3799 GI/2016

(3665)

jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 33]

ubZ fnYyh] vxLr 7—vxLr 13] 2016] 'kfuokj@ Jko.k 16—Jko.k 22] 1938

No. 33]

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 7—AUGUST 13, 2016, SATURDAY/ SRAVANA 16— SRAVANA 22, 1938

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

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

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

foÙk ea=kky;

(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1618-— रा᳦ीय कृिष और ᮕामीण िवकास बᱹक अिधिनयम, 1981 (1981 का 61) कᳱ धारा 6 कᳱ उपधारा (1)

के ख᭛ड (ड.) ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, ,rn~}kjk, िन᳜िलिखत O;fDr;ksa को ᳰदनांक 27.07.2016

से तीन वषᭅ कᳱ अविध के िलए रा᳦ीय कृिष और ᮕामीण िवकास बᱹक (नाबाडᭅ) के िनदेशक म᭛डल मᱶ िनदेशक िनयुᲦ करती हैः-

(i)

अपर मु᭎य सिचव-सह-कृिष उ᭜पाद आयुᲦ,

खा᳒ सुरᭃा एवं कृिष िवभाग,

म᳖ान भवन,

िसᳰᲥम सरकार।

(ii)

कृिष उ᭜पाद आयुᲦ एवं सिचव,

कृिष एवं सहकाᳯरता (बागवानी एवं रेशम कᳱटपालन) िवभाग,

तेलंगाना सरकार,

सिचवालय, सैफाबाद, हैदराबाद-500 022

¹iQk- la- 7@1@2016&chvks&Iº

Kkuksrks"k jk;] voj lfpo

3666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 15th July, 2016

S.O. 1618.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the National

Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 (61 of 1981), the Central Government hereby appoints the

following persons to be the Directors on the Board of Directors of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural

Development (NABARD) for a period of three years w.e.f. 27.07.2016 :-

i)

Additional Chief Secretary cum Agriculture Production Commissioner

Food Security and Agriculture Department

Mannan Bhavan

Government of Sikkim

ii)

APC & Secretary to Government

Agriculture & Co-operation (Horticulture & Sericulture) Department

Government of Telangana

Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad – 500 022

[F. No. 7/1/2016-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 20 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1619-— रा᳦ीय कृिष और ᮕामीण िवकास बᱹक अिधिनयम, 1981 (1981 का 61) कᳱ धारा 6 कᳱ उप-

धारा (1) के ख᭛ड (ग) ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, भारतीय ᳯरजवᭅ बᱹक से परामशᭅ करके,

,rn~}kjk, ᮰ी एच.आर. खान के ᭭थान पर ᮰ी आर. गांधी, उप-गवनᭅर, भारतीय ᳯरजवᭅ बᱹक को उनकᳱ िनयुिᲦ कᳱ अिधसूचना

कᳱ तारीख से अथवा अगले आदेशᲂ तक, जो भी पहले हो, रा᳦ीय कृिष और ᮕामीण िवकास बᱹक (नाबाडᭅ) के िनदेशक म᭛डल

मᱶ अंशकािलक िनदेशक नािमत करती है।

¹iQk- la- 7@2@2009&chvks&Iº

Kkuksrks"k jk;] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 20th July, 2016

S.O. 1619.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the National

Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 (61 of 1981), the Central Government, in consultation with the

Reserve Bank of India, hereby nominates Shri R. Gandhi, Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India as part-time

Director on the Board of Directors of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) from the date

of notification and until further orders whichever is earlier vice Shri H.R. Khan.

[F. No. 7/2/2009-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1620-— भारतीय ᭭ टेट बᱹक (समनुषंगी बᱹक) अिधिनयम, 1959 कᳱ धारा 25 कᳱ उप-धारा (1) के ख᭛ड

(ड.) ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, ,rn~}kjk, ᮰ी िमिहर कुमार, िनदेशक, िवᱫीय सेवाएं िवभाग,

िवᱫ मंᮢालय को सु᮰ी ऍनी जॉजᭅ मै᭝यू के ᭭थान पर, त᭜काल ᮧभाव से और अगले आदेशᲂ तक, ᭭ टेट बᱹक आफ हैदराबाद के

िनदेशक म᭛डल मᱶ सरकारी नािमती िनदेशक नािमत करती है।

¹iQk- la- 6@3@2012&chvks&Iº

Kkuksrks"k jk;] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2016

S.O. 1620.— In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 25 of The State

Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, the Central Government, hereby nominates, Shri Mihir Kumar, Director,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3667

Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, as Government Nominee Director on the Board of Directors of

State Bank of Hyderabad with immediate effect and until further orders vice Ms. Annie George Mathew.

[F. No. 6/3/2012-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1621-—रा᳦ीयकृत बᱹक (ᮧबंध एवं ᮧकᳱणᭅ उपबंध) ᭭कᳱम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड (1) के साथ

पᳯठत बᱹककारी कंपनी (उपᮓमᲂ का अजᭅन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 कᳱ धारा 9 कᳱ उप-धारा 3 के खंड (ख)

᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, ,rn~}kjk, नीचे दी गई सारणी के कालम (2) मᱶ िविन᳸द᳥ ᳞िᲦयᲂ

को उᲦ सारणी के कालम (3) मᱶ िविन᳸द᳥ ᳞िᲦयᲂ के ᭭थान पर कालम (1) मᱶ िविन᳸द᳥ बᱹकᲂ मᱶ त᭜काल ᮧभाव से और

अगले आदेशᲂ तक, सरकारी नािमती िनदेशक नािमत करती हैः-

1.

2.

3.

पंजाब नैशनल बᱹक

᮰ी अिनल कुमार खाची, अपर सिचव,

िवᱫीय सेवाएं िवभाग

᮰ी मदनेश कुमार िम᮰

यूिनयन बᱹक आफ इंिडया

᮰ी मदनेश कुमार िम᮰, संयुᲦ सिचव,

िवᱫीय सेवाएं िवभाग

᮰ी िमिहर कुमार

इि᭛डयन ओवरसीज बᱹक

सु᮰ी ऍनी जॉजᭅ मै᭝यू, संयुᲦ सिचव,

᳞य िवभाग

डॉ. आलोक पा᭛डे

¹iQk- la- 6@3@2012&chvks&Iº

Kkuksrks"k jk;] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2016

S.O. 1621.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980, read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The

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

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

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

and until further orders:-

(1)

(2)

(3)

Punjab National Bank

Shri Anil Kumar Khachi, Additional Secretary,

Department of Financial Services

Shri Madnesh Kumar Mishra

Union Bank of India

Shri Madnesh Kumar Mishra, Joint Secretary,

Department of Financial Services

Shri Mihir Kumar

Indian Overseas Bank

Ms. Annie George Mathew, Joint Secretary,

Department of Expenditure

Dr. Alok Pandey

[F. No. 6/3/2012-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1622.—रा᳦ीयकृत बᱹक (ᮧबंध और ᮧकᳱणᭅ उपबंध) ᭭कᳱम, 1970/1980 के खंड 9(2) के उप-खंड (ख) के

साथ पᳯठत बᱹककारी कंपनी (उपᮓमᲂ का अजᭅन और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 कᳱ धारा 9 कᳱ उप-धारा 3(छ)

3668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, एत᳏ारा, ᮰ी संजय कपूर (ज᭠म ितिथः 10.08.1968) को उनकᳱ

िनयुिᲦ कᳱ अिधसूचना कᳱ तारीख से तीन वषᭅ कᳱ अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेशᲂ तक, जो भी पहले हो, ओᳯरयंटल बᱹक

आफ कामसᭅ के िनदेशक म᭛डल मᱶ सनदी लेखाकार (चाटᭅडᭅ अकाउंटᱶट) ᮰ेणी के अंतगᭅत अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक

नािमत करती है ।

¹iQk- la- 6@51@2015&chvks&Iº

Kkuksrks"k jk;] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th July, 2016

S.O. 1622.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 3(g) of Section 9 of The Banking Companies

(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (b) of clause 9(2) of The Nationalised

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

Shri Sanjay Kapoor (DoB: 10.08.1968) as Part-time Non-official Director under Chartered Accountant category on the

Board of Directors of Oriental Bank of Commerce for a period of three years, from the date of notification of his

appointment or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 6/51/2015-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1623.—रा᳦ीयकृत बᱹक (ᮧबंध और ᮧकᳱणᭅ उपबंध) ᭭कᳱम, 1970/1980 के खंड 9(2) के उप-खंड (ख) के

साथ पᳯठत बᱹककारी कंपनी (उपᮓमᲂ का अजᭅन और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 कᳱ धारा 9 कᳱ उप-धारा 3(छ)

᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, ,rn~}kjk, ᮰ी अिनल शमाᭅ (ज᭠म ितिथः 28.12.1954) को उनकᳱ

िनयुिᲦ कᳱ अिधसूचना कᳱ तारीख से तीन वषᭅ कᳱ अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेशᲂ तक, जो भी पहले हो, यूको बᱹक के

िनदेशक म᭛डल मᱶ सनदी लेखाकार (चाटᭅडᭅ अकाउंटᱶट) ᮰ेणी के अंतगᭅत अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक नािमत करती है।

उनकᳱ िनयुिᲦ यूको बᱹक के बोडᭅ मᱶ कायᭅभार ᮕहण करने से पूवᭅ केशव सहकारी बᱹक िल. के उपा᭟यᭃ के पद से उनके ᭜याग-

पᮢ के अ᭟यधीन होगी।

¹iQk- la- 6@49@2015&chvks&Iº

Kkuksrks"k jk;] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th July, 2016

S.O. 1623.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 3 (g) of Section 9 of The Banking Companies

(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (b) of clause 9(2) of The Nationalised

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

Shri Anil Sharma (DoB: 28.12.1954) as Part-time Non-official Director under Chartered Accountant category on the

Board of Directors of UCO Bank for a period of three years, from the date of notification of his appointment or until

further orders, whichever is earlier. His appointment is subject to his resignation from the Vice-Chairmanship of

Keshav Sahakari Bank Ltd. before joining the Board of UCO Bank.

[F. No. 6/49/2015-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1624.—रा᳦ीयकृत बᱹक (ᮧबंध और ᮧकᳱणᭅ उपबंध) ᭭कᳱम, 1970/1980 के खंड 9(2) के उप-खंड (ख) के

साथ पᳯठत बᱹककारी कंपनी (उपᮓमᲂ का अजᭅन और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 कᳱ धारा 9 कᳱ उप-धारा 3(छ)

᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, ,rn~}kjk, ᮰ी गोपाल कृ᭬ण अᮕवाल (ज᭠म ितिथः 01.06.1962)

को उनकᳱ िनयुिᲦ कᳱ अिधसूचना कᳱ तारीख से तीन वषᭅ कᳱ अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेशᲂ तक, जो भी पहले हो, बᱹक

आफ बड़ौदा के िनदेशक म᭛डल मᱶ सनदी लेखाकार (चाटᭅडᭅ अकाउंटᱶट) ᮰ेणी के अंतगᭅत अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक

नािमत करती है।

¹iQk- la- 6@40@2015&chvks&Iº

Kkuksrks"k jk;] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3669

New Delhi, the 26th July, 2016

S.O. 1624.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 3 (g) of Section 9 of The Banking Companies

(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (b) of clause 9(2) of The Nationalised

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

Shri Gopal Krishan Agarwal (DoB: 01.06.1962) as Part-time Non-official Director under Chartered Accountant

category on the Board of Directors of Bank of Baroda for a period of three years, from the date of notification of his

appointment or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 6/40/2015-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1625.—रा᳦ीयकृत बᱹक (ᮧबंध और ᮧकᳱणᭅ उपबंध) ᭭कᳱम, 1970/1980 के खंड 9(2) के उप-खंड (ख) के

साथ पᳯठत बᱹककारी कंपनी (उपᮓमᲂ का अजᭅन और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 कᳱ धारा 9 कᳱ उप-धारा 3(छ)

᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, ,rn~}kjk, ᮰ी दीनदयाल अᮕवाल (ज᭠म ितिथः 08.06.1968) को

उनकᳱ िनयुिᲦ कᳱ अिधसूचना कᳱ तारीख से तीन वषᭅ कᳱ अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेशᲂ तक, जो भी पहले हो, बᱹक

आफ महारा᳦ के िनदेशक म᭛डल मᱶ सनदी लेखाकार (चाटᭅडᭅ अकाउंटᱶट) ᮰ेणी के अंतगᭅत अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक

नािमत करती है।

¹iQk- la- 6@42@2015&chvks&Iº

Kkuksrks"k jk;] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th July, 2016

S.O. 1625.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 3 (g) of Section 9 of The Banking Companies

(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (b) of clause 9(2) of The Nationalised

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

Shri Deendayal Agrawal (DoB: 08.06.1968) as Part-time Non-official Director under Chartered Accountant category

on the Board of Directors of Bank of Maharashtra for a period of three years, from the date of notification of his

appointment or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 6/42/2015-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1626.— रा᳦ीयकृत बᱹक (ᮧबंध और ᮧकᳱणᭅ उपबंध) ᭭कᳱम, 1970/1980 के खंड 9(2) के उप-खंड (ख) के

साथ पᳯठत बᱹककारी कंपनी (उपᮓमᲂ का अजᭅन और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 कᳱ धारा 9 कᳱ उप-धारा 3(छ)

᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, ,rn~}kjk, ᮰ी के. रघु (ज᭠म ितिथः 09.10.1965) को उनकᳱ

िनयुिᲦ कᳱ अिधसूचना कᳱ तारीख से तीन वषᭅ कᳱ अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेशᲂ तक, जो भी पहले हो, इि᭛डयन

ओवरसीज बᱹक के िनदेशक म᭛डल मᱶ सनदी लेखाकार (चाटᭅडᭅ अकाउंटᱶट) ᮰ेणी के अंतगᭅत अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक

नािमत करती है।

¹iQk- la- 6@46@2015&chvks&Iº

Kkuksrks"k jk;] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th July, 2016

S.O. 1626.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 3 (g) of Section 9 of The Banking Companies

(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (b) of clause 9(2) of The Nationalised

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

Shri K. Raghu (DoB: 09.10.1965) as Part-time Non-official Director under Chartered Accountant category on the

Board of Directors of Indian Overseas Bank for a period of three years, from the date of notification of his

appointment or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 6/46/2015-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

3670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1627.— रा᳦ीयकृत बᱹक (ᮧबंध और ᮧकᳱणᭅ उपबंध) ᭭कᳱम, 1970/1980 के खंड 9(2) के उप-खंड (ख) के

साथ पᳯठत बᱹककारी कंपनी (उपᮓमᲂ का अजᭅन और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 कᳱ धारा 9 कᳱ उप-धारा 3(छ)

᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, ,rn~}kjk, ᮰ी िवजय कुमार गोयल (ज᭠म ितिथः 24.10.1964) को

उनकᳱ िनयुिᲦ कᳱ अिधसूचना कᳱ तारीख से तीन वषᭅ कᳱ अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेशᲂ तक, जो भी पहले हो, इंिडयन

बᱹक के िनदेशक म᭛डल मᱶ सनदी लेखाकार (चाटᭅडᭅ अकाउंटᱶट) ᮰ेणी के अंतगᭅत अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक नािमत

करती है।

¹iQk- la- 6@45@2015&chvks&Iº

Kkuksrks"k jk;] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th July, 2016

S.O. 1627.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 3 (g) of Section 9 of The Banking Companies

(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (b) of clause 9(2) of The Nationalised

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

Shri Vijay Kumar Goel (DoB: 24.10.1964) as Part-time Non-official Director under Chartered Accountant category on

the Board of Directors of Indian Bank for a period of three years, from the date of notification of his appointment or

until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 6/45/2015-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1628.— रा᳦ीयकृत बᱹक (ᮧबंध और ᮧकᳱणᭅ उपबंध) ᭭कᳱम, 1970/1980 के खंड 9(2) के उप-खंड (ख) के

साथ पᳯठत बᱹककारी कंपनी (उपᮓमᲂ का अजᭅन और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 कᳱ धारा 9 कᳱ उप-धारा 3(छ)

᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, ,rn~}kjk, ᮰ी महेश बाबू गु᳙ा (ज᭠म ितिथः 01.02.1959) को

उनकᳱ िनयुिᲦ कᳱ अिधसूचना कᳱ तारीख से तीन वषᭅ कᳱ अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेशᲂ तक, जो भी पहले हो, पंजाब

नैशनल बᱹक के िनदेशक म᭛डल मᱶ सनदी लेखाकार (चाटᭅडᭅ अकाउंटᱶट) ᮰ेणी के अंतगᭅत अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक

नािमत करती है। उनकᳱ िनयुिᲦ पंजाब नैशनल बᱹक के बोडᭅ मᱶ कायᭅभार ᮕहण करने से पूवᭅ ᭭पुतᭅ कैिपटल सᳶवसेज ᮧा. िल. से

उनके ᭜याग-पᮢ के अ᭟यधीन होगी।

¹iQk- la- 6@47@2015&chvks&Iº

Kkuksrks"k jk;] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th July, 2016

S.O. 1628.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 3 (g) of Section 9 of The Banking Companies

(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (b) of clause 9(2) of The Nationalised

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

Shri Mahesh Baboo Gupta (DoB: 01.02.1959) as Part-time Non-official Director under Chartered Accountant category

on the Board of Directors of Punjab National Bank for a period of three years, from the date of notification of his

appointment or until further orders, whichever is earlier. His appointment is subject to his resignation from Board of

Spurt Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. before joining the Board of Punjab National Bank.

[F. No. 6/47/2015-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3671

(jktLo foHkkx)

(dsaæh; izR;{k dj cksMZ)

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2016

la- 58@2016

dk-vk- 1629-— सवᭅसाधारण कᳱ जानकारी के िलए ,rn~}kjk यह अिधसूिचत ᳰकया जाता है ᳰक कᱶᮤ सरकार ᳇ारा

आयकर िनयमावली, 1962 (उ᭍ त िनयमावली) के िनयम 5ग और 5ड. के साथ पᳯठत आयकर अिधिनयम, 1961 (उ᭍ त

अिधिनयम) कᳱ धारा 35 कᳱ उपधारा (1) के खंड (ii) के ᮧयोजनाथᭅ मैससᭅ भारतीय िव᭄ान िशᭃा एवं अनुसंधान सं᭭ थान,

मोहाली (पैन:- एएएएआई 1781के.) नामक संगठन को िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ 2016-17 और इससे आगे कᳱ अविध के िलए

िन᭥ निलिखत शतᲄ के अधीन अनुसंधान कायᭅकलापᲂ मᱶ लगे ‘‘िव᭫ विव᳒ालय कॉलेज अथवा अ᭠ य सं᭭ थान’’ कᳱ ᮰ेणी मᱶ

अनुमोᳰदत ᳰकया जाता है, नामत: :-

(i)

अनुमोᳰदत संगठन को ᮧद᭜ त रािश का उपयोग वै᭄ािनक अनुसंधान के िलए ᳰकया जाएगा;

(ii) अनुमोᳰदत संगठन अपने संकाय सद᭭ यᲂ अथवा अपने नामांᳰकत छाᮢᲂ के मा᭟ यम से वै᭄ािनक अनुसंधान

करेगा;

(iii) अनुमोᳰदत संगठन वै᭄ािनक अनुसंधान के िलए इसके ᳇ारा ᮧा᭡ त रािश के संबंध मᱶ अलग लेखा बिहयां रखेगा

िजनमᱶ अनुसंधान करने के िलए ᮧयु᭍ त रािश दशाᭅई गई हो, ऐसी खाता बिहयᲂ कᳱ उ᭍ त अिधिनयम कᳱ धारा

288 कᳱ उप-धारा (2) के ᭭ प᭬ टीकरण मᱶ यथा पᳯरभािषत ᳰकसी लेखाकार से लेखा परीᭃा कराएगा और

उ᭍ त अिधिनयम कᳱ धारा 139 कᳱ उपधारा (1) के अंतगᭅत आय िववरणी ᮧ᭭ तुत करने कᳱ िनयत ितिथ तक

ऐसे लेखाकार ᳇ारा िविधवत स᭜ यािपत एवं ह᭭ ताᭃᳯरत लेखा परीᭃा ᳯरपोटᭅ मामले मᱶ ᭃेᮢािधकार रखने

वाले आयकर आयु᭍ त अथवा आयकर िनदेशक को ᮧ᭭ तुत करेगा;

(iv) अनुमोᳰदत संगठन वै᭄ािनक अनुसंधान के िलए ᮧा᭡ त दान तथा ᮧयु᭍ त रािश का अलग िववरण रखेगा और

उपयुᭅ᭍ त लेखा परीᭃा ᳯरपोटᭅ के साथ लेखा परीᭃक ᳇ारा िविधवत स᭜ यािपत ऐसे िववरण कᳱ ᮧित ᮧ᭭ तुत

करेगा।

2. कᱶᮤ सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापस ले लेगी यᳰद अनुमोᳰदत संगठन:-

(क) पैराᮕाफ 1 के उप-पैराᮕाफ (iii) मᱶ यथा उि᭨ लिखत अलग लेखा बिहयां रखने मᱶ असफल रहता है; अथवा

(ख) पैराᮕाफ 1 के उप-पैराᮕाफ (iii) मᱶ यथा उि᭨ लिखत अपनी लेखा परीᭃा ᳯरपोटᭅ ᮧ᭭ तुत करने मᱶ असफल रहता

है; अथवा

(ग) पैराᮕाफ 1 के उप-पैराᮕाफ (iv) मᱶ यथा उि᭨ लिखत वै᭄ािनक अनुसंधान के िलए ᮧा᭡ त दान एवं ᮧयु᭍ त

धनरािश का िववरण ᮧ᭭ तुत करने मᱶ असफल रहता है; अथवा

(घ) अपने अनुसंधान कायᭅकलापᲂ को करना बंद कर देता है अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कायᭅकलापᲂ को वा᭭ तिवक

नहᱭ पाया जाता है; अथवा

(ड.) उ᭍ त िनयमावली के िनयम 5ग और 5ड. के साथ पᳯठत उ᭍ त अिधिनयम कᳱ धारा 35 कᳱ उपधारा (1) के

खंड (ii) के ᮧावधानᲂ के अनुᱨप नहᱭ होगा तथा उनका पालन नहᱭ करेगा।

¹iQk- la- 203@33@2015&vk-d-fu-&IIº

jksfgr xxZ] mi&lfpo

3672

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(Department of Revenue)

(CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2016

No. 58/2016

S.O. 1629.—It is hereby notified for general information that the organization M/s Indian Institute of

Science Education and Research, Mohali (PAN:- AAAAI 1781K) has been approved by the Central Government

for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (said Act), read with Rules

5C and 5E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (said Rules), from Assessment year 2016-2017 and onwards under the

category of “University, College or other Institution” engaged in research activities subject to the following

conditions, namely:-

(i)

The sums paid to the approved organization shall be utilized for scientific research;

(ii)

The approved organization shall carry out scientific research through its faculty members or its

enrolled students;

(iii)

The approved organization shall maintain separate books of accounts in respect of the sums

received by it for scientific research, reflect therein the amounts used for carrying out research, get

such books audited by an accountant as defined in the explanation to sub-section (2) of section 288 of

the said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the

Commissioner of Income-tax or the Director of Income-tax having jurisdiction over the case, by the

due date of furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the said Act;

(iv)

The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement of donations received and amounts

applied for scientific research and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall

accompany the report of audit referred to above.

2.

The Central Government shall withdraw the approval if the approved organization:-

(a)

fails to maintain separate books of accounts referred to in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1;

or

(b)

fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1; or

(c)

fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums applied for scientific research

referred to in sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph 1; or

(d)

ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine; or

(e)

ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section

35 of the said Act read with rules 5C and 5E of the said Rules.

[F. No. 203/33/2015-ITA-II]

ROHIT GARG, Dy. Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 2 vxLr] 2016

la- 64@2016

dk-vk- 1630-— सवᭅसाधारण कᳱ जानकारी के िलए ,rn~}kjk यह अिधसूिचत ᳰकया जाता है ᳰक कᱶᮤ सरकार ᳇ारा

आयकर िनयमावली, 1962 (उ᭍ त िनयमावली) के िनयम 5ग और 5ड. के साथ पᳯठत आयकर अिधिनयम, 1961 (उ᭍ त

अिधिनयम) कᳱ धारा 35 कᳱ उपधारा (1) के खंड (ii) के ᮧयोजनाथᭅ मैससᭅ भारतीय िव᭄ान िशᭃा एवं अनुसंधान सं᭭ थान,

पुणे (पैन:- एएएएआई 1546 ई.) नामक संगठन को िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ 2017-18 और इससे आगे कᳱ अविध के िलए

िन᭥ निलिखत शतᲄ के अधीन अनुसंधान कायᭅकलापᲂ मᱶ लगे ‘‘िव᭫ विव᳒ालय कॉलेज अथवा अ᭠ य सं᭭ थान’’ कᳱ ᮰ेणी मᱶ

अनुमोᳰदत ᳰकया जाता है, नामत: :-

(i)

अनुमोᳰदत संगठन को ᮧद᭜ त रािश का उपयोग वै᭄ािनक अनुसंधान के िलए ᳰकया जाएगा;

(ii) अनुमोᳰदत संगठन अपने संकाय सद᭭ यᲂ अथवा अपने नामांᳰकत छाᮢᲂ के मा᭟ यम से वै᭄ािनक अनुसंधान

करेगा;

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3673

(iii) अनुमोᳰदत संगठन वै᭄ािनक अनुसंधान के िलए इसके ᳇ारा ᮧा᭡ त रािश के संबंध मᱶ अलग लेखा बिहयां रखेगा

िजनमᱶ अनुसंधान करने के िलए ᮧयु᭍ त रािश दशाᭅई गई हो, ऐसी खाता बिहयᲂ कᳱ उ᭍ त अिधिनयम कᳱ धारा

288 कᳱ उप धारा (2) के ᭭ प᭬ टीकरण मᱶ यथा पᳯरभािषत ᳰकसी लेखाकार से लेखा परीᭃा कराएगा और

उ᭍ त अिधिनयम कᳱ धारा 139 कᳱ उपधारा (1) के अंतगᭅत आय िववरणी ᮧ᭭ तुत करने कᳱ िनयत ितिथ तक

ऐसे लेखाकार ᳇ारा िविधवत स᭜ यािपत एवं ह᭭ ताᭃᳯरत लेखा परीᭃा ᳯरपोटᭅ मामले मᱶ ᭃेᮢािधकार रखने

वाले आयकर आयु᭍ त अथवा आयकर िनदेशक को ᮧ᭭ तुत करेगा;

(iv) अनुमोᳰदत संगठन वै᭄ािनक अनुसंधान के िलए ᮧा᭡ त दान तथा ᮧयु᭍ त रािश का अलग िववरण रखेगा और

उपयुᭅ᭍ त लेखा परीᭃा ᳯरपोटᭅ के साथ लेखा परीᭃक ᳇ारा िविधवत स᭜ यािपत ऐसे िववरण कᳱ ᮧित ᮧ᭭ तुत

करेगा।

2. कᱶᮤ सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापस ले लेगी यᳰद अनुमोᳰदत संगठन:-

(क) पैराᮕाफ 1 के उप-पैराᮕाफ (iii) मᱶ यथा उि᭨ लिखत अलग लेखा बिहयां रखने मᱶ असफल रहता है;

अथवा

(ख) पैराᮕाफ 1 के उप-पैराᮕाफ (iii) मᱶ यथा उि᭨ लिखत अपनी लेखा परीᭃा ᳯरपोटᭅ ᮧ᭭ तुत करने मᱶ असफल

रहता है; अथवा

(ग) पैराᮕाफ 1 के उप-पैराᮕाफ (iv) मᱶ यथा उि᭨ लिखत वै᭄ािनक अनुसंधान के िलए ᮧा᭡ त दान एवं ᮧयु᭍ त

धनरािश का िववरण ᮧ᭭ तुत करने मᱶ असफल रहता है; अथवा

(घ) अपने अनुसंधान कायᭅ कलापᲂ को करना बंद कर देता है अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कायᭅ कलापᲂ को

वा᭭ तिवक नहᱭ पाया जाता है; अथवा

(ड.) उ᭍ त िनयमावली के िनयम 5ग और 5ड. के साथ पᳯठत उ᭍ त अिधिनयम कᳱ धारा 35 कᳱ उपधारा (1)

के खंड (ii) के ᮧावधानᲂ के अनुᱨप नहᱭ होगा तथा उनका पालन नहᱭ करेगा।

¹iQk- la- 203@38@2015&vk-d-fu-&IIº

jksfgr xxZ] mi&lfpo

New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2016

No. 64/2016

S.O. 1630.— It is hereby notified for general information that the organization M/s Indian Institute of

Science Education and Research, Pune (PAN:- AAAAI1546E) has been approved by the Central Government for

the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (said Act), read with Rules 5C

and 5E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (said Rules), from Assessment year 2017-2018 and onwards under the

category of “University, College or other Institution” engaged in research activities subject to the following

conditions, namely:-

(i)

The sums paid to the approved organization shall be utilized for scientific research;

(ii)

The approved organization shall carry out scientific research through its faculty members or its enrolled

students;

(iii) The approved organization shall maintain separate books of accounts in respect of the sums received

by it for scientific research, reflect therein the amounts used for carrying out research, get such books

audited by an accountant as defined in the explanation to sub-section (2) of section 288 of the said Act

and furnish the report of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of

Income-tax or the Director of Income-tax having jurisdiction over the case, by the due date of furnishing

the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the said Act;

(iv) The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement of donations received and amounts

applied for scientific research and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall

accompany the report of audit referred to above.

3674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2.

The Central Government shall withdraw the approval if the approved organization:-

(a)

fails to maintain separate books of accounts referred to in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1; or

(b)

fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1; or

(c)

fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums applied for scientific research

referred to in sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph 1; or

(d)

ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine; or

(e)

ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 35

of the said Act read with rules 5C and 5E of the said Rules.

[F. No. 203/38/2015-ITA-II]

ROHIT GARG, Dy. Secy.

fons'k ea=kky;

(lh-ih-oh- izHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 2 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1631-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds

[akM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A

,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] fj;kn esa Jh gkfccqjZgeku] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh vkSj Jh ';ke dqekj lkgk]

lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad 2 vxLr] 2016 ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy,

izkfèkd`r djrh gS A

¹la- Vh&4330@01@2016º

izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo (dksalqyj)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2016

S.O. 1631.—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 (1) Shri Habiburrahaman,

Assistant Section Officer and (2) Shri Shyam Kumar Saha, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in

the Embassy of India, Riyadh to perform the Consular services with effect from 2nd August, 2016.

[No. T-4330/01/2016]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=kky;

(dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1632-— कᱶᮤ सरकार, ᳰद᭨ ली िवशेष पुिलस ᭭ थापन अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का अिधिनयम सं. 25) कᳱ

धारा 6 के साथ पᳯठत धारा 5 कᳱ उप-धारा (1) ᳇ारा ᮧद᭜ त शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए झारख᭛ ड रा᭔ य सरकार, गृह

कारागार और आपदा ᮧबंधन िवभाग, रांची कᳱ सहमित से ᳰदनांक 28 अᮧैल, 2016 कᳱ अिधसूचना

सं. 10/वीआईवीआईडीएच-1016/2016 2258 के तहत रा᭔ य सरकार के कमᭅचाᳯरयᲂ, िज᭠ हᲂने मैससᭅ उषा मा᳷टन िलिमटेड

को लौह अय᭭ क हेतु खनन पᲵा ᮧदान करने से संबंिधत मामले मᱶ कायᭅवाही कᳱ थी, कᳱ उपरो᭍ त अपराधᲂ के संबंध मᱶ

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3675

भूिमका तथा उपयुᭅ᭍ त सं᭪ यवहार मᱶ ᳰक᭠ हᱭ अ᭠ य अपराधᲂ का अ᭠ वेषण करने के िलए ᳰद᭨ ली िवशेष पुिलस ᭭ थापन के सद᭭ यᲂ

कᳱ शिᲦयᲂ और अिधकार ᭃेᮢ का िव᭭ तार पूरे झारख᭛ ड रा᭔ य पर करती है।

¹iQk- la- 228@08@2016&,-oh-Mh-&IIº

,y- ih- 'kekZ] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1632.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with section 6 of the

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

State Government of Jharkhand, Home, Prisons and Disaster Management Department, Ranchi vide Notification

No.10/VIVIDH-1016/2016 2258 dated 28th April, 2016, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the state of Jharkhand to investigate the role of State

Government Employees who had processed the matter relating to grant of mining lease for iron ore to M/S Usha Martin

Limited, the abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the said offences and any other offences in

the aforesaid transaction.

[F. No. 228/08/2016-AVD-II]

L. P. SHARMA, Under Secy.

LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=kky;

(LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx)

'kqf¼&i=k

ubZ fnYyh] 3 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1633-—bl foHkkx dh vf/lwpuk la- ;w&12012@736@2015&,ebZ&I fnukad 15-12-2015 rFkk vf[ky Hkkjrh;

vk;q£oKku ifj"kn vf/fu;e] 1956 (1956 dk 102) dh /kjk 11 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUæ

ljdkj] Hkkjrh; vk;q£oKku ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ djds mDr vf/fu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa] fuEufyf[kr vkSj la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~

mDr vuqlwph esa&

^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kfIrdj.k* (dkye 3) 'kh"kZ d varxZr ¶,eth,e LokLF; foKku laLFkku] uoh eqEcbZ¸ ds le{k

,eMh (lkekftd o fuokjd vkS"kf/ foKku@lkeqnkf;d vkS"kf/ foKku) vkSj ,eMh (iQkekZdksykWth) vgZrk ekU;rkizkIr

vk;q£oKku vgZrk gksxh tc ;g ,eth,e esfMdy dkWyst] uoh eqEcbZ ds ctk, egkRek xka/h esfMdy dkWyst] vkSjaxkckn esa

izf'kf{kr fd, x, Nk=kksa ds laca/ esa ,eth,e LokLF; foKku laLFkku] uoh eqEcbZ }kjk iznÙk gksxh A

¹iQk- la- ;w&12012@736@2015&,ebZ&I º

Mh-oh-ds- jko] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2016

S.O. 1633.—In continuation to this Department’s Notification No. U-12012/736/2015-ME-I dated

15.12.2015 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council

Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the

following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

In the said Schedule—

Against “MGM Institute of Health Sciences, Navi Mumbai” under the heading ‘abbreviation for Registration’

(column 3), the MD (Social & Preventive Medicine/Community Medicine) and MD (Pharmacology) qualification shall

be a recognized medical qualification when granted by MGM Institute of Health Sciences, Navi Mumbai in respect of

3676

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

students being trained at Mahatma Gandhi Mission’s Medical College, Aurangabad instead of MGM Medical College,

Navi Mumbai’.

[F. No. U-12012/736/2015-ME-I]

D.V.K. RAO, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 3 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1634-—भारतीय आयुᳶव᭄ान पᳯरषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) कᳱ धारा 11 कᳱ उप धारा (2)

᳇ारा ᮧद᭜ त शि᭍ तयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, के᭠ ᮤ सरकार, भारतीय आयुᳶव᭄ान पᳯरषद से परामशᭅ करके उᲦ अिधिनयम कᳱ

ᮧथम अनुसूची मᱶ, िन᳜िलिखत, और संशोधन करती है, अथाᭅत्:-

उᲦ ᮧथम अनुसूची मᱶ ‘मा᭠यता ᮧा᳙ आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीषᭅक के

अधीन “डॉ.एनटीआर ᭭वा᭭᭝य िव᭄ान िव᳡िव᳒ालय, िवजयवाड़ा, आंᮥ ᮧदेश” के सामने अंितम ᮧिवि᳥ के प᳟ात और ‘

पंजीकरण के िलए संिᭃि᳙करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंिधत ᮧिवि᳥ के संबंध मᱶ िन᳜िलिखत

अंत:᭭थािपत ᳰकया जाएगा. अथाᭅत:-

(2)

(3)

डॉ᭍टर ऑफ मेिडिसन(ᱡदयरोग)

डीएम(ᱡदयरोग)

(यह एक मा᭠यता ᮧा᳙ आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब यह

नारायणा मेिडकल कॉलेज, ने᭨लोर, मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत ᳰकए

गए छाᮢᲂ के संबंध मᱶ फरवरी, 2012 को या बाद मᱶ

डॉ.एनटीआर

᭭वा᭭᭝य

िव᭄ान

िव᳡िव᳒ालय,

िवजयवाड़ा, आंᮥ ᮧदेश ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।

नोट: 1.

ऐसी दी गई मा᭠यता अिधकतम 5 वषᭅ के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2.

मा᭠यता के ‘नवीकरण’ कᳱ ᮧᳰᮓया वही होगी जो मा᭠यता ᮧदान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

3.

