witness says it was duty of workman in case of suspect excess loading in a particular truck is noticed as compared to the Truck Chit, so we brought to the knowledge of the superior and police. Evidence of witness Shri Dhru Stitcher at Page 9/37 is only w.r.t. that he signed the complaint, he has no personal knowledge. Management's witness Shri K.L.Patel in his evidence says that Exhibit P-6 shown to him is letter addressed to Asstt. Manager, FCI, Bhatapara dated 25-6-83 is signed by him. The letter relates to misappropriation of wheat at Railway Goods Shed Bhatapara. On 10-5-83, he was on duty at Railway Goods Shed from 6 AM to 4 PM. He performed double duty at Bhatapara. He reached godown at 4.30 PM he was not aware about loading of truck with wheat for Raipur Flour Mills by Shri Ratan Babu. He found gate pass with Ratan. He had some doubt about excess quantity loaded in truck and mentioned in the letter to take appropriate action by higher authorities. He confirmed said letter Exhibit P-5. In his further evidence, above management's witnesses says out of wheat stocks being dispatched from Railhead to CWCV godown Bhatapara, Shri Suklaji has sent 5 trucks of wheat to four mills directly. It created some doubts to all workmen in these trucks excess quantity of wheat was dispatched. Ratan has dispatched those trucks to Raipur Flour mills. Management's witness Shri R.K.Shukla admitted his signatures on Exhibit P-4 addressed to AG-I, FCI, Bhatapara. He identified signature of Shri R.K.Shukla dated 13-5-83. His evidence is further devoted on the point that P-2 shown to him is release order No. 9139 dated 7-5-83 addressed to M/S Raipur Flour Mill, Raipur detailing C & D wheat of 690 quintals to be released to them by Asstt. Manager, FCI, Bhatapara. It is signed by Shri Gurucharan Singh dated 7-5-83. As seen from release order, delivery of stock is to be completed before 10-5-83. In his cross-examination, witness says priority list was prepared as per condition of stock categorization. In reply to Q.4, witness says it was supplied before issuing stock to D/I Bhatapara. In reply to Q.5, witness says Narayan was D/I, Bhatapara. That as incharge of FCI hired godown on 10-5-83 Sjhri R.K.Shukla was working and Shri NMarayan had handed over the charge to Shri R.K.Shukla of hired godown. Ex.P-4 doesnot indicate that Shri R.K.Shukla refused to take note of stocks from his godown. In reply to Q.9, witness says party approached with RO to Shri Narayan and he was unaware whether Shri R.K.Shukla has refused to issue C&D category stock 44 MTs lying in State hired godown. On 10-5-83, he was working in Bhatapara office. In reply to Q.13, witness did not remember circumstances in which Exhibit P-4 was written.

12. Management's witness Shri Verma at Page 9/47 says before signing complaint P-4 regarding misappropriation at Bhatapara office. He identified his signature on complaint Sl.No.11. He readover the complaint and signedover it. He was not on dugty at Railway Good Shed on 12-5-83. Shri R.K.Shukla was in the office during the period but he had not taken over charge during that period. Management's witness Shri B.P.Mishra has given detailed evidence that stockloaded by Trick No. 2823 transported from Bhatapara goods Shed to Raipur Flour Mill Raipur was on average weight and not weighed. The driver of the truck told that weight seems to be more and accordingly remedy was taken by Shri Ashokdharan Kanta. As per this weighment, 12 to 14 quintals weight was seen in excess and he got the transportation charges as per the actual weight. That Shri Swran Sahu was driver of the truck No. CPT 2823. That Bhatiya transport engaged the truck contractor of FCI on 10-5-83. In reply to Q.4, above witness of management reite3rates that weight was shown on average, it is not written in the document, truck was dispatched without weighment. In reply to Q.5, above witness says that on basis of writing complaint about excess weight and excess payment as per statement of other Truck Driver, he had not seen him receiving excess payment in his presence. In reply to Q.6, he says that as insisted by legal representative of workman, he had given in writing. He handed over cheque to some official of Bhatapara depot.Evidence of witness D.W.Narayan shows that he confirmed entries reflected in log book P-9. He did not find place at Page 16 of Exhibit B-I. as per entry P-9 the gunnies were sent to Railway godown shed for utilization but name of recipient is not recorded. In reply to Q.3, witness says 100 % weighment was not conducted at Railway Goods Shed Bhatapara on 10-5-83. When this witness was referred to Page 60 of Exhibit D-2, he confirmed as per remarks made therein how many empty gunnies were received back from Railway Goods Shed out of2372 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2016/ JYAISTHA 7, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 575 gunnies sent to the Railway Goods Shed from State Godown. Out of 575 gunnies, 48 gunnies were received back, 105 were utilized for palla filling, 304 gunnies unser were received after replacement and 118 were not received back neither served nor as unserved. His evidence in further cross examination shows that Shri R.K.Shukla told for C&D category wheat was requested by the Asstt. Manager Bhatapara only to liquidate the old stock of C&D category lying in the depot. Shri shukla said that he will reply for that. In reply to Q.5, witness says he did not know who was incharge but he had seen the routine papers were signed sometimes by Shri R.K.Shukla AG I(D) and sometimes by Shri R.K.Shukla TA Gr.I, some were signed by him also. He had not seen any official order.