अपेिᭃत मा᭠यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने मᱶ िवफल रहने पर, पᳯरणाम ᭭वᱨप, िनरपवाद ᱨप से संबंिधत

अधोᳩातक कोसᭅ मᱶ ᮧवेश बंद हो जाएगा।

¹iQk- la- ;w&12012@736@2016&,ebZ&Iº

vfer fcLokl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2016

S.O. 1634.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956(102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said First Schedule against “Dr NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh” under

the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)] after the last entry and entry

relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration” [ hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following

shall be inserted, namely:-

(2)

(3)

“Doctor of Medicine (Cardiology)”

DM (Cardiology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Dr NTR University of Health Sciences,

Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh in respect of students

admitted at Narayana Medical College, Nellore on or

after 2012).

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3677

Note: 1. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon which

it shall have to be renewed.

2. The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award of recognition.

3. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions

to the concerned Postgraduate Course.

[No. U.12012/736/2016-ME-I]

AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1635-—भारतीय आयुᳶव᭄ान पᳯरषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) कᳱ धारा 11 कᳱ उप-धारा (2)

᳇ारा ᮧद᭜ त शि᭍ तयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, माननीय उ᭒ च ᭠ यायालय, केरल ᳇ारा 2015 कᳱ ᳯरट यािचका (िसिवल) सं.

23292, 21654 और 28615 मᱶ ᳰदनांक 8.4.2016 और 29.4.2016 को ᳰदए गए िनणयᭅ के अनुसार मᱶ के᭠ ᮤ सरकार,

भारतीय आयुᳶव᭄ान पᳯरषद से परामशᭅ करके उᲦ अिधिनयम कᳱ ᮧथम अनुसूची मᱶ, िन᳜िलिखत, और संशोधन करती है,

अथाᭅत:-

उᲦ ᮧथम अनुसूची मᱶ ‘मा᭠यता ᮧा᳙ आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता’ शीषᭅक के अधीन [कालम(2) मᱶ] ‘‘केरल ᭭ वा᭭ ᭝ य िव᭄ान

िव᳡िव᳒ालय, तृ᭫ शूर, केरल” के सामने अंितम ᮧिवि᳥ के प᳟ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिᭃि᳙करण’ [कालम(3) मᱶ] से

संबंिधत ᮧिवि᳥ के संबंध मᱶ िन᳜िलिखत अंत:᭭थािपत ᳰकया जाएगा. अथाᭅत:-

(2)

(3)

बेचलरऑफ मेिडिसन और बेचलर ऑफ सजᭅरी

एम. बी. बी. एस.

(यह एक मा᭠यता ᮧा᳙ आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब यह

मालाबार मेिडकल कॉलेज और ᳯरसचᭅ के᭠ ᮤ, कालीकट,

केरल मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत ᳰकए गए छाᮢᲂ के संबंध मᱶ 2010-

11 और 2011-12 को या बाद मᱶ (100 छाᮢ ᮧ᭜ येक)

केरल ᭭वा᭭᭝य िव᭄ान िव᳡िव᳒ालय, तृ᭫ शूर, केरल

ᮧदेश ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।

¹iQk- la- ;w&12012@79@2015&,ebZ&I (Hkkx&2)º

Mh- oh- ds- jko] la;qDr lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2016

S.O. 1635.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), and in compliance to the orders dated 8.4.2016 and 29.4.2016, of Hon’ble High Court

of Kerala in W. P. © Nos. 23292, 2154 and 28615 of 2015, the Central Government hereby makes the following

further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely;-

In the said First Schedule against ‘‘Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala’’ under the heading

‘Recognized Medical Qualification’ [in column (2)] and under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’’ [in column

(3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2)

(3)

Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery

M.B.B.S.

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences,

Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students of batchs of

2010-11 and 2011-12 (100 students each) being trained

at Malabar Medical College and Research Centre,

Calicut, Kerala.

[F. No. U-12012/79/2015-ME-I (Pt. 2)]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

3678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1636-—भारतीय आयुᳶव᭄ान पᳯरषद अिधिनयम, 1956 (1956 का 102) कᳱ धारा 11 कᳱ उप-धारा (2)

᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, के᭠ ᮤ सरकार, भारतीय आयुᳶव᭄ान पᳯरषद से परामशᭅ करके उ᭍ त अिधिनयम कᳱ

ᮧथम अनुसूची मᱶ, िन᭥ निलिखत, और संशोधन करती है, अथाᭅत : -

उ᭍ त ᮧथम अनुसूची मᱶ ‘मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] शीषᭅक के

अधीन ‘‘डॉ. एनटीआर ᭭ वा᭭ ᭝ य िव᭄ान िव᭫ विव᳒ालय, िवजयवाड़ा, आंᮥᮧदेश’’ के सामने अंितम ᮧिवि᳥ के प᭫ चात और

‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिᭃि᳙करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संबंिधत ᮧिवि᳥ के संबंध मᱶ िन᭥ निलिखत

अंत:᭭ थािपत ᳰकया जाएगा अथाᭅत: -

(2)

(3)

‘‘डॉ᭍टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (मेिडकल गे᭭ ᮝोएंᮝॉलोजी)

मिज᭭ ᮝार िचᱧगी (सᳶजकल गे᭭ ᮝोएंᮝॉलोजी)

डीएम(मेिडकलगे᭭ ᮝोएंᮝॉलोजी)

(यह एक मा᭠यता ᮧा᳙ आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब यह

नारायणा मेिडकल कॉलेज, ने᭨लोर, मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत ᳰकए

गए छाᮢᲂ के संबंध मᱶ फरवरी, 2012 को या बाद मᱶ

डॉ.

एनटीआर

᭭वा᭭᭝य

िव᭄ान

िव᳡िव᳒ालय,

िवजयवाड़ा, आंᮥ ᮧदेश ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।

एम. सीएज (सᳶजकल गे᭭ ᮝोएंᮝॉलोजी)

(यह एक मा᭠यता ᮧा᳙ आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब यह

नारायणा मेिडकल कॉलेज, ने᭨लोर, मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत ᳰकए

गए छाᮢᲂ के संबंध मᱶ फरवरी, 2012 को या बाद मᱶ

डॉ.

एनटीआर

᭭वा᭭᭝य

िव᭄ान

िव᳡िव᳒ालय,

िवजयवाड़ा, आंᮥ ᮧदेश ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।’’

नोट: 1.

ऐसी दी गई मा᭠यता अिधकतम 5 वषᭅ के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2.

मा᭠यता के ‘नवीकरण’ कᳱ ᮧᳰᮓया वही होगी जो मा᭠यता ᮧदान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

3.

अपेिᭃत मा᭠यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने मᱶ िवफल रहने पर, पᳯरणाम ᭭वᱨप, िनरपवाद ᱨप से संबंिधत

अधोᳩातक कोसᭅ मᱶ ᮧवेश बंद हो जाएगा।

¹iQk- la- ;w&12012@736@2016&,ebZ&Iº

Mh- oh- ds- jko] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th July, 2016

S.O. 1636.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby

makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule of the said Act, namely :-

In the said First Schedule against ‘‘Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh’’

under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)] after the last entry and

entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the

following shall be inserted, namely :-

(2)

(3)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Medical Gastroenterology)

DM (Medical Gastroenterology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted

by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijaywada, Andhra

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3679

Pradesh in respect of students being trained at Narayana

Medical College, Nellore on or after 2012)

Magistrar Chirurgiae (Surgical Gastroenterology)

M. Ch (Surgical Gastroenterology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted

by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijaywada, Andhra

Pradesh in respect of students being trained at Narayana

Medical College, Nellore on or after 2012)’’

Note: 1. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon which

it shall have to be renewed.

2. The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award of recognition.

3. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions

to the concerned Postgraduate Course.

[No. U-12012/736/2016-ME-I]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1637-—जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ अिधिनयम, 2008

(2008 का 19) कᳱ धारा 24 के अधीन मई, 2008 को अथवा उसके प᭫ चात जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट

मेिडकल ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी ᳇ारा ᮧदान कᳱ गई िन᭥ निलिखत आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅताएं, भारतीय आयुᳶव᭄ान

पᳯरषद अिधिनयम, 1956 के ᮧयोजन हेतु ’मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता’ मानी जाएंगी और ᮧथम अनुसूची मᱶ

‘मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] शीषᭅक के अधीन के सामने अंितम ᮧिवि᳥ के

प᭫ चात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिᭃि᳙करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है], मᱶ शािमल मानी जाएंगी :-

(2)

(3)

बेचलर ऑफ मेिडिसन और बेचलर ऑफ सजᭅरी

एम.बी.बी.एस.

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

मिज᭭ ᮝार िचᱧरगी (काᳶडयो-थोरेिसक एंड वे᭭ कुलर सजᭅरी)

एम.सीएज (काᳶडयो-थोरेिसक एंड वे᭭ कुलर सजᭅरी)

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘मिज᭭ ᮝार िचᱧरगी (यूरोलोजी)’’

एम.सीएच (यूरोलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

3680

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

‘‘मिज᭭ ᮝार िचᱧरगी (᭠ यूरो सजᭅरी)’’

एम.सीएच (᭠ यूरो सजᭅरी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘मिज᭭ ᮝार िचᱧरगी (सᳶजकल गै᭭ ᮝोएंᮝोलॉजी)’’

एम.सीएच (सᳶजकल गै᭭ ᮝोएंᮝोलॉजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘मिज᭭ ᮝार िचᱧरगी (पेिडएᳯᮝक सजᭅरी)’’

एम.सीएच (पेिडएᳯᮝक सजᭅरी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘मिज᭭ ᮝार िचᱧरगी (᭡ लॉि᭭टक सजᭅरी)’’

एम.सीएच (᭡ लॉि᭭टक सजᭅरी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘मिज᭭ ᮝार िचᱧरगी (जेिनटोयूᳯरनरी सजᭅरी)’’

एम.सीएच (जेिनटोयᳯरनरी सजᭅरी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘मिज᭭ ᮝार िचᱧरगी (सᳶजकल ऑनकॉलोजी)’’

एम.सीएच (सᳶजकल ऑनकॉलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (कॉᳶडयॉलोजी)’’

एमडी (कॉᳶडयॉलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3681

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (᭍ लीिनकल इ᭥ युनॉलोजी)’’

एमडी (᭍ लीिनकल इ᭥ युनॉलोजी)’’

(यह एक मान् यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (᭍ लीिनकल फामाᭅकॉलोजी)’’

डीएम (᭍ लीिनकल फामाᭅकॉलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (िनयोनेटॉलोजी)’’

डीएम (िनयोनेटॉलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (पेिडएᳯᮝक ᭍ लीिनकल केयर)’’

डीएम (᭍ लीिनकल इ᭥ युनॉलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी संस् थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (᭠ यूरॉलोजी)’’

एमडी (᭠ यूरॉलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (᭍ लीिनकल हेमाटॉलोजी)’’

डीएम (᭍ लीिनकल हेमाटॉलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘’डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (मेिडकल ऑनकॉलोजी)’’

डीएम (मेिडकल ऑनकॉलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (नेᮨॉलोजी)’’

डीएम (नेᮨॉलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

3682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (एंडोᳰᮓनॉलोजी)’’

डीएम (एंडोᳰᮓनॉलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (पैथॉलोजी)’’

एमडी (पैथॉलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (फामाᭅकॉलोजी)’’

एमडी (फामाᭅकॉलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (ᳰफि़जयॉलोजी)’’

एमडी (ᳰफि़जयॉलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (बॉयोकेिम᭭ ᮝी)’’

एमडी (बॉयोकेिम᭭ ᮝी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (जनरल मेिडसन)’’

एमडी (जनरल मेिडसन)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (पेिडएᳯᮝकस)’’

एमडी (पेिडएᳯᮝकस)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3683

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (बै᭍ टीᳯरयॉलोजी)’’

एमडी (बै᭍ टीᳯरयॉलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (एनॉटमी)’’

एमडी (एनॉटमी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (एनेि᭭थयॉलोजी)’’

एमडी (एनेि᭭थयॉलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (माइᮓोवॉयलोजी)’’

एमडी (माइᮓोवॉयलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉक् टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (डमᱷटॉलोजी वेनरोलाजी एंड

लेᮧोलजी)’’

एमडी (डमᱷटॉलोजी वेनरोलाजी एंड लेᮧोलेजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (क᭥ युिनटी मेिडसन)’’

एमडी (क᭥ युिनटी मेिडसन)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (रेिडयो डॉयᮕोिसस)’’

एमडी (रेिडयो डॉयᮕोिसस)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

एज् युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

3684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (रेिडयोलोजी)’’

एमडी (रेिडयोलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (साइकेटरी)’’

एमडी (साइकेटरी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (᭡ लमोनरी मेिडिसन)’’

एमडी (᭡ लमोनरी मेिडिसन)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (रेिडयोथैरेपी)’’

एमडी (रेिडयोथैरेपी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (᭣ लड ᮝांस᭢युज़न एंड इ᭥ युनो

हेमाटॉलोजी)’’

एमडी (᭣ लड ᮝांस᭢युज़न एंड इ᭥ युनो हेमाटॉलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (फॉरᱶिसक मेिडिसन)’’

एमडी (फॉरᱶिसक मेिडिसन)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (᭠ यूि᭍लयर मेिडिसन)’’

एमडी (᭠ यूि᭍लयर मेिडिसन)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (इमरजᱶसी मेिडिसन)’’

एमडी (इमरजᱶसी मेिडिसन)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3685

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ सजᭅरी (जनरल सजᭅरी)’’

एमएस (जनरल सजᭅरी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘मा᭭ टर ऑफ सजᭅरी (ऑ᭣ सटेᳯᮝ᭍ स एंड गॉयनेकॉलोजी)’’

एमएस (ऑ᭣ सटेᳯᮝ᭍ स एंड गॉयनेकॉलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘मा᭭ टर ऑफ सजᭅरी (ईएनटी)’’

एमएस ईएनटी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘मा᭭ टर ऑफ सजᭅरी (ऑथᱷिपिड᭍ स)’’

एमएस (ऑथᱷिपिड᭍ स)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘मा᭭ टर ऑफ सजᭅरी (ऑ᭢थॉलमॉलोजी)’’

एमएस (ऑ᭢थॉलमॉलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ ᳰफलॉसोफᳱ (ᳰफिजयॉलोजी)’’

पीएच.डी (ᳰफिजयॉलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ ᳰफलॉसोफᳱ (माइᮓोबॉयलोजी)’’

पीएच.डी (माइᮓोबॉयलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ ᳰफलॉसोफᳱ (एनॉटमी)’’

पीएच.डी (एनॉटमी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

3686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ ᳰफलॉसोफᳱ (फॉमाᭅकालोजी)’’

पीएच.डी (फॉमाᭅकालोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ ᳰफलॉसोफᳱ (बॉयोकेिम᭭ ᮝी)’’

पीएच.डी (बॉयोकेिम᭭ ᮝी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ ᳰफलॉसोफᳱ (पैथॉलोजी)’’

पीएच.डी (पैथॉलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ ᳰफलॉसोफᳱ (᭍ लीिनकल इ᭥ युनॉलोजी)’’

पीएच.डी (᭍ लीिनकल इ᭥ युनॉलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ ᳰफलॉसोफᳱ (पेिडएᳯᮝकस)’’

पीएच.डी (पेिडएᳯᮝकस)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘डॉ᭍ टर ऑफ ᳰफलॉसोफᳱ (मेिडिसन)’’

पीएच.डी (मेिडिसन)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘फेलोिशप इन डाइबेटॉलोजी’’

‘‘फेलोिशप इन डाइबेटॉलोजी’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3687

‘‘फेलोिशप इन मेिडकल ऑनकॉलोजी’’

‘‘फेलोिशप मेिडकल ऑनकॉलोजी’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘फेलोिशप इन पेिडएᳯᮝकस ᭍ लीिनकल एंड इमरजᱶसी केयर’’

‘‘फेलोिशप इन पेिडएᳯᮝकस ᭍ लीिनकल एंड इमरजᱶसी

केयर’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘फेलोिशप इन कॉᳶडयक एंड ᭠ युरो एने᭭ थेिसयॉलोजी’’

‘‘फेलोिशप इन कॉᳶडयक एंड ᭠ युरो एने᭭ थेिसयॉलोजी’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧाप् त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘फेलोिशप इन ᭍ लीिनकल केयर’’

‘‘फेलोिशप इन ᭍ लीिनकल केयर’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘फेलोिशप इन ᮝॉिपकल पैरासाइटोलोजी’’

‘‘फेलोिशप इन ᮝॉिपकल पैरासाइटोलोजी’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘मा᭭ टर ऑफ साइंस (मेिडकल बॉयोकेिम᭭ ᮝी)’’

एस एससी (मेिडकल बॉयोकेिम᭭ ᮝी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘मा᭭ टर ऑफ साइंस (मेिडकल ᳰफजीयॉलोजी)’’

एस एससी (मेिडकल ᳰफजीयॉलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

3688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

‘‘मा᭭ टर ऑफ साइंस (मेिडकल ᳰफिज᭍ स)’’

एस एससी (मेिडकल ᳰफिज᭍ स)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘मा᭭ टर ऑफ साइंस-एमएलटी (माइᮓोवॉयलोजी)’’

एस एससी एमएलटी (माइᮓोवॉयलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

‘‘मा᭭ टर ऑफ साइंस-एमएलटी (साइटो पैथॉलोजी)’’

एस एससी एमएलटी (साइटो पैथॉलोजी)’’

(यह एक मा᭠ यता ᮧा᭡ त आयुᳶव᭄ान अहᭅता होगी जब

यह जवाहरलाल इंि᭭टᲷूट ऑफ पो᭭ ट ᮕेजुएट मेिडकल

ए᭔ युकेशन एंड ᳯरसचᭅ, पु᭞दुचेरी मᱶ ᮧिशिᭃत छाᮢᲂ के

संबंध मᱶ इसी सं᭭ थान ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ होगी।)

[सं. ए-12034/03/2014-एमई-III]

डी.वी.के. राव, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 27th July, 2016

S.O. 1637—In terms of Section 24 of Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education and Research

Act, 2008 (19 of 2008), the following medical qualifications granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry on or after May, 2008 are recognized as Medical Qualifications for the purpose of

the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and shall be deemed to be included in the first Schedule under the heading

‘‘Recognized Medical Qualification’’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)] after the last entry and entry relating

thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column(3)] :

(2)

(3)

‘‘Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery

MBBS”

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Punducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.

“Magistrar Chirurgiae (Cardio-Thoracic and Vascular

Surgery)

M. Ch (Cardio-Thoracic and Vascular Surgery)”

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.

‘‘Magistrar Chirurgiate (Urology)’’

M. Ch. (Urology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.

‘‘Magistrar Chirurgiae (Neuro-Surgery )’’

M. Ch. (Neuro-Surgery )’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3689

‘‘Magistrar Chirurgiae (Surgical Gastroenterology )’’

M. Ch. (Surgical Gastroenterology )’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Magistrar Chirurgiae (Pediatric Surgery )’’

M. Ch. (Pediatric Surgery )’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Magistrar Chirurgiae ( Plastic Surgery)’’

M. Ch. ( Plastic Surgery)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.

‘‘Magistrar Chirurgiae (Genitourinary Surgery )’’

M. Ch. (Genitourinary Surgery )’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Magistrar Chirurgiae (Surgical Oncology )’’

M. Ch. (Surgical Oncology )’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Cardiology)’’

MD (Cardiology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Clinical Immunology)’’

DM (Clinical Immunology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Clinical Pharmacology)’’

DM (Clinical Pharmacology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Neonatology)’’

DM (Neonatology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Pediatric Clinical Care)’’

DM (Pediatric Clinical Care)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

3690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Neurology)’’

MD (Neurology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Clinical Hematology)’’

DM (Clinical Hematology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Medical Oncology)’’

DM (Medical Oncology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Nephrology)’’

DM (Nephrology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Endocrinology)’’

DM (Endocrinology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Pathology)’’

MD (Pathology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)’’

MD (Pharmacology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Physiology)’’

MD (Physiology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Bio Chemistry)’’

MD (Bio Chemistry)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)’’

MD (General Medicine)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3691

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Pediatrics)’’

MD (Pediatrics)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Bacteriology)’’

MD (Bacteriology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Anatomy)’’

MD (Anatomy)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Anesthesiology)’’

MD (Anesthesiology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)’’

MD (Microbiology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Dermatology Venerology and

Leprology)’’

MD (Dermatology Venerology and Leprology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Community Medicine)’’

MD (Community Medicine)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Radio Diagnosis)’’

MD (Radio Diagnosis)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Radiology)’’

MD (Radiology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Psychiatry)’’

MD (Psychiatry)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

3692

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Pulmonary Medicine)’’

MD (Pulmonary Medicine)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Radiotherapy)’’

MD (Radiotherapy)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Blood Transfusion and Immuno

Hematology)’’

MD (Blood Transfusion and Immuno Hematology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Forensic Medicine)’’

MD (Forensic Medicine)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Nuclear Medicine)’’

MD (Nuclear Medicine)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Medicine (Emergency Medicine)’’

MD (Emergency Medicine)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Master of Surgery (General Surgery)’’

MS (General Surgery)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Master of Surgery (Obstetrics and Gynecology)’’

MS (Obstetrics and Gynecology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Master of Surgery (ENT)’’

MS (ENT)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Master of Surgery (Orthopedics)’’

MS (Orthopedics)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3693

‘‘Master of Surgery (Ophthalmology)’’

MS (Ophthalmology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Philosophy (Physiology)’’

Ph. D (Physiology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Philosophy (Microbiology)’’

Ph. D (Microbiology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Philosophy (Anatomy)’’

Ph. D (Anatomy)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Philosophy (Pharmacology)’’

Ph. D (Pharmacology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Philosophy (Biochemistry)’’

Ph. D (Biochemistry)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Philosophy (Pathology)’’

Ph. D (Pathology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Philosophy (Clinical Immunology)’’

Ph. D (Clinical Immunology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Philosophy (Pediatrics)’’

Ph. D (Pediatrics)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Doctor of Philosophy (Medicine)’’

Ph. D (Medicine)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Fellowship in Diabetology’’

‘‘Fellowship in Diabetology’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

3694

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

‘‘Fellowship in Medical Oncology’’

‘‘Fellowship in Medical Oncology’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Fellowship in Pediatric Clinical and Emergency Care’’

‘‘Fellowship in Pediatric Clinical and Emergency Care’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.

‘‘Fellowship in Cardiac and Neuro Anesthesiology’’

‘‘Fellowship in Cardiac and Neuro Anesthesiology’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Fellowship in Clinical Care’’

‘‘Fellowship in Clinical Care’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Fellowship in Tropical Parasitology’’

‘‘Fellowship in Tropical Parasitology’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Master of Science (Medical Biochemistry)’’

M. Sc. (Medical Biochemistry)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Master of Science (Medical Physiology)’’

M. Sc. (Medical Physiology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Master of Science (Medical Physics)’’

M. Sc. (Medical Physics)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Master of Science-MLT (Microbiology)’’

M. Sc.-MLT (Microbiology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute.)

‘‘Master of Science-MLT (Cyto Pathology)’’

M. Sc.-MLT (Cyto Pathology)’’

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical

Education and Research, Puducherry in respect of

students being trained at the institute. )

[No. A. 12034/03/2014-ME-III]

D.V.K. RAO, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3695

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1638-—जबᳰक भारतीय आयुᳶव᭄ान पᳯरषद (संशोधन) अ᭟ यादेश, 2013 कᳱ धारा 3क कᳱ उप-धारा (1)

᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए ᳰदनांक 6 नवंबर, 2013 को भारतीय आयुᳶव᭄ान पᳯरषद का पुनगᭅठन ᳰकया गया

था।

और जबᳰक भारतीय आयुᳶव᭄ान अिधिनयम, 1956 (1956 का 102) कᳱ धारा 3 कᳱ उप-धारा (1) के खंड (ख) के

अनुसरण मᱶ तथा संबंिधत िव᭫ विव᳒ालयᲂ/᭭ वा᭭ ᭝ य िव᭄ान िव᭫ विव᳒ालयᲂ ᳇ारा सूिचत अनुसार िन᭥ निलिखत को

05.11.2018 तक कᳱ अविध तक भारतीय आयुᳶव᭄ान पᳯरषद के सद᭭ य के ᱨप मᱶ इस अिधसूचना के जारी होने से नािमत

ᳰकया जाता है।

अब, इसिलए, उपयुᭅ᭍ त अिधिनयम कᳱ धारा 3 कᳱ उप-धारा (1) के ᮧावधान के अनुसरण मᱶ कᱶᮤ सरकार एतद्

᳇ारा भारत सरकार त᭜ कालीन ᭭ वा᭭ ᭝ य मंᮢालय के ᳰदनांक 9 जनवरी, 1960 के का.आ.सं. 138 मᱶ िन᭥ न संशोधन करती

है, नामत: :-

᭭ वा᭭ ᭝ य एवं पᳯरवार क᭨ याण मंᮢालय, भारत सरकार कᳱ ᳰदनांक 6 नवंबर, 2013 कᳱ का.आ. 3325 (अ) कᳱ

अिधसूचना तथा इसमᱶ ᳰकए गए संशोधनᲂ मᱶ अंितम ᮧिवि᳥ के बाद तथा इससे संबंिधत ᮧिवि᳥ मᱶ िन᭥ निलिखत को शािमल

ᳰकया जाए, नामत:

ᮓम

सं.

रा᭔ यसरकार का नाम

नािमत सद᭭ यका िववरण

चयन ᮧᳰᮓया

12.

गोवा िव᭫ विव᳒ालय

डॉ. जगदीश ए. काकोडकर, सहायक ᮧोफेसर तथा

एचओडी, पीएसएम िवभाग, गोवा मेिडकल कॉलेज,

बै᭥ बोिलम, गोवा

᭠ यायालय ᳇ारा सवᭅस᭥ मित

से िनवाᭅ िचत

[सं. वी. 11013/02/2015-एमईपी]

अिमत िब᭭ वास, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 29th July, 2016

S.O. 1638.— Whereas on 6th 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 (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Indian

Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) and as informed by the respective universities/health sciences universities,

the following has been elected to be a member of the Medical Council of India for the period upto 05-11-2018 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

Governemnt 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 and Family Welfare number S.O.

3325(E) dated 6th November, 2013 and amendments thereto, after the last entry and entry relating thereto, the following

shall be inserted, namely :

S.

No.

Name of the University

Details of the Elected Member

Mode of Election

12.

Goa University

Dr. Jagadish A. Cacodcar, Associate Professor

and HoD, Dept. of PSM, Goa Medical College,

Bambolim, Goa.

Elected unanimously by

Court.

[No. V. 11013/02/2015-MEP]

AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.

3696

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1639-—जबᳰक भारतीय आयुᳶव᭄ान पᳯरषद (संशोधन) अ᭟ यादेश, 2013 कᳱ धारा 3क कᳱ उप-धारा (1)

᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए ᳰदनांक 6 नवंबर, 2013 को भारतीय आयुᳶव᭄ान पᳯरषद का पुनगᭅठन ᳰकया गया

था।

और जबᳰक भारतीय आयुᳶव᭄ान अिधिनयम, 1956 (1956 का 102) कᳱ धारा 3 कᳱ उप-धारा (1) के खंड (क) के

अनुसरण मᱶ तथा संबंिधत रा᭔ य सरकार के परामशᭅ से िन᭥ निलिखत को 05.11.2018 तक कᳱ अविध तक भारतीय

आयुᳶव᭄ान पᳯरषद के सद᭭ य के ᱨप नािमत ᳰकया जाता है जो ᳰक इस अिधसूचना के जारी होने कᳱ ितिथ से ᮧभावी होगा।

अब, इसिलए, उपयुᭅ᭍ त अिधिनयम कᳱ धारा 3 कᳱ उप-धारा (1) के ᮧावधान के अनुसरण मᱶ कᱶᮤ सरकार एतद्

᳇ारा भारत सरकार त᭜ कालीन ᭭ वा᭭ ᭝ य मंᮢालय के ᳰदनांक 9 जनवरी, 1960 के का.आ.सं. 138 मᱶ िन᭥ न संशोधन करती

है, नामत:

᭭ वा᭭ ᭝ य एवं पᳯरवार क᭨ याण मंᮢालय, भारत सरकार कᳱ ᳰदनांक 6 नवंबर, 2013 कᳱ का.आ. 3323 (अ) कᳱ

अिधसूचना तथा इसमᱶ ᳰकए गए संशोधनᲂ मᱶ अंितम ᮧिवि᳥ के बाद तथा इससे संबंिधत ᮧिवि᳥ मᱶ िन᭥ निलिखत को शािमल

ᳰकया जाए, नामत: :-

ᮓम

सं.

रा᭔ यसरकार का नाम

नािमत सद᭭ यका िववरण

6.

गोवा

डॉ. ᮧदीप जी. नाईक, डीन, गोवा मेिडकल कॉलेज, बै᭥ बोिलम, गोवा

[सं. वी. 11013/01/2015-एमईपी(पाटᭅ)]

अिमत िब᭭ वास, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 29th July, 2016

S.O. 1639.— Whereas on 6th 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 (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Indian

Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) and in consultation with the respective State Government has nominated the

following to be a member of the Medical Council of India for the period upto 05-11-2018 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

Governemnt 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 and Family Welfare number S.O.

3323(E) dated 06th November, 2013 and amendments thereto, after the last entry and entry relating thereto, the

following shall be inserted, namely :

S.

No.

Name of the University

Details of the Elected Member

6.

Goa

Dr. Pradeep G. Naik, Dean, Goa Medical College, Bambolim, Goa.

[No. V. 11013/01/2015-MEP(Pt.)]

AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3697

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1640-—दंत िचᳰक᭜ सा अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 16) कᳱ धारा 3 के अंतगᭅत ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग

करते ᱟए कᱶᮤ सरकार, ᭭ वा᭭ ᭝ य एवं पᳯरवार क᭨ याण मंᮢालय, भारत सरकार कᳱ ᳰदनांक 24 जनवरी, 1948 कᳱ अिधसूचना

सं. का.आ. 430 मᱶ एत᳏ारा िन᭥ न संशोधन करती है, अथाᭅत् :

2. उ᭍ त अिधसूचना मᱶ ‘‘धारा 3 के खंड (घ) के तहत िनवाᭅिचत’’ शीषᭅ के अंतगᭅत उसमᱶ िन᭥ निलिखत को अंतᳶव᭬ ट ᳰकया

जाएगा, अथाᭅत्:-

ᮧोफेसर, (डॉ.) सरनजीत ᳲसह भसीन,

डीन दंत िचᳰक᭜ सा फैक᭨ टी, जािमया

िमिलया इ᭭ लािमया, नई ᳰद᭨ ली।

िनवाᭅिचत

जािमया िमिलया इ᭭ लािमया, नई ᳰद᭨ ली

30.11.2015

[फा.सं. वी. 12025/144/2015-डीई]

ᮧदीप कुमार पाल, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 1st August, 2016

S.O. 1640.— In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948), the

Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare No. SO 430 dated 24th January, 1984, namely :

2. In the said notification under head ‘‘elected under clause (d) of Section 3’’, the following shall be inserted

therein, namely :

Prof. (Dr.) Saranjit Singh Bhasin Dean,

Fuculty

of

Dentistry,

Jamia

Millia

Islamia, New Delhi.

Elected

Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.

30.11.2015

[F. No. V. 12025/144/2015-DE]

PRADIP KUMAR PAL,Under Secy.

dks;yk ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1641-—के᭠ ᮤीय सरकार ने, कोयला धारक ᭃेᮢ (अजᭅन और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20)

कᳱ धारा 4 कᳱ उप-धारा(1) के अधीन जारी, भारत के राजपᮢ, भाग II, खंड 3, उप-खंड (ii), तारीख 21 जनवरी, 2016 मᱶ

ᮧकािशत भारत सरकार के कोयला मंᮢालय कᳱ अिधसूचना सं᭎ या का. आ.201(अ), तारीख 27 अग᭭ त,2015 ᳇ारा, उस

अिधसूचना से संलᲨ अनुसूची मᱶ िविन᳸द᭬ ट पᳯरᭃेᮢ मᱶ 2.91 हे᭍ टर (लगभग) या 7.19 एकड़ (लगभग) माप कᳱ भूिम मᱶ

कोयले का पूवᱷᭃण करने के अपने आशय कᳱ सूचना दी थी;

और, के᭠ ᮤीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है, ᳰक इस अिधसूचना से संल᭏ न अनुसूची मᱶ िविहत उ᭍ त भूिम के

भाग मᱶ कोयला अिभᮧा᭡ य है;

अत:, अब, के᭠ ᮤीय सरकार उ᭍ त अिधिनयम कᳱ धारा 7 कᳱ उपधारा (1) ᳇ारा ᮧद᭜ त शि᭍ तयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए,

इससे संल᭏ न अनुसूची मᱶ वᳺणत 2.91 हे᭍ टर (लगभग) या 7.19 एकड़ (लगभग) माप वाली भूिम या उस पर के अिधकार का

अजᭅन करने कᳱ, अपने आशय कᳱ सूचना देती है ।

3698

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ᳯट᭡ पण 1 : इस अिधसूचना के अधीन आने वाले ᭃेᮢ के रेखांक सं᭎ या ईसीएल/ आरजीओएम / जीएम(आई/सी)/पीसीडी ए᭛ ड

ई/सीबीए(चरण-XI)/78, तारीख 5 मई, 2016 उपायु᭍ त, िजला गो᲻ा (झारखंड) के कायाᭅलय मᱶ या कोयला िनयंᮢक, 1,

काउंिसल हाउस ᭭ ᮝीट, कोलकाता - 700 001 के कायाᭅलय मᱶ या िनदेशक तकनीकᳱ (ᮧचालन), ई᭭ टनᭅ कोलफᳱ᭨ ᭙स

िलिमटेड, संकतोिड़या, डाकघर ᳰदशेरगढ़, िजला ब᳍ᭅवान-713 333 (पि᭫ चम बंगाल) के कायाᭅलय मᱶ ᳰकया जा सकता है ।

ᳯट᭡ पण 2 : उ᭍ त अिधिनयम कᳱ धारा 8 के उपबंधᲂ कᳱ ओर ᭟ यान आकृ᭬ ट ᳰकया जाता है, िजसमᱶ िन᭥ निलिखत उपबंध है :-

अजᭅन कᳱ बाबत आपि᭜ तयᱼ.-

“8. (1) कोई ᭪ यि᭍ त जो ᳰकसी भूिम मᱶ, िजसकᳱ बाबत् धारा 7 के अधीन अिधसूचना िनकाली गई है, िहतब᳍ है,

अिधसूचना िनकाले जाने से तीस ᳰदन के भीतर स᭥ पूणᭅ भूिम या उसके ᳰकसी भाग या ऐसी भूिम मᱶ या उस पर के ᳰक᭠ हᱭ

अिधकारᲂ का अजᭅन ᳰकए जाने के बारे मᱶ आपि᭜ त कर सकेगा ।

᭭ प᭬ टीकरण.-

इस धारा के अंतगᭅत यह आपि᭜ त नहᱭ मानी जाएगी, ᳰक कोई ᭪ यि᭍ त ᳰकसी भूिम मᱶ कोयला उ᭜ पादन के

िलए ᭭ वयं खनन संᳰᮓयाएं करना चाहता है और ऐसी संᳰᮓयाएं के᭠ ᮤीय सरकार या ᳰकसी अ᭠ य ᭪ यि᭍ त को नहᱭ करनी

चािहए।

(2) उपधारा (1) के अधीन ᮧ᭜ येक आपि᭜ त सᭃम अिधकारी को िलिखत ᱨप मᱶ कᳱ जाएगी और सᭃम अिधकारी,

आपि᭜ तकताᭅ को ᭭ वयं सुने जाने, िविध ᭪ यवसायी ᳇ारा सुनवाई का अवसर देगा और ऐसी सभी आपि᭜ तयᲂ को सुनने के

प᭫ चात् और ऐसी अितᳯर᭍ त जांच, यᳰद कोई हो, करने के प᭫ चात् जो वह आव᭫ यक समझता है, वह या तो धारा 7 कᳱ

उपधारा (1) के अधीन अिधसूिचत भूिम के या ऐसी भूिम मᱶ या उस पर के अिधकारᲂ के संबंध मᱶ एक ᳯरपोटᭅ या ऐसी भूिम के

िविभ᭠ न टुकड़ᲂ या ऐसी भूिम मᱶ या उस पर के अिधकारᲂ के संबंध मᱶ आपि᭜ तयᲂ पर अपनी िसफाᳯरशᲂ और उसके ᳇ारा कᳱ

गई कायᭅवाही के अिभलेख सिहत िविभ᳖ ᳯरपोटᭅ के᭠ ᮤीय सरकार को उसके िविन᭫ चय के िलए देगा ।

(3)

इस धारा के ᮧयोजनᲂ के िलए वह ᭪ यि᭍ त ᳰकसी भूिम मᱶ िहतब᳍ समझा जाएगा जो ᮧितकर मᱶ िहत का दावा करने

का हकदार हो, यᳰद भूिम या ऐसी भूिम मᱶ या उस पर के अिधकार इस अिधिनयम के अधीन अᳶजत कर िलए जाते हᱹ। ”

ᳯट᭡ पण 3 : के᭠ ᮤीय सरकार ᳇ारा कोयला िनयंᮢक, 1, काउंिसल हाउस ᭭ ᮝीट, कोलकाता - 700001 को उ᭍ त अिधिनयम कᳱ

धारा 3 के अधीन अिधसूचना सं᭎ यांक का. आ. 2520, तारीख 11 जून, 1983 ᳇ारा भारत सरकार के राजपᮢ भाग ।।, खंड

3, उपखंड (ii) मᱶ ᮧकािशत कᳱ गयी थी, ᳇ारा सᭃम ᮧािधकारी िनयु᭍ त गया ᳰकया है ।

अनुसूची

ललमᳯटया कोल खनन ᭣लॉक (चरण- XI)

िजला- गो᲻ा (झारख᭛ड)

( रेखांक सं᭎ या ईसीएल/ आरजीओएम/जीएम(आई/सी)/पीसीडी ए᭛ ड ई/सीबीए (चरण-XI)/78, तारीख 5 मई,2016)

सभी अिधकार:

ᮓम

मौजा/ᮕाम

थाना

ᮕाम सं᭎ या

िजला

ᭃेᮢ हे᭍टेयर मᱶ

(लगभग)

ᭃेᮢ

एकड़ मᱶ

(लगभग)

ᳯट᭡ पिणयां

1.