13. Evidence of witnesses is discussed by Enquiry Officer in his report. The scope of judicial review is limited. The evidence of witnesses in Enquiry Proceedings cannot be re-appreciated. The evidence considered by Enquiry Officer in his report is supported. It cannot be said that Enquiry Report submitted by Enquiry Officer in the enquiry and it cannot be said that the finding of Enquiry Officer are perverse. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

14. Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 charges alleged against workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings, question remains for decision whether punishment of removal imposed against workman is proper and justified. The charges proved against workman from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings pertains to issuing wheat without weighing, excessive stocks were loaded in the trucks, about 11-14 quintals excess in all those six trucks. The proved charges against workman are very serious. Therefore punishment of removal from service of workman cannot be said excessive or disproportionate. So far as written notes of argument submitted on behalf of workman is mostly devoted about enquiry against workman was not properly conducted. Issue is already answered in Affirmative holding that enquiry is legal. Notes of arguments submitted doesnot deal with evidence of management's witnesses. Similar notes of argument submitted by counsel for 2nd party. The details of evidence how the charges are proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings are not mentioned. Considering charge proved against workman is of serious nature, no interference in punishment of removal of workman is called for. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.2 in Affirmative.

15. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The action of the management is proper and legal.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1062.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार साउथर्न एयर

कमांड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, एर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 45/2013द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25.05.2016 को

प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42025/03/2016-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2016

S.O. 1062.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 45/2013) 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 Southern Air Command and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25.05.2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2016-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 29th day of April, 2016/09th Vaisakha, 1938)

ID 45/2013

Workman

: Smt. S. Nirmala Devi,

Kamala Vilasam, T.C. 34/329, Beach P. O., Thiruvananthapuram. By Adv. Shri Biju Balakrishnan

Managements

: 1. The Commanding Officer,

Wing Commander Head Quarters, Southern Air Command, Air Force Station, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The Chief Administrative Officer (Wing Commander), Air Force Station, Beach P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

By Adv. Shri Jamaludheen. K. M.

This case coming up for final hearing on 22.04.2016 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 29.04.2016 passed the following:

AWARD

This is an application filed by the workman under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. The contentions of the workman as drawn out from the application, in brief are as follows:

As per the appointment order No.17FBSU/358/2/Org., dated 04.08.1992 the workman was employed as Ayah under the management from the year 1992. She was treated as a conservancy worker in the medical inspection room of the management. She is a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There was an attempt on the part of the management to terminate her services. Therefore the workman along with three other similarly situated persons filed O.A. No.306/1998 before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam. That OA was disposed of as per order dated 18.11.1999 directing the management not to terminate her services if work is available and if persons with lesser length of service are retained. Subsequently there was an attempt on the part of the management to disengage the workman from her duties. Therefore she filed OA No.293/2002 before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal. The Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal declined to accept the request of the workman against which she preferred WP(C) No.26075/2005 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. As per the judgment dated 24.06.2008 the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala directed the management to continue the engagement of the workman with further observation that it will not be reasonable for the management to decline her employment on daily wage basis. Subsequently the management allowed the workman to continue as a casual labourer.