पहाड़पुर

ललमᳯटया

32

गो᲻ा

2.91

7.19

भाग

कुल ᭃेᮢ :

2.91

7.19

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3699

मौजा पहाड़पुर न. 32 मᱶ अᳶजत ᳰकए जाने वाले ᭡ लाट सं᭎ या : 1 से 13.

सीमा - वणᭅन :

क1-क2

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎या 32 और मौजा बड़ा भोड़ाय सं᭎यांक 18 के सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु

क1 से शुᱨ होकर, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 मᱶ ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 01, का उᱫर-पि᳟मी सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए

मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 का ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 01 के पि᳟मी कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु क2 पर िमलती है।

क2-क3

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 का ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 01 के पि᳟मी कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु क2 से शुᱨ होकर

᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 01 का दिᭃण सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 के उसी ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक का

दिᭃण-पूवᱮ कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु क3 पर िमलती है।

क3-क4

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 का ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 01 का दिᭃण-पूवᱮ कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु क3 से शुᱨ

होकर, उसी ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक के दिᭃण-पूवᱮ और पूवᱮ सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 एवं

बड़ा भोड़ाय सं᭎यांक 18 का सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु क4 पर िमलती है।

क4-क1

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 और मौजा बड़ा भोड़ाय सं᭎यांक 18 का सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु

क4 से शुᱨ होकर उसी सि᭥मिलत सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 और बड़ा भोड़ाय

सं᭎यांक 18 का सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु क1 पर िमलती है।

ख1-ख2

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 एवं बड़ा भोड़ाय सं᭎यांक 18 का सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ख1 से

शुᱨ होकर मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 का ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 2 के उᱫर-पि᳟मी एवं पि᳟मी सीमा से गुजरते

ᱟए, उसी ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक का मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 दिᭃण-पि᳟मी कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ख2 पर

िमलती है।

ख2-ख3

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 का ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 2 के दिᭃण-पि᳟मी कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ख2 से शुᱨ

होकर, उसी ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक का दिᭃण सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 2 का ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 2

के दिᭃण-पूवᱮ कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ख3 पर िमलती है।

ख3-ख4

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 का ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 2 के दिᭃण-पूवᱮ कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ख3 से शुᱨ

होकर, उसी ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक का पूवᱮ सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 एवं मौजा बड़ा

भोड़ाय सं᭎यांक 18 का सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ख4 पर िमलती है।

ख4-ख1

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 और बड़ा भोड़ाय सं᭎यांक 18 का सि᭥ मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ख4 से

शुᱨ होकर उसी सि᭥ मिलत सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 और बड़ा भोड़ाय सं᭎यांक 18

का सि᭥ मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ख1 पर िमलती है।

ग1-ग2

रेखा, मौजा बड़ा भोड़ाय सं᭎यांक 18 और मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 का सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु

ग1 से शुᱨ होकर मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 का ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 03 के पि᳟मी से गुजरते ᱟए मौजा

पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 के उसी ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक का दिᭃण-पि᳟मी कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ग2 पर िमलती है।

ग2-ग3

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 के ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 03 के दिᭃण-पि᳟मी कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ग2 से शुᱨ

होकर उसी ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक के दिᭃण से गुजरते ᱟए मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎या 32 के ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 3 के दिᭃण-

पूवᱮ कोने पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ग3 पर िमलती है।

ग3-ग4

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 के ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 03 के दिᭃण-पूवᱮ कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ग3 से शुᱨ

होकर, उसी ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक के पूवᱮ और दिᭃण-पूवᱮ सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, पहाड़पुर सं᭎यंक 32 एवं मौजा

बड़ा भोड़ाय सं᭎यांक 18 का सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ग4 पर िमलती है।

3700

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ग4-ग1

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 और मौजा बड़ा भोड़ाय सं᭎यांक 18 के सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु

ग4 से शुᱨ होकर उसी सि᭥मिलत सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 और मौजा बड़ा भोड़ाय

सं᭎यांक 18 के सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ग1 पर िमलती है।

घ1-घ2

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 और बड़ा भोड़ाय सं᭎यांक 18 के सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु घ1 से

शुᱨ होकर मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 के ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 4 का उᱫर-पि᳟मी सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए मौजा

पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 के ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 4 के पि᳟मी कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु घ2 पर िमलती है।

घ2-घ3

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 के ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 4 के पि᳟मी कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु घ2 से शुᱨ होकर

᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 4 का दिᭃणी सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए मौजा पहाड़पुर 32 के उसी ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक का दिᭃण-पूवᱮ

कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु घ3 पर िमलती है।

घ3-घ4

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎या 32 के ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 4 के दिᭃण कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु घ3 से शुᱨ होकर, उसी

᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक के दिᭃण-पूवᱮ एवं पूवᱮ सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 एवं मौजा बड़ा

भोड़ाय सं᭎यांक 18 का सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु घ4 पर िमलती है।

घ4-घ1

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 और मौजा बड़ा भोड़ाय सं᭎यांक 18 का सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु

घ4 से शुᱨ होकर, उसी सि᭥मिलत सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 और मौजा बड़ा

भोड़ाय सं᭎यांक 18 का सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु घ1 पर िमलती है।

ङ1-ङ2

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 और मौजा बड़ा भोड़ाय सं᭎यांक 18 का सि᭥मिलत सीमा से शुᱨ होकर

मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 के ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 05 के पि᳟मी सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक

32 के उसी ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक के दिᭃण-पि᳟मी के कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ2 पर िमलती है।

ङ2-ङ3

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎या 32 के ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 05 का दिᭃण-पि᳟मी कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ2 से शुᱨ

होकर, ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 06 के पि᳟मी सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 के ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 6

का दिᭃण-पि᳟मी कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ3 पर िमलती है।

ङ3-ङ4

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 के ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 6 के दिᭃण-पि᳟मी कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ3 से शुᱨ

होकर उसी ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक के दिᭃण-पि᳟मी सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, उसी ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक का दिᭃण-पि᳟मी

कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ4 पर िमलती है।

ङ4-ङ5

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 के ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 6 का दिᭃण-पूवᱮ सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ4 से शुᱨ

होकर ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 7 के दिᭃण-पि᳟मी सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 7 का दिᭃण-पि᳟मी कोना

पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ5 पर िमलती है।

ङ5-ङ6

रेखा, ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 7 का दिᭃण-पि᳟मी कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ5 से शुᱨ होकर, उसी ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक के

दिᭃणी सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए और ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 7 के दिᭃण कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ6 पर िमलती है।

ङ6-ङ7

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 के ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 07 का दिᭃण कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ6 से शुᱨ होकर,

उसी ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक का दिᭃण-पूवᱮ सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, दिᭃण-पूवᱮ कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ7 पर िमलती

है।

ङ7-ङ8

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर न. 32 के ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 7 का दिᭃण-पूवᱮ कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ7 से शुᱨ होकर,

उसी ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक का पूवᱮ सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 7 के पूवᱮ सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ8 पर

िमलती है।

ङ8-ङ9

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर न. 32 के ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 7 का पूवᱮ सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ8 से शुᱨ होकर, ᭡लॉट

सं᭎यांक 12 का दिᭃण सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 13 का पि᳟मी सीमा पर ि᭭थत ङ9 पर िमलती

है।

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3701

ङ9-ङ10

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर न. 32 के ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 13 का पि᳟मी सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ9 से शुᱨ होकर,

᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 13 का पि᳟मी सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, उसी ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 13 का दिᭃण-पि᳟मी कोना पर

ि᭭थत ङ10 पर िमलती है।

ङ10-ङ11

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर न. 32 के ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 13 का दिᭃण-पि᳟मी कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ10 से शुᱨ

होकर, ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 13 का दिᭃण सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, उसी ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक का दिᭃण-पूवᱮ कोना पर

ि᭭थत ङ11 पर िमलती है।

ङ11-ङ12

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर न. 32 के ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 13 का दिᭃण-पूवᱮ कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ11 से शुᱨ

होकर, उसी ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक कᳱ पूवᱮ सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए उᱫर-पूवᱮ कोना पर ि᭭थत ङ12 पर िमलती है।

ङ12-ङ13

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर न. 32 के ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 13 का उᱫर-पूवᱮ कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ12 से शुᱨ होकर,

᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 12 कᳱ पूवᱮ सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 12 का उᱫर-पूवᱮ कोना पर ि᭭थत ङ13 पर

िमलती है।

ङ13-ङ14

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर न. 32 के ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 12 का उᱫर-पूवᱮ कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ13 से शुᱨ होकर,

᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 12 कᳱ उᱫर सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 12 का उᱫरी सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ14

पर िमलती है।

ङ14-ङ15

रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 के ᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 12 का उᱫरी सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ14 से शुᱨ होकर

᭡लॉट सं᭎यांक 11 के पूवᱮ सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए मौजा पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 और मौजा बड़ा भोड़ाय सं᭎यांक

18 का सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ15 पर िमलती है।

ङ15-ङ1

रेखा, पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 और बड़ा भोड़ाय सं᭎यांक 18 का सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ15 शुᱨ

होकर, पहाड़पुर सं᭎यांक 32 और बड़ा भोड़ाय सं᭎या 18 कᳱ उसी सि᭥मिलत सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए

सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ1 पर िमलती है।

[फा.सं. 43015/10/2015-पी.आर.आई.ड᭣᭨यू-I]

सुजीत कुमार, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2016

S.O. 1641.— Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O.

201(E), dated the 27th August, 2015 issued under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition

and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said act ), and published in the Gazette of India

Part II, section 3, sub-section (ii), dated the 21st January, 2016, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to

prospect for coal in 2.91 hectares (approximately) or 7.19 acres (approximately) of the lands in the locality specified in

the Schedule annexed to that notification;

And, whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that Coal is obtainable in a part of the said lands prescribed in the

Schedule appended to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(1) of section 7 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire the land measuring 2.91 hectares (approximately) or 7.19

acres (approximately) and all rights in or over the land described in the said Schedule appended hereto.

Note 1: The plan bearing number ECL/ RGOM/ GM(I/C)/ PCD&E/ CBA(Phase – XI) /78, dated the 5th May, 2016

of the area covered by this notification may be inspected in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, District Godda

(Jharkhand), or in the office of the Coal controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata – 700 001 or in the office of the

Director Technical (Operation), Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria ,P.O. Dishergarh, District Burdwan -713

333(West Bengal).

Note 2. : Attention is hereby invited to the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act which provided as follows:-

3702

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Objection to acquisition.-

“8 (1) Any person interested in any land in respect of which a notification under section 7 has been issued, may,

within thirty days of the issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or any

rights in or over the such land.

Explanation .-It shall not be an objection within the meaning of this section for any person to say that he himself

desires to undertake mining operation in the land for the production of coal and that such operations should not be

undertaken by the Central Government or by any other person.

(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the competent authority in writing, and the competent

authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and shall, after

hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in

respect of the land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or of rights in or over such land, or make

different reports in respect of different parcels or such lands or of rights in or over such land, to the Central

Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by

him, the decision of that Government.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to

claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act.”

Note 3: The Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata- 700001 has been appointed by the Central Government

as the competent authority under section 3 of the said Act, vide Notification number S.O. 2520, dated the 11th June,

1983 published in part II, section 3, sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India.

SCHEDULE

Lalmatia Coal Mining Block (Phase – XI)

District Godda (Jharkhand)

( plan bearing number ECL/RGOM/GM(I/C)/PCD&E/CBA(Phase – XI)/78,dated the 5th May, 2016 )

All Rights:

Sl.

No.

Mouza /

Village

Thana

Village

number

District

Area in

hectares

(approxi-

mately)

Area in

acres

(approxi-

mately)

Remarks

1.

Paharpur

Lalmatia

32

Godda

2.91

7.19

Part

Total Area:

2.91

7.19

Plot numbers to be acquired in Mouza Paharpur No. 32 : 1 to 13.

Boundary description:

A1-A2

Line stars from point No. A1 situated on common mouza boundary of Paharpur No. 32 and Bara

Bhorai No. 18, passes along north-western boundary of plot No.1 of mouza Paharpur No. 32 and

meets at point No. A2 situated at western corner of plot No. 1 mouza Paharpur No. 32.

A2-A3

Line starts from point No. A2 situated on western corner of plot No. 1 of mouza Paharpur No. 32,

passes along southern boundary of plot No. 1 and meets at point No. A3 situated at south-eastern

corner of the same plot of mouza Pharpur No. 32.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3703

A3-A4

Line starts from point No. A3 situated at south-eastern corner of plot No. 1 of mouza Pharpur No. 32,

passes along southern-eastern boundary of the same plot and meets at point No. A4 situated on

common mouza boundary of Paharpur No. 32 and Bara Bhorai No. 18.

A4-A1

Line starts at point No. A4 situated on common mouza boundary of Paharpur No. 32 and Bara Bhorai

No. 18, passes along the same common mouza boundary and meets at point No. A1 situated on

common mouza boundary of Paharpur No. 32 and Bara Bhorai No. 18.

B1-B2

Line starts from point No. B1 situated on common mouza boundary of Paharpur No. 32 and Bara

Bhorai No. 18, passes along north-western and western boundary of plot No. 2 of mouza Paharpur

No. 32 and meets at point No. B2 situated at south-western corner of the same plot of mouza

Paharpur No. 32.

B2-B3

Line starts from point No.B2 situated at south-western corner of plot No. 2 of mouza Paharpur No.32,

passes along southern boundary of the same plot and meets at point No. B3 situated at south-eastern

corner of plot No. 2 of mouza Paharpur No. 32.

B3-B4

Line starts from point No. B3 situated at south-eastern corner of plot No. 2 of mouza Paharpur No.

32, passes along eastern boundary of the same plot and meets at point No. B4 situated on common

mouza boundary of Paharpur No. 32 and Bara Bhorai No. 18.

B4-B1

Line starts from point No. B4 situated on common mouza boundary of Paharpur No. 32 and Bara

Bhorai No.18, passes along the same common mouza boundary and meets at point No. B1 situated on

common mouza boundary of Paharpur No. 32 and Bara Bhorai No. 18.

C1-C2

Line starts from point No. C1 situated on common mouza boundary of Paharpur No. 32 and Bara

Bhorai No. 18, passes along western boundary of plot No. 3 of mouza Paharpur No. 32 and meets at

point No. C2 situated at south-western corner of the same plot of mouza Paharpur No. 32.

C2-C3

Line starts from point No. C2 situated at south- western corner of plot No. 3 of mouza Paharpur No.

32, passes along southern boundary of the same plot and meets at point No. C3 situated at south-

eastern corner of plot No. 3 mouza Paharpur No. 32.

C3-C4

Line starts from point No. C3 situated at south-eastern corner of plot No. 3 of mouza Paharpur No.32,

passes along eastern and south-eastern boundary of the same plot and meets at point No. C4 situated

on common mouza boundary of Paharpur No.32 and Bara Bhorai No.18.

C4-C1

Line starts at point No. C4 situated on common mouza boundary of Paharpur No. 32 and Bara Bhorai

No. 18, passes along the same common mouza boundary and meets at point No. C1 situated on

common mouza boundary of Paharpur No. 32 and Bara Bhorai No. 18.

D1-D2

Line starts from point No. D1 situated on common mouza boundary of Paharpur No. 32 and Bara

Bhorai no. 18, passes along north-western boundary of plot No. 4 of mouza Paharpur No.32 and

meets at point No. D2 situated at western corner of plot No. 4 of mouza Paharpur No. 32.

D2-D3

Line starts from point No. D2 situated at western corner of plot No. 4 mouza Paharpur No. 32, passes

along southern boundary of plot No. 4 and meets at point No. D3 situated at south-eastern corner of

the same plot of mouza Paharpur No. 32.

D3-D4

Line starts from point No. D3 situated at south-eastern corner of plot No. 4 mouza Paharpur No. 32,

passes along south-eastern boundry of same plot and meets at point No. D4 situated on common

mouza boundary Paharpur No. 32 and Bara Bhorai No.18.

D4-D1

Line starts from point No. D4 situated on common mouza bounadry of Paharpur No. 32 and Bara

Bhorai No.18, passes along the same common mouza boundary and meets at point No. D1 situated on

common mouza boundary Paharpur No. 32 and Bara Bhorai No.18.

E1-E2

Line starts from point No. E1 situated on common mouza boundary of Paharpur No. 32 and Bara

Bhorai No.18, passes along the western boundary of plot No. 5 situated of mouza Paharpur No. 32

and meets at point No. E2 situatedat south-western corner of the same plot of mouza paharpur No.

32.

3704

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

E2-E3

Line starts from point No. E2 situated at south-western corner of plot No. 5 of mouza Paharpur No.

32, passes along the western boundary of plot No. 6 and meets at point No. E3 situated at south-

western corner of plot No. 6 of mouza paharpur No. 32.

E3-E4

Line starts from point No. E3 situated at south-western corner of plot No. 6 of mouza Paharpur No.

32, passes along the south- western boundary of plot and meets at point No. E4 situated at south-

eastern boundary of the same plot.

E4-E5

Line starts from point No. E4 situated at south-eastern corner of plot No. 6 of mouza Paharpur No.

32, passes along the south- western boundary of plot No. 7 and meets at point No. E5 situated at

south-western corner of plot No. 7.

E5-E6

Line starts from point No. E5 situated at south-western corner of plot No. 7, passes along the

southern boundary of plot and meets at point No. E6 situated at southern corner of plot No. 7.

E6-E7

Line starts from point No. E6 situated at southern corner of plot No. 7 of mouza Paharpur No. 32,

passes along the south- eastern boundary of the same plot and meets at point No. E7 situated at south-

eastern corner of plot No. 7.

E7-E8

Line starts from point No. E7 situated at south-eastern corner of plot No. 7 of mouza Paharpur No.

32, passes along the eastern boundary of plot and meets at point No. E8 situated on eastern boundary

of plot No. 7.

E8-E9

Line starts from point No. E8 situated on eastern boundary of plot No. 7 of mouza Paharpur No. 32,

passes along the southern boundary of plot No. 12 and meets at point No. E9 situated on western

boundary of plot No. 13.

E9-E10

Line starts from point No. E9 situated on western boundary of plot No. 13 of mouza Paharpur No.

32, passes along the western boundary of plot No. 13 and meets at point No. E10 situated on south-

western corner of plot No. 13.

E10-E11

Line starts from point No. E10 situated on south-western corner of plot No. 13 of mouza Paharpur

No. 32, passes along southern boundary of plot No. 13 and meets at point No. E11 situated at south-

eastern corner of the same plot.

E11-E12

Line starts from point No. E11 situated at south-eastern corner of plot no. 13 of mouza Paharpur No.

32, passes along the eastern boundary of the plot and meets at point No. E12 situated at north-eastern

corner of the same plot.

E12-E13

Line starts from point No. E12 situated at north-eastern corner of plot no. 13 of mouza Paharpur No.

32, passes along the eastern boundary of the plot No. 12 and meets at point No. E13 situated at north-

eastern corner of plot No. 12.

E13-E14

Line starts from point No. E13 situated at north-eastern corner of plot no. 12 of mouza Paharpur No.

32, passes along the northern boundary of the plot No. 12 and meets at point No. E14 situated at

north-eastern corner of plot No. 12.

E14-E15

Line starts from point no. E14 situated on northern boundary of plot No. 12 of mouza Paharpur No.

32, passes along eastern boundary of plot No. 11 and meets at point No. E15 situated on common

mouza boundary of Paharpur No.32 and Bara Bhorai No. 18.

E15-E1

Line starts from point no. E15 situated on common mouza boundary of mouza Paharpur No. 32 and

Bara Bhorai No. 18, passes along same common boundary and meets at point No. E1 situated on

common mouza boundary of Paharpur No.32 and Bara Bhorai No. 18.

[F.No. 43015/10/2015-PRIW-I]

SUJEET KUMAR, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3705

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1642-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhlh,y

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 50@2006) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-08-2016

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@213@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1642.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 50 of 2006) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 05.08.2016.

[No. L-20012/213/2005-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. 50/2006

Employer in relation to the management of B & K Area, M/s. CCL

AND

Their workman

Present:- Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

:

Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

:

Shri U.N. Lall, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry:-Coal

Dated 18.04.2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/213/2005-IR (C-1) dated 01.06.2006, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

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

Disputes Act, 1947 referr4ed the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Union from the management of G.M.Unit B&K Area of M/s CCL to provide

employment to Rubia Khatoon, dependent daughter of Late Md. Idris , deceased workman of G.M. Unit B& K

Area under the provision of Para 9.4.2 of NCWA is legal and justified? If so, to what relief is the said Rubia

Khatoon entitled?

2.

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 20.06.2006. After receipt of reference, both Parties are

noticed, The workman files his written statement on 04.09.2006. The management files their written statement-cum-

rejoinder on 30.09.2008. One witness from each side has been examined . Document of workman is marked as W-1 to

W-3 as exhibit..

3706

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3.

The case of the workman is that Md. Idrish was in permanent employment of B&K Unit of M/s. CCL and he

was appointed as Tole Fitter on 15.09.1964 but unfortunately Md. Idrish died on 03.11.1998 during tenure of his

service.

4.

As per terms of settlement of NCWA the dependent of Md. Idrish was entitled for employment but

unfortunetaly Late Md. Idrish had no son but he had two daughters namly Smt. Sabia Khatoon and Miss Rubia

Khatoon. Entire family of late Idrish was wholly dependent on the earning of Md. Idrish, deceased workman.

5.

The management of M/s. CCL was reluctant to provide employment to female dependant, for which the

family of late Idrish represented before the management to provide emplyment to dependant son-in-law namly Md.

Nausad. But the management by orffice order dated 26.05.2000 rejected the prayer of Nausad the son-in-law and after

that his appeal for reconsideration , wasl also rejected by the management.

6.

It is further submitted by the workman that the family of late Idrish again represented before the management

for providing employment to dependant daughter namly Rubia Khatoon. But the management instead of receiving the

prayer for employment for daughter advised them to pursue the employment of son-in-law. But management neither

provided employment to dependant daughter nor son-in-law of the deceased workman. Hence Industrial dispute arose.

7.

On the other hand, the case of the management is that Rubia Khatoon daughter of late Md. Idrish never

applied for compassionate appointment under the provision of NCWA after the death of his father. Md. Idrish died on

3.11.1998 and at that time there was a limitation of six month for filing an application. But the aponsoring Union

raised an Industrial Dispute in the year 2004 and demanded employment of Rabia Khatoon .

8.

The present Industrial Dispute was raised by the sponsoring union after lapse of six years from the date of

death of the deceased employee i.e much after the limitation fixed by the company for filing application for dependant

employment on compassionate ground. Hence Rabia Khatoon is not entitled to get appointment under NCWA as she

has not applied within the prescribed period of limitation circulated by the company.

9.

This is a case of dependant employment. There is no dispute that the applicant is the daughter of the deceased

workman of CCL The Union stated that after her father’s death her brother –in-law applied for job and that was

rejected. Thereafter the applicant applied for job but that has not been accepted or communicated to her.

10.

The management has not filed any paper to show the applicant is not the dependant of the deceased workman

but the union has filed four documents which is marked as W-1 to W-3 .

11.

As per Ext. W-2 Rubia Khatoon is the daughter of deceased workman and she is unmarried. This family tree

certificate is issued by B.D.O Bermo . Another citation has been filed by the workman of Jharkhand High Court,

Ranchi in CWJC No. 132/2000 in Phagu Bouri Vs. CCL and others. Zeash of said order is quoted below :-

Xxxxx

“The claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected merely on the ground that the

applicant for such appointment was filed after a gap of six months between the death of the employer and the

date of application. The decision of the CCL authorities appears to be irrational because it is but natural that if

an employee dies in harness, his dependants, instead of moruning the sad demise of the bread earner, are not

supposed to immediately rush to the employer asking for compassionate appointment. The reason given is

quite unreasonable, illegal and without jurisdiction.”

Xxxxx

12.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that in rural area appling promptly for job may not

be possible due to many hurdles, Therefore demand of the Union from the management of G.M.Unit B&K Area of

M/s. CCL to provide employment to Rubia Khatoon, dependent daughter of Late Md. Idris , deceased workman of

G.M. Unit B& K Area under the provision of Para 9.4.2 of NCWA is justified. Hence the management is directed to

provide her job condoning delay.

This is my Award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1643-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 3@2009) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-08-2016 dks

çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@111@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3707

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1643.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 3 of 2009) as shown in 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 05.08.2016.

[No. L-20012/111/2007-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 2009

Employer in relation to the management of C.V. Area, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present:- Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

:

Shri S.N. Ghosh, Advocate

For the workman

:

Shri R.R. Ram, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry:-Coal

Dated 20.07.2016

AWARD

By order No.-L-20012/111/2007 IR-(CM-I), dated. 30/01/2009 the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Basantimata colliery under Chanch Victoria Area of M/s. BCCL in

terminating Shri Dina Nath Gorai UG Loader w.e.f. 21.09.2005 is legal and justified? Ii) To what relief is the

concerned workman entitled ?”

2.

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 13.02.2009 After receipt of reference , both parties are

noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written statement on 23.03.2009. The management files their written

statement -cum-rejoinder on 21.01.2010 No evidence adduced by either side.

3.

The short point involved in the reference is that the workman has been dismissed from his services on

absenteeism.

4.

During Preliminary hearing, it is revealed that the case is dismissal of workman for long absence on duty. But

he has already out of service for last 11 years. It is felt to give another chance to the workman to serve.

5.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee as

under ground general Mazdoor cat-I scale. But the workman be kept under probation for a period two year . Therefore

the question of granting back wages does not arise at all.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1644-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

3708

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 172@1994) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-08-2016

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@166@1994&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1644.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 172 of 1994) as shown in 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 05.08.2016.

[No. L-20012/166/1994-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. 172 of 1994

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

AND

Their workman

Present:- Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

:

Shri U.N. Lall, Advocate

For the workman

:

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 11.07.2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /166/1994-IR(CM-1) dated 25.07.1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Jealgora Colliery of M/s. BCCL, in dismissing Sri A.K.Sarakar,

Nagazine Incharge w.e.f. 28.06.1993 is justified ? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman is entitled

to ?”

2.

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

subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime.

Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1645-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 34@1994) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-

08-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@299@1992&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3709

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1645.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 34 of 1994) as shown in 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 05.08.2016.

[No. L-20012/299/1992-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. 34 of 1994

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

AND

Their workman

Present:- Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

:

None

For the workman

:

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 19/07/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /299/1992-IR(C-1) dated 24/02/1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the union for regularization of Shri Godhan Saw and 2 others by the management of

Tisra Colliery of Bhowra Area No. XI of M/s. BCCL Claiming equal treatment in the matter of regularization

with Shri fakie Bhandari, Babulal Bouri, and Prahlad Mullick is justified? If not, whether the concerned

workmen are entitled to any relief ?”

2.

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

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

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1645-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 131@1994) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-

08-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@196@1993&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1646.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

3710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

No. 131 of 1994) as shown in 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 05.08.2016.

[No. L-20012/196/1993-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. 131 of 1994

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

AND

Their workman

Present:- Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

:

Shri U.N. Lall, Advocate

For the workman

:

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 20/07/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /196/1993-IR(C-1) dated 31/05/1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management, Akashkinari Colliery of Govindpur Area of M/s BCCL, P.O

Sonardih, Dist, Dhanbad in refusing to refer Sh. Sitaram Dusadh, Drillman to the Appex Medical board for

assessment of his age is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?”

2.

After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates from both side . None is

present on behalf of the workman subsequently. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties

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

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1647-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 40@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-08-2016

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@49@2013&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1647.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 40 of 2013) as shown in 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 05.08.2016.

[No. L-20012/49/2013-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3711

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. 40/2013

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

AND

Their workman

Present:- Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

:

Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

:

Shri S.C. Gour, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 21/07/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/49/213/2013-IR (CM-1) dated 12/09/2013, the central Government in the Ministry of

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Madhuban Colliery under Barora Area of M/s. BCCL in denying

employment to shri Dharambir Beldar son of Late Dhanwa Kamin in violation of agreement dt. 10.04.1992 is

fair and justified? To what relief the dependant son of deceased workman is entitled?”

2.

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 24.09.2013. After receipt of reference, both Parties are

noticed, The workman files his written statement on 01.11.2013. After long delay the management files their written

statement-cum-rejoinder on 16.07.2015. One witness examined on behalf of the workman. And document of workman

is marked as W-1 to W-9 and M-1 of management’s documents.

3.

Case of the workman is that Smt. Dhanwa Kamin was in permanent employment of Madhuban Colliery under

Barora Area of M/s. BCCL working as wagon Loader and her date of appointment is 15.11.1982.

4.

On 06.04.1992, while on duty, she met an accident resulting in instant death. At the time of fatal accident of

smt. Dhanwa Karmin her son Sri Dharambir Beldar was minor in 1992, and he was fully dependant on the earning of

his mother and residing with her mother.

5.

A Memorandum of settlement was arrived on 10.04.1992 in between the General Manager Barora Area and

Union agreed that Sri Dharmbir Beldar S/o Late Dhanwa Kamin shall be taken into employment when he would attain

the age of 18 years.

6.

It is further submitted by the workman that in 1998, when Dharambir Beldar attained the age of 18 years as

per memorandum of settlement he filed employment papers, he was sent to the medical board and all paper was

forwarded to BCCL HQ at Koyla Bhawan in April, 2000 with recommendation to honour M.O.S. and provide

employment as being the case of fatal accident, but BCCL HQ rejected the claim as belated case. This action in

denying employment even after MOS is neither fair nor proper. Hence Industrial dispute arose.

7.

On the other hand, the case of the management is according to the circular employment claim has to be

submitted within a period of 18 months from the date of death of the deceased employee. Smt. Dhanwa Kamin was

permanent employee of Madhuban Colliery died on 06.04.1992. But at the time of death of the deceased employee,

Dharambir Beldar was 10 years old, therefore he was eligible to kept on live roster for employment under the above

provision of NCWA.

8.

Shri Dharambir Beldar applied for employment, the management considered his application and found that

Dharambir Beldar is not eligible for employment under the provision of NCWA which was in vogue at the time of

death of the deceased employee and accordingly his request was turned down.

3712

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

9.

It is further submitted by the management that in year 2007 the applicant filed writ petition before the Hon’ble

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi vide WP(S) No. 5267 of 2007. After hearing the parties the Hon’ble High Court hold

that the petitioner is not entitled for employment under the provision of NCWA and dismissed writ petition vide order

dated 01.07.2010. Now the Hon’ble High Court already decided the issued and dismissed the writ petition of the

applicant therefore the present industrial dispute is not competent for adjudication as principle of res-judicata will

apply. In view of the matter the applicant is not entitled for employment.

10.

The short point to be decided in this reference is whether, the applicant who is the son of the deceased is

entitled to get job in place of the deceased.

11.

It is the case of the workman that his mother died in a accident, while in work in mines and the minor was

assured to be given job and a memorandum of settlement was arrived. The said MOS has been admitted in evidence.

The applicant applied for job on the basis of that MOS and that was regretted. The applicant approached High Court of

Ranchi numbered as WP(S) 5267 of 2007 which was held that the claim of job is not a matter of right and on the

ground of delay dismissed his claim. It has been mentioned on Hon’ble court’s order, the case is of compassionate

employment only.

12.

It is not a case of compassionate employment simpliciter. The applicant’s mother died in mines accident and

assurance was given to a minor though MOS to give him job after the boy attaining majority. His cas was

recommended and it was illegally regretted.

13.

Hon’ble Court has not considered the MOS, CGIT is competent to decide the reference referred to it. The case

which was decided by the Hon’ble Court under no circumstance, limit the jurisdiction of this Tribunal or restrict the

workman to raise ID. Moreover MOS was not the issue before the Hon’ble High Court.

14.

With great respect to the order’s of Hon’ble High Court, the humble view of the Tribunal is the rule of

resjudicata will not bar a fresh litigation and the workman is entitled to get employment as per MOS.

15.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the action of the management of Madhuban

Colliery under Barora Area of M/s. BCCL in denying employment to Shri Dharambir Beldar son of Late Dhanwa

Kamin in violation of agreement dt. 10.04.1992 is not fair and justified. Hence he is entitled to get employment within

30 days from the publication of the award.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1648-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds

çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 34@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-08-2016

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@40@2013&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1648.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 34 of 2013) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of M/s. ECL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 05.08.2016.

[No. L-20012/40/2013-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. 34/2013

Employer in relation to the management of Mugma Area, M/s. ECL

AND

Their workman

Present:- Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3713

Appearances :

For the Employers

:

Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

:

Shri Subhash Kr. Singh, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 19/07/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/40/2013-IR (CM-1) dated 22/08/2013, the Central Government in the Ministry of

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Mugma Area of M/s. ECL in denial to regularise Sri Atwari Kurmi

as Pit Clerk is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?”

2.

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 04.09.2013. After receipt of reference, both Parties are

noticed, the workman files their written statement on 29.01.2014. The management files their written statement-cum-

rejoinder on 22.05.2014. Workman himself examined as witness .

3.

The case of the workman is that the concerned workman Sri Atwari Kurmi , Timber Mazdoor of Khudia

Colliery under Mugma Area of M/s. ECL has been working as Pit Clerk Since last 10 years with due permission/order

of his controlling authority since 1992.

4.

It is also submitted by the workman that as per standing order of a permanent workman who has been

completed more than 6 months service in another permanent post of the company with due authorisation order of the

competent authority , then workman concerned is entitled to be regularised on the post in which they have been

completed more than six months continuously.

5.

On the other hand the case of the management is that the workman concerned was appointed as time rated

mazdoor. The workman concerned was never selected for the post of clerk according to the provision of cadre scheme ,

hence the demand made by the sponsoring union for regularisation of workman concerned as a clerk is neither

justified nor correct.

6.

It is further submitted by the management that the mandatory provision of the consititution the Govt. of india,

Ministry of Coal constituted joint Bipartite committee for coal Industry and said committee formulated cadre scheme

for the post of clerk.

7.

According to the aforesaid cadre scheme the post of clerk is a selection post and only a person who has been

selected for the post of clerk can be appointed as clerk and follow the presidential directives of reservation for SC/ST

and OBC.

8.

The workman who is working as Timber Mazdoor and getting scale of Cat-V as per his evidence claiming to

be regularised as Pit Clerk Grade III , on the ground that he is continously working as Pit Clerk III since last ten years

and his name was recommended for regularisation but the higher management has sat over the matter.

9.

The management submitted as regularisation does not come as per the cadre scheme, the workman is not

regularised and there is legal hurdles, and working continuously in a post is not a ground for regularisation.

10.

But as per the evidence of the workman it appears, that scale of Pit clerk Grade-III is lesser than Cat-V in

which post the workman is presently working .

11.

Therefore it is felt proper not to regularise the workman shri Atwari Kurmi as Pit Clerk-III or giving any

direction to the management to that effect, The claim of the workman is regretted.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1649-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

3714

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 205@1994) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-08-2016

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@42@1991&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1649.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 205 of 1994) as shown in 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 05.08.2016.

[No. L-20012/42/1991-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. 205/1994

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

AND

Their workman

Present:- Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

:

None

For the workman

:

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 15/07/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /42/1991-IR(C-1) dated 12/08/1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the claim of Shri Naroo Roy and 12 others ( as per the list annexed) for regularization of their

services with ful back wages from the year 1979 by the management of Mudidih Colliery of M/s. BCCL,

Dhanbad is justified? If not, what relief are the above said individuals entitled to?”

List of the Workman

1.

Shri Naroo Roy, S/o Jagat Ch. Roy, Vill- Sankra P.O. Ramharipur, Dist. Bankura.

2.

Shri Lalan Ram, S/o. Ramjhwar Ram Vill- Parsu Rampur, P.O. Palasi Dist. Gaye

3.

Shri Rajkumar Paswan, S/o Maheswar Paswan, Vill- Mahnajitpur P. O. Pakri Barawa dist. Nawade.

4.

Shri Kisun Yadav S/o- Ram Swarup Yadav , Vill- Mahnajitpur , P.O. Pakri Barawa, Dist. Nawada.

5.

Shri Dayachand Paswan S/o Solar Paswan, P. O. Parki Barawa,D ist. Nawada .

6.

Shri Balso Paswan, S/o-Jageshwar Paswan,Vill-Majara Jitpur, P.io-Parki Barawa, Distt-Nawada.

7.

Shri Moti Paswan, S/o- Chamari Paswan, Vill- Eastilujh, P. O. Ore Dist. Nawada.

8.

Shri Kishori Paswan, S/o Karu Paswan Vill- Mahnajitpur P.O. Pakri Barawa. Dist Nawada.

9.

Shri Khar Patu Kumar S/o Shyamdeo Kumhar, Vill- Madhotunda P.O. Roypur, dist Gazipur.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3715

10.

Shri Baldeo Paswan, S/o Bhajwar Das, Vill- 22/12 Tetulmari P.o. Sijua, Dist- Dhanbad.

11.

Shri Rajendra Paswan S/o Maheswar Paswan Vill- 22/12 Tetulmari P.O. Sijua, Dist. Dhanbad.

12.

Shri Atama Koley, S/o Krishna Mohan Koley, Vill- Mudidih Colliery P.O. Sijua, Dist. Dhanbad.

13.

Shri Samber Saran Pandey, S/o- Jaget Pandey, Vill- Mudidih Colliery P.O. Sijua, Dist. Dhanbad

2.

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

subsequently. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime.

Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1650-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 137@1994) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-08-2016

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@113@1993&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1650.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 137 of 1994) as shown in 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 05.08.2016.

[No. L-20012/113/1993-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. 137/1994

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

AND

Their workman

Present:- Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

:

None

For the workman

:

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 21/07/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /113/1993-IR(C-1) dated 30/05/1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Lohapatti colliery of M/s. BCCL P.O Ramanagargarh via Mohuda,

Dist. Dhanbad in denying to give employment to S/Shri Janaki Mahato and 181 others ( as per list annexed is

justified ? If not, what relief is the concerned workmen entitled?”

3716

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sl. No.

Name of the workman

Sl. No.

Name of the workman

1

Sh. Janki Mahato

39

Sh. Ram Sakal Singh

2

Sh. Jagnarayan Choubey

40

Sh. Narayan Mahato

3

Sh. Teju Mhato No. II

41

Sh. Tribhuban Singh

4

Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Panday

42

Sh. Tejbali Singh

5

Sh. Pradeep Mishra

43

Sh. Parasnath Singh

6

Sh. Bodha Mehara

44

Sh. Mahadev Banarjee,

7

Sh. Uchit Mehara

45

Sh. Asha Ram Singh

8

Sh. Nand Kishor Pandey

46

Sh. Madhav Ray,

9

Sh. Chotelal Biswkarma

47

Sh. Kamlakant Pathak

10

Sh SriArun Kumar Choubey

48

Sh. Gayan Prakash Singh

11

Sh. Manoj kumar Manjhi

49

Sh Nag Narayan Upadhyay,

12

Sh. Panchu Rawani

50

Sh. Muneshwar Thakur

13

Sh. Shailesh kumasr Mishir

51

Sh. Hari Shankar Singh

14

Sh Rama Shankar Singh

52

Sh. Bihari Jee Pandey

15

Sh. Bindhyachal Pandey

53

Sh. Jay Singh

16

Sh. Bhuneshwar Thakur

54

Sh. Iswar Pd. Mahato,

17

Sh . Om Prakash Singh

55

Sh. Parasuram Mahato

18

Sh. Shashi Bhusan Pathak

56

Sh. Binod Kumar Pathak

19

Sh Bikash Kumar Pandey

57

Sh. Ram Bhajan Yadav

20

Sh . Banarsi Singh

58

Sh. Baijnath Biswkarma

21

Sh. Prabhu Narayan Singh

59

Sh. Gokhul Mahato

22

Sh Arbind kumar Jha

60

Sh. Rejesh Kumar Choubey

23

Sh. Lalu Mahato

61

Sh. Anil Kr. Singh

24

Sh. Rabi Kumar Choubey

62

Sh. Rathu Nahato

25

Sh. Hali Mahato,

63

Sh. Yashwat Singh,

26

Sh. Nageshwar Pandey

64

Sh. Rabindra Nath Choubey,

27

Sh. Jagat Mahato

65

Sh. Rati Lal Mahato

28

Sh. Jagat Mahato,

66

Sh. Manik Chand Mahto

29

Sh. Satyendra Kumar,

67

Sh. Sanju Mahato

30

Sh. Anand Gorain,

68

Sh. Ram Singh

31

Sh. Gobardhan Mahato No. IX

69

Sh. Rameshar Pathak

32

Sh. Paramhansh Pandey

70

Sh. Brijraj Singh

33

Sh. Guna Mahato

71

Sh. Bhikhu Mahato

34

Sh. Rajesh Singh,

72

Sh. Tripurari Singh

35

Sh. Deo Narayna Dubey

73

Sh. Budhan Mahato

36

Sh. Bandhulal Singh

74

Sh. Deo Prakash Ojha

37

Sh. Chandra Kesh Singh,

75

Sh. Shyam Sundar Singh

38

Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra

76

Sh. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3717

Sl. No.

Name of the workman

Sl. No.

Name of the workman

77

Sh. Lakhi Ram Deshwali

115

Sh. Binod Kumar Singh

78

Sh. Jay Prakash Singh

116

Sh. Ajay Kumar Pandey,

79

Sh. Sanjay Kumar Choubey

117

Sh. Motilal Singh

80

Sh. Ashok Kumar,

118

Sh. Bidlyasagar Tiwary,

81

Sh. Sadhan Ray,

119

Sh. Rajendra Kumar Singh

82

Sh. Ganesh Pd., Singh,

120

Sh. Nandlal Singh,

83

Sh. Nandjee Choubey,

121

Sh. Achaibar Ojha

84

Sh. Magan Mahato II No.

122

Sh. Sarju Mahato no. II,

85

Sh. Kedar Nath Pathak

123

Sh. Ram Singh

86

Sh. Durga Mahato

124

Sh. Bijay Kumar Mahato

87

Sh. Gopal Mahato

125

Sh. Ram Milan singh

88

Sh. Bijay Narayan Pathak

126

Sh. Dharmendra Kumar Mishra

89

Sh. Jagdish Rawani

127

Sh. Guja Mahato,

90

Sh. Maahabir gorain,

128

Sh. Dharamdeo singh ,

91

Sh. Baban Choubey

129

Sh. Chota Hari Lal Mahto II

92

Sh. Shib Pd. Gope

130

Sh. Hareram Tripathi

93

Sh. Sudhir Kumar Pandey,

131

Sh. Pawan Chandra Nayak,

94

Sh. Jai Sankar,

132

Sh. Shree Kant Pandit

95

Sh. Ajay Kumar Mishra,

133

Sh. Subbasish Banarjee,

96

Sh. Surat Singh,

134

Sh. Kamal Deo Singh

97

Sh. Birendra Kumar Ojha,

135

Sh. Om Prakash Mishra,

98

Sh. Panch Dew Singh,

136

Sh. Wamdoo Singh,

99

Sh. Shiw Pukar Ojha

137

Sh. Amarnath Singh,

100

Sh. Teju Mahato

138

Sh. Shive Pd. Mahato,

101

Sh. Deepak Choubey

139

Sh. Deonaryayan Choubey

102

Sh. Dip Chand Singh

140

Sh. Chote Lal Mahato,

103

Shri Hanif Mia,

141

Sh. Kalpu,

104

Sh. Surendra Nath Choubey

142

Sh. Ramchandar Singh

105

Sh. Bijay Kumar Singh

143

Sh. Umashankar Ojha,

106

Sh. Mala Mia

144

Sh. Jokhan singh,

107

Sh. Sia Ram Tiwary

145

Sh. Dadan Kumar Choubey

108

Sh. Kishore Gopoe

146

Sh. Nagendra Pd. Singh ,

109

Sh. Omprakash Singh,

147

Sh. Hasina Mia,

110

Sh. Shive Pujan Kahanr,

148

Sh. Raaajeet Mahato,

111

Sh. Hira Lal,

149

Sh. Sambhunath Choubey,

112

Sh. Satya Narayan Prasad

150

Sh. Sunil Kumar Singh,

113

Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Singh

151

Bhim Raj Mishra,

114

Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh

152

Sh. Suresh Kumar Singh

3718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sl. No.

Name of the workman

Sl. No.

Name of the workman

153

Sh. Ajit Kumar Singh

168

Sh. Dairendra Kr. Upadhyay,

154

Sh. Sadhan Kumar Singh,

169

Shry Gopal Chandra Modak

155

Sh. Harendra Kumar Pathak,

170

Sh. Mangar Nayak,

156

Sh. Jiwan Singh,

171

Sh. Dunia ral singh

157

Sh. Mahadeo Mahato

172

Sh. , Om Prakesh Gupta

158

Sh. Shiw Sambhu Dubey,

173

Sh. Anil Kr. Singh

159

Sh. Rabindra Nath,

174

Sh. Bisesh Singh,

160

Sh. Huma Chandra Mahato,

175

Sh. Karuna Shankar Mishra

161

Sh. Kanhaiya Misir,

176

Sh. Jabaju Mahato No. II,

162

Sh. Subash Singh,

177

Sh. Yashwant Sing

163

Sh. Rajendra Pd. Pandey,

178

Sh. Dilip Kr. Mishra

164

Sh. Magan Mahato,

179

Sh. Manject Kr. Singh,

165

Sh. Ashok Singh,

180

Sh. Tarkeshwar Tiwary,

166

Sh. Pashuram Tiwary,

181

Sh. Ashok Kr. Choudhri

167

Sh. Muneshwar Yadav,

182

Sh. Gopaljee Pandey.

2.

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

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

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1651-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 154@1994) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-08-2016

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@203@1993&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1651.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 154 of 1994) as shown in 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 05.08.2016.

[No. L-20012/203/1993-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. 154/1994

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

AND

Their workman

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3719

Present:- Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

:

None

For the workman

:

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 18/07/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /203/1993-IR(C-1) dated 11/07/1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the employer, General Manager, Sudamdih Area of BCCL in denying Proper fixation

of excavation of Grade B to Shri Ram Jivan Mistry mech. Helper DOCP is justified or not? if not, what relief

should be granted?”

2.

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

subsequently. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime.

Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1652-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 207@1994) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-

08-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@147@1993&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1652.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 207 of 1994) as shown in 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 05.08.2016.

[No. L-20012/147/1993-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. 207/1994

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

AND

Their workman

Present:- Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

:

None

For the workman

:

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

3720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dated 14/07/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /147/1993-IR(C-1) dated 11/08/1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Baghidh Colliery of M/s BCCL in not regularizing the service of

workman Shri Chandradeep Mahato and 12 others ( as per the list attached )is justified. If not, what relief are

the concerned workmen entitled to?”

1. Chandradeep Mahto

2. Nageshwar Paswan

3. Kishory Ravidas

4. Naresh Paswan

5. Balchander Kurmi

6. Prabhu Paswan

7. Alakhdev Saw

8. Lakhan Paswan

9. Mateen Khan

10. Ramroop yadav

11. Kaleem Khan

12. Kamlesh paswan

13. Dilip Rout

2.

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

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

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1653-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhlh,y

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 135@1994) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-08-2016

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@123@1994&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1653.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 135 of 1994) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 05.08.2016.

[No. L-20012/123/1994-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. 135/1994

Employer in relation to the management of Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s. CCL

AND

Their workman

Present:- Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3721

Appearances :

For the Employers

:

None

For the workman

:

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 15.07.2016

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012 /123/1994-IR(C-1) dated 01.06.1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of management of Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. P.O. Bhurkunda

District Hazaribagh is justified in not paying wages and other benefits for the period from 15.06.1992 to

13.08.1993 to workman Shri Jagdish Sao, General mazdoor? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

2.

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

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

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1654-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhlh,y

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 272 vkWiQ 1994) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-08-

2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@348@1993&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1654.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 272 of 1994) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 05.08.2016.

[No. L-20012/348/1993-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

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

Ref. No. 272/1994

Employer in relation to the management of M/s. CCL, HQ

AND

Their workman

Present:- Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

:

None

For the workman

:

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

3722

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dated 13.07.2016

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012 /348/1993-IR(C-1) dated 09.12.1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the workmen employed at M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. Headquarter at Ranchi are entitled for

holidays as declared under N.I. Act by the Government of India on 14/04/1992? If not, to what relief the

workmen are entitled?”

2.

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

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

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1655-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 72 vkWiQ 2006) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

05-08-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@27@2006&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1655.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 72 of 2006) as shown in 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 05.08.2016.

[No. L-20012/27/2006-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

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

Ref. No. 72/2006

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

AND

Their workman

Present:- Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

:

Shri S.N. Ghosh, Advocate

For the workman

:

Shri D. Mukherjee, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 20.07.2016

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/27/2006-IR (C-1)) dated 28.09.2006, the Central Government in the Ministry of

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

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3723

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL, in not giving employment to

Shri Santosh Kumar, S/o Late Pradeep M.G under NCWA is justified? If not, to what relief is Sri Santosh

Kumar entitled?”

2.

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

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

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

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1656-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fefuLVªh

vkWiQ dE;qfuds'ku ,aM vnlZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ ,ylh, la- 4@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1656.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. LCA No. 4/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of the Ministry of Communication and others and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 04.08.2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.

LCA No. 4/2014

Registered on 28.10.2014

Smt. Guddan wife of Late Sh. Kamal Resident of

House No. Para Mohalla near Balmiki Mandir,

Rohtak, District Rohtak

…Petitioner

Versus

1.

Through its Secretary Ministry of Communication,

Government of India, New Delhi.

2.

The Chief Post Master General Haryana Circle, Ambala.

3.

The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,

Rohtak Division, Rohtak

…Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

:

Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.

For the Management

:

Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on:-15.06.2016

Smt. Guddan has filed this application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

called the ‘Act’), claiming bonus on the averments, that she was appointed as Sweeper on 14.06.1997 and was

3724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

governed by the EDA Conduct Rules and now by the Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011. That

she is entitled to bonus from the very beginning as per letter dated 16.03.1994 which read as follow:-

“23-DA/Bonus/other claims to ED Agents to be made without delay-Instances have come to the notice that

Payment of DA/Bonus and other claims to ED Agents are not being made promptly and quite often being

delayed considerably. This has been viewed seriously by the Directorate. I am therefore directed to request

you to issue necessary instructions to all concerned in future and when orders for DA/Bonus etc are issued by

the Directorate, the payment are made promptly to ED Agents.

2. Chairman Postal Service Board has also decided that special watch may be kept on the payment being made

to ED Agents and Head of Circles should ensure that there is no delay on this score.

3. To ensure that payments are not delayed in the circles, all heads of circles etc are requested to furnish a note

in this regard in their monthly reports for atleast six months following the month of issued of orders for

Payment of Bonus/DA etc confirming that the needful has been done in their circles vide A-2.”

That she performed the duty from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m. but was treated as part time worker. That she is entitled to

get benefit of bonus which the respondent-management did not pay.

The respondent-management filed written reply, pleading that the workman was engaged as part time

Sweeper. That the workman being working as part time Sweeper, is not covered under the rules and she is not entitled

to get any bonus.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence but both the parties closed their respective evidence.

I have heard Sh. R.P. Mehra for the workman and Sh. Sanjeev Sharma for the management.

It was argued by Sh. R.P. Mehra, learned counsel for the workman that the workman used to work from 5 p.m.

to 9 a.m. and was a full time worker and was entitled to get bonus from the date of his appointment i.e. 14.06.1997.

The workman was required to lead cogent evidence to prove that she was appointed as Sweeper by the

respondent-management which she failed. It is the definite case of management that workman was engaged as Part

Time Sweeper which is not rebutted. Therefore, workman is held to be working as Part time Sweeper. Part time

Sweepers are not covered under the Posts and Telegraphs Extra-Departmental Agents(Conduct and Service)Rules,

1964 or under the Gramin Dak Sevaks(Conduct and Engagement)Rules, 2011 and therefore, the workman is not

entitled to claim any bonus being worked as a part time worker.

Let hard and soft copy of the order be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action as required

under Section 33(c)(4) of the Act.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1657-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lkse

,aVjizkbt fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 336@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-

08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@153@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1657.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 336/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of the M/s. Soma Enterprise Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 04.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/153/2013-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3725

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. No. 336/2013

Registered on 25.02.2014

Sh. Baldev Singh Kallar, S/o Sh. Ishwar Singh Kallar,

R/o H.No.464, Near Uccha Khoo, VPO Bija,

Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana.

…Petitioner

Versus

1.

M/s. Soma Enterprise Ltd., Village Kot Panaich,

Opp. Gurudwara Manji Sahib, Post Office Varmalipur,

Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana, through its

Project Manager (Contractor of Central Govt.).

2.

M/s. Soma Enterprise Ltd., Corp. Office at 14,

Avenue-4, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad -500034,

A.P., India, through its Managing Director.

(Contractor of Central Govt.).

…Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

:

Workman ex parte

For the Management

:

Sh. Arun Batra, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on:-24.05.2016

Vide Order No.L-42012/153/2013-IR(DU), dated 10.02.2014 the Central Government in exercise of the

powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(in short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.

“Whether action of termination of service of Sh. Baldev Singh Kallar w.e.f. 29.10.2012 by the management of

M/s. Soma Enterprises Ltd., is legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from

which date?”

In response to the notice, the workman submitted statement of claim, pleading that he was appointed vide

letter dated 12.11.2009 as Coordinator(Electrical and Maintenance); though, he performed only technical duties. His

last drawn salary was Rs.34,900.

That respondent No.1 terminated his services vide order dated 29.10.2012, by giving only 7 days notice and

the termination of his services is illegal as he was not paid any retrenchment compensation and the persons junior to

him, were retained in service. That no charge-sheet was served on him. His termination being illegal, he be reinstated in

service.

The management filed written reply admitting that the workman was employed as Coordinator and he was

required to possess high quality skills of management, persuasion, communication and leadership and his role was that

of supervisor and manager. Being so, he is not a ‘workman’ as defined under the Act and his salary was more than

Rs.30,000 per month. He was appointed only on temporary basis and was given 7 days notice for the termination of his

service. He received Rs.38,694 as full and final settlement and executed a receipt. He cannot agitate the matter now and

his termination is legal and valid.

None appeared on behalf of the workman on 9.9.2015 and the workman was proceeded against ex parte.

I have heard Sh. Arun Batra for the management.

It is not disputed that the workman was given temporary employment as Coordinator as is evident from

Annexure R1 containing a clause that his services would be terminated without assigning any reason.

He was served with a notice dated 29.10.2012(Annexure R2) for termination of his service. He executed a

receipt (Annexure R3) that he received Rs.38,694 as full and final settlement and further undertaking not to raise any

dispute in any Court. Thus, as per documents available on file, the services of the workman were legally terminated.

3726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

It may also be added that the workman was appointed as Coordinator and he was performing duty as Manager

and Supervisor and his salary was more than Rs.30,000 per month and being so, he cannot be termed as ‘workman’ as

defined under the Act to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.

The workman has not lead any evidence to rebut the averments made by the management and he himself did

not appear in the witness-box in support of his case. Therefore, the averments made by the management supported by

documents are taken to be as correct.

Being so, the termination of the services of the workman cannot be termed as illegal and invalid.

In result, the workman is not entitled to any relief and the reference is decided against the workman.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1658-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phiQ iksLV

ekLVj tujy gfj;k.kk l£dy ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ vkbZMh ,ylh, la- 289@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1658.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. LCA No. 289/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Chief Post Master General Haryana Circle and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 04.08.2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

LCA No. 289/2013

Registered on 14.05.2013

Sh. Sita Ram S/o Sh. Mam Raj, H.No.2161/20,

Rajiv Nagar, Near Ekta Colony, Rohtak

…Petitioner

Versus

1.

The Chief Post Master General Haryana Circle, Ambala.

2.

The Superintendent of Post Offices Rohtak, Division Rohtak.

3.

The Senior Post Master Head Post Office, Rohtak.

…Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

:

Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.

For the Management

:

Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on:-27.06.2016

Sh. Sita Ram has filed this application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter

called the ‘Act’), claiming bonus on the averments, that he was appointed as Mali on 21.06.1985 and was governed by

the EDA Conduct Rules and now by the Gramin Dak Sewak(Conduct and Engagement)Rules 2011. That he is entitled

to bonus from the very beginning as per letter dated 16.03.1994 which read as follow:-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3727

“23-DA/Bonus/other claims to ED Agents to be made without delay-Instances have come to the notice that

Payment of DA/Bonus and other claims to ED Agents are not being made promptly and quite often being

delayed considerably. This has been viewed seriously by the directorate. I am therefore directed to request you

to issue necessary instructions to all concerned in future and when orders for DA/Bonus etc are issued by the

Directorate, the payment are made promptly to ED Agents.

2. Chairman Postal Service Board has also decided that special watch may be kept on the payment being made

to ED Agents and Head of Circles should ensure that there is no delay on this score.”

3. To ensure that payments are not delayed in the circles, al heads of circles etc are requested to furnish a note

in this regard in their monthly reports for atleast six months following the month of issued of orders for

Payment of Bonus/DA etc confirming that the needful has been done in their circles vide A-2.”

That he continued to perform duty for six hours but was treated as part time worker. That he is entitled to get

benefit of bonus which the respondent-management did not pay.

The respondent-management filed written reply, pleading that the workman was engaged as part time Mali

vide memo dated 06.02.2012(Annexure R1). That the workman has resigned on 10.01.2013. That the workman being

working as part time Mali, is not covered under the rules and he is not entitled to get any bonus.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

The workman has appeared in the witness-box and filed his affidavit supporting his case as set out in the claim

petition.

On the other hand, counsel for the management did not examine any witness.

I have heard Sh. R.P. Mehra for the workman and Sh. Sanjeev Sharma for the management.

It was argued by Sh. R.P. Mehra, learned counsel for the workman that the workman used to work for six

hours and was a full time worker and was entitled to get bonus from the date of his appointment i.e. 21.06.1985.

The workman was required to lead cogent evidence to prove that he was appointed as Mali by the respondent-

management which he failed. Rather, he admits during cross-examination that he was appointed as part time Mali and

part time Malis are not covered under the Posts and Telegraphs Extra-Departmental Agents(Conduct and

Service)Rules, 1964 or under the Gramin Dak Sevaks(Conduct and Engagement)Rules, 2011 and therefore, the

workman is not entitled to claim any bonus being worked as a part time worker.

Let hard and soft copy of the order be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action as required

under Section 33(c)(4) of the Act.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1659-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phiQ iksLV

ekLVj tujy gfj;k.kk l£dy ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ vkbZMh ,ylh, la- 290@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1659.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. LCA No. 290/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Chief Post Master General Haryana Circle and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 04.08.2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

3728

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

LCA No. 290/2013

Registered on 14.05.2013

Sh. Bijender Singh S/o Sh. Rattan Singh Chowkidar,

R/o V&PO Dhighal, Tehsil Beri, District Jhajjar.

…Petitioner

Versus

1.

The Chief Post Master General Haryana Circle, Ambala.

2.

The Superintendent of Post Offices Rohtak, Division Rohtak.

3.

The Senior Post Master Head Post Office, Rohtak.

…Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

:

Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.

For the Management

:

Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on : 27.06.2016

Sh. Bijender Singh, has filed this application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947(hereinafter called the ‘Act’), on the averments, that he was appointed as Chowkidar on 13.01.1990 and is

governed by the service rules applicable to Extra Departmental Agents and now designated as Gramin Dak Sewaks,

that Chowkidars fall in the category of EDA/GDS and he is entitled to bonus from the very beginning as per letter

No.26-1/93 PAP dated 16th March, 1994 which read as follow:-

“23-DA/Bonus/other claims to ED Agents to be made without delay-Instances have come to the notice that

Payment of DA/Bonus and other claims to ED Agents are not being made promptly and quite often being

delayed considerably. This has been viewed seriously by the directorate. I am therefore directed to request you

to issue necessary instructions to all concerned in future and when orders for DA/Bonus etc are issued by the

Directorate, the payment are made promptly to ED Agents.

2. Chairman Postal Service Board has also decided that special watch may be kept on the payment being made

to ED Agents and Head of Circles should ensure that there is no delay on this score.”

3. to ensure that payments are not delayed in the circles, al heads of circles etc are requested to furnish a note

in this regard in their monthly reports for atleast six months following the month of issued of orders for

Payment of Bonus/DA etc confirming that the needful has been done in their circles vide A-2.”

That the workman has been performing the duty from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m. but was treated as part time and he is

entitled to get benefit of bonus from the date of his appointment.

The respondent-management admitted that the workman was working as part time Chowkidar. He was

conferred temporary status of casual labourers vide memo dated 28.3.2013(Annexure R1) in pursuance of the order of

the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 14.09.2012. Since the workman was engaged as part time Chowkidar, he did

not fall within the category of Extra Departmental Agent/Gramin Dak Sewak as defined under the Gramin Dak

Sevaks(Conduct and Engagement)Rules 2011 and he is not entitled to get any bonus being a part time casual labour.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

Sh. Bijender Singh workman has appeared in the witness-box and filed his affidavit supporting his case as set

out in the claim petition.

On the other hand, counsel for the management did not lead any evidence.

I have heard Sh. R.P. Mehra for the workman and Sh. Sanjeev Sharma for the management.

Sh. R.P. Mehra, learned counsel for the workman carried me through the letter dated 16.8.1991 and submitted

that Extra Departmental Agents are entitled to bonus and further carried me through the letter dated 07.10.2015 issued

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3729

by the Government of India, providing for productivity linked bonus and submitted that the workman is a ‘Gramin Dak

Sevak’ and therefore he is entitled to bonus.

Opposing this contention the learned counsel for the respondent-management has argued that there is no post

of Chowkidar in the Department who do not fall within the definition of ‘Gramin Dak Sevak’ and as such, the

workman is not entitled to any ‘Bonus’.

I have considered the respective contentions.

‘Gramin Dak Sevak’ has been defined in Section 3(d) of the ‘Gramin Dak Sewaks’(Conduct and

Engagement)Rules 2011 and it reads as follow:-

(d) “Gramin Dak Sevak” means-

(i)

A Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster;

(ii)

A Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer;

(iii)

A Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Carrier;

(iv)

A Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Packer;

(v)

A Gramin Dak Sevak Stamp Vendor.

Chowkidar is not covered in the said definition and therefore the workman cannot claim himself to be a

‘Gramin Dak Sevak’. Faced with this situation Sh. R.P. Mehra has drawn my attention towards Extra Departmental

Agents(Conduct and Service)Rules 1964 wherein the extra departmental Chowkidar is defined as a ‘Extra

Departmental Agent’. It is not disputed that conduct and service rules are being amended from time to time and now

‘Gramin Dak Sevaks’(Conduct and Engagement)Rules 2011 are in force which do not have the post of Chowkidar.

Even if it is taken that ‘Conduct Rules of 1964’ are applicable, the workman himself admitted during cross-examination

that he was appointed as part time Chowkidar on 13.01.1990 who is not covered under the said rules. Therefore, the

workman cannot claim bonus from 13.01.1990 onwards.

However it is the case of the respondent-management that workman was conferred temporary status of

‘Casual Labourer’ vide memo dated 28.03.2013 in pursuance of the orders of the Court dated 14.09.2012.

The Government of India issued letter F.No. 26-01/2015-PAP dated 07.10.2015 and the opening para of the

said letter read as follow:-

“The undersigned is directed to convey the sanction of the President of India to the payment of Productivity

Linked Bonus for the accounting year 2014-15 equivalent or emoluments of 60(sixty) Days to the employees

of Department of Posts in Group ‘D’/MTS, Group ‘C’ and non-gazetted Group ‘B’. Ex-Gratia payment of

bonus to Gramin Dak Sevaks who are regularly appointed after observing all appointment formalities, and Ad-

hoc payment of bonus to Casual Labourers who have been conferred Temporary Status are also to be paid

equivalent to allowances/wages respectively for 60(sixty) Days for the same period.”

Thus the Government itself has sanctioned payment of productivity linked bonus for the accounting year

2014-15 to several employees including ad-hoc payment of bonus to casual labourers who have been conferred

temporary status for 60 days. The workman has been conferred temporary status of casual labourer vide order dated

28.03.2013(Annexure R1)and therefore the workman is entitled to get ‘Bonus’ for the year 2014-15 as per the

following formula given in the said letter.

(Notional monthly wages of Rs.1200) X Number of days of Bonus

30.4 (Average No. of days in a month)

Thus, the workman is entitled to recover

days which comes to about Rs. 2,368 which are round off

as Rs. 2,370/- and as such the workman is entitled to get a bonus of Rs. 2,370 for the year 2014-15.

The respondent-management has neither pleaded nor proved how the workman is not entitled to bonus as per

above said letter.

Since the workman was working as part time workman prior to the conferring of temporary status of casual

labourer vide order dated 28.03.2013 and therefore he is not entitled to any bonus prior to that date. Again no letter has

been placed on file to show that the Government has given any bonus for the year 2015-16. Thus the workman is

entitled to only Rs.2,370 as bonus for the accounting year 2014-15.

3730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In result, the application is partly accepted and the workman is held entitled to Rs.2,370 as bonus which he is

entitled to recover from the respondent-management who shall pay the same within 3 months from today failing which

the workman shall be entitled to recover interest on the said amount @ 6% per annum from today till the realization.

Let hard and soft copy of the order be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action as required

under Section 33(c)(4) of the Act.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1660-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phiQ iksLV

ekLVj tujy gfj;k.kk l£dy ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ vkbZMh ,ylh, la- 293@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1660.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. LCA No. 293/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Chief Post Master General Haryana Circle and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 04.08.2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

LCA No. 293/2013

Registered on 14.05.2013

Sh. Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Roora Ram, Chowkidar, Sub-Post Office,

Pehowa, District kurukshetra, R/o V&PO Sarsa via Dhand, Kurukshetra

…Petitioner

Versus

1.

The Chief Post Master General Haryana Circle, Ambala.

2.

The Superintendent of Post Offices Kurukshetra Division Kurukshetra.

3.

The Post Master Head Post Office, Kurukshetra.

…Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

:

Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.

For the Management

:

Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on : 15.06.2016

Sh. Raj Kumar has filed this application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947(hereinafter called the ‘Act’), claiming bonus on the averments, that he was appointed as Chowkidar on

24.12.1985 and was governed by the EDA Conduct Rules and now by the Gramin Dak Sewak(Conduct and

Engagement)Rules 2011. That he is entitled to bonus from the very beginning as per letter dated 16.03.1994 which read

as follow:-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3731

“23-DA/Bonus/other claims to ED Agents to be made without delay-Instances have come to the notice that

Payment of DA/Bonus and other claims to ED Agents are not being made promptly and quite often being

delayed considerably. This has been viewed seriously by the directorate. I am therefore directed to request you

to issue necessary instructions to all concerned in future and when orders for DA/Bonus etc are issued by the

Directorate, the payment are made promptly to ED Agents.

2. Chairman Postal Service Board has also decided that special watch may be kept on the payment being made

to ED Agents and Head of Circles should ensure that there is no delay on this score.”

3. To ensure that payments are not delayed in the circles, al heads of circles etc are requested to furnish a note

in this regard in their monthly reports for atleast six months following the month of issued of orders for

Payment of Bonus/DA etc confirming that the needful has been done in their circles vide A-2.”

That he performed the duty from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m. but was treated as part time worker. That he is entitled to

get benefit of bonus which the respondent-management did not pay.

The respondent-management filed written reply, pleading that the workman was engaged as part time

Chowkidar vide memo dated 24.12.1985(Annexure R1). That the workman worked continuously and his services were

terminated on 31.01.1992. That the workman being working as part time Chowkidar, is not covered under the rules and

he is not entitled to get any bonus.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

The workman has appeared in the witness-box and filed his affidavit supporting his case as set out in the claim

petition.

On the other hand, counsel for the management did not examine any witness.

I have heard Sh. R.P. Mehra for the workman and Sh. Sanjeev Sharma for the management.

It was argued by Sh. R.P. Mehra, learned counsel for the workman that the workman used to work from 5 p.m.

to 9 a.m. and was a full time worker and was entitled to get bonus from the date of his appointment i.e. 24.12.1985.

The workman was required to lead cogent evidence to prove that he was appointed as Chowkidar by the

respondent-management which he failed. Rather the letter dated 24.12.1985(Annexure R1), placed on the file by the

department shows that he was appointed as part time Chowkidar and part time Chowkidars are not covered under the

posts and Telegraphs Extra-Departmental Agents(Conduct and Service)Rules, 1964 or under the Gramin Dak

Sevaks(Conduct and Engagement)Rules, 2011 and therefore, the workman is not entitled to claim any bonus being

worked as a part time worker.

Let hard and soft copy of the order be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action as required

under Section 33(c)(4) of the Act.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1661-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phiQ iksLV

ekLVj tujy gfj;k.kk l£dy ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ vkbZMh ,ylh, la- 294@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1661.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. LCA No. 294/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Chief Post Master General Haryana Circle and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 04.08.2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

3732

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

LCA No. 294/2013

Registered on 14.05.2013

Sh. Prem Chand S/o Sh. Hawa Singh, Chowkidar, Sub-Post Office Jhajjar,

House No. 425, Ward No. 17 near jawahar Bagh near PWD Rest house Jhajjar

…Petitioner

Versus

1.

The Chief Post Master General Haryana Circle, Ambala.

2.

The Superintendent of Post Offices Rohtak, Division Rohtak.

3.

The Senior Post Master Head Post Office, Rohtak.

…Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

:

Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.

For the Management

:

Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on : 27.06.2016

Sh. Prem Chand, has filed this application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947(hereinafter called the ‘Act’), on the averments, that he was appointed as Chowkidar on 01.01.1992 and is

governed by the service rules applicable to Extra Departmental Agent and now designated as Gramin Dak Sewak. That

Chowkidars fall in the category of EDA/GDS and he is entitled to bonus from the very beginning as per letter

No.26-1/93 PAP dated 16th March, 1994 which read as follow:-

“23-DA/Bonus/other claims to ED Agents to be made without delay-Instances have come to the notice that

Payment of DA/Bonus and other claims to ED Agents are not being made promptly and quite often being

delayed considerably. This has been viewed seriously by the directorate. I am therefore directed to request you

to issue necessary instructions to all concerned in future and when orders for DA/Bonus etc are issued by the

Directorate, the payment are made promptly to ED Agents.

2. Chairman Postal Service Board has also decided that special watch may be kept on the payment being made

to ED Agents and Head of Circles should ensure that there is no delay on this score.”

3. To ensure that payments are not delayed in the circles, al heads of circles etc are requested to furnish a note

in this regard in their monthly reports for atleast six months following the month of issued of orders for

Payment of Bonus/DA etc confirming that the needful has been done in their circles vide A-2.”

That the workman has been performing the duty from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m. but was treated as part time and he is

entitled to get benefit of bonus from the date of his appointment.

The respondent-management admitted that the workman was working as part time Chowkidar. He was

conferred temporary status of casual labourers vide memo dated 28.3.2013(Annexure R1) in pursuance of the order of

the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 14.9.2012. Since the workman was engaged as part time Chowkidar, he do

not fall within the category of Extra Departmental Agent/Gramin Dak Sewak as defined under the Gramin Dak Sevaks

(Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011 and he is not entitled to get any bonus being a part time casual labour.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

Sh. Prem Chand workman has appeared in the witness-box and filed his affidavit supporting his case as set out

in the claim petition.

On the other hand, counsel for the management did not lead any evidence.

I have heard Sh. R.P. Mehra for the workman and Sh. Sanjeev Sharma for the management.

Sh. R.P. Mehra, learned counsel for the workman carried me through the letter dated 16.8.1991 and submitted

that Extra Departmental Agents are entitled to bonus and further carried me through the letter dated 7.10.2015 issued

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3733

by the Government of India, providing for productivity linked bonus and submitted that the workman is a ‘Gramin Dak

Sevak’ and therefore he is entitled to bonus.

Opposing this contention the learned counsel for the respondent-management has argued that there is no post

of Chowkidar in the Department who do not fall within the definition of ‘Gramin Dak Sevak’ and as such, the

workman is not entitled to any ‘Bonus’.

I have considered the respective contentions.

‘Gramin Dak Sevak’ has been defined in Section 3(d) of the ‘Gramin Dak Sewak’(Conduct and

Engagement)Rules 2011 and it reads as follow:-

(d) “Gramin Dak Sevak” means-

(i)

A Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster;

(ii)

A Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer;

(iii)

A Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Carrier;

(iv)

A Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Packer;

(v)

A Gramin Dak Sevak Stamp Vendor.

Chowkidar is not covered in the said definition and therefore the workman cannot claim himself to be a

‘Gramin Dak Sevak’. Faced with this situation Sh. R.P. Mehra has drawn my attention towards Extra Departmental

Agents(Conduct and Service)Rules 1964 wherein the extra departmental Chowkidar is defined as a ‘Extra

Departmental Agent’. It is not disputed that conduct and service rules are being amended from time to time and now

‘Gramin Dak Sevaks’(Conduct and Engagement)Rules 2011 are in force which do not have the post of Chowkidar.