3. The workman was compelled to accept the engagement as a casual labourer under the management due to her pathetic situation. Subsequently the management appointed another person overlooking the claim of the workman and ignoring the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. As per Rule 15 of the Special Rules for Pat Time Contingent Service, the workman is entitled to continue in service till she attains the age of seventy years. Even though the workman submitted representation before the first management and before the Hon'ble Minister of Defence, Government of India no positive steps were taken to provide employment to the workman. Therefore she approached Conciliation Officer & Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central), Trivandrum with a request to resolve the dispute through negotiation. The Conciliation Officer could not resolve the dispute. Hence he issued a certificate enabling the workman to pursue her remedy before this Tribunal. Therefore the workman has requested to set aside the actions taken by the management and to direct them to reengage her with all benefits including back wages.

4. The contentions in the written statement filed by the management in brief are as follows:

The management has denied all the averments in the application except those that are specifically admitted. This tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the claim put forward by the workman in view of the policy decision of the Union of India. Before approaching this Tribunal the workman filed application before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal on two occasions and Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. The management has called upon the workman to prove that she will come under the purview of "workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Even as per the admission of the workman she was engaged as a part time daily wage employee in the medical inspection room attached to the office of the Commanding Officer, Thiruvananthapuram. The wages due to her is paid from and out of the Regimental funds, which is contributed by Air Warriors of the base2374 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2016/ JYAISTHA 7, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] station for their welfare activities. The services of the workman cannot be undertaken through Government Funds as it is not authorized.

5. As per the judgment in WP(C) No.26075/2005 dated 24.06.2008 the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has observed that the workman has no ground to claim for regularization in service. It was further observed that the service of the workman was on daily wage basis and further directed that as and when vacancy arises on temporary basis, to employ her.

6. In pursuance of the observations in the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala the management offered the job of casual labourer on daily wage basis to the workman in the year 2008. The workman did not accept the same. Again as per letter dated 18.06.2009 she was offered employment, which she accepted and continued the work as a daily wage casual labourer in broken periods till March, 2011.

7. From April, 2011 the base station of the management is not authorized to hire casual labourers directly. The Government of India advised the management to outsource the conservancy/casual labour services by Integrated Financial Advisor to Government of India due to change in the administration policy by the Union of India. As per the decision of the Government of India such work should be given to ex-servicemen. The claim of the workman is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The management has requested to uphold her contentions and disallow the claim of the workman.

8. The workman filed replication reiterating the contentions in the claim application filed by her.

9. As per order in IA No.137/2014 dated 31.12.2014, additional written statement filed by the management is received. In the additional written statement the management has contended that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the claim of the workman. They have pleaded non-joinder of the necessary parties in this matter. They have called upon the workman to prove that she will come under the purview of the Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that she has got the locus standi to maintain an application of this nature. They have requested to uphold her contentions.

10. The workman tendered evidence as WW1 and Exts.W1 to W4 are the documents marked on her behalf. On behalf of the management MW1 was examined. Heard both sides.

11. The points arising for consideration are:

"(i) Whether the applicant herein will come under the purview of "workman" as defined under

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

(ii) Whether the workman is entitled to get an order of reinstatement as Ayah under the

management with continuity of service as claimed by her?

(iii) Reliefs and costs?"

12. Point Nos.(i) & (ii):- This is an application filed by the individual workman under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Her case is that as per appointment order No.17FBSU/358/2/Org. dated 04.08.1992 she was appointed as Ayah under the management. She would further state that she was treated as a conservancy worker in the medical inspection room of the management. According to the workman she comes under the purview of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. She has alleged termination of her employment by the management without any reason and denial of her right to continue in employment. According to her the management will come under the purview of Section 2(g) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Earlier she had approached the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal on two occasions by filing OA Nos.306/1998 and 293/2002. She had also approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala by filing WP(C) No.26075/2005. According to the workman she is entitled to continue her employment under the management as Ayah and that her denial of employment by the management is illegal.

13. The management has specifically denied the claim of the workman under the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act. They have stated that she will not come under the purview of "workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. They have stated that the applicant was employed as a part time daily wages employee in the medical inspection room attached to the Commanding Officer, Thiruvananthapuram and the wages due to her is paid from and out of the Regimental Funds, contributed by Air Warriors of the base station for their welfare activities. On going through the contentions of the workman and that of the management it is clear that the workman herein was employed purely on temporary basis.