Even if it is taken that ‘Conduct Rules of 1964’ are applicable, the workman himself admitted during cross-examination

that he was appointed as part time Chowkidar on 01.01.1992 which is not covered under the said rules. Therefore, the

workman cannot claim bonus from 01.01.1992 onwards.

However it is the case of the respondent-management that workman was conferred temporary status of

‘Casual Labourer’ vide memo dated 28.03.2013 in pursuance of the orders of the Court dated 14.09.2012.

The Government of India issued letter F.No.26-01/2015-PAP dated 07.10.2015 and the opening para of the

said letter read as follow:-

“The undersigned is directed to convey the sanction of the President of India to the payment of Productivity

Linked Bonus for the accounting year 2014-15 equivalent or emoluments of 60(sixty) Days to the employees of

Department of Posts in Group ‘D’/MTS, Group ‘C’ and non-gazetted Group ‘B’. Ex-Gratia payment of bonus to

Gramin Dak Sevaks who are regularly appointed after observing all appointment formalities, and Ad-hoc payment

of bonus to Casual Labourers who have been conferred Temporary Status are also to be paid equivalent to

allowances/wages respectively for 60(sixty) Days for the same period.”

Thus the Government itself has sanctioned payment of productivity linked bonus for the accounting year

2014-15 to several employees including ad-hoc payment of bonus to casual labourers who have been conferred

temporary status for 60 days. The workman has been conferred temporary status of casual labourer vide order dated

28.03.2013(Annexure R1) and therefore the workman is entitled to get ‘Bonus’ for the year 2014-15 as per the

following formula given in the said letter.

(Notional monthly wages of Rs.1200) X Number of days of Bonus

30.4 (Average No. of days in a month)

Thus, the workman is entitled to recover

days which comes to about Rs. 2,368/- which are round

off as Rs. 2,370/- and as such the workman is entitled to get a bonus of Rs. 2,370/- for the year 2014-15.

The respondent-management has neither pleaded nor proved why the workman is not entitled to bonus as per

above said letter.

Since the workman was working as part time workman prior to the conferring of temporary status of casual

labourers vide order dated 28.03.2013 and therefore he is not entitled to any bonus prior to that date. Again no letter has

been placed on file to show that the Government has given any bonus for the year 2015-16. Thus the workman is

entitled to only Rs.2,370/- as bonus for the accounting year 2014-15.

3734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In result, the application is partly accepted and the workman is entitled to Rs.2,370/- as bonus which he is

entitled to recover from the respondent-management who shall pay the same within 3 months from today failing which

the workman shall be entitled to recover interest on the said amount @ 6% per annum from today till the realization.

Let hard and soft copy of the order be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action as required

under Section 33(c)(4) of the Act.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1662-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phiQ iksLV

ekLVj tujy gfj;k.kk l£dy ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ vkbZMh ,ylh, la- 295@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1662.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. LCA No. 295/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Chief Post Master General Haryana Circle and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 04.08.2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

LCA No. 295/2013

Registered on 14.05.2013

Sh. Dalbir Singh S/o Sh. Manphool Singh, Chowkidar,

Sub-Post Office Dhakla, District Jhajjar

…Petitioner

Versus

1.

The Chief Post Master General Haryana Circle, Ambala.

2.

The Superintendent of Post Offices Rohtak, Division Rohtak.

3.

The Senior Post Master Head Post Office, Rohtak.

…Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

:

Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.

For the Management

:

Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on : 27.06.2016

Sh. Dalbir Singh, has filed this application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947(hereinafter called the ‘Act’), on the averments, that he was appointed as Chowkidar on 06.05.1982 and is

governed by the service rules applicable to Extra Departmental Agent and now designated as Gramin Dak Sewak. That

Chowkidars fall in the category of EDA/GDS and he is entitled to bonus from the very beginning as per letter No.26-

1/93 PAP dated 16th March 1994 which read as follow:-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3735

“23-DA/Bonus/other claims to ED Agents to be made without delay-Instances have come to the notice that

Payment of DA/Bonus and other claims to ED Agents are not being made promptly and quite often being

delayed considerably. This has been viewed seriously by the directorate. I am therefore directed to request you

to issue necessary instructions to all concerned in future and when orders for DA/Bonus etc are issued by the

Directorate, the payment are made promptly to ED Agents.

2. Chairman Postal Service Board has also decided that special watch may be kept on the payment being made

to ED Agents and Head of Circles should ensure that there is no delay on this score.”

3. to ensure that payments are not delayed in the circles, al heads of circles etc are requested to furnish a note

in this regard in their monthly reports for atleast six months following the month of issued of orders for

Payment of Bonus/DA etc confirming that the needful has been done in their circles vide A-2.”

That the workman has been performing the duty from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m. but was treated as part time and he is

entitled to get benefit of bonus from the date of his appointment.

The respondent-management admitted that the workman was working as part time Chowkidar. He was

conferred temporary status of casual labourers vide memo dated 22.3.2013(Annexure R2) in pursuance of the order of

the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 14.9.2012. Since the workman was engaged as part time Chowkidar, he do

not fall within the category of Extra Departmental Agent/Gramin Dak Sevak as defined under the Gramin Dak

Sevak(Conduct and Engagement)Rules 2011 and he is not entitled to get any bonus being a part time casual labour.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

Sh. Dalbir Singh workman was appeared in the witness-box and filed his affidavit supporting his case as set

out in the claim petition.

On the other hand, counsel for the management did not lead any evidence.

I have heard Sh. R.P. Mehra for the workman and Sh. Sanjeev Sharma for the management.

Sh. R.P. Mehra, learned counsel for the workman carried me through the letter dated 16.8.1991 and submitted

that Extra Departmental Agents are entitled to bonus and further carried me through the letter dated 7.10.2015 issued

by the Government of India, providing for productivity linked bonus and submitted that the workman is a ‘Gramin Dak

Sevak’ and therefore he is entitled to bonus.

Opposing this contention the learned counsel for the respondent-management has argued that there is no post

of Chowkidar in the Department who do not fall within the definition of ‘Gramin Dak Sevak’ and as such, the

workman is not entitled to any ‘Bonus’.

I have considered the respective contentions.

‘Gramin Dak Sevak’ has been defined in Section 3(d) of the ‘Gramin Dak Sewak’(Conduct and

Engagement)Rules 2011 and it reads as follow:-

(d) “Gramin Dak Sevak” means-

(i)

A Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster;

(ii)

A Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer;

(iii)

A Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Carrier;

(iv)

A Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Packer;

(v)

A Gramin Dak Sevak Stamp Vendor.

Chowkidar is not covered in the said definition and therefore the workman cannot claim himself to be a

‘Gramin Dak Sevak’. Faced with this situation, Sh. R.P. Mehra has drawn my attention towards Extra Departmental

Agents(Conduct and Service)Rules 1964 wherein the extra departmental Chowkidar is defined as a ‘Extra

Departmental Agent’. It is not disputed that conduct and service rules are being amended from time to time and now

‘Gramin Dak Sevaks’(Conduct and Engagement)Rules 2011 are in force which do not have the post of Chowkidar.

Even if it is taken that ‘Conduct Rules of 1964’ are applicable, the workman himself admitted during cross-examination

that he was appointed as part time Chowkidar on 06.05.1982 which is not covered under the said rules. Therefore, the

workman cannot claim bonus from 06.05.1982 onwards.

However it is the case of the respondent-management that workman was conferred temporary status of

‘Casual Labourer’ vide memo dated 22.03.2013 in pursuance of the orders of the Court dated 14.09.2012.

The Government of India issued letter F.No.26-01/2015-PAP dated 07.10.2015 and the opening para of the

said letter read as follow:-

3736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“The undersigned is directed to convey the sanction of the President of India to the payment of Productivity

Linked Bonus for the accounting year 2014-15 equivalent or emoluments of 60(sixty) Days to the employees

of Department of Posts in Group ‘D’/MTS, Group ‘C’ and non-gazetted Group ‘B’. Ex-Gratia payment of

bonus to Gramin Dak Sevaks who are regularly appointed after observing all appointment formalities, and Ad-

hoc payment of bonus to Casual Labourers who have been conferred Temporary Status are also to be paid

equivalent to allowances/wages respectively for 60(sixty) Days for the same period.”

Thus the Government itself has sanctioned payment of productivity linked bonus for the accounting year

2014-15 to several employees including ad-hoc payment of bonus to casual labourers who have been conferred

temporary status for 60 days. The workman has been conferred temporary status of casual labourer vide order dated

22.03.2013(Annexure R2) and therefore the workman is entitled to get ‘Bonus’ for the year 2014-15 as per the

following formula given in the said letter.

(Notional monthly wages of Rs.1200) X Number of days of Bonus

30.4 (Average No. of days in a month)

Thus, the workman is entitled to recover

days which comes to about Rs. 2,368/- which are round

off as Rs. 2,370/- and as such the workman is entitled to get a bonus of Rs. 2,370/- for the year 2014-15.

The respondent-management has neither pleaded and nor proved why the workman is not entitled to bonus as

per above said letter.

Since the workman was working as part time workman prior to the conferring of temporary status of casual

labourers vide order dated 22.03.2013 and therefore he is not entitled to any bonus prior to that date. Again no letter has

been placed on file to show that the Government has given any bonus for the year 2015-16. Thus the workman is

entitled to only Rs.2,370/- as bonus for the accounting year 2014-15.

In result, the application is partly accepted and the workman is held entitled to Rs.2,370/- as bonus and is

entitled to recover from the respondent-management who shall pay the same within 3 months from today failing which

the workman shall be entitled to recover interest on the said amount @ 6% per annum from today till the realization.

Let hard and soft copy of the order be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action as required

under Section 33(c)(4) of the Act.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1663-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phiQ iksLV

ekLVj tujy gfj;k.kk l£dy ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ vkbZMh ,ylh, la- 298@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1663.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. LCA No. 298/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Chief Post Master General Haryana Circle and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 04.08.2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3737

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

LCA No. 298/2013

Registered on 25.09.2013

Sh. Rajbir Singh S/o Sh. Tara Chand, V&PO Gudha via Gharaunda,

District Karnal, Farash in the office of the Post Office of

The Post Master Panipat, District Panipat :

…Petitioner

Versus

1.

The Chief Post Master General Haryana Circle, Ambala.

2.

The Superintendent of Post Offices Karnal, Division Karnal.

3.

The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices Panipal, District Panipat.

…Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

:

Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.

For the Management

:

Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on : 15.06.2016

Sh. Rajbir Singh has filed this petition under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter

called the ‘Act’), claiming bonus on the averments, that he was appointed as Farash on 11.07.1991 and was paid bonus

for few years. That the Government had issued letter dated 16.03.1994 granting bonus which read as follow:-

“23-DA/Bonus/other claims to ED Agents to be made without delay-Instances have come to the notice that

Payment of DA/Bonus and other claims to ED Agents are not being made promptly and quite often being

delayed considerably. This has been viewed seriously by the directorate. I am therefore directed to request you

to issue necessary instructions to all concerned in future and when orders for DA/Bonus etc are issued by the

Directorate, the payment are made promptly to ED Agents.

2. Chairman Postal Service Board has also decided that special watch may be kept on the payment being made

to ED Agents and Head of Circles should ensure that there is no delay on this score.”

3. to ensure that payments are not delayed in the circles, al heads of circles etc are requested to furnish a note

in this regard in their monthly reports for atleast six months following the month of issued of orders for

Payment of Bonus/DA etc confirming that the needful has been done in their circles vide A-2.”

That he performed the duty from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m. but was treated as part time worker. That he is entitled to

get benefit of bonus which the respondent-management did not pay.

The respondent-management filed written reply, pleading that the workman was engaged as part time Farash.

That the workman being working as part time Farash is not covered under the rules and he is not entitled to get any

bonus.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

The workman appeared in the witness-box and filed his affidavit supporting his case as set out in the claim

petition.

On the other hand, counsel for the management did not examine any witness.

I have heard Sh. R.P. Mehra for the workman and Sh. Sanjeev Sharma for the management.

It was argued by Sh. R.P. Mehra, learned counsel for the workman that the workman used to work from 5 p.m.

to 9 a.m. and was a full time worker and was entitled to get bonus from the date of his appointment i.e. 11.07.1991.

The workman was required to lead cogent evidence to prove that he was appointed as Farash by the

respondent-management which he failed and rather admits in cross-examination that he was appointed as part time

Frash and part time Farash are not covered under the Posts and Telegraphs Extra-Departmental Agents(Conduct and

Service)Rules, 1964 or under the Gramin Dak Sevaks(Conduct and Engagement)Rules, 2011 and therefore, the

workman is not entitled to claim any bonus being worked as a part time worker.

Let hard and soft copy of the order be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action as required

under Section 33(c)(4) of the Act.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

3738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1664-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phiQ iksLV

ekLVj tujy gfj;k.kk l£dy ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ vkbZMh ,ylh, la- 300@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1664.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. LCA No. 300/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Chief Post Master General Haryana Circle and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 04.08.2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

LCA No. 300/2013

Registered on 25.09.2013

Sh. Ram Niwas S/o Sh. Manipal Singh, Ex GDS MD/MC, Village Neola,

PO Tumbaheri, Tehsil and District Jhajjar.

…Petitioner

Versus

1.

The Chief Post Master General Haryana Circle, Ambala.

2.

The Superintendent of Post Offices Rohtak, Division Rohtak.

…Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

:

Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.

For the Management

:

Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on : 15.06.2016

Sh. Ram Niwas has filed this claim application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947(hereinafter called the ‘Act’), on the averments, that he was appointed as Post Man in 2006 and continued in

service till August, 2013. That he is entitled to bonus from the very beginning as the Government has already issued an

instruction vide letter dated 16.03.1994 to disburse the bonus immediately which read as follow:-

“23-DA/Bonus/other claims to ED Agents to be made without delay-Instances have come to the notice that

Payment of DA/Bonus and other claims to ED Agents are not being made promptly and quite often being

delayed considerably. This has been viewed seriously by the directorate. I am therefore directed to request you

to issue necessary instructions to all concerned in future and when orders for DA/Bonus etc are issued by the

Directorate, the payment are made promptly to ED Agents.

2. Chairman Postal Service Board has also decided that special watch may be kept on the payment being made

to ED Agents and Head of Circles should ensure that there is no delay on this score.”

3. to ensure that payments are not delayed in the circles, al heads of circles etc are requested to furnish a note

in this regard in their monthly reports for atleast six months following the month of issued of orders for

Payment of Bonus/DA etc confirming that the needful has been done in their circles vide A-2.”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3739

That he worked from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m. and was being treated as part time and was not given bonus. That he is

entitled to get benefit of bonus.

The respondent-management filed written reply controverting the averments and pleaded that the workman

worked as substitute for short periods in the year 2012-2013 against leave arrangements of Sh. Suresh Kumar and as

such he is not entitled to claim any bonus as per letter dated 16.03.1994.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

In support of his case, the workman was appeared in the witness-box and filed his affidavit reiterating the

stand taken in the claim application.

On the other hand, the respondent-management did not lead any evidence.

I have heard Sh. R.P. Mehra for the workman and Sh. Sanjeev Sharma for the management and perused the

documents placed on file.

It is the case of the workman that he was appointed as Post Man in 2006 and continued in service till August,

2013 but was not paid bonus.

The respondent-management has taken a definite stand that the workman worked only for short periods in the

year 2012-13 and that too against leave arrangements of Sh. Suresh Kumar. The workman while appearing in the

witness-box admits that he worked as a substitute of Sh. Suresh Kumar from 2010 to 2013, probablising the case of the

respondent-management that he only served the department as a substitute of Sh. Suresh Kumar. The workman did not

lead any cogent evidence on file that he was actually appointed as Post Man in 2006 and did not produce any

appointment letter and therefore, it cannot be said that he was actually appointed in the year 2006.

Since the workman worked as a substitute for some period, as pleaded by the respondent-management, and

therefore, he is not entitled to claim any bonus and more particularly in view of the letter dated 16.03.1994, reproduced

above.

In result, there is no merit in this application and the same is dismissed.

Let hard and soft copy of the order be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action as required

under Section 33(c)(4) of the Act.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1665-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phiQ iksLV

ekLVj tujy gfj;k.kk l£dy ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ vkbZMh ,ylh, la- 302@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1665.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. LCA No. 302/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Karnal Division and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 04.08.2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

3740

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

LCA No. 302/2013

Registered on 22.11.2013

Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Om Parkash, R/o H.No. B-13,

Sadar Bazar, Karnal, serving as Sweeper

with the SSPO Office, Karnal

…Petitioner

Versus

1.

The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Karnal, Division Karnal

2.

The Chief Post Master General, Haryana Circle, Ambala.

…Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

:

Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.

For the Management

:

Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on : 15.06.2016

Sh. Vijay Kumar has filed this application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947(hereinafter called the ‘Act’), claiming bonus on the averments, that he was appointed as Sweeper in the year 1987

and was governed by the EDA Conduct Rules and now by the Gramin Dak Sewak(Conduct and Engagement)Rules

2011. That he is entitled to bonus from the very beginning as per letter dated 16.03.1994 which read as follow:-

“23-DA/Bonus/other claims to ED Agents to be made without delay-Instances have come to the notice that

Payment of DA/Bonus and other claims to ED Agents are not being made promptly and quite often being

delayed considerably. This has been viewed seriously by the directorate. I am therefore directed to request you

to issue necessary instructions to all concerned in future and when orders for DA/Bonus etc are issued by the

Directorate, the payment are made promptly to ED Agents.

2. Chairman Postal Service Board has also decided that special watch may be kept on the payment being made

to ED Agents and Head of Circles should ensure that there is no delay on this score”

3. to ensure that payments are not delayed in the circles, al heads of circles etc are requested to furnish a note

in this regard in their monthly reports for atleast six months following the month of issued of orders for

Payment of Bonus/DA etc confirming that the needful has been done in their circles vide A-2.”

That he performed the duty from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m. but was treated as part time worker. That he is entitled to

get benefit of bonus which the respondent-management did not pay.

The respondent-management filed written reply, pleading that the workman was employed as part time

Sweeper. That the workman being working as part time Sweeper, is not covered under the rules and he is not entitled to

get any bonus.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

The workman has appeared in the witness-box and filed his affidavit supporting his case as set out in the claim

petition.

On the other hand, counsel for the management did not examine any witness.

I have heard Sh. R.P. Mehra for the workman and Sh. Sanjeev Sharma for the management.

It was argued by Sh. R.P. Mehra, learned counsel for the workman that the workman used to work from 5 p.m.

to 9 a.m. and was a full time worker and was entitled to get bonus from the year 1987.

The workman was required to lead cogent evidence to prove that he was appointed as Sweeper by the

respondent-management which he failed. He admits during cross-examination that he was appointed as part time

Sweeper and part time Sweepers are not covered under the Posts and Telegraphs Extra-Departmental Agents(Conduct

and Service)Rules, 1964 or under the Gramin Dak Sevaks(Conduct and Engagement)Rules, 2011 and therefore, the

workman is not entitled to claim any bonus being worked as a part time worker.

Let hard and soft copy of the order be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action as required

under Section 33(c)(4) of the Act.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3741

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1666-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phiQ iksLV

ekLVj tujy gfj;k.kk l£dy ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ vkbZMh ,ylh, la- 303@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1666.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. LCA No. 303/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Karnal Division and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 04.08.2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

LCA No. 303/2013

Registered on 22.11.2013

Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Nanak Chand, R/o Chhoti Market,

Valmiki Colony, Model Town Karanl,

Sweeper office the SSPO, Karnal

…Petitioner

Versus

1.

The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Karnal, Division Karnal.

2.

The Chief Post Master General, Haryana Circle, Ambala.

…Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

:

Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.

For the Management

:

Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on : 27.06.2016

Sh. Ashok Kumar has filed this application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947(hereinafter called the ‘Act’), claiming bonus on the averments, that he was appointed as Sweeper in the year 1988

and was governed by the EDA Conduct Rules and now by the Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules

2011. That he is entitled to bonus from the very beginning as per letter dated 16.03.1994 which read as follow:-

“23-DA/Bonus/other claims to ED Agents to be made without delay-Instances have come to the notice that

Payment of DA/Bonus and other claims to ED Agents are not being made promptly and quite often being

delayed considerably. This has been viewed seriously by the directorate. I am therefore directed to request you

to issue necessary instructions to all concerned in future and when orders for DA/Bonus etc are issued by the

Directorate, the payment are made promptly to ED Agents.

2. Chairman Postal Service Board has also decided that special watch may be kept on the payment being made

to ED Agents and Head of Circles should ensure that there is no delay on this score.”

3742

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3. to ensure that payments are not delayed in the circles, al heads of circles etc are requested to furnish a note

in this regard in their monthly reports for atleast six months following the month of issued of orders for

Payment of Bonus/DA etc confirming that the needful has been done in their circles vide A-2.”

That he performed the duty from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m. but was treated as part time worker. That he is entitled to

get benefit of bonus which the respondent-management did not pay.

The respondent-management filed written reply, pleading that the workman was employed as part time

Sweeper. That the workman being working as part time Sweeper, is not covered under the rules and he is not entitled to

get any bonus.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

The workman has appeared in the witness-box and filed his affidavit supporting his case as set out in the claim

petition.

On the other hand, counsel for the management did not examine any witness.

I have heard Sh. R.P. Mehra for the workman and Sh. Sanjeev Sharma for the management.

It was argued by Sh. R.P. Mehra, learned counsel for the workman that the workman used to work from 5 p.m.

to 9 a.m. and was a full time worker and was entitled to get bonus from the year 1988.

The workman was required to lead cogent evidence to prove that he was appointed as Sweeper by the

respondent-management which he failed. Rather during cross-examination he admits that he was appointed as part time

Sweeper and part time Sweepers are not covered under the Posts and Telegraphs Extra-Departmental Agents (Conduct

and Service)Rules, 1964 or under the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 and therefore, the

workman is not entitled to claim any bonus being worked as a part time worker.

Let hard and soft copy of the order be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action as required

under Section 33(c)(4) of the Act.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1667-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phiQ iksLV

ekLVj tujy gfj;k.kk l£dy ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ vkbZMh ,ylh, la- 304@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1667.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. LCA No. 304/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Karnal Division and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 04.08.2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3743

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

LCA No. 304/2013

Registered on 22.11.2013

Smt. Kanta Rani W/o Sh. Narinder Kumar, R/o H.No. B-31,

Sadar Bazar, Karnal, serving as Sweeper

with the SSPO Post Office, Karnal, Division Karnal.

…Petitioner

Versus

1.

The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Karnal, Division Karnal

2.

The Chief Post Master General, Haryana Circle, Ambala

…Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

:

Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.

For the Management

:

Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on : 15.06.2016

Smt. Kanta Rani has filed this application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947(hereinafter called the ‘Act’), claiming bonus on the averments, that she was engaged as EDDA in the year 1974

and was entitled to get bonus as per letter dated 16.03.1994 which read as follow:-

“23-DA/Bonus/other claims to ED Agents to be made without delay-Instances have come to the notice that

Payment of DA/Bonus and other claims to ED Agents are not being made promptly and quite often being

delayed considerably. This has been viewed seriously by the directorate. I am therefore directed to request you

to issue necessary instructions to all concerned in future and when orders for DA/Bonus etc. are issued by the

Directorate, the payment are made promptly to ED Agents.

2. Chairman Postal Service Board has also decided that special watch may be kept on the payment being made

to ED Agents and Head of Circles should ensure that there is no delay on this score.”

3. to ensure that payments are not delayed in the circles, al heads of circles etc are requested to furnish a note

in this regard in their monthly reports for atleast six months following the month of issued of orders for

Payment of Bonus/DA etc. confirming that the needful has been done in their circles vide A-2.”

That she had not been paid bonus by the respondent management.

The respondent-management filed written reply, admitting that Smt. Kanta Rani was engaged as part time

Sweeper and being a part time workman is not entitled to get any ‘bonus’.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

Smt. Kanta Rani, workman as appeared in the witness-box and filed her affidavit reiterating the stand as taken

in the claim petition.

On the other hand, counsel for the management did not examine any witness.

I have heard Sh. R.P. Mehra for the workman and Sh. Sanjeev Sharma for the management.

According to the workman she was appointed as EDDA in the year 1974. Respondent-management has denied

this fact and pleaded that the workman was engaged as a part time Sweeper. Smt. Kanta Rani has admitted in her cross-

examination that she was a part time employee. Thus, being a part time employee, she cannot claim any amount by way

of bonus and moreover, no instructions have been issued to pay bonus to part time workers and therefore, the workman

is not entitled to claim any bonus.

Let hard and soft copy of the order be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action as required

under Section 33(c)(4) of the Act.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

3744

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1668-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phiQ iksLV

ekLVj tujy gfj;k.kk l£dy ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ vkbZMh ,ylh, la- 305@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1668.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. LCA No. 305/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Karnal Division and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 04.08.2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

LCA No. 305/2013

Registered on 22.11.2013

Sh. Kirpal S/o Sh. Maha Singh, R/o Balmiki Basti,

Hansi Road, Karanl, serving as

Sweeper with the SSPO Office, Karnal.

…Petitioner

Versus

1.

The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Karnal, Division Karnal.

2.

The Chief Post Master General, Haryana, Circle Haryana.

…Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

:

Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.

For the Management

:

Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on : 27.06.2016

Sh. Kirpal has filed this application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter

called the ‘Act’), claiming bonus on the averments, that he was appointed as Sweeper in the year 2004 and was

governed by the EDA Conduct Rules and now by the Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011.

That he is entitled to bonus from the very beginning as per letter dated 16.03.1994 which read as follow:-

“23-DA/Bonus/other claims to ED Agents to be made without delay-Instances have come to the notice that

Payment of DA/Bonus and other claims to ED Agents are not being made promptly and quite often being

delayed considerably. This has been viewed seriously by the directorate. I am therefore directed to request you

to issue necessary instructions to all concerned in future and when orders for DA/Bonus etc are issued by the

Directorate, the payment are made promptly to ED Agents.

2. Chairman Postal Service Board has also decided that special watch may be kept on the payment being made

to ED Agents and Head of Circles should ensure that there is no delay on this score.”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3745

3. to ensure that payments are not delayed in the circles, al heads of circles etc are requested to furnish a note

in this regard in their monthly reports for atleast six months following the month of issued of orders for

Payment of Bonus/DA etc confirming that the needful has been done in their circles vide A-2.”

That he performed the duty from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m. but was treated as part time worker. That he is entitled to

get benefit of bonus which the respondent-management did not pay.

The respondent-management filed written reply, pleading that the workman was engaged as part time

Sweeper. That the workman being working as part time Sweeper, is not covered under the rules and he is not entitled to

get any bonus.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

The workman has appeared in the witness-box and filed his affidavit supporting his case as set out in the claim

petition.

On the other hand, counsel for the management did not examine any witness.

I have heard Sh. R.P. Mehra for the workman and Sh. Sanjeev Sharma for the management.

It was argued by Sh. R.P. Mehra, learned counsel for the workman that the workman used to work from 5 p.m.

to 9 a.m. and was a full time worker and was entitled to get bonus from the year 2004.

The workman was required to lead cogent evidence to prove that he was appointed as Sweeper by the

respondent-management which he failed and rather the workman admits during cross-examination that he was

appointed as part time Sweeper and part time Sweepers are not covered under the Posts and Telegraphs Extra-

Departmental Agents(Conduct and Service)Rules, 1964 or under the Gramin Dak Sevaks(Conduct and

Engagement)Rules, 2011 and therefore, the workman is not entitled to claim any bonus being worked as a part time

worker.

Let hard and soft copy of the order be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action as required

under Section 33(c)(4) of the Act.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1669-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj uhfr

baVjizkbtst ,aM vnlZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 179@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-

08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@133@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1669.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 179/2015) 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 M/s. Niti Enterprises and Others and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 04.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/133/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

3746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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. 179/2015

Shri Banche Lal, S/o Shri Brijpal,

C/o 1800/9, Govindpuri Extension,

Main Road, Kalkaji,

New Delhi 110 019

…Workman

Versus

1. M/s Niti Enterprises,

L-88, Kisan Vihar,

New Delhi 110 041

2. The Commissioner Sports,

Delhi Development Authority

Siri Fort Sports Complex,

August Kranti Marg,

Khel Gaon,

New Delhi 110 049

…Managements

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No.L-42012/133/2015-IR(DU) dated 13.08.2015, referred the following

industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the workman Shri Banche Lal S/o Shri Brijpal is entitled to reinstatement in the employment of the

employer? If so, with effect from which date? If not to what relief is the workman entitled to?

2.

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of

claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of

the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

Despite directions so given, Shri Banche Lal opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

3.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the

postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained

affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was

served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No

claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the

reference on merits.

4.

Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause

against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let

this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for

publication.

Dated : July 27, 2016

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1670-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj E;qfufliy

dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ fnYyh ,aM vnlZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 173@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 04-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@79@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3747

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1670.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 173/2015) 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 M/s. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 04.08.2016.

[No. L-42011/79/2015-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. 173/2015

The General Secretary,

MCD General Mazdoor Union,

Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10,

Jam Nagar House,

New Delhi – 110 011

…Workman

Versus

1.

The Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi,

Civic Centre, Minto Road,

New Delhi 110 002

2.

The Commissioner,

East Delhi Municipal Corporation,

Udyog Sadan, Plot No.419,

Patparganj Industrial Area, Shahdara,

New Delhi 110 092

…Management

AWARD

Reference under Section 10 sub section (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) was

received from the Central Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment vide order No.L-42011/79/2015-IR(DU),

New Delhi dated 23.07.2015, with following terms:

“Whether Shri Ganga Ram S/o Shri Gyani is entitled to get full wages for the period 02.06.1997 to 19.11.2008

and his duty for the said period treated as period spent on duty alongwith all consequential benefits, including

the increments? If so, what directions are necessary in this respect.?”

2.

Corrigendum was issued by the appropriate Government vide No.L-42011/79/2015-IR(DU), New Delhi dated

10.08.2015, vide which name of the Management was amended to ‘The Commissioner, East Delhi Municipal

Corporation, Udyog Sadan, Plot No.419, Patparganj Industrial Area, Shahdara, New Delhi 110 092’.

3.

Claim statement was filed by Shri Ganga Ram (hereinafter referred to as the workman) wherein it is alleged

that he is a Field Worker (Malaria Beldar) and is presently posted under City Zone. He was arrested vide FIR

No.225/97 u/s 302/120-B/201/406/411 IPC and was placed under suspension. He was paid subsistence allowance

initially of 50% and later on enhanced to 75% with effect from 02.09.1997 till he was reinstated on 19.11.2008. He

was acquitted by the Hon’ble Court of Shri Rajinder Babu Sharma, Upper District and Sessions Judge, UP Court No.9,

Ghaziabad vide judgement dated 26.05.2008 alongwith other co-accused in the said FIR by giving him benefit of

doubt. After his acquittal by the competent Court of Law, Deputy Commissioner, Shahdara South Zone passed orders

dated 30.06.2009, Annexure A2, that the entire period of suspension till the date of reinstatement be treated as ‘leave

without pay’ whereas the workman is entitled to be paid full pay and allowances for the suspension period alongwith

all consequential benefits. The workman filed an appeal dated 12.10.2010 but the management did not take any

action. However, Vigilance Department of the management approached the DGC (Crime), Ghaziabad Court, Uttar

Pradesh for ascertaining whether the Uttar Pradesh Government has filed any appeal against the judgement of the

District Court. In response, District Sessions Judge (Criminal) Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh intimated that no such appeal

has been filed against the said order, copy of which letter is Annexure A4. Demand notice dated 27.02.2012 was also

served on the management.

3748

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4.

The management has neither served any charge sheet nor held any departmental enquiry after the acquittal of

the workman by the District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Hence, the workman herein is entitled for

all the benefits, including full payment during the period of suspension and also increments and all consequential

benefits.

5.

It is also averred that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Brahma Chandra Gupta Vs. Union of India

(1984 (1984) SCC 433) and it has been held as under:

6. Mr. R.K. Garg, learned Counsel for the appellant wanted us to examine the scope and ambit of

Article 193 and Mr. Gujaral learned Counsel for the Union of India was equally keen on the other side to do

the same thing. We steer clear of both. The appellant was a permanent UDC who has already retired on

superannuation and must receive a measure of socio-economic justice. Keeping in view the facts of the case

that the appellant was never hauled up for departmental enquiry; that he was prosecuted and has been

ultimately acquitted, and on being acquitted he was reinstated and was paid full salary for the period

commencing from his acquittal, and further that even for the period in question the concerned authority has

not held that the suspension was wholly justified because 3/4th of the salary is ordered to be paid, we are of

the opinion that the approach of the trial court was correct and unassailable. The learned trial Judge on

appreciation of facts found that this is a case in which full amount of salary should have been paid to the

appellant on his reinstatement for the entire period. We accept that as the correct approach. We accordingly

allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of first appellate court as well of the High Court and restore the one

of trial Court with this modification that the amount decreed shall be paid with 9% interest p.a. from the date

of suit till realization with costs throughout.’

6.

Finally, a prayer has been made that an award may be passed in his favour, granting full back wages treating

the period of suspension as period spent on duty alongwith all consequential benefits.

7.

Management failed to put in its appearance in spite of issuing several notices, hence the Tribunal had no

option but to proceed ex-parte in the matter.

8.

The workman, Shri Ganga Ram, in support of his case, filed his affidavit as evidence, which is Ex.WW1/A,

which is reiteration of the material facts contained in the statement of claim and also tendered in evidence documents

Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/5 alongwith judgement. I would be referring to the same while drawing my conclusion.

9.

I have heard Shri B.K. Prasad, A/R for the claimant while none appeared on behalf of the management.

10.

It is clear from perusal of the statement of claim as well as affidavit Ex.WW1/A that the workman herein was

admittedly working as Field Worker(Malaria Beldar) and at the relevant time was posted in Shahdara South Zone,

Delhi. There is no denial of the fact that he was arrested in a criminal case filed under FIR No.225/97 u/s 302/120-

B/201/406/411 IPC. Consequent upon registration of the above criminal case, workman was put under suspension as is

clear from Annexure A II, Office Order dated 25.09.2009 wherein it is clearly stated that the workman Shri Ganga Ram

was placed under deemed suspension with effect from 02.06.1997 vide office order No.1316/SIO(P)/Vig./98/S-75

dated 18.09.1998 due to his arrest/involvement in case FIR No.225/97 u/s 302/120-B/201/406/411 IPC. P.S. Sector 36,

NOIDA. Subsistence allowance was enhanced from 50% to 75% with effect from 02.09.1997. Thereafter, he was

reinstated in service vide office order dated 19.11.2008. The last para of the above order shows that the Deputy

Commissioner, South Zone has treated the entire period of absence, i.e. from the date of deemed suspension till the date

of his reinstatement as ‘leave without pay’. The workman has also filed office order dated 14.11.2008, which is

Annexure A1, which shows that the Deputy Commissioner, South Zone reinstated the workman in service with

immediate effect consequent upon his acquittal in FIR No.225/97 u/s 302/120-B/201/406/411 IPC. There is also

reference to his deemed suspension with effect from 02.06.1997. Record of the case also shows that the workman has

filed a representation against the order dated 30.06.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, South Zone treating his

period of deemed suspension as ‘leave without pay’. He has claimed full pay and allowances for the period of his

suspension in view of his acquittal in the criminal case mentioned above.

11.

The crucial question which requires determination in the present reference is whether the workman herein is

entitled for full wages for the period from 02.06.1997 to 19.11.2008 with all consequential benefits, including

increments and denial of the same by the management is legal and justified. The question is purely legal in nature and

facts of the case, as described above, clearly shows that the workman herein was acquitted in the criminal case and in

view of the launching of proceedings, he was put under deemed suspension. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Brahma Chandra Gupta Vs. Union of India (1984 (2) SCC 433) considered the question of payment of full salary

alongwith other benefits to a workman who was working as a permanent UDC and was suspended in 1962 pursuant to

criminal prosecution launched against him. During the period of suspension, he was paid subsistence allowance. In fact,

the Trial Court convicted the workman in the said case as a result of which the workman was dismissed from service.

On an appeal, his conviction was set aside and he was acquitted by the higher court. Consequently, he was reinstated in

service. The competent authority has not released full salary and other benefits in favour of the workman. As such,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3749

matter was taken to the Civil Court, who decided the case in favour of the workman but in appeal, the District Judge

reversed the decree passed by the Trial Court. When matter finally reached before the Hon’ble Apex Court, it was held

that the management cannot withhold the full salary and benefits of the workman who was dismissed from service on

the basis of criminal proceedings which finally culminated in favour of the workman. In the said case also, there was

no departmental enquiry conducted against the workman and order of dismissal was purely on the basis of criminal

proceedings launched against the workman, as is the position in the case on hand. The workman was acquitted in the

said case and so is the decision in the case on hand and Hon’ble Apex Court has ordered payment of full salary for the

relevant period during which the workman remained under suspension. Accordingly, judgement of the Trial Court

granting full benefits to the workman was finally upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court and management was also ordered

to pay wages with 9% interest. In the case on hand also, factual position is the same and there is hardly any scope to

take a contrary view. Consequently, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the workman is entitled to get full wages for the

period from 02.06.1997 to 19.11.2008 and his duty for the said period treated as period spent on duty alongwith all

consequential benefits, including the increments. An award is accordingly passed. It be sent to the appropriate

Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

July 28, 2016

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1671-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mk;jsDVj

tujy (oDlZ) lhihMCY;wMh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ vkbZMh la- 182@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 04-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@91@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1671.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 182/2015) 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 Director General (Works) CPWD and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 04.08.2016.