14. Ext.W1 is copy of the appointment order dated 04.08.1992 issued to the workman by the Chief Administrative Officer. The Ext.W1 order reveals that the workman was appointed as part time Ayah to work in the unit of the medical inspection room on temporary basis. Ext.W2 is copy of the order in OA No.306/1998 passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The Ext.W2 order also will not confer any absolute right of employment to the workman under the management. Ext.W3 is copy of the order in OA No.293/2002 passed by the Hon'ble Central2375 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 28, 2016/ज्येष्ठ 7, 1938 Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench . Ext.W3 order also will not entitle the applicant/workman herein to continue her services under the management. Ext.W4 is copy of the judgment in WP(C) No.26075/2005(S) passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. In Ext.W4 judgment the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has made it clear that the appointment of the workman is not to any post but it is only on adhoc basis using the fund available with the first respondent. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has observed that as and when there is a vacancy on temporary basis the request of the workman may also be considered. The said observation by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala will not confer any legal right to the applicant for continuity of service or reinstatement in service under the management.

15. While examined as WW1 the applicant has stated that she has not preferred any appeal against Ext.W4 judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. Even as per the contentions of the applicant it is evident that she was working purely on temporary basis under the management. While examined as MW1 the witness examined on behalf of the management has stated that the applicant was employed on adhoc basis and she was paid from and out of the non-public fund contributed by the personnel of the Air Force Station. He has stated that when there was a vacancy in the non-public fund they gave an application to the applicant but she failed to submit any application for that vacancy.

16. On going through the evidence tendered by WW1 and MW1 and the documents marked in this case it is clear that the applicant will not come under the purview of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It follows that the applicant is not entitled to any relief claimed in this application. Hence the points for consideration are answered against the applicant.

17. Point No.(iii):- In view of the finding on Point Nos.(i) and (ii) the applicant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed in this application. The point is answered accordingly.

18. In the result an award is passed holding that the applicant/workman is not entitled to any of relief claimed as per this Industrial Dispute.

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 April, 2016.

K. SASIDHARAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the workman

WW1 08.01.2016 Smt. Nirmaladevi. S.

Witness for the managements

MW1 28.03.2016 Shri Ajit G. Sonna

Exhibits for the workman

W1      -        True  copy  of  the  appointment  order  No.17FBSU/358/2/Org.  dated  04.08.1992  issued  to
                 the workman by the Chief Administrative Officer, Air Force Station, Trivandrum.
W2      -        True  coy  of  the  Order  in  OA  No.306/1998  dated  18.11.1999  passed  by  the  Hon'ble  Central
                 Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench
W3      -        True  copy  of  the  Order  in  OA  No.293/2002  dated  11.02.2005  passed  by  the  Hon'ble  Central
                 Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench
W4      -        True copy of the judgment in WP(C) No.26075/2005(S) dated 24.06.2008 passed by the Hon'ble High
                 Court of Kerala, Ernakulam.

Exhibits for the managements - NIL

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1063.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एचएलएल

लाइपफकेयर लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार

औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, एर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 10/2015द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को

25.05.2016 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42011/160/2014-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अध्किारी2376 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2016/ JYAISTHA 7, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2016

S.O. 1063.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 10/2015) 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 HLL Lifecare Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25.05.2016.

[No. L-42011/160/2014-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

(Wednesday the 27th day of April, 2016/07th Vaisakha, 1938)

ID 10/2015

Unions

:

1. The General Secretary,

Hindustan Latex Workmen's Congress (INTUC),

C/o HLL Lifecare Ltd.,

Peroorkada Factory,

Trivandrum – 695005.

2. The General Secretary,

Hindustan Latex Labour Union (AITUC),

Peroorkada,

Trivandrum – 695005.

By Adv. Shri. M. S. Vijayachandra Babu 3. The General Secretary,

Hindustan Latex Employees Union (CITU),

Peroorkada,

Trivandrum – 695005.

(ex-parte)

Management

: The Chairman & Managing Director,

M/s.HLL Lifecare Limited,

Head Office, Poojappura,

Trivandrum – 695012.