[No. L-42011/91/2015-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. 182/2015

Smt. Rani W/o Shri Bishan through

The General Secretary,

CPWD General Mazdoor Union,

Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10,

Jam Nagar House,

New Delhi- 110011

…Workmen

Versus

The Director General (Works),

CPWD,

Nirman Bhawan

New Delhi 110 001

…Management

3750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that a reference was received from Ministry of Labour, Government of

India vide letter No.L-42011/91/2015-IR(DU) dated 20.08.2015 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-

section(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act), terms of which are as under:

‘Whether Smt. Rani, W/o Shri Bishan is entitled to be regularized as Sweeper in Group D category and if so,

from which date and what directions are necessary in this respect?’

2.

It is clear from the statement of claim filed by the workman, Ms.Rani, that she has been performing her duties

under Electrical Construction Division IV, CPWD, Pushpa Bhawan, New Delhi . Workman is scheduled caste and is in

service since the year 1987 continuously on a meager payment of Rs.1300.00 per month and she was termed as ‘part

time sweeper’. It is also alleged that the establishment of the management is covered under the Schedule Employment

of Minimum Wages Act and as per Section 15 of the Minimum Wages Act, workers who work for less than the normal

working days is entitled for full wages as fixed under the Schedule Employment.

3.

It is the case of the workman that the management had not even paid full wages to unskilled workers revised

from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. As such, action of the management amounts to unfair labour

practice and is against the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Surinder Singh vs. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD

(ATR 1986 SC 1976) decided on 17.01.1986. In view of the above, the workman is entitled to equal pay as per the

judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Surinder Singh (supra) with effect from 30.09.2012 till date. She is also

entitled for regularization in service in Group D category with effect from 30.09.1992 as per policy of regularization as

adopted by the management of CPWD referred above.

4.

There are also averments that Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India vide OM No.16/5/68-Estt.(D)

dated 05.07.1968 has clarified that part time casual labourers are also entitled for regularization after completion of

four years of their service with certain conditions contained therein.

5.

Workman, in para 6 of the statement of claim has made reference to the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court

in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam Krishna Distt. A.P. and K.B.N. Vishweshwara Rao & Othrs’ (1997 (1) LLJ

567) wherein it has been held that selection of candidates for regularization should not be restricted to candidates

sponsored by Employment Exchange alone. Management should call for the names by publication in the newspapers

having wide circulation and also displayed on Notice boards. Matter should also be advertised on radio and television

etc. so as to give due publicity for filling up of posts.

6.

Workman herein was engaged directly as part time sweeper initially, hence question of recruitment through

Employment Exchange is irrelevant. Workman herein is entitled to be regularized with effect from 30.09.1992 and

also entitled for equal pay for equal work from the said date. Department of Personnel has liberalized the policy of

those casual workers not recruited through Employment Exchange before 07.05.1985 as is clear from Annexure B.

Management also issued policy for regularization to daily rated workers with effect from 11.12.2006 as per policy

No.19/176/2004-EC.X dated 11.03.2011(Annexure E). Workman herein, Smt. Rani had performed her duty directly

under the control and supervision of the management. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ

Petition No.1324/90 titled CPWD Karamchari Union Vs. Union of India, she is entitled for regularization as well as

payment of equal pay for equal work.

7.

Management was put to notice but despite issuance of such notice, as is evident from record, none appeared on

behalf of the management. As such, management was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 16.02.2016.

8.

Workman, in support of her case, examined herself as WW1 and tendered in evidence her affidavit

Ex.WW1/A. Workman also tendered in evidence documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/9.

9.

It is clear from perusal of statement of claim as well as affidavit Ex.WW1/A, which remained unrebutted, that

Smt. Rani, workman herein has been performing her duties as sweeper under Electrical Construction Division IV,

CPWD, Pushpa Bhawan since the year 1987 continuously as part time sweeper. There is nothing on record to show

that there is any break in service of the workman and thus she has put in more than 25 years of continuous service

under the management. During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the claimant, Shri B.K. Prasad, referred to

Annexure Ex.WW1/1 which deals with instructions regarding regularization of part time casual workers. There is

reference in the above guidelines that casual workers who have rendered more than a period of two years continuous

service can be appointed to class IV posts, borne on regular establishment which are required to be filled by direct

recruitment. Relevant portion of the Office Memorandum Ex.WW1/1 is reproduced hereunder:

‘Accordingly, with effect from the date of the issue of this Office Memorandum, part time casual labourers

shall also be eligible for appointment to Class Iv posts borne on the regular establishment, which are required

to be filled by direct recruitment, provided they were appointed through Employment Exchange and had

acquired experience of a minimum of four years continuous service as part-time casual labour in the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3751

office/establishment to which they were appointed through Employment Exchange. Those part time casual

labourers who were recruited in an office/establishment direct, without reference to the Employment

Exchange and who are working on the date of issue of this office memorandum should not be considered for

appointment to the regular establishment, unless they (i) get themselves registered with Employment

Exchange, (ii) render from the date of such registration a minimum of four years continuous service as a part

time casual labour and (iii) are subsequently sponsored by the Employment Exchange in accordance with

their position in the register of the Exchange.’

10.

Shri Prasad also made reference to the guidelines contained in Swamy’s compilation for employment of casual

labour, which is Ex.WW1/2. The above guidelines are quite elaborate and exhaustive in nature and fully covers the

case of the workman herein. Perusal of office memorandum No.45/1/67-EU.X( Volume IV) dated 21.10.1990

Ex.WW1/3 shows that an office order was issued by CPWD for implementation of Supreme Court judgement dated

17.01.1986 in Surender Singh’s case regarding equal pay for equal work and method of calculation of wages of the

daily rated workers. There is also letter Ex.WW1/4 addressed to the Executive Engineer regarding implementation of

judgement in Surender Singh case (supra) has been given. Further, Government of India vide Ex.WW1/5 issued

guidelines/clarification regarding directions contained in judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka

Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1. It has been clarified that regularization of the workers will be strictly subject to

fulfillment of eligibility conditions prescribed under the rules and daily rated workers should be eligible in respect of

maximum age-limit on the date of appointment to the regular post. There is specific direction that wherever sufficient

direct quota vacancies are not available, promotion quota vacancies may be utilized as a onetime measure for

regularization of casual worker. It is clear from perusal of Section 15 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 that a part

time or casual worker cannot be paid less wages than the minimum wages fixed for unskilled labour and workman is to

be given full wages. It was also brought to the notice of the Tribunal that every daily rated worker in CPWD is getting

wages of equal pay for equal work as per policy of management contained in Ex.WW1/3 and Ex.WW1/4. In fact, the

said policy describes payment of equal pay with the counterparts working as regular workers, including sweepers, who

are entitled to minimum time scale + all allowances etc. It is further clear from perusal of Ministry of Home Affairs

Office Memorandum dated 05.07.1988 Ex.WW1/1 that even part time employee is entitled to regularization after

completion of four years of services. Since the workman herein has admittedly put in more than 25 years of service

and there is no break in her service, as such, as per various orders discussed above, she is liable to be regularized

irrespective of the fact whether her name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange or not. Hon’ble Apex Court in

the case of Surender Singh case dealt with the question of equal pay for equal work in respect of daily rated workmen

performing same duties which was being performed by their regular counterparts in the department. After discussing

the ambit and scope of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it was held that there should be equal pay for equal work

of equal value. It makes no difference whether such workmen are employed against sanctioned post or not so long as

they are performing the same duties. They must receive same salary and conditions of service must also be the same.

Hon’ble Supreme Court also expressed anguish that most of the workers are kept in service on temporary basis as daily

wage workers without their service being regularized, which is completely against the spirit of Article 13 of the

Constitution of India. In CPWD Karamchari Union Vs. Union of India as well as Ex.WW1/7 , Hon’ble Apex Court

directed that daily rated workers be regularized within a period of for weeks. However, regularization will not confer

any right to claim seniority from the date of entry.

11.

As a sequel to my above discussion as well as legal position adumbrated above in the decision relied upon by

the workman herein, I am of the view that Smt.Rani is entitled for regularization as Sweeper in Group D category and

for payment of equal pay as Sweeper from 30.09.1992, with all consequential benefits. An award is, accordingly,

passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : July 28, 2016

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1672-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh

,;jVsy l£olst fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lUnHkZ vkbZMh la- 130@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 04-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@30@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

3752

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1672.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 130/2012) 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 Bharti Airtel Services Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 04.08.2016.

[No. L-40012/30/2012-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. 130/2012

Shri Ajay Kumar Diwakar,

C/o Shri Mewa Lal,R/o B-69, Gali No.6,

Mandawali Unche Par,

Mandawali, Delhi – 110 092

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

The Managind Director,

M/s. Bharti Airtel Services Limited

224, Okhla, Phase III,

New Delhi 110 020

…Management

AWARD

Reference under Clause (d) of Sub Section(1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No.L-40012/30/2012-IR(DU) dated 18.10.2012 to

the following effect:

1.

‘Whether the action of the management of Bharti Airtel Services Ltd. In terminating the employment of Shri

Ajay Kumar Diwakar, with effect from 01.09.2010 is illegal and unjustified? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled

to?’

2.

Factual matrix as contained in the statement of claim shows that Shri Ajay Kumar Diwakar (hereinafter

referred to as the workman) was appointed by Bharti Airtel Services Ltd. (the management, in short) on 03.04.2008 and

was allotted Employee Code 52742. He worked continuously with utmost dedication and has an unblemished record of

service. He was confirmed in service on 02.10.2008 and was further issued a satisfactory annual performance report on

01.06.2009. His last drawn wages was Rs.16,962.00. It is averred that the working atmosphere of the management

was not good and the workman had to face extreme hardship, harassment and exploitation since March 2010 at the

hands of one Shri Shashank Sharma, Senior Manager, who was nursing a grudge against him for reasons best known to

him. Shri Rajvinder Singh, the Zonal Manager also pressurized the workman to resign, but despite all odds, the

workman continued to serve the management. On 06.08.2010, Shri Sharma did not allow the workman to mark his

attendance, despite which he performed his duties. On 28.08.2010, the workman was not allowed to perform his job

and he was not given any job by Shri Sharma, who also threatened him with dire consequences. When the matter was

reported to Shri Singh, the Zonal Manager, he also abused the workman, caught hold of him by the collar and pushed

him outside the office premises.

3.

A legal notice was issued to the management on 31.08.2010, to which no reply was received by the workman.

As the workman was not taken back on duty, a case was filed under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in

short the Act) and the Hon’ble Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Karkardooma Court, Delhi dismissed the claim of the

workman on the ground that the workman had approached the Conciliation Officer before approaching the Labour

Court. Thereafter the workman approached the Conciliation Officer, resulting into the above reference.

4.

Finally prayer has been made that the workman, whose services have been terminated be reinstated to the

original position with full back wages and other benefits as termination by the management without any specific

reason amounts to illegal termination.

5.

Management was put to notice, who filed written to the statement of claim filed by the workmen. Several

preliminary objections have been taken inter alia the workman not approaching the court with clean hands, claimant not

being a ‘workman’ under section 2(s) of the Act, non service of demand notice, claim being frivolous etc. The

workman is guilty of gross unauthorized absenteeism with effect from 16.08.2010 thereby resulting into abandonment

of employment. Earlier in January and February 2010 be remained absent. In March 2010 he reported for duties only

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3753

for two days, in April 2010 he worked from 01.04.2010 to 23.04.2010, In my he worked for only one day. He

remained absent in June and July 2010 without prior permission of the management. All efforts by the management to

call him back on duty vide letters dated 23.08.2010 and 30.08.2010 proved futile on account of the adamant attitude of

the workman. Resultantly, vide letter dated 07.09.2010, services of the workman was terminated, as per Clause 2 of the

Offer cum Appointment letter dated 31.03.2008.

6.

Management on merits denied the material averments in the claim statement. Finally, prayer has been made

for dismissal of the claim filed by the workman.

7.

Against this factual background, my learned predecessor, vide a order dated 11.02.2013, observed there is no

other issue, other than those referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication, which needs to be settled in the

controversy. .

8.

Claimant in support of his claim examined himself as WW1 and Shri Kailash Pandey as WW2 and tendered in

evidence, their affidavits Ex.WW1/A and Ex.WW2/A and documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/3 and Ex.WW2/1 to

Ex.WW2/7 respectively. Management in order to rebut the case of the claimant examined Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta

as MW1, who tendered in evidence his affidavit which is Ex.MW1/A and documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/3. I

would be adverting to the facts adduced by the parties in the subsequent paras.

9.

I have heard Shri Virender Kumar Mehto, A/R for the workman and Shri Jitesh Pandey, A/R for the

management. Parties have also filed written submissions and relied upon various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

10.

It was strongly argued on behalf of the management that workman herein does not fall within the definition as

defined in Section 2(s) of the act. The attention of the tribunal was also invited to the Job Profile of the workman

exhibit MW1/1 where in there is mention of the work and duty to be performed by the workman. Secondly, the salary

of the workman is also above Rs.10000 per month as such the workman cannot be held to be workman. Per Contra, it

was urged on behalf of the workman that the designation of an officials or a workman is not much important and what

is important is the nature of duties being performed by the employee. The workman is not performing any duty of

supervisory nature or managerial duty nor workman has any power to take disciplinary action against his subordinates.

Therefore, in the contentions of the workman his case is covered by the definition of workman as contained in sec 2 (s)

of the act and exceptions attached to the definition of the workman particularly clause (iii) and (iv) which deal with

managerial of administrative work or being employed in supervisory capacity would not be applicable to the case in

hand.

11.

It is well settled that in order to find out as to whether a person was performing the work of supervisory or

managerial in nature, the dominant purpose of the employment of the person concerned should be taken into

consideration and certain additional duties performed by him should be ignored while determining the status and

character of the person. Since the objection regarding the status of the workman being employed in supervisory

capacity has been taken by the management as such the Onus to prove this fact is upon the management. It was

imperative for the management to adduce cogent evidence to prove the specific nature of duty regarding supervisory or

managerial work. The job profile exhibit MW1/1 does not completely and thoroughly explains the supervisory or

managerial work to be performed by the workman. In order to find out whether the workman herein falls within the

definition of workman as defined in section 2(s) of the Act. It would be expedient to have a glance on definition of the

tern ‘workman’, contained in section 2(s) of the Act. For sake of convenience, definition of term ‘workman’ is

reproduced thus:

“2(s) Workman means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual,

unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of

employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an

industrial dispute includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection

with, or as a consequence of that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that

dispute, but does not include any such person-

(i)

Who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act 1950(46 of 1950) or the

Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957), or

(ii)

Who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison , or

(iii)

Who is, employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or

(iv)

Who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred

rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason

of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature”.

12.

The first part of the definition gives statutory meaning of the term workman. This part of the definition

determines a workman by reference to a person (including an apprentice) employed in an “industry” to do any manual,

unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward. This part determines what a

“workman” means. The second part is designed to include something more in what the term primarily denotes. By this

part of the definition, person (i) who have been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with an industrial

3754

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dispute, or (ii) whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has lead to an industrial dispute, for the purpose of any

proceeding under the Act in relation to such industrial dispute, have been included in the definition of “workman”. This

part gives extended connotation to the expression “workman”. The third part specifically excluded the categories of

persons specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of this sub section. The third part connotes that even if a person satisfies the

requirements of any of the first two parts but if he falls in any of the four categories in the third part, he shall be

excluded from the definition of ‘workman’. Not only the persons who are actually employed in an industry but also

those who have been discharged, dismissed or retrenched in connection with or as a consequence of an industrial

dispute, and whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has lead to that dispute, would fall within the ambit of the

definition. In other words, the second category of persons included in the definition would fall in the ambit of the

definition, only for the purpose of any proceedings under the Act in relation to an industrial dispute and for no other

purposes. Therefore, date of reference is relevant and in case a person falls within the definition of workman on that

day, the Tribunal would be vested with jurisdiction to entertain it and the jurisdiction would not cease merely because

subsequently the workman ceases to be workman.

13.

For an employee in an industry to be a workman under this definition, it is manifest hat he must be employed

to do skilled or unskilled manual work, supervisory work, technical work or clerical work. If the work done by an

employee is not of such a nature, he would not be a workman. The specification of the four types of work obviously is

intended to law down that an employee is to become a workman only if he is employed to do work of one of those

types, while there may be employees who, not doing any such work, would be out of the scope of the word ‘workman’,

without having resort to the exceptions. It cannot be held that every employee of an industry was to be a workman

except those mentioned in the four exceptions as in the case these four classifications need not have been mentioned in

the definition and a workman could have been defined as a person employed in an industry except in cases where he

was covered by one of the exceptions.

14.

In cases where an employee is employed to do purely skilled or unskilled manual work, or supervisory work

or technical work or clerical work there would be no difficulty in holding him to be a workman under the appropriate

classification. Frequently, however, an employee is required to do more than one kind of work. IN such cases, it

would be necessary to determine under which classification he will fall for the purpose of finding out whether he does

not go out of the definition of ‘workman’ under the exceptions. The principle is now well settled that, for this purpose,

a workman must be held to be employed to do that work which is the main work he is required to do even though he

may incidentally doing other type of work.

15.

When the facts of the present case are examined on the touchstone of principles discussed above, it cannot be

said that workman herein is not a workman within the ambit and scope of definition of the workman contained in

section 2(s) of the act. There is no specific evidence to suggest that the workman herein exercising supervisory or

administrative control over his subordinates staff, simply because he has been put in higher grades from time to time on

account of length of his service that would not mean that workman is doing work in supervisory or managerial capacity

so as to exclude him from the definition of the workman under the Acts. When a person is required to work with the

assistance of his juniors or subordinates, it is but natural that he would be required to inspect or supervise the work

done by them and if necessary he would be required to give instructions to them to do the work in a particular way.

But it cannot be, therefore, said that he is carrying out supervisory work. I have gone through the ratio of law in UCO

Bank Vs. Presiding Officer & Another 1999 V AD (DELHI) 514 and A.K.Patel V. Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. 2005

(3) BomCR 645. There is hardly any dispute with the proposition if law, propounded in the above cases. The burden

of proof is normally upon a party who alleges a fact and not upon a party who denies it, for a negative, is not capable is

proof. Ofcourse, the initial Onus is upon the workman to allege and prove the facts mentioned in the pleadings.

However, when specific stand is taken by management that nature of duty performed by a workman is of supervisory or

managerial in nature, in that eventuality, the burden will shift upon the management to prove that specific fact.

16.

It has been held in Management of Hindustan Moters Ltd. V. Lakshmiah and another, 2002(93) FLR 226

(Mad.) = 2002 (2) LLN 725 that in order to find out as to whether a person was performing the work of supervisory or

managerial in nature, the dominant purpose of the employment of the person concern should be taken into

consideration and certain additional duties performed by him should be rejected while determining the status and

character of the person. In view of above discussion it is held that work herein is a workman for the purpose of

Section2(s) of the act as is not performing primarily duty of supervisory or managerial nature21. Similarly, Drawing of

salary by a workman above the limit contained in the definition of the workman would not take him out of the purview

of the definition of workman. The relevant test is whether such a workman was performing the work of supervisory or

managerial in nature. Simply because the workman has been given promotion from time to time as per regulation

would not mean that such a workman is performing duties of supervisory or managerial in nature. There is nothing in

statement of Mahesh Kumar Gupta MW1 as to what kind of supervisory or managerial duty was being performed by

the workman herein.

17.

Now the next vital question which arises for consideration is whether the termination of the job of the

workman W.E.F. of 01-09-2010 is illegal and unjustified. It is pertinent to note that in the termination letter dated 07-

09-2010 Exhibit WW1/M3 there is no mention of the workman being in the habit of remaining unauthorizedly absent

from the duty since Jan 2010. Admittedly the workman was terminated on 01-09-2010 as is clear from later WW1/M3.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3755

It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that no enquiry whatsoever was conducted against the workman before terminating

the job WW1/M3. It is the case of management as is evident exhibit WW1/M1 dated 03-08-2010 that workman was

absent from the duty W.E.F 16-08-2010 without any prior information. He has not inform about his absence nor

obtained prior permission for the same.

18.

It is clear from the evidence of the workman and his affidavit WW1/A that workman was confirmed

02-08-2010 and was issued satisfactory annual report by the management. The letter of the appointment is exhibit

WW1/M4 which also contains the term & conditions of the appointment. There is nothing in the above terms &

conditions that service of workman can be dispensed with in the manner done by the management without holding

proper enquiry. The record of the workman also shows that he has performed duty satisfactorily as is clear from letters

Ex. WW2/2 and WW2/3. Salary certificate is exhibit WW2/4. Since in the case in hand no departmental enquiry was

conducted against the workman by the management before his termination as such the Onus is upon the management to

justify its action under the law. Learned A/R for the management could not cite any authority in support of the order of

the termination without enquiry. It has been held in the case of H.M.T. Watch Ltd., Nainital Vs Labour Court,

Haldwani & Ors.(Uttarakhand High Court) of 2014 L.L.R. 1186 that when the workman remained absent from the

duties or over stayed after expiry of his sanctioned leave and management terminated his services without holding any

enquiry by invoking term & conditions contained in the standing order, the same was held to be not valid under the

law. There cannot be any automatic termination of an employee on the basis of the standing orders and management is

the required to follow the principle of natural justice before passing order of termination. It has come in the evidence

of MW1/Mahesh Kumar Gupta that he could not find any document showing that workman remained absent prior to

January 2010. He further admitted that no notice during the period of 6 March - July 2010 was served upon the

workman regarding his unauthorized absence. He also could not produce the postal receipt of letter exhibit WW1/M1

sent by registered post to the workman even the receipt of the said letter was not available in the office. He also could

not produce any record regarding the dispatch of above letters to the workman. Thus, there is considerable force in the

submission of the workman that his service was terminated without following any procedure, and he was not allowed to

mark his attendance in the office by senior Manager. The net result of the discussion is that termination of the

workman without holding enquiry whatsoever is illegal and unjustified as well as against the principles of natural

justice.

19.

Now the other residual question required to be determent is whether workman is entitled for the relief of

reinstatement with bag baggage’s, it was strongly argued on behalf of the management that instead of ordering

reinstatement, workman be paid, lump sum compensation. In this regard the reliance was placed by the management

upon the case of (1) Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation Vs. Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha, Decided on 03.12.2014

MANU /SC/1110 /2014 (2) Gopal Vs Hindustan times Ltd., Decided on 30.11.2015 MANU/DE/3722/2015 (3)

Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy Vs. Radhey Shyam, Decided on: 11.07.2008 MANU/SC/3003/2008 (4) Employers,

Management of Centra P and D Inst. Ltd. Vs Union Of India (UOI) and Anr., Decided on: 17.12.2004

MANU/SC/1075/2004 (5) Mahboob Deepak Vs. Nagar Pan.chayat Gajraula and Anr., Decided on: 13.12.2007

MANU/SC/0198/2008 (6) Rakesh Kumar Vs. Management of bhagini Nivedita College Decided on: 25.08.2011

MANU/DE/3245/2011 and (7) Hari Nandan Prasad and Anr. Vs. Employer I/R to Management of FCI and Anr.

Decided on: 17.02.2014 MANU/SC/0103/2013, Where as learned A/R for the workman countered the submissions of

the management by urging that termination in this present case was totally illegal and management has thrown the

workman out of service without following due procedure as such workman is entitled to be reinstated with full Back

wages. It was also argued that ratio of the above rulings is not attracted to the case in hand in as much as facts of the

present case are distinguishable. I have carefully examined the ratio of the law in the case of Bhawnagar Municiple

corp. (supra) and in my humble opinion, Same is distinguishable on facts in the said case workman has hardly worked

for 18 month that to nearly 3 decade ago and the transport department where he was working have been wound up.

Accordingly the workman was not reinstated and only retrenchment compensation was paid. Similarly the ratio of the

law in Gopal case (supra) is not applicable as workman was absent for several days in different years. Reliance placed

upon the case of Rajasthan Lalit Kala (supra) is misplaced as in the said case, fact situation was different. The

litigation in the said case was long drawn as such in the interest of justice, instead of reinstatement only back-wedges in

the sum of with 3 lakhs was order to be paid for the workman. However in the above case Honorable Supreme Court

held as under…..

“ Para 17: Once the termination of service of an employee is held to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement is

ordinarily available to the employee. But the relief of reinstatement with full back-wages need not be granted

automatically in every case where the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal records the findings that the

termination of services of a workman was in violation of the provisions of the Act. For this purpose, several

factors like the manner and method of selection; nature of appointment—ad hoc, daily-wage, temporary or

permanent etc., period for which the workman had worked and the delay in raising industrial dispute, are

required to be taken into consideration.”

“Para 18: On the aspect, in General Manager, Haryana Roadways case (supra), a three-Judge Bench of this

Court has observed thus:

3756

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination

of service was in violation of Section 25f of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors

like the manner and method of selection and appointment, i.e., whether after proper advertisement of the

vacancy or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature appointments, namely, whether ad

hoc, short term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job

and the like should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the

important factors, which has to be taken into consideration, is the length of service, which the workman had

rendered with the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are

wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view that at his age and the

qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However, where the

total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the complete period,

i.e., from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is often quite large,

would be wholly inappropriate. Another important factor, which requires to be taken into consideration is the

nature of employment. A regular services of permanent character cannot be compared to short or intermittent

daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calendar year.”

20.

I have carefully gone through the ratio of law in Employers, Management of Central P & D Institute Ltd. Vs.

Union of India ( AIR 2005 SC 633) and fact situation contained in the said ruling reveals a different story. It is clear

from perusal of the judgment, in the said case that the lady workman was not interested in going back to her duties on

the terms and conditions applicable to her on the date of her discharge as daily wager. Her discharge from service as

daily wager was in violation of Section 25F of the Act. Since she was not willing to join duty, as such, she was

awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.25,000.00. Similarly, reliance placed upon the case of Mahboob Deepak Vs.

Nagar Panchayat Gajraula, decided on 13.12.2007 by the Hon’ble Apex Court is also not of much help so as to support

the contention of the management. In the said case, workman was deployed as a daily wager and has not right to the

post. His deployment was purely on temporary basis and one to one basis as he could not have been deployed against

any Class III post. The said appointment was also held to be dehor the rules. It was against this background, in view of

the termination of service of the said workman, the Court ultimately awarded only damages of Rs.50,000.00 as his

appointment was against statutory rules. Equally misplaced is reliance upon the case of Rakesh Kumar Vs.

Management of Bagini Nevedita College decided on 25.08.2011 by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and it is clear

from perusal of the judgment that termination of the job of the workman was held to be illegal. Option was given to the

management either to reinstate the workman without back wages or to pay the workman Rs.60,000.00 as lumpsum

compensation alongwith Rs.10,000.00 as cost of litigation in lieu of the reinstatement. Again, it is revealed from para 6

of the judgment that the workman in the said case was engaged on adhoc basis hardly for 3-4 months and his total

service was hardly about two years after ignoring the artificial breaks. Moreover, a regular employee had been selected

against this post in accordance with the rules. Workman had also initially refused re-employment on adhoc basis as a

result of which no reinstatement of the workman was allowed and only compensation was paid.

21.

Lastly, in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad Vs. Employer I/R to Management of FCI decided on 17.02.2014,

Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with the question of regularization of the workmen who have worked for more than 240 days

continuously preceding their termination or disengagement as well as question of granting benefit of the scheme

contained in circular dated 06.05.1997. Out of the two workmen, benefit of the scheme was granted to one workman

whose case was duly covered by the said circular and it was denied to appellant No.1 (workman) who was not in

service when the circular was issued on 06.05.1987 as his services were dispensed with four years prior to issuance of

the said scheme. It is clear that ratio of the above authority does not help the case of the management so far as the

abstract question of reinstatement is concerned.

22.

It is pertinent to note here that fact situation in the present case is different from the factual matrix of the cases

relied upon by the management, which have been discussed in detail. In most of the cases relied upon, either the

workman was engaged for a short period or on adhoc basis against a non-sanctioned post and that too for a brief period,

whereas admittedly in the present case, the workman was working on regular post and his recruitment was in

accordance with the rules and regulations governing such employment. There is also no delay by the workman in

approaching the Tribunal. Moreover, this Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that the workman was issued letter of

appreciation from time to time and his services were terminated without holding any enquiry.

23.

It is apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti

Junior Adhyapak mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and Ors.(2013)10SCC324. Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court considerd the

question of reinstatement of a workman who service was terminated illegally and was not found gainfully employed.

Finally it was held by the court that in cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service

and back wages was normal rule. Yet again in the case of Tapesh Kumar Paul Vs. BSNL and Anr. AIR 2015 SC357

2014, the question of payment of back wages as well as reinstatement was considered at length. While relying upon of

the ratio of Deepali Gundu Case (supra) and three Judge bench decision in Hindustan Tin Works (P) ltd. Vs.

Employees of M/S Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd and Ors. MANU/SC/0272/1978(1979) 2 SCC 80. In Para 22 it was

observed as under:-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3757

22:- The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or

termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been

but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed

or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an

order which has the effect of serving the employer-employee relationship, the latter’s source of income gets

dried up. Not only the employee concerned, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived

of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education

and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid

starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the

action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the

competent judicial/quasi-judicial body or court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant

statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the

employer wants to deny back wages to the employee contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then

it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully

employed and was getting the same emoluments. The denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered

due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the employee concerned and

rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments.

24.

Net result of the above discussion is that termination of the job of the workman with effect from 01.09.2010

vide Ex. WW1/M3 is totally illegal and unjustified and as a consequence thereof, the workman herein, Shri Ajay

Kumar Diwakar, is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages. 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 : July 27, 2016

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1673-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy

dkWVst baMLVªht dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ vkbZMh la- 135@2015) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@91@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1673.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 135/2015) 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 Central Cottage Industries Corporation of India Limited and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 04.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/91/2015-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. 135/2015

Shri Radhey Shyam,

S/o Shri Babu Ram,

House No.58, Vikaram Enclave,

Dilshad Extension, Part II, Bhopura,

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201 005

…Workman

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s Central Cottage Industries Corporation of India Ltd.,

Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Janpath,

New Delhi – 110 001

…Management

3758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

A letter No.L-42012/91/2015-IR(DU) dated 26.05.2015 was received from Ministry of Labour for

adjudication of the industrial dispute under clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) with the following terms of reference:

‘Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman, Shri Radhey Shyam, S/o

Shri Babu Ram is illegal and/or unjustified and if yes, to what relief is the workman entitled and what

directions are necessary in this respect?

2.

Both the parties were put to notice and upon appearance, Shri Radhey Shyam, the workman herein, filed

statement of claim wherein it is averred that the workman joined services of the management on 28.12.1993 as a helper

and his last drawn wages was Rs.20,340.50 as per the pay slip., He had an unblemished record of service and there was

no complaint whatsoever against him regarding performance of his duties. Workman was diligent & devoted and was

also rewarded by the management on many occasions. Appreciation was also issued by the Managing Director, Shri

Durgesh Shankar when the workman was working as delivery assistant at showroom, Janpath, New Delhi vide letter

dated 31.10.2003.

3.

It is also alleged that on 28.12.1993, appointment letter was issued to the workman for probation. Since then,

workman has been regularly working in Delhi office. Workman completed his probation period of one year from the

date of appointment, which was further extended. Thereafter, the workman continued as permanent employee of the

management.

4.

It is the case of the workman that he was seriously ill and was not even in a position to report for duties with

effect from 07.09.2011 and intimation was given in this regard to the management. On 26.09.2011 management issued

show cause notice to the workman and same was duly replied by the workman wherein he had explained the reasons

for his absence was on account of his serious illness. Workman was advised rest and not to do work which required

prolonged sitting and stooping down frequently. Management declined the request of the workman vide letter dated

14.05.2012 and vide letter dated 26.11.2012 terminated his services. Pursuant thereto, a detailed reply was given by the

workman wherein he requested that he may not be terminated and be given work of Guard, which requires sitting only;

or in the alternative to grant him voluntary retirement and with the request to take one of his sons in the job. The

workman has filed medical papers alongwith his reply, but the management refused to retain the workman in service

and thus terminated the workman arbitrarily and unjustifiably. Thereafter workman served legal demand notice dated

09.09.2013 upon the management but of no use.

5.

It is pertinent to mention here that despite issuance of notice to the management, none appeared on behalf of

the management, as a result of which this Tribunal vide a order dated 12.01.2016, proceeded ex-parte against the

management.

6.

Thereafter, ex-parte evidence of the workman was recorded. The workman tendered in evidence his affidavit

Ex.WW1/A and documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.W1/9. It is clear from averments contained in the affidavit that it is

virtually reiteration of the material facts contained in the statement of claim.

7.

During the course of arguments, attention of the Tribunal was invited to Office Order No.1021 dated

30.12.1998 Ex.WW1/8 which shows that the workman was initially appointed as helper from 28.12.1993 in Delhi

office on payment of salary of Rs.1100.00 per month. He was to remain on probation for a period of one year from

the date of his appointment. Letter Ex.WW1/9 shows that the management has remitted Rs.1,98,994.90 in Saving

Bank account of the workman towards full and final dues payable to him on account of his termination from service

with effect from 26.11.2012. It is necessary to mention here that during his service the workman was issued letter of

appreciation Ex.WW1/1 by the management. Letter Ex.WW1/2 shows that he was a delivery assistant at the time of

termination of his job. It is also mentioned in the said letter that the workman has not been reporting for duties from

27.12.2010 to 03.09.2011 and 07.09.2011 till issue of the said letter dated 26.11.2012 on account of various medical

ailments. There is also mention of the fact in the letter that the workman has clearly informed the management that he

was unable either to walk or sit for long time or even to bend down. It was on account of these circumstances that the

management was constrained to terminate services of the workman on 26.11.2012. Demand notice in the present case

is Ex.WW1/3.

8.

Now, the vital question which requires determination in the present case is whether the termination of job of

the workman herein is illegal and/or unjustified. It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that the workman herein was

initially appointed on 28.12.1993 as is evident from his letter of appointment Ex.WW1/8. Permanent disability

certificate of the workman is Ex.WW1/5, which reads as under:

‘This is to certify that Shri Radhey Shyam S/o Shri Babu Lal, aged 52 years old Male/Female, Registration

No.420/88/03/16 is a case of locomotor disabled and has 75% (seventy five percent) permanent locomotor

impairment in relation to his/her whole body.’

9.

Workman, in reply to the show cause notice, has clearly mentioned in his reply Ex.WW1/6, that due to illness

workman is not in a position to attend office and regarding this, he had already informed the office in writing that the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3759

doctor has advised him complete rest and he is facing tremendous difficulty in walking. It was on account of this

reason, that the workman was not in a position to attend office and he had requested the management with folded

hands that he either be given voluntary retirement or one of his sons be adjusted suitably in his place by the

management.

10.

Admittedly, in the case in hand, no enquiry whatsoever was conducted by the management before the issuing

order of termination of the workman herein vide letter Ex.WW1/2. It is further clear from facts discussed above that

absence of the workman herein was not intentional but the same was due to reasons beyond his control. He has

specifically mentioned in his reply Ex.WW1/6 that the doctor has advised him medical rest and he was not even in a

position to walk properly. It is not the case of the management that the workman has wilfully and intentionally

abstained from duty. Rather, it is clearly mentioned in the disability certificate Ex.WW1/5 that the workman is

suffering from disability to the extent of 75%. It is case of locomotor disability in relation to whole body. In such

circumstances, the management instead of taking a sympathetic and holistic view of the entire matter has gone to the

extent of terminating the services of the workman in utter violation of principles of natural justice without even holding

an enquiry. There is no evidence adduced by the management nor any reply to the statement of claim has been

filed. As such, averments contained in the affidavit of the workman, Ex.WW1/A remains unrebutted and same are

liable to be accepted.

11.

During the course of arguments on behalf of the workman, reliance was placed by the learned authorized

representative upon the case of Kunal Singh Vs. Union of India wherein provisions of Disabilities (Equal

Opportunities, Protection Of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995 was the subject matter of interpretation before

the highest Court. Section 47 of the above Act, which is relevant in the context of the controversy reads as under:

47.

Non-discrimination in Government Employment

(1)

No establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a

disability during his service :

Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding,

could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits :

Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a

supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation,

whichever is earlier.

(2)

No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability:

Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on

in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in

such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.’

12.

It is clear from the above provisions that the employee who has acquired disability during his service is neither

to be reduced in rank nor his services can be dispensed with during the course of employment. Rather, duty has been

cast by the proviso of the above section to adjust such an employee on a suitable post till the age of his

superannuation. Similarly, no promotion can be denied to a person merely on grounds of disability. Although here

this Tribunal is not concerned with the promotion of a disabled person, intention of the Parliament in the above

Legislation is manifest and clear from the above provisions, which excludes any action of discrimination with disabled

persons who is in employment of the Government.

13.

Yet, in another latest judgement, Hon’ble Supreme Court while interpreting provisions of Section 33 of the

above Act in WP(C) No.521/2016 Rajiv Kumar Gupta and others Vs. Union of India, decided on 30.06.2016, quashed

the office memorandum of the Government of India issued under persons with Disability Act 1995, wherein certain

unreasonable conditions were contained in the memorandum while considering the question of promotion of disabled

employees. An overall examination of the judgement would show that the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically

observed that persons with disability are to be treated in a proper manner and cannot be thrown out from service on the

grounds of their non-suitability for the said post. In the case in hand also, services of the workman herein has been

terminated by the management vide letter Ex.WW1/2 without any enquiry or procedure. Accordingly, it is held that

order of termination dated 26.11.2012 of the workman herein is totally illegal and unjustified. As such, the same

cannot be legally sustained.

14.

As a necessary corollary to the above discussion, it is held that Shri Radhey Shyam, workman

herein, is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages, including all consequential benefits. An award is,

accordingly, passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : July 29, 2016

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

3760

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1674-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj E;qfufliy

dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ fnYyh (lkmFk) ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ vkbZMh la- 110@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@75@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1674.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 110/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the M/s. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (South) and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 04.08.2016.

[No. L-42011/75/2013-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. 110/2013

Shri Netar Pal, S/o Shri Rajveer

Through MCD General Mazdoor Union,

Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10,

Jam Nagar House, Shahjahan Road,

New Delhi

…Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi(South),

9th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road,

New Delhi 110 002

…Management

Reference under Section 10 sub section (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) was

received from the Central Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment vide it orders No.L-42011/75/2013-

IR(DU) dated 22.07.2013 for adjudication of the industrial dispute with the following terms:

‘Whether the action of the management of MCD in not granting pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 with effect from

16.07.1997 and revised from time to time alongwith all consequential benefits to workman Shri Neter Pal, S/o

Shri Rajveer, officiating Chaudhary is fair and justified? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?’

2.

Both the parties were put to notice and the workman Shri Netar Pal filed his statement of claim, wherein it is

alleged that he has been allotted work of Chaudhary with effect from 16.07.1997 by the competent officers of

Horticulture Department. He was posted in Green Park under South Zone to work under Director of Horticulture.

However, he has been denied pay scale of Chaudhary, revised from time to time. His qualification is 10th pass though

no such qualification is prescribed for promotion to the post of Garden Chaudhary. The workman has got payment of

salary in the lower pay scale of mali, i.e. Rs.2550-3200 revised from time to time and has been denied the scale of

Chaudhary, i.e. Rs.3050-4590 for his performing the duty of Chaudhary with effect from 16.07.1997. Action of the

management is alleged to be illegal and unjustified and amounts to unfair labour practice.

3.

It is also averred in para 6 of the statement of claim that Hon’ble High Court, Delhi, in the matter of Jai

Chand vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi (CW 6514/2001) has disapproved the non-payment of wages for those malis

who are working on the post of Chaudhary vide its judgement dated 02.05.2003. After the above judgement of the

Hon’ble

Court,

Municipal

Corporation

of

Delhi

(Horticulture

Department)

has

also

issued

order

No.ADC(Hor.)/AO(Hort)/DA-VII/05/457 dated 04.03.2005 (Annexure B). There is also reference to the judgment of

Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Sultan Singh wherein also

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3761

plea of the MCD regarding non-payment of wages of Chaudhary to malis who are doing working of Chaudhary, was

turned down by the Hon’ble High Court in judgement dated 27.07.2011.

4.

It is also averred that similar situated workmen (Mali and Chowkidar) who were performing duty of

Chaudhary were granted pay scale of Chaudhary from the date when they were asked to perform duty on the higher

post and management has challenged the order dated 27.07.2011 of the Labour Court in the matter of MCD vs Sultan

Singh as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by Special Leave to Appeal No.S20069/2011 and the plea

by MCD all the time has been dismissed by both, before the High Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Workman herein is also similarly situated and doing work of Chaudhary and as such entitled to same benefits.

5.

Management has demurred claim of the workman by taking preliminary objections, inter alia, present dispute

is not an industrial dispute and no demand notice has been served upon the management, MCD General Mazdoor

Sangh has not locus standi to raise the present dispute as the said union is not a recognized of the management. In para

5 of the preliminary objection, it is admitted that the workman herein was engaged on the post of mali on daily wage

basis and was later on regularized on the same post of mali in the pay scale Rs.750-940 (pre-revised) + usual

allowances. There is prescribed procedure for promotion to the post of Garden Chaudhary and there must be

sanctioned/vacant post of Garden Chaudhary to which the workman can lay claim when he has passed trade test

conducted by the department. Claimant has not passed the said trade test nor is he performing duties of Garden

Chaudhary. No such office order has been issued by the competent authority. It is further alleged that the workman

herein is not entitled for any relief on account of delay and laches and reliance is also put on judgements of the Apex

Court in the case of ‘Nedungadi Bank Limited Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty & ors’ (2002 (2) SC 4) and State Co-op Land

Development Bank Vs. Neelam (2005) 5 SC 91). Management, on merits, have denied material averments and denied

that the workman herein is 10th pass or was performing duties of Chaudhary at any point of time. As pper service book

of the claimant, he is only 7th pass. Accordingly, it is prayed that claim of the workman herein is liable to be

dismissed, being devoid of merits.

6.

Against this factual background, my learned predecessor, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, vide a order

dated 28.10.2013, framed the following issues:

(i)

Whether a stale claim has been referred for adjudication? It yes, its effects.

(ii)

Whether dispute has not acquired status of an industrial dispute for want of service of demand notice

on the management?

(iii)

Whether dispute has not acquired status of an industrial dispute for want of espousal?

(iv)

As in terms of reference

Findings on Issue No.(i)

7.

Admittedly, in the present case, reference has been made under Section 10 sub Section (2A) of the Act for

adjudication. It is now well settled position in law that when a reference has been made for adjudication to the Tribunal

or Labour Court, as the case may be, it is paramount duty of the court to decide the same on merits, irrespective of the

pleas taken by the management. The dispute in the case in hand cannot be said to be stale for the simple reason that

there is no previous adjudication of the matter between the parties from a competent court nor that there is inordinate

delay in approaching this Tribunal by the workman.

8.

It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager (2014)

Lab.I.C. 4266 = (2014) 10 SCC 301 that a reference for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal can be made by the

appropriate Government at any time and provisions of Limitation Act does not apply. There are clear observations in

the above judgement that industrial dispute is to be decided by the Tribunal or Labour Court on merits, irrespective of

the plea of limitation. Therefore, ratio of law in the case of ‘Nedungadi Bank Limited Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty & ors’

(supra) and State Co-op Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam (supra) is not applicable to the case in hand as there is no

inordinate delay nor workman is guilty of delay and laches in approaching the court. Accordingly, this issue is decided

in favour of the workman and against the management.

Findings on Issue No.(ii) and (iii)

9.

Both these issues are being taken up together for the purpose of discussion as well as disposal as they are

inter-related. It is clear from the preliminary objections taken in the written statement by the management that the

management has raised objections that no demand notice has been served upon the management nor the MCD General

Mazdoor Union has any locus standi to raise the present dispute as the union is not a recognized union of the

management. To my mind, there is no requirement of law that a dispute can be raised only by a recognized union. In

this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Kripa

Shankar Jaiswal (AIR 1961 (2) SC Report 1) wherein also objection was taken on behalf of the management that the

3762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

union was not a registered under the Trade Union Act on the date of the settlement and said plea was rejected by

observing as under:

‘Held, that for a dispute to constitute an industrial dispute it is not a requisite condition that it should be

sponsored by a recognized union or that all the workmen of an industrial establishment should be

parties to it. A settlement arrived at in course of conciliation proceedings falls within Section 18(3)(a) and (d)

of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such binds all the workmen though an unregistered union or only some

of workmen may have raised the dispute. The absence of notice under Section 11(2) by the Conciliation

Officer does not affect the jurisdiction of the conciliation officer and its only purpose is to apprise the

establishment that the person who is coming is the conciliation officer and not a stranger. Any

contravention of Section 12(6) in not submitting the report within 14 days may be a breach of duty on the part

of the conciliation officer ; it does not affect the legality of the proceedings which terminated as provided in

Section 20(2) of the Act.

10.

Equally merit-less is the plea taken by the management that the present dispute is not sponsored or espoused

by substantial number of workmen. It is fairly settled position in law that even non-espousal of a case by the union

would not deprive the workman of the relief to which the workman is otherwise entitled under the law. Such view

appears to have been taken in the case of Nazrul Hassan Siddiqui vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial cum Labour Court

Bombay (1997) Lab.I.C. 1807. In the above cited case also contention was raised by the management that the dispute

dies not fall within the definition of ‘industrial dispute’ and the same has not been referred or supported by substantial

section of workmen. High Court rejected the plea of the management by placing reliance upon the decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (AIR 1960 SC 777), which it was observed

as under:

‘We have already noticed that an industrial dispute can be raised by a group of workmen or by a

union even though neither of them represent the majority of the workmen concerned; in other words, the

majority rule on which the appellant’s construction of Section 19(6) is based is inapplicable in the matter of

the reference under Section 10 of the Act. Even a minority group of workmen can make a demand and

thereby raise an industrial dispute which in a proper case would be referred or adjudication under Section 20.’

11.

In view of the ratio of the judgement discussed above, it is clear that espousal of a dispute by the union is not

sine qua non for adjudication of such dispute in terms of Section 10 of the Act. Consequently, both these issues are

decided in favour of the workman and against the management.

Findings on Issue No.4

12.

Now, the main issue which requires determination in the case in hand is whether the workman herein is

entitled for grant of pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 as revised from time to time alongwith consequential benefits. It is

clear from pleadings of the parties that initially the workman herein was appointed as mali on daily wage basis and later

on he was regularized on the same post of mali in the pay scale of Rs.750-940(pre-revised) alongwith usual allowances.

This fact has been admitted even by the management in para 5 of the preliminary objections.

13.

There is also ample evidence on record that the workman herein was performing duty as officiating

Chaudhary. It is clear from perusal of document dated 12.08.2004 (List of Chaudharys working in Udhyah Vibhag)

Ex.WW1/1 that name of the workman, Shri Ramesh Chand finds mention at serial No.26 and is working as Chaudhary

since 16.07.1997. Workman, in order to prove his case, has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.WW1/A, wherein

material averments contained in statement of claim has been reiterated. It is specifically alleged in the affidavit that he

was doing work of acting Chaudhary with effect from 01.01.1997. There are also averments in his affidavit that one

Shri Jai Chand has also been granted pay scale of Chaudhary by the management of MCD and Sultan Singh and others

vs. MCD, who were doing work of acting Chaudhary , vide judgement of the Hon’ble High Court, i.e. in the case of

MCD vs. Sultan Singh & others and necessary orders for implementation of the said judgement were issued by MCD

vide order dated 04.06.2013. There is no cross examination of the workman/deponent that he has appeared as WW1.

The workman has also tendered in evidence extracts of attendance registers Ex.WW1/4 for July 2013, Ex.WW1/5 for

August 2013, Ex.WW1/6 for September 2013, Ex.WW1/7 for October 2013 and Ex.WW1/8 for November 2013,

which shows that the workman Shri Ramesh Chand was performing duties of Chaudhary.

14.

There is no merit in the stand taken by the management in its reply, that the workman here is not entitled for

promotion to the post of Chaudhary as similarly situated other workers who were performing duties of Chaudhary, i.e.

acting Chaudhary have been granted pay scale of Garden Chaudhary after judgement dated 27.07.2011 rendered by the

Hon’ble High Court in the case of MCD vs. Sultan Singh as well as MCD vs. Mahipal(WP 5550 of 2010). Operating

portion of the judgement in Sultan Singh (supra) of the Hon’ble Division Bench is as under:

“28. Considering the entire facts and circumstances it is apparent that the claim of the respondents have

always been that they should be paid the difference in pay of Mali/Chowkidar and the Garden Chaudhary as

they were made to work on the post of Garden Chaudhary whereas the petitioner had first denied that they

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3763

worked as Garden Chaudharies, then took the plea that the Assistant Director (Horticulture) was not

competent to ask the respondents to work as Garden Chaudharies and that the respondents cannot be appointed

to the post of Garden Chaudharies in accordance with the recruitment rules. There is no doubt that respondents

are not claiming appointment to the post of Garden Chaudharies on account of having worked on ad-hoc basis

on the post of Garden Chaudhary contrary to rules or that some of them not having the requisite qualifications

are entitled for relaxation.

29. In the entirety of facts and circumstances therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to

make out any such grounds which will impel this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution to set aside the orders of the Tribunal dated 29th January, 2010 and 7th October, 2010 as no

illegality or un- sustainability or perversity in the orders of the Tribunal has been made out.

30. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.”

15.

It is further clear that SLP was also filed by MCD before the Hon’ble Apex Court vide IA No.2 WP for special

leave S20069/2011 MCD vs. Sultan Singh and others which was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated

09.04.2012. It is further clear that the Hon’ble High Court in Sultan Singh case strongly deprecated the stand taken by

the management that the workmen were not possessing requisite qualification or have not qualified the test etc. It was

clarified that since the workmen were discharging duties to the post of Garden Chaudhary, a such, workmen were

entitled for the salary of Garden Chaudhary and competent authority need not look into anything else except the fact

that the workman had worked as Garden Chaudhary. Therefore, stand taken by the management that the workman

herein could not qualify the test conducted by Education Consultant India Limited is without any merit and has no

relevance so far as question of grant of salary against the post of Garden Chaudhary is concerned.

16.

It is not out of place to mention here that even if the workman herein was not a party in Sultan Singh case

referred above, judgement of the Hon’ble High Court is binding on the management and management is required to

implement the same in letter and spirit as the same is judgement in rem, and all similarly situated workmen are required

to be accorded the benefit of the said judgement of the Hon’ble High Court, which have become final. There is no

question of even plea of delay and laches when management had not led any evidence to prove the same. The Hon’ble

High Court has decided an abstract proposition of law, i.e. a mali who is performing duty as officiating/acting

Chaudhary is entitled to the salary/wages of Chaudhary. Law is fairly settled that if a person is working on a higher

post, on adhoc or temporary basis, even such workman is entitled to salary/wages of higher post, unless rules or

regulations specifically provides otherwise. I find support to this view from Secretary vs. Lieutenant Governor Port

Blair (1998 Lab.I.C. 598), yet in another case, Hon’ble Apex Court while considering that question of grant of

benefits to similarly situated employees who were not party to the writ petition or lis in the case of State of Uttar

Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347 observed as under:

“The moot question which requires determination is as to whether in the given case, approach of the Tribunal

and the High Court was correct in extending the benefit of earlier judgment of the Tribunal, which had

attained finality as it was affirmed till the Supreme Court. The legal principles that can be culled from the

judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under:

(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically

situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to

discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be

applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to

time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would

be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be

treated differently.

(2) However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as

acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the

same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the

Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the

judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as

fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.

(3) However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was

judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the

Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit

thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision

touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularization and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union

of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the

said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the

3764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get

the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from

either laches and delays or acquiescence.”

17.

In view of the discussions made herein above, it is held that the workman is entitled to the pay scale of Garden

Chaudhary with effect from 16.07.1997 and as a corollary, management is liable pay the difference of wages of mali

vis-a-vis Garden Chaudhary from the date when the workman herein was performing duties and functions of Garden

Chaudhary. 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 : July 29, 2016

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1675-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Ldksi ,aM

vnlZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV (vkbZMh la- 37@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-08-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@191@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1675.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 37/2016) 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 SCOPE and others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

04.08.2016.

[No. L-42011/191/2015-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. 37/2016

Shri Surender Singh Negi, S/o Shri Vijay Singh Negi, through

The President,

Delhi Offices and Establishment Employees Union

Affiliated to CITU, BTR Bhawan,

13 A, Rouse Avenue

New Delhi 110 019

…Workman

Versus

1.

The General Manager,

SCOPE,

Core No.8, 1st Floor,

SCOPE - 7, Lodhi Road,

New Delhi 110 003

2.

M/s Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd.

40/93, 40/92, Chittaranjan Park,

New Delhi 110 019

…Managements

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No.L-42011/191/2015-IR(DU) dated 31.12.2015, referred the following

industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3765

“Whether the termination of Shri Surender Singh Negi S/o Shri Vijay Singh Negi with effect from 28.10.2014

by the management of Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd. is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to? Whether the contract awarded by SCOPE(Principal Employer) to Sentinels Security

Pvt. Ltd. for employment of security guards in the establishment of principal employer can be construed as

sham and bogus as requested by the workman Shri Surender Singh Negi S/o Shri Vijay Singh Negi? If yes,

what relief the workman is entitled to?

2.

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement

of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt

of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

Despite directions so given, Shri Surender Singh Negi opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

3.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the

postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained

affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was

served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No

claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the

reference on merits.

4.

Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause

against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let

this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for

publication.

Dated : August 2, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1676-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Ldksi ,aM

vnlZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV (vkbZMh la- 38@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-08-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@192@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1676.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 38/2016) 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 SCOPE and others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

04.08.2016.

[No. L-42011/192/2015-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. 38/2016

Shri Deepak Ranjan Pradhan, S/o Shri Sarveshwar Pradhan, through

The President,

Delhi Offices and Establishment Employees Union

Affiliated to CITU, BTR Bhawan,

13 A, Rouse Avenue

New Delhi 110 019

…Workman

3766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

1.

The General Manager,

SCOPE,

Core No.8, 1st Floor,

SCOPE - 7, Lodhi Road,

New Delhi 110 003

2.

M/s. Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd.

40/93, 40/92, Chittaranjan Park,

New Delhi 110 019

…Managements

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No. L-42011/192/2015-IR(DU) dated 31.12.2015, referred the following

industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the termination of Shri Deepak Ranjan Pradhan S/o Shri Sarveshwar Pradhan with effect from

28.10.2014 by the management of Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd. is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the

workman concerned is entitled to? Whether the contract awarded by SCOPE(Principal Employer) to Sentinels

Security Pvt. Ltd. for employment of security guards in the establishment of principal employer can be

construed as sham and bogus as requested by the workman Shri Deepak Ranjan Pradhan S/o Shri Sarveshwar

Pradhan? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to?

2.

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement

of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt

of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

Despite directions so given, Shri Deepak Ranjan Pradhan opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

3.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the

postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained

affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was

served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No

claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the

reference on merits.

4.

Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause

against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let

this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for

publication.

Dated : August 2, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1677-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Ldksi ,aM

vnlZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV (vkbZMh la- 39@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-08-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@193@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1677.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 39/2016) 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 SCOPE and others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

04.08.2016.

[No. L-42011/193/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3767

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. 39/2016

Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, S/o Shri Basudev Singh, through

The President,

Delhi Offices and Establishment Employees Union

Affiliated to CITU, BTR Bhawan,

13 A, Rouse Avenue

New Delhi 110 019

…Workman

Versus

1.

The General Manager,

SCOPE,

Core No.8, 1st Floor,

SCOPE - 7, Lodhi Road,

New Delhi 110 003

2.

M/s. Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd.

40/93, 40/92, Chittaranjan Park,

New Delhi 110 019

…Managements

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No.L-42011/193/2015-IR(DU) dated 31.12.2015, referred the following

industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the termination of Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh S/o Shri Basudev Singh with effect from 28.10.2014 by

the management of Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd. is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to? Whether the contract awarded by SCOPE(Principal Employer) to Sentinels Security

Pvt. Ltd. for employment of security guards in the establishment of principal employer can be construed as

sham and bogus as requested by the workman Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh S/o Shri Basudev Singh? If yes, what

relief the workman is entitled to?

2.

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement

of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt

of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

Despite directions so given, Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

3.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the

postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained

affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was

served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No

claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the

reference on merits.

4.

Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause

against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let

this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for

publication.

Dated : August 2, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1678-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Ldksi ,aM

vnlZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV (vkbZMh la- 40@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-08-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@194@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1678.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 40/2016) 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 SCOPE and others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

04.08.2016.

[No. L-42011/194/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

3768

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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. 40/2016

Shri Biresh Chander, S/o Shri Ram Prakash Yadav, through

The President,

Delhi Offices and Establishment Employees Union

Affiliated to CITU, BTR Bhawan,

13 A, Rouse Avenue

New Delhi 110 019

…Workman

Versus

1.

The General Manager,

SCOPE,

Core No.8, 1st Floor,

SCOPE - 7, Lodhi Road,

New Delhi 110 003

2.

M/s Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd.

40/93, 40/92, Chittaranjan Park,

New Delhi 110 019

…Managements

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No.L-42011/194/2015-IR(DU) dated 31.12.2015, referred the following

industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the termination of Shri Biresh Chander S/o Shri Ram Prakash Yadav with effect from 28.10.2014 by

the management of Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd. is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to? Whether the contract awarded by SCOPE(Principal Employer) to Sentinels Security

Pvt. Ltd. for employment of security guards in the establishment of principal employer can be construed as

sham and bogus as requested by the workman Shri Biresh Chander S/o Shri Ram Prakash Yadav? If yes, what

relief the workman is entitled to?

2.

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement

of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt

of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

Despite directions so given, Shri Biresh Chander opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

3.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the

postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained

affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was

served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No

claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the

reference on merits.

4.

Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause

against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let

this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for

publication.

Dated : August 2, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1679-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Ldksi ,aM

vnlZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV (vkbZMh la- 41@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-08-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@195@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2016

S.O. 1679.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 41/2016) 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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3769

the management of the SCOPE and others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

04.08.2016.

[No. L-42011/195/2015-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. 41/2016

Shri Ashok Kumar Bal, S/o Shri Amuly Kumar Bal, through

The President,

Delhi Offices and Establishment Employees Union

Affiliated to CITU, BTR Bhawan,

13 A, Rouse Avenue

New Delhi 110 019

…Workman

Versus

1.

The General Manager,

SCOPE,

Core No.8, 1st Floor,

SCOPE - 7, Lodhi Road,

New Delhi 110 003

2.

M/s. Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd.

40/93, 40/92, Chittaranjan Park,

New Delhi 110 019

…Managements

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No.L-42011/195/2015-IR(DU) dated 31.12.2015, referred the following

industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the termination of Shri Biresh Chander S/o Shri Ram Prakash Yadav with effect from 28.10.2014 by

the management of Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd. is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to? Whether the contract awarded by SCOPE(Principal Employer) to Sentinels Security

Pvt. Ltd. for employment of security guards in the establishment of principal employer can be construed as

sham and bogus as requested by the workman Shri Biresh Chander S/o Shri Ram Prakash Yadav? If yes, what

relief the workman is entitled to?

2.

Vide letter No.L-42011/195/2015-IR(DU) dated 28.03.2016, Corrigendum was issued by the appropriate

Government, vide which the schedule of reference was corrected as under:

“Whether the termination of Shri Ashok Kumar Bal S/o Shri Amuly Kumar Bal with effect from 28.10.2014

by the management of Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd. is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to? Whether the contract awarded by SCOPE(Principal Employer) to Sentinels Security

Pvt. Ltd. for employment of security guards in the establishment of principal employer can be construed as

sham and bogus as requested by the workman Shri Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Amuly Kumar Bal? If yes, what

relief the workman is entitled to?

3.

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement

of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt

of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

Despite directions so given, Shri Ashok Kumar Bal opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

4.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the

postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained

affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was

served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No

claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the

reference on merits.

5.

Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause

against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let

this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for

publication.

Dated : August 2, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

3770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1680-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

feujy Vsª¯Mx ¯lfMdsV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 100@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

08-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@18@2002&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2016

S.O. 1680.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 100/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Mineral Trading Syndicate and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

08.08.2016.

[No. L-29012/18/2002-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 100/2002

L-29012/18/2002-IR(M), dated 21.10.2002

Date of Passing Order – 17th June, 2016

Between:

The Managing Director,

Bhulbeda Iron Mines of

M/s. Mineral Trading Syndicate,

At./Po. Barbil, Dist. Keonjhar, Orissa

…1st Party-Management

(And)

Shri Ladu Munda,

S/o. Mathura Munda,

Village- Rugudi, Po. Chamakpur,

Via-Champua, Orissa, Keonjhar

…2nd Party-Workman

Appearances:

None

…

For the 1st Party-Management

None

…

For the 2nd Party-Workman

ORDER

Both the parties are found absent on repeated call. Perusal of the case record reveals that the 2nd party-

Workman filed its statement of claim on 4.2.2003, whereas the 1st Party-Management on being noticed filed its written

statement on 10.1.2005. On the pleadings of the parties issues were settled on 7.9.2010. Thereafter the case was posted

for evidence of the 2nd party-workman from time to time. Neither the 2nd party-workman nor the 1st Party-Management

made their appearance after settlement of issues. Both of them remained absent for which notices were issued to them

fixing 19.4.2016 for their appearance. As none of the parties has appeared on the date fixed it seems that either they

are not interested to prosecute their dispute or the dispute might have been settled amicably out of the Tribunal. In the

above back-drops there is no alternative than to pass a no-dispute award and accordingly a no-dispute award is passed

in the case.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3771

Accordingly the reference is answered in the above terms.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1681-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

feujy Vsª¯Mx ¯lfMdsV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 101@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

08-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@19@2002&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2016

S.O. 1681.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 101/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Mineral Trading Syndicate and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

08.08.2016.

[No. L-29012/19/2002-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 101/2002

L-29012/19/2002-IR(M), dated 21.10.2002

Date of Passing Order – 17th June, 2016

Between:

The Managing Director,

Bhulbeda Iron Mines of

M/s. Mineral Trading Syndicate,

At./Po. Barbil, Dist. Keonjhar, Orissa

…1st Party-Management

(And)

Shri Arjun Mohakud,

S/o. Purna Ch. Mohakud,

Village- Rugudi, Po. Chamakpur,

Via-Champua, Orissa, Keonjhar

…2nd Party-Workman

Appearances:

None

…

For the 1st Party-Management

None

…

For the 2nd Party-Workman

ORDER

Both the parties are found absent on repeated call. Perusal of the case record reveals that the 2nd party-

Workman filed its statement of claim on 5.2.2003, whereas the 1st Party-Management on being noticed filed its written

statement on 10.1.2005. On the pleadings of the parties issues were settled on 7.9.2010. Thereafter the case was posted

for evidence of the 2nd party-workman from time to time. Neither the 2nd party-workman nor the 1st Party-Management

3772

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

made their appearance after settlement of issues. Both of them remained absent for which notices were issued to them

fixing 19.4.2016 for their appearance. As none of the parties has appeared on the date fixed it seems that either they

are not interested to prosecute their dispute or the dispute might have been settled amicably out of the Tribunal. In the

above back-drops there is no alternative than to pass a no-dispute award and accordingly a no-dispute award is passed

in the case.

Accordingly the reference is answered in the above terms.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1682-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

feujy Vsª¯Mx ¯lfMdsV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 102@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

08-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@20@2002&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2016

S.O. 1682.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 102/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Mineral Trading Syndicate and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

08.08.2016.

[No. L-29012/20/2002-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 102/2002

L-29012/20/2002-IR(M), dated 10.10.2002

Date of Passing Order – 17th June, 2016

Between:

The Managing Director,

Bhulbeda Iron Mines of

M/s. Mineral Trading Syndicate,

At./Po. Barbil, Dist. Keonjhar, Orissa

…1st Party-Management

(And)

Shri Sidu Munda,

S/o. Gura Munda,

Village- Rugudi, Po. Chamakpur,

Via-Champua, Orissa, Keonjhar

…2nd Party-Workman

Appearances:

None

…

For the 1st Party-Management

None

…

For the 2nd Party-Workman

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3773

ORDER

Both the parties are found absent on repeated call. Perusal of the case record reveals that the 2nd party-

Workman filed its statement of claim on 4.2.2003, whereas the 1st Party-Management on being noticed filed its written

statement on 10.1.2005. On the pleadings of the parties issues were settled on 7.9.2010. Thereafter the case was posted

for evidence of the 2nd party-workman from time to time. Neither the 2nd party-workman nor the 1st Party-Management

made their appearance after settlement of issues. Both of them remained absent for which notices were issued to them

fixing 19.4.2016 for their appearance. As none of the parties has appeared on the date fixed it seems that either they

are not interested to prosecute their dispute or the dispute might have been settled amicably out of the Tribunal. In the

above back-drops there is no alternative than to pass a no-dispute award and accordingly a no-dispute award is passed

in the case.

Accordingly the reference is answered in the above terms.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1683-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

feujy Vsª¯Mx ¯lfMdsV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 103@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

08-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@21@2002&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2016

S.O. 1683.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 103/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Mineral Trading Syndicate and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

08.08.2016.

[No. L-29012/21/2002-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 103/2002

L-29012/21/2002-IR(M), dated 10.10.2002

Date of Passing Order – 17th June, 2016

Between:

The Managing Director,

Bhulbeda Iron Mines of

M/s. Mineral Trading Syndicate,

At./Po. Barbil, Dist. Keonjhar, Orissa

…1st Party-Management

(And)

Shri Sukurmai Munda,

S/o. Jairam Munda,

Village- Rugudi, Po. Chamakpur,

Via-Champua, Orissa, Keonjhar

…2nd Party-Workman

3774

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances:

None

…

For the 1st Party-Management

None

…

For the 2nd Party-Workman

ORDER

Both the parties are found absent on repeated call. Perusal of the case record reveals that the 2nd party-

Workman filed its statement of claim on 5.2.2003, whereas the 1st Party-Management on being noticed filed its written

statement on 10.1.2005. On the pleadings of the parties issues were settled on 7.9.2010. Thereafter the case was posted

for evidence of the 2nd party-workman from time to time. Neither the 2nd party-workman nor the 1st Party-Management

made their appearance after settlement of issues. Both of them remained absent for which notices were issued to them

fixing 19.4.2016 for their appearance. As none of the parties has appeared on the date fixed it seems that either they

are not interested to prosecute their dispute or the dispute might have been settled amicably out of the Tribunal. In the

above back-drops there is no alternative than to pass a no-dispute award and accordingly a no-dispute award is passed

in the case.

Accordingly the reference is answered in the above terms.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1684-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

feujy Vsª¯Mx ¯lfMdsV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 104@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

08-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@22@2002&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2016

S.O. 1684.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 104/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Mineral Trading Syndicate and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

08.08.2016.

[No. L-29012/22/2002-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 104/2002

L-29012/22/2002-IR(M), dated 09.10.2002

Date of Passing Order – 17th June, 2016

Between:

The Managing Director,

Bhulbeda Iron Mines of

M/s. Mineral Trading Syndicate,

At./Po. Barbil, Dist. Keonjhar, Orissa

…1st Party-Management

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3775

(And)

Shri Chariba Munda,

S/o. Rajo Munda,

Village- Rugudi, Po. Chamakpur,

Via-Champua, Orissa, Keonjhar

…2nd Party-Workman

Appearances:

None

…

For the 1st Party-Management

None

…

For the 2nd Party-Workman

ORDER

Both the parties are found absent on repeated call. Perusal of the case record reveals that the 2nd party-

Workman filed its statement of claim on 4.2.2003, whereas the 1st Party-Management on being noticed filed its written

statement on 10.1.2005. On the pleadings of the parties issues were settled on 7.9.2010. Thereafter the case was posted

for evidence of the 2nd party-workman from time to time. Neither the 2nd party-workman nor the 1st Party-Management

made their appearance after settlement of issues. Both of them remained absent for which notices were issued to them

fixing 19.4.2016 for their appearance. As none of the parties has appeared on the date fixed it seems that either they

are not interested to prosecute their dispute or the dispute might have been settled amicably out of the Tribunal. In the

above back-drops there is no alternative than to pass a no-dispute award and accordingly a no-dispute award is passed

in the case.

2.

Accordingly the reference is answered in the above terms.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1685-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

feujy Vsª¯Mx ¯lfMdsV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 105@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

08-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@24@2002&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2016

S.O. 1685.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 105/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Mineral Trading Syndicate and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

08.08.2016.

[No. L-29012/24/2002-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 105/2002

L-29012/24/2002-IR(M), dated 09.10.2002

3776

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Date of Passing Order – 17th June, 2016

Between:

The Managing Director,

Bhulbeda Iron Mines of

M/s. Mineral Trading Syndicate,

At./Po. Barbil, Dist. Keonjhar, Orissa

…1st Party-Management

(And)

Shri Jairam Munda,

S/o. Rout Munda,

Village- Rugudi, Po. Chamakpur,

Via-Champua, Orissa, Keonjhar

…2nd Party-Workman

Appearances:

None

…

For the 1st Party-Management

None

…

For the 2nd Party-Workman

ORDER

Both the parties are found absent on repeated call. Perusal of the case record reveals that the 2nd party-

Workman filed its statement of claim on 5.2.2003, whereas the 1st Party-Management on being noticed filed its written

statement on 10.1.2005. On the pleadings of the parties issues were settled on 7.9.2010. Thereafter the case was posted

for evidence of the 2nd party-workman from time to time. Neither the 2nd party-workman nor the 1st Party-Management

made their appearance after settlement of issues. Both of them remained absent for which notices were issued to them

fixing 19.4.2016 for their appearance. As none of the parties has appeared on the date fixed it seems that either they

are not interested to prosecute their dispute or the dispute might have been settled amicably out of the Tribunal. In the

above back-drops there is no alternative than to pass a no-dispute award and accordingly a no-dispute award is passed

in the case.

2.

Accordingly the reference is answered in the above terms.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1686-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

feujy Vsª¯Mx ¯lfMdsV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 106@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

08-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@25@2002&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2016

S.O. 1686.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 106/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Mineral Trading Syndicate and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

08.08.2016.

[No. L-29012/25/2002-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3777

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. 106/2002

L-29012/25/2002-IR(M), dated 09.10.2002

Date of Passing Order – 17th June, 2016

Between:

The Managing Director,

Bhulbeda Iron Mines of

M/s. Mineral Trading Syndicate,

At./Po. Barbil, Dist. Keonjhar, Orissa

…1st Party-Management

(And)

Shri Lochan Naik,

At. Hariharpur, Po. Dhobakuchida,

Via-Champua, Dist. Keonjhar,

Orissa

…2nd Party-Workman

Appearances:

None

…

For the 1st Party-Management

None

…

For the 2nd Party-Workman

ORDER

Both the parties are found absent on repeated call. Perusal of the case record reveals that the 2nd party-

Workman filed its statement of claim on 19.11.2008, whereas the 1st Party-Management on being noticed did not file

any written statement and order of exparte was passed against it. Thereafter the case was posted for exparte evidence of

the 2nd party-workman from time to time. Neither the 2nd party-workman nor the 1st Party-Management made their

appearance after filing of statement of claim by the workman. Both of them remained absent for which notices were

issued to them fixing 19.4.2016 for their appearance. As none of the parties has appeared on the date fixed it seems

that either they are not interested to prosecute their dispute or the dispute might have been settled amicably out of the

Tribunal. In the above back-drops there is no alternative than to pass a no-dispute award and accordingly a no-dispute

award is passed in the case.

2.

Accordingly the reference is answered in the above terms.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1687-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

feujy Vsª¯Mx ¯lfMdsV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 107@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

08-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@26@2002&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2016

S.O. 1687.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 107/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Mineral Trading Syndicate and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

08.08.2016.

[No. L-29012/26/2002-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

3778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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. 107/2002

L-29012/26/2002-IR(M), dated 21.10.2002

Date of Passing Order – 17th June, 2016

Between:

The Managing Director,

Bhulbeda Iron Mines of

M/s. Mineral Trading Syndicate,

At./Po. Barbil, Dist. Keonjhar, Orissa

…1st Party-Management

(And)

Shri Raja Munda,

S/o. Gura Munda,

Village- Rugudi, Po. Chamakpur,

Via-Champua, Orissa, Keonjhar

…2nd Party-Workman

Appearances:

None

…

For the 1st Party-Management

None

…

For the 2nd Party-Workman

ORDER

Both the parties are found absent on repeated call. Perusal of the case record reveals that the 2nd party-

Workman filed its statement of claim on 4.2.2003, whereas the 1st Party-Management on being noticed filed its written

statement on 10.1.2005. On the pleadings of the parties issues were settled on 7.9.2010. Thereafter the case was posted

for evidence of the 2nd party-workman from time to time. Neither the 2nd party-workman nor the 1st Party-Management

made their appearance after settlement of issues. Both of them remained absent for which notices were issued to them

fixing 19.4.2016 for their appearance. As none of the parties has appeared on the date fixed it seems that either they

are not interested to prosecute their dispute or the dispute might have been settled amicably out of the Tribunal. In the

above back-drops there is no alternative than to pass a no-dispute award and accordingly a no-dispute award is passed

in the case.

2.

Accordingly the reference is answered in the above terms.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1688-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

feujy Vsª¯Mx ¯lfMdsV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 108@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

08-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@27@2002&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2016

S.O. 1688.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 108/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3779

management of M/s. Mineral Trading Syndicate and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

08.08.2016.