By Adv. Shri. Ajith. S Nair

This case coming up for final hearing on 27.04.2016 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 the management of M/s. HLL Lifecare Ltd. in denying the payment of arrears on the overtime work during the period on 01.01.2007 to 31.12.2009 resultant to the memorandum of settlement dated 16th January 2010 is fair and justifiable? If not, what relief they are entitled to?'2377 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 28, 2016/ज्येष्ठ 7, 1938 3. After receipt of the reference order No.L-42011/160/2014-IR(DU) dated 05.02.2015, 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, union Nos.1 & 2 and the management entered appearance through counsel. Summons was served on union No.3. Union No.3 was called absent and set ex-parte. Union Nos.1 & 2 filed claim statement and the matter was posted for written statement of the management. While so union No.1 filed IA No.68/2016 and union No.2 filed IA No.69/2016 with a request to pass an award holding that there is no subsisting industrial dispute to be adjudicated between the union and the management. Paragraph Nos.3 & 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the IA Nos.68/2016 and 69/2016 read as follows:-

"3. The matter in dispute has been resolved by paying the arrears on overtime work during the period from 1.01.2007 to 31.12.2009 resultant to the memorandum of settlement dated 16.01.2010. As such there is no dispute at present between the management and this union.

4. As there is no dispute exists at present between the parties an award may be passed on the ground that there is no dispute exists. The accompanying petition to pass an award may kindly be allowed."

4. Notice of this application was given to the learned counsel for the management. Heard both sides.

5. From the affidavit filed in support of IA Nos.68/2016 and 69/2016 it is seen that the dispute between the unions on the one hand and the management on the other have been settled amicably and at present there is no subsisting industrial dispute to be adjudicated as per the reference.

6. In the result an award is passed holding that there is no subsisting Industrial Dispute to be adjudicated between the parties.

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 27th day of April, 2016.

SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer

APPENDIX - NIL

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1064.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार ओरिएण्टल

सिक्योरिटी सवस एंड अदर्स के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय

सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेवर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ केस सं. 57/2014द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार

को 25.05.2016 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42011/95/2014-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2016

S.O. 1064.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID Case No. 57/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Oriental Security Service and Others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25.05.2016.

[No. L-42011/95/2014-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

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. 57/2014

L-42011/95/2014-IR (DU), dated 11.11.2014 Date of Passing Order – 26th April, 2016

Between:

1. The Managing Director, M/s. Oriental Security Service, Plot No. 85, Po. Sahidnagar, Bhubaneswar (Odisha) – 751 007

2. The Principal, Regional Institute of Education Worker's Union, At CITU Odisha State Office, VR-5/1, Unit-3, Kharvelnagar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha – 751 001.

… 1st Party-Managements.

(And)

The President, Regional Institute of Education Worker's Union, At. CITU Odisha State Office, VR-5/1, Unit-3, Kharvelnagar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha – 751 001

… 2nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

None                                    …       For the 1st Party-Managements.
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 registered post. In order to give a last opportunity to the 2nd party-Union notice was issued to it on 04.03.2016 fixing 26.4.2016 for appearance and for filing of statement of claim, but neither the 2nd party-Union caused appearance today nor 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

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2016

का.आ. 1065.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार जवाहर नवोदय

विद्यालय के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट [आई.डी. संदर्भ सं. ;सीजीआईटीएद्ध 1152/2004] को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय

सरकार को 25.05.2016 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/23/99-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2016

S.O. 1065.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [I.D. Ref. No. (CGITA) 1152/2004] of the Central Government Industrial2379 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 28, 2016/ज्येष्ठ 7, 1938 Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the Jawahar Novodaya Vidyalaya and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25.05.2016.

[No. L-42012/23/99-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present:

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 25th April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1152/2004

The Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya, At & PO – Dhrangadhra, Distt. – Surendranagar Gujarat – 363310

…First Party

v/s

Shri Dave Kiritkumar Prahladbhai, Near Rama Pir Mandir, Rajsitapar, Tal. – Dhrangadhra, Distt. – Surendranagar Gujarat – 363310

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri P.M. Rami

For the Second Party : None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-42012/23/99- IR(DU) dated 14.09.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether Shri Dave Kiritkumar Prajladbhai who has been entrusted with the job of catering meals and refreshments by the management of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Dhrangadhra, can been deemed as a workman in terms of Section 2 (S) of the I.D. Act? If so, whether the awarding of catering contract to another person by the management on the plea that Shri Dave Kiritkumar Prahladbhai did not sign the necessary contract is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"

1. The reference dates back to 14.09.1999. Second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 5 on 10.12.1999. First party submitted the written statement Ext. 12 on 06.07.2000. Since then second party has not led his evidence. First party's advocate Shri P.M. Rami has moved and application Ext. 32 for closing purses today. As the second party has not been prosecuting the case since the filing the statement of claim Ext. 5 on 10.12.1999. Thus this tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

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.