[No. L-29012/27/2002-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 108/2002

L-29012/27/2002-IR(M), dated 17.10.2002

Date of Passing Order – 17th June, 2016

Between:

The Managing Director,

Bhulbeda Iron Mines of

M/s. Mineral Trading Syndicate,

At./Po. Barbil, Dist. Keonjhar, Orissa

…1st Party-Management

(And)

Smt. Subaso Munda,

W/o. Dandala Munda,

Village- Rugudi, Po. Chamakpur,

Via-Champua, Orissa, Keonjhar

…2nd Party-Workman

Appearances:

None

…

For the 1st Party-Management

None

…

For the 2nd Party-Workman

ORDER

Both the parties are found absent on repeated call. Perusal of the case record reveals that the 2nd party-

Workman filed its statement of claim on 4.2.2003, whereas the 1st Party-Management on being noticed filed its written

statement on 10.1.2005. On the pleadings of the parties issues were settled on 7.9.2010. Thereafter the case was posted

for evidence of the 2nd party-workman from time to time. Neither the 2nd party-workman nor the 1st Party-Management

made their appearance after settlement of issues. Both of them remained absent for which notices were issued to them

fixing 19.4.2016 for their appearance. As none of the parties has appeared on the date fixed it seems that either they

are not interested to prosecute their dispute or the dispute might have been settled amicably out of the Tribunal. In the

above back-drops there is no alternative than to pass a no-dispute award and accordingly a no-dispute award is passed

in the case.

2.

Accordingly the reference is answered in the above terms.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1689-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

bafM;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 7@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30011@58@2005&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

3780

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2016

S.O. 1689.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 7/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 08.08.2016.

[No. L-30011/58/2005-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 07/2006

Date of Passing Award – 24th June, 2016

Between:

1.

The Deputy General Manager,

M/s. IOCL, 304, Bhoi Nagar,

Bhubaneswar, Orissa.

2.

Shri Samarendra Mohapatra,

M/s. Shakti Marketers,

Ramchandrapur Bazar, Po./Ps. Jatni,

Dist. Khordha, Orissa.

3.

The Senior Depot Manager,

M/s. IoCL, Chhanaghar Kushamati,

Ps. Jatni, Dist. Khordha, Orissa

…1st Party-Managements

(And)

The General Secretary, All Orissa

Tank Lorry Transport Workers Union,

Pot No. 251, Kharvelanagar, CITU Office,

Unit-III, Bhubaneswar, Khordha, Orissa

…2nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

Shri P.K. Roy, Auth. Representative

…

For the 1st Party- Management No. 1 & 3

None

…

For the 1st Party-Management No. 2.

Kallamudin Khan

…

For the 2nd Party-Union.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour has referred an industrial dispute existing between the

employers in relation to the management of M/s. IOCL, 304, Bhoi Nagar, Bhubaneswar and their workman in exercise

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

Act vide its letter No. L-30011/58/2005 – IR (M) dated 17.04.2006 in respect of the following matter.

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. IOCL, Jatni Depot, Khurda in refusing employment to Sri

Kallamuddin Khan w.e.f. 17.06.2003 through their Contractor M/s. Shakti Marketeers, instead of regularizing

his service in M/s. IOCL, even after rendering more than 8 years of continuous service to the organization in

regular & perennial nature of job, is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3781

2.

Showrn off unnecessary details the case of the 2nd party-Union as emerged from its claim statement is that the

2nd party-workman, namely Shri Kallammuddin Khan was appointed and engaged with designation of “Office Boy”

with effect from 17.10.1994 in the Depot of the 1st Party-Management at Jatni. He was discharging his service with all

sincerity and honesty. After several years of his such employment his service was shifted by the 1st Party-Management

without following proper procedure and law to under a contractor namely M/s. Shakti Marketers owned by one Shri

Samarendra Mohapatra. The workman Shri Kallammuddin was asked to work as a contract labour of handing

contractor with an assurance that he would be absorbed as a regular employee within a short period of time. He and

other workmen were not paid minimum wages as fixed by the Central Government even though their services were

utilized in the 1st Party-Management which is a Central Government undertaking. Statutory benefits like P.F. & E.S.I.

were not extended to them either by the 1st Party-Management or by the contractor, M/s. Shakti Marketers. When a

dispute was raised by the 2nd party-Union on the above aspects as well as on regularization of the workman and his two

other colleagues, the 1st Party-Management refused employment on 17.6.2003 to the disputant workman Kallammuddin

Khan. It has been pleaded that there was no contract between the 1st Party-Management and M/s. Shakti Marketers to

carry out the work of handling through contract labourer and the contractor M/s. Shakti Marketers was being shown a

Handling Contractor only to avoid regularization of service of the workman. When the 1st party-Management refused

employment to him 16.6.2003 a dispute was raised before the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central) for his

reinstatement and regularization of service resulting in the present reference.

3.

The 1st Party-Management has contested the claim taking a stand that at no point of time Kallammuddin Khan

who was given appointment or any engagement as Office Boy or handling labour in Jatni Depot either directly or

through any contractor. As such question does not arise for shifting of his service from 1st Party-Management to under

a contractor (M/s. Shakti Marketers). It is their specific stand that M/s. Shakti Marketers was entrusted to carry out

certain works as a Handling contractor in the year 2000 for year and such contract was extended to 29.2.2004. Since the

contractor employed less than ten workmen to carry out the work the contractor was not required to be registered in

terms of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. Thus denying the relationship of employer and

employee the 1st party-Management has refuted all allegations raised by the 2nd party-Union and made a prayer for

dismissal of the claim of the workman.

4.

Keeping in view the pleadings of the parties following issues have been settled for effective adjudication of

the reference.

ISSUES

1.

Whether the disputant Shri Kallammuddin Khan has ever been a workman under the 1st Party-

Management No. 1 and 3.

2.

Whether the action of the Management of M/s. IOCL, Jatni Depot, Khurda in refusing employment to

Shri Kallammuddin Khan w.e.f. 17.6.2003 through their Contractor M/s. Shakti Marketers, instead of

regularizing his service in M/s. IOCL, even after rendering more than 8 years of continuous service to

the organization in regular & perennial nature of job, is legal and justified?

3.

If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?

FINDINGS

ISSUE No. 1, 2 and 3

5.

The 2nd party has raised the dispute claiming that Kallammuddin Khan was engaged by the 1st Party-

Management in the year 1994, when construction work of the 1st Party-Management- Depot was started in the year

1994 at Jatni and he was designated as “Office Boy”. Subsequently his employment was shifted under the Contractor

M/s. Shakti Marketers with an assurance that his service would be regularized in course of time. The agreement

between the 1st party-Management and M/s. Shakti Marketers to carry out the handling work is sham and camouflage

only to deprive the workman Kallammuddin Khan from being regularized in the service under the 1st Party-

Management. When he demanded regularization of his service and services of other workmen he was refused

employment with effect from 17.6.2003 by his contractor M/s. Shakti Marketers as well as the principal employer. The

1st Party-Management has refuted the pleading making an averment that in no point of time he was employed or

engaged in its establishment and there was no “employer and employee” relationship between it and the workman.

6.

Before going to analyze the evidence of the parties specifically on the claim of the workman that he was being

shown as a Contract Labourer by inter-posing a fictitious contractor, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in some of the judgements is profitable to be referred to for appreciation of the pleadings and evidence of the

parties. In Ram Singh –Versus- Union Territory, Chandigarh, AIR 2004 (SC) 969, it is observed that industrial

adjudicator is required to consider the question as to 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 labourers for work of the

3782

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere 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 the so-

called contract labourers will have to be treated as the employees of the principal employer and they shall be directed to

be regularized in the establishment of the principal employer. It is further observed that in determining the relationship

of employer and employee, “control” is one of the important tests. However, all other relevant facts and circumstances

are required to be considered including the terms and conditions of the contract. It is also observed that “integration

test” is one of relevant tests which is applied by examining whether the person was fully integrated into the employer’s

concern or remained apart from and independent of it. Facts which may be relevant are who has the power to select and

dismiss, to pay remuneration, deduct insurance contribution, organize the work, supply tools and materials, and what

are the mutual obligations between them. In General Manager (OSD), Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills, Rajanandgaon –

Versus- Bharat Lal, 2011 (128) FLR 560 it is laid down that – two of the well recognized tests to find out whether the

contract labourer are the direct employees of the principal employer are – (1) whether the principal employer pays the

salary instead of the contractor, and (ii) whether the principal employer controls and supervises the work of the

employee.

7.

In International Air Port – Authorities –versus International Airport Cargo Workers Union, 2009(123) FLR

321 (S.C.). It is observed that if the contract is for supply of labour necessarily the labour supplied by the contractor

will work under the direction, supervision and control of the principal employer, but that would not make the worker a

direct employee of the principal employer, if the salary is paid by the contractor, if the right to regulate employment is

with the contractor and the ultimate supervision and control likes with the contractor. It is further observed that the

principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labourer when such labourer is

assigned/allotted/assigned to the principal employer or used otherwise. In short, the worker being the employee of the

contractor the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor as he decides where the employee will work and

subject to what conditions. Only when the contractor sends/assigns the workers to work under the principal employer,

the worker works under the supervision and control of the principal employer but there is secondary control.

8.

In view of such settled principles the burden lies on the 2nd party-workman to prove that he was paid salary

directly by the employer and the principal employer was his supervising authority. In this regard not a single scrap of

paper has been produced in the Tribunal except oral assertions by the workman to establish that he was appointed

initially as Office Boy by the 1st Party-Management in the year 1994. The only document filed by him to support his

averment regarding his employment as ”Office Boy” in the year 1994, which is an experience certificate allegedly

issued by one P.K. Sinha, Depot Manager Jatni in the letter head of the 1st Party-Management, has been challenged as a

forged one by the 1st party-Management. The Management witness M.W.-1 who is himself P.K. Sinha, has denied to

have issued the said experience certificate while recording his evidence in the Tribunal. He has also disowned the

signature found in the certificate to be his own. In that view of the matter the document Ext.-2 cannot be relied upon.

On the other hand in his cross examination the workman has admitted that construction work of the 1st Party-

Management’s office was started in the year 1994. He has admitted to have not been employed by the 1st Party-

Management either sponsored by the Employment Exchange or having applied for the post directly in pursuant to any

advertisement. He has also admitted that he was not issued with any call letter to attend any interview for selection of

the post of Office Boy. He is also unable to say whether there was any post of “Office Boy” in the office of the 1st

Party-Management. On being cross examined he failed to speak specifically as to whether Shri Sinha had any authority

to give him employment. No appointment letter or letter relating to termination of service issued in favour of the

workman is filed to show that he was engaged by the 1st Party-Management as a casual labourer or in any capacity for

any temporary period. The wage register under Ext.-6 series belongs to the year 2002 and the said register clearly

indicates that M/s. Shakti Marketers was his employer. There is no evidence to show that the 1st Party-Management had

ever made deductions from the bill of the contractor for making deposits in the above head in favour of the contract

labour i.e. 2nd party-workman Kallammuddin Khan. It has been explained by the M.W.-1 that its employee and

labourers of its contractor were given training of fire fighting and as such the claim of the 2nd party-workman that he

was given training of fire fighting by the Management does not suggest that he worked as an employee of the 1st Party-

Management either directly or through a contractor. Thus there is no iota of evidence except oral assertion of W.W.-1

to establish that he was ever engaged directly or through the contractor by the 1st Party-Management either in the year

1994 or subsequent thereafter.

9.

The documents filed by the workman more particularly relating to resolution proceedings between the

Management and local people represented through the local M.L.A. and other papers are at best going to show that an

agitation was taken place before the office of the 1st Party-Management for preference in giving employment to the

local people in the 1st party-Management office for which a conciliation proceeding was initiated in the intervention of

A.L.C. (C). Those documents do not suggest in any manner that refusal of employment to Kallammuddin and other

contractor labourers gave rise to the conciliation proceeding and resolutions drawn between the 1st party-Management

and the local people. No safe inference can be drawn on the basis of the documents filed by the 2nd party-workman that

Kallammuddin Khan was employed in the 1st party-Management either in the capacity of “Office Boy” or “handling

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3783

labourer” temporarily casually, or on the basis of a contract labour through the contractor M/s. Shakti Marketers. On

the other hand it is emerging from the evidence of the M.W.-1 and documents relied upon by the Management that

handling contract i.e. loading and unloading of oil tanker in the Jatni Depot was entrusted to the contractor M/s. Shakti

Marketers and thus, the evidence adduced before the Tribunal leads to a conclusion that he was working as a labourer

of the contractor M/s. Shakti Marketers, who handle the loading and unloading of oil tanker works.

10.

In the case of General Manager (OSD) Bangal Nagpur Cotton Mills Rajnandgaon And Bharat Lal and Another

wherein it has been set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “if the industrial adjudicator finds that contract between the

principal employer and contractor to be sham, nominal or merely a camouflage to deny employment benefits to the

employee and that there was in fact a direct employment, it can grant relief to the employee by holding that the

workman is the direct employee of the principal employer. Two of the well-recognized tests to find out whether the

contract labour are the direct employees of the principal employer are: (i) whether the principal employer pays the

salary instead of the contractor; and (ii) whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the

employees”. Keeping in view the above settled principle, if, the evidence of the workman is analyzed there is nothing

before the Tribunal to hold that the 1st Party-Management was paying salary to the workman directly or indirectly

through the contractor and it was controlling and supervising the work of the workman as a principal employer. Hence

doubt can be entertained regarding existence of any “employer and employee” relationship between the 1st Party-

Management and the workman Kallammuddin Khan and as such it cannot be accepted that the workman was ever

employed under the 1st Party-Management as a contract labourer.

11.

Thus, it is also found that factors which are enumerated in sub section (2) of Section 10 of Contract Labour

Act are absent. Even the “control test” and “integration test” failed. Consequently, the contract, which was existing

between the Management and the M/s. Shakti Marketers cannot be said to be a sham and mere camouflage. Once it is

held that the contract is not proved to be sham or fictitious the reference also becomes not maintainable.

12.

In view of my above findings that Kallammuddin Khan was not ever appointed or he worked in any capacity

being employed by the 1st Party-Management or worked as a contract labourer through M/s. Shakti Marketers it cannot

be held that he was refused employment by the 1st Party-Management either directly or through M/s. Shakti Marketers

and as such he is not entitled to any regularization.

13.

In result the reference is answered against the 2nd Party-Union.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1690-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iQ£VykbtlZ

,aM dsfedYl =kko.kdksj fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 23@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 05-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@13@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2016

S.O. 1690.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 23/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

to the management of the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 05.08.2016.

[No. L-42011/13/2011-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

(Thursday the 30th day of June, 2016/09th Ashadha, 1938)

3784

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ID 23/2011

Workmen

:

1.

Shri. C.C. Thankappan,

Chippidithara House,

Ambadi, Eramalloor PO,

Cherthala Taluk,

Cherthala –

2.

Shri. A. C. Varghese,

Ezhupunna, South PO,

Cherthala Taluk,

Cherthala –

3.

Shri. K. A. Kumaran, (dead)

Veliyil Nikarth,

Vaduthala Jetty PO,

Arookutty,

Cherthala Taluk,

Cherthala –

4.

Shri. A. B. Varghese,

Arakkaparambil House,

Kumbalanghi PO,

Kochi (Kerala) – 7.

5.

Shri. M. Aman,

U. K. House,

Kalluvettankuzhi,

I Mancode PO,

Via Cherthala Taluk,

Cherthala – 691559.

6.

Smt. K. K. Lalitha Kanthakudithara,

Palluruthu, Perumpadappu,

Kochi (Kerala) – 682006.

7.

Shri. K. K. Raghavan,

Nikarthil House,

Pampayimoola,

Palluruthy,

Kochi (Kerala) – 682006.

By Adv. Shri. Sibi Thomas Jacob

8.

Smt. Sumathi Kumaran

W/o late K. A. Kumaran

Veliyil Nikarth, Vaduthala Jetty PO,

Arrokutty,

Cherthala Thaluk,

Cherthala.

(Impleaded as per the Order on IA No.106/2011 dated 21.02.2014 as legal

representative of workman No.3 -Late K. A. Kumaran ).

Managements

:

1.

The Chairman & Managing Director,

Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited,

Udyogmandal,

Cochin – 682303.

M/s. B. S. Krishnan Associates

2.

M/s. K. C. Mathew & Sons,

Pigee Agencies,

IX/247, Veli Fort Kochi,

Kochi (Kerala) – 682001.

(ex-parte)

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3785

3.

M/s.Syed Sons,

24/492, Navabharat Building,

W/Island,

COCHIN –

(ex-parte)

This case coming up for final hearing on 13.05.2016 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 30.06.2016

passed the following:

AWARD

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Central Government referred the following dispute before this

Tribunal for adjudication.

2.

The dispute is:

“Whether the demand of the contract workers viz. S/Sri C. C. Thankappan, A.C. Varghese, K.A. Kumaran,

A.B. Varghese, M. Aman, K.K. Lalitha and K.K. Raghavan working under M/s. K.C. Mathew, Perumaly &

Sons, M/s.Pigee Agencies, IX/247, Veli Fort, Kochi-682001 and M/s Syed & Sons, 24/492, Navabharat

Building, Willington Island, Kochi-682003, contractors during the period from 1971 to 2002 and from 2002 to

2004 respectively for regularization in service in the establishment of the Principal Employer viz. Fertilizers

and Chemicals Travancore Limited, Udyogmandal, Kerala with retrospective effect, is legal and justified?

What relief the workmen are entitled to?”

3.

After receipt of the reference order No.L-42011/13/2011-IR(DU) dated 15.06.2011, issued by the Ministry of

Labour, Government of India, summons was issued to the parties to appear in person and submit pleadings, produce

documents to substantiate their respective contentions. On receipt of the summons, workmen Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 7

entered appearance through counsel. Workman No.3 was reported dead and his legal representative was impleaded as

additional workman No.8. Management No.1 entered appearance through counsel and submitted their pleadings.

Management Nos.2 and 3 remained ex-parte.

4.

The contentions in the claim statement filed by workmen Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 8 in brief are as follows:

The dispute involved in this reference centres round the Contract Labour(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970

and in view of the dictum laid down in the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, reported in Steel

Authority of India Vs. National Water Front Workers Union (2001) 7 SCC 1. Eight workmen viz., S/Shri C.C.

Thankappan, A. C. Varghese, K. A. Kumaran, A. B. Varghese, M. Aman, M. O. Antony, K. K. Lalitha and K. K.

Raghavan along with others numbering more than 116 were employed by the first management for the work of loading

and unloading, stitching and staking and transportation of rock phosphate imported from abroad. They were working

under the first management ever since 1971. The second management was the private labour contractor. Two

prominent political parties through middlemen controlled entire affairs and defeated the lawful right of the workmen.

The first management with the assistance of the private labour contractor exploited the workforce of the workmen.

5.

The second management was controlling the workmen under the supervision and guidance from the first

management from the year 1971 to 2002. From the year 2002 till 2004 the third management was exploiting the same

situation in connivance with the first management. Management Nos.1 to 3 have colluded together to exploit the

workmen by utilizing their workforce and grabbing their wages. Only one-tenth wages of the workmen were actually

paid to them and deducted 9/10 of the wages and all other benefits due to the workmen under one pretext or another.

There was willful omission on the part of the employees to deposit the PF contributions deducted from the employees

for the period from 1971 to 1995 and then for the period from 2002 to 2004. Part of the contributions recovered from

the wages of the workmen were not deposited for the period from 1995 to 2002.

6.

Management No.1 started functioning from the year 1970 and earned huge profit by misusing the workforce

of the workmen. They started regional centres at Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh with the financial aid

and support from the Central Government. The union leaders exploited the workmen and amassed wealth

disproportionate to their known sources of income. While so management No.1 began to run at loss due to

mismanagement and discontentment of the workmen. Almost all the workmen involved in this reference are suffering

from occupational diseases affecting urinary bladder, kidney, skin diseases, ureter ailments, bone decay, heart ailments,

cataract, deafness, skidding, lung cancer etc. The workmen were unable to continue the employment in doing the

hazardous work. Even though the workmen raised the issue before the union to which they were affiliated, the union

leaders have not initiated any step against the management and their henchmen.

3786

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7.

The workmen involved in this reference were doing perennial nature of work of the first management. The

officials of the first management were directly controlling and supervising the work of the workmen involved in this

reference. As directed by the first management the workmen continued the work for more than 38 years under them.

8.

The workmen were unloading and loading hazardous chemical substances such as ammonium sulphate,

sulphuric acid, soda ash, nitric acid, caprolactum and other chemicals imported from abroad. Apart from that imported

items such as steel, girder, beams, channel, iron plate etc. belonging to the Steel Authority of India were unloaded from

the ship and loaded in lorries for transportation to the Steel Authority of India were also done by the workmen at the

instruction of the first management and in connivance with the second management and the union leaders. In short the

duty of the workmen includes the handling of hazardous and dangerous chemical substances and heavy weighed items.

The workmen involved herein were not considered for regular employment under the first management solely for the

reason that they had no political godfathers to protect their interests.

9.

There were unfair labour practice – employment to workmen as badlis, casuals or temporaries to continue as

such for years together with intent to deprive them the privileges as permanent workmen under the first management.

The action of the first management is illegal, unjust and unsustainable.

10.

The first management interposed contractors in order to evade the compliance of the benefits under the

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970; the Factories Act; the Employees’ Provident Funds and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act; the Employees’ State Insurance Act, the Equal Remuneration Act; the Minimum Wages

Act and the Industrial Disputes Act and other later enactments. The action of the first management is against the spirit

and purport of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this regard. There was clear violation of

the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 by the first management in connivance

with the management Nos.2 and 3. The workmen involved in this reference have not been given the benefit under the

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The Factories Act, 1948, the Employees’ Provident Funds &

Miscellaneous Provisions Act and Scheme, the Minimum Wages Act and other allied labour enactments.

11.

The workmen involved in this reference are entitled to be absorbed in the pay scale ` 6,100-10,775 at the

initial stage and they are entitled to two higher grade time scales and to be paid salary in the time scale ` 14,500-

18,700/- apart from the benefits of casual leave, earned leave and other benefits due to the permanent workmen.

12.

The workmen involved in this reference were discriminated and denied the right of decent living and that their

fundamental right to health and life are jeopardized. The uneducated and helpless workers were compelled to work

hard which affected their health. Therefore the workmen have requested to pass an award upholding their contentions

and to pay ten times compensation for the period of their employment from 10.02.1971 till date of superannuation and

cost of this proceeding.

13.

The contentions in the written statement filed by the first management in brief are as follows:-

The management No.1 has stated that the issue referred for adjudication is not maintainable either in law or on

facts. The issue referred for adjudication is the question of regularization of the workmen and it can be raised only by

union. The contract workers have no legal right to raise such an issue for regularization and hence the dispute is not

maintainable. The name of Shri. M. O. Antony is not included in the reference and hence his claim as stated in the

claim statement cannot be adjudicated in this reference. Moreover, only seven contract workers have raised this

dispute. Substantial numbers of workers have not raised this dispute and as such the Industrial Dispute is not

maintainable. The first management has two fertilizer producing divisions, one petrochemical division, two

consultancy division, one fabrication division and one marketing division. The rock phosphate imported by the first

management company for use in the production of straight fertilizers is handed over by the permanent workmen in the

company. Some of the workers who raised this dispute are contract workers engaged by the contractor for a specific

period for bagging and handling rock phosphate for mixture preparation. The work in the mixing centres has no

connection with the main activity of the first management in producing fertilizers which is only seasonal in nature. The

Kerala State Advisory Contract Board considered the question as to whether the contract system in the mixing centres

at Alappuzha, Chingavanam and Palakkad has to be continued or not. As per order dated 01.12.1992 the Government

of Kerala ordered that “the Government do not consider it necessary to abolish the contract system of Labour

prevailing in the three Regional Mixing centers of FACT at Alappuzha, Chingavanam and Palakkad”.

14.

Subsequently similarly situated workers approached the Central Advisory Labour Board seeking abolition of

the contract labour system in the management company. The Ministry of Labour, Government of India as per order

dated 14.01.2000 ordered that “decided not to prohibit employment of contract labour in the works/jobs of handling

Rock Phosphate in Marketing division, cleaning and painting of utensils, plants, structure and building and other allied

equipments connected with the manufacturing process in the Udyogamandal and Marketing division of the

establishment of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore, Willington Island, Kochi………”.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3787

15.

Similarly placed contract workers filed OP Nos.9130/2000 and 15060/2000 before the Hon’ble High Court of

Kerala. As per the judgment dated 03.03.2008 in OP No.9130/2000(J) the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala declined to

accept the request of the workmen.

16.

The first management company never employed the workmen involved in this reference. They are not

employees working under the first management. The workmen were engaged by the contractor in a godown

maintained by the first management at Willington Island for handling rock phosphate required for preparing mixtures at

the six mixing centers in Kerala. They were not engaged in the handling of rock phosphate required for the production

of fertilizers. At the end of every two years a fresh contract is awarded by following the normal procedure of inviting

tenders, negotiation and awarding of the contract. All the work done by the workmen in this reference are not within

the premises of the first management. The work done by the contractor is not an integral/indispensable part of the main

activities of the first management. The terms of engagement as contract workers are as decided by the contractor and

not by the first management company. The allegation that the first management exploited the work of the workmen

and did not pay them the wages due to them, is false and incorrect. The first management has denied all the claims put

forward by the workmen involved in this reference. They have stated that the workmen herein are not entitled to any of

the relief claimed. They have requested to uphold their contentions and disallow the claim of the workmen.

17.

After filing written statement by the management the workmen filed rejoinder reiterating the contentions in

the claim statement. They have stated that they are the workmen under the first management as defined under Section

2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and are entitled to all the statutory benefits available under the Labour Legislations

now in force.

18.

After affording sufficient opportunity to take steps and for production of documents, the matter was posted for

recording evidence. On behalf of the workmen WW1 and WW2 were examined and Exts.W1 series to W6 series and

W7 to W14 were marked. On behalf of the first management MW1 was examined and Exts.M1 to M4 were marked.

Heard both sides.

19.

The points arising for consideration are:

“(i)

Whether the dispute raised by the individual workmen S/Sri C. C. Thankappan, A.C. Varghese, K.A.

Kumaran, A.B. Varghese, M. Aman, K.K. Lalitha and K.K. Raghavan is maintainable in law?

(ii)

Whether the workmen S/Smt/Shri C. C. Thankappan, A.C. Varghese, K.A. Kumaran, A.B. Varghese,

M. Aman, K.K. Lalitha and K.K. Raghavan those involved in this reference are permanent workers

under the first management?

(iii) To what relief the workmen aforesaid are entitled?”

20.

Point No.(i):-

The dispute referred for adjudication is:-

“Whether the demand of the contract workers viz. S/Sri C. C. Thankappan, A.C. Varghese, K.A. Kumaran,

A.B. Varghese, M. Aman, K.K. Lalitha and K.K. Raghavan working under M/s. K.C. Mathew, Perumaly &

Sons, M/s.Pigee Agencies, IX/247, Veli Fort, Kochi-682001 and M/s Syed & Sons, 24/492, Navabharat

Building, Willington Island, Kochi-682003, contractors during the period from 1971 to 2002 and from 2002 to

2004 respectively for regularization in service in the establishment of the Principal Employer viz. Fertilizers

and Chemicals Travancore Limited, Udyogmandal, Kerala with retrospective effect, is legal and justified?

What relief the workmen are entitled to?”

The workmen involved in this reference are - S/Smt/Sri C. C. Thankappan, A.C. Varghese, K.A. Kumaran,

A.B. Varghese, M. Aman, K.K. Lalitha and K.K. Raghavan. Workmen No.3 Shri K. A. Kumaran died in the course of

conciliation proceedings and his widow was impleaded as a party to this proceeding. The contention of the workmen

involved in this reference is that they along with others numbering more than 116 were employed by the first

management for the purpose of loading, unloading, stitching, staking and transportation of rock phosphate imported

from abroad. It is stated that the workmen were employed under the first management from the year 1971. The

contention of the workmen is that two prominent political parties through their middlemen controlled the entire affairs

and defeated their lawful right. They would also state that the first management with the assistance of the private

labour contractor exploited the work force of the workmen. It is stated that from the year 1971 to 2002 the second

management was controlling the workmen under the supervision and guidance of the first management. From the year

2002 till 2004 the third management was exploiting the same situation in connivance with the first management. The

workmen have contended that they will come under the purview of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

and that they were working under the first management ever since 1971 and hence they are entitled to all the statutory

benefits available to them under the labour legislations now in force.

21.

The first management has contended that the issue referred for adjudication is as to whether the workmen are

entitled to be regularized in service under the first management. It is stated that the workmen involved in this reference

3788

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

are contract workers under the second and third managements and that they have no legal right to raise claim for

regularization. It is also stated that the claim is put forward by the individual workman and not espoused by the union

at their instance and hence the reference is not maintainable.

Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines “Industrial Dispute”. As per Section 2(k), “industrial dispute”

means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between

workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or

with the conditions of labour, of any person;”

22.

In the decision Workmen Vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand – AIR 1966 SC 182 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India held that “notwithstanding the width of the words used in s2(k), a dispute raised by a single workman cannot

become an industrial dispute, unless it is supported either by his union or in the absence of a union, by a substantial

number of the workmen”. This principle was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Workmen of

Indian Express Newspaper Pvt Ltd Vs. Management – AIR 1970 SC 737.

23.

In the decision reported in Associated Cement Companies Ltd Vs. Workmen – 1960 (1 LLJ 491) on page the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that “Even a minority group of workmen of an establishment, can make a

demand and thereby, raise an industrial dispute which, in a proper case, may be referred for adjudication”.

24.

In the decision reported in Indian Cable Co. Ltd. Vs. Workmen – 1962 (1 LLJ 409) in page 415 the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India has held that “The number of workmen must, however, be such as to lead to an inference that

the dispute is one which affects the workmen as a class”.

25.

In the decision Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Pondicherry Vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union, Chennai

and Ors. – 2011 (3 LLJ 497) the Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that “Dispute regarding unfair labour practice -

Is an industrial dispute.”

26.

In this case the workmen have contended that the unions are not espousing their claim. They have stated that

they are being exploited by the union. Even though the workmen have limited the relief to the persons involved in this

reference, they have stated that more than 116 workmen are being exploited by the first management in violation of the

provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act. In view of the dictum laid down in the decisions

above and in view of the fact that the workmen involved in this reference raised the dispute for regularizing the contract

workers, their claim is maintainable as an industrial dispute as defined under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes

Act. Point No.(i) is answered accordingly.

27.

Point No.(ii):-

The workmen involved in this reference have stated that they are working under the first

management ever since 1971 and they are being exploited by the union members. It is stated that the first management

is their employer and they are entitled to be treated as workmen under the first management ever since 1971 and that

they are entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the labour legislations in force. It is stated that

ever since 1971 the second management was controlling the workmen under the supervision and guidance from the

first management. It is stated that management Nos.1 to 3 have colluded together to exploit the workforce and

grabbing their wages.

28.

The first management has contended that the workmen involved in this reference are not employed by them.

They have further stated that the workmen herein have no legal right for regularization of service or continuity of

employment under the first management. It is stated that the workmen were engaged by the contractor in a godown

maintained by the first management at Willington Island for handling raw phosphate required for preparing mixtures at

six mixing centres in Kerala. It is stated that the workmen were never engaged in the handling of raw phosphate

required for the production of fertilizers. The first management has stated that at the end of every two year; a fresh

contract is awarded by following the normal procedure of inviting tenders, negotiation and awarding of contract. They

would also state that the work done by the contractor is not an integral/indispensable part of the main activities of the

first management.

29.

The first management has stated that the terms and conditions of engagement as contract workers are decided

by the contractor and not by the first management company. The allegation that the first management exploited the

workforce of the workmen involved in this reference and failed to pay the wages due to them is denied by them. They

would also state that there was no employer-employee relationship between the workmen involved in this reference and

the first management.

30.

The first management has stated that the Kerala State Advisory Contract Labour Board considered the

question as to whether the contract system in the mixing centres at Alappuzha, Chingavanam and Palakkad has to be

continued or not and that the Government of Kerala ordered that the Government do not consider it necessary to

abolish the contract system of Labour prevailing in the three Regional Mixing centres at FACT at Alappuzha,

Chingavanam and Palakkad.” The first management has stated that the workers approached the Central Advisory

Labour Board requesting to abolish the contract labour system in the management company. It is stated that the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3789

Ministry of Labour, Government of India as per order dated 14.01.2000 ordered that “decided not to prohibit

employment of contract labour in the works/jobs of handling Rock Phosphate in Marketing division, cleaning and

painting of utensils, plants, structure and building and other allied equipments connected with the manufacturing

process in the Udyogamandal and Marketing division of the establishment of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore,

Willington Island, Kochi………”.

31.

The first management has stated that the contract workers approached the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala by

filing OP No.9130/2000 and OP No.15060/2000 and the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala declined to accept their request.

32.

While examined as WW1, workman No.1 has stated that there is a document to prove that the workmen were

appointed after conducting interview. He has further stated that the said document was shown to the workman and it

was taken back. He has stated that the workman produced documents to prove that the first management paid salaries

to them. He has admitted that OP No.9130/2000 filed by the workman No.2 involved in this reference was dismissed

by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. He has further stated that he has no knowledge as to whether the Central

Government has issued a notification on 14.01.2000 permitting to have contract labour employment under the first

management.

33.

While examined as WW2 the witness examined on the side of the workman has stated that the workmen

involved in this reference were employed under the second management. He has stated that he was a contractor under

the first management. WW2 has stated that he was a contract worker ever since 1993 and his wages were paid by the

second management.

34.

On going through the evidence tendered by WW1 and WW2 it can be seen that the workmen involved in this

reference were not selected or appointed by the first management for employment under them. It is clear from the

pleadings of the workmen and the evidence tendered by WW1 and WW2 that they were contract workers employed

under the second and third managements from time to time. The documents produced by the management reveal that

the Government of Kerala as well as the Union of India permitted to continue contract labour under the first

management. Moreover it can be seen from Exts.M3 and M4 documents that the claim put forward by the workmen

for permanency in employment under the first management was declined by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. Even

as per the admission of the workmen they were employed under the contractor engaged by the first management. The

documents produced by the workmen do not reveal that they were engaged directly by the first management. It follows

that the workmen involved in this reference are not entitled to get any of the relief as claimed in the claim statement.

Hence the point for consideration is answered against the workmen.

35.

Point No.(iii):-

In view of the finding on Point No.(ii) the workmen involved in this reference are not

entitled to the relief claimed. The point is answered accordingly.

36.

In the result an award is passed holding that the workmen involved in this reference are not entitled to get an

order for regularization in service under the first management. The reference is answered accordingly.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 30th

day of June, 2016.

SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witnesses for the workmen

WW1

Shri C. C. Thankappan

04.03.2015

WW2

Shri V. I. Varghese

12.11.2015

Witnesses for the management

MW1

Shri Anil Raghavan

09.03.2016

Exhibits for the workmen

W1

-

Annual Statement of Accounts for the year 2001-2002 issued by the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Kochi to Shri C. C. Thankappan,

FACT Ltd.

W1(a) -

Annual Statement of Accounts for the year 2002-2003 issued by the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Kochi to Shri C. C. Thankappan,

FACT Ltd.

3790

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

W1(b) -

Annual Statement of Accounts for the year 2003-2004 issued by the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Kochi to Shri C. C. Thankappan,

FACT Ltd.

W1(c) -

Annual Statement of Accounts for the year 2004-2005 issued by the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Kochi to Shri C. C. Thankappan,

FACT Ltd.

W1(d) -

Annual Statement of Accounts for the year 2005-2006 issued by the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Kochi to Shri C. C. Thankappan,

FACT Ltd.

W2

-

Annual Statement of Accounts for the year 2005-2006 issued by the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Kochi to Shri A. C. Varghese, FACT

Ltd.

W2(a) -

Annual Statement of Accounts for the year 2002-2003 issued by the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Kochi to Shri A. C. Varghese,

FACT Ltd.

W2(b) -

Annual Statement of Accounts for the year 2003-2004 issued by the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Kochi to Shri A. C. Varghese, FACT

Ltd.

W2(c) -

Annual Statement of Accounts for the year 2004-2005 issued by the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Kochi to Shri A. C. Varghese,

FACT Ltd.

W3

-

True copy of Annual Statement of Accounts for the year 2001-2002 issued by the Regional Provident

Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Kochi to Shri A. B. Varghese,

FACT Ltd.

W3(a) -

True copy of Annual Statement of Accounts for the year 2002-2003 issued by the Regional Provident

Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Kochi to Shri A. B. Varghese,

FACT Ltd.

W3(b) -

True copy of Annual Statement of Accounts for the year 2003-2004 issued by the Regional Provident

Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Kochi to Shri A. B. Varghese,

FACT Ltd.

W3(c) -

True copy of Annual Statement of Accounts for the year 2004-2005 issued by the Regional Provident

Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Kochi to Shri A. B. Varghese,

FACT Ltd.

W3(d) -

True copy of Annual Statement of Accounts for the year 2005-2006 issued by the Regional Provident

Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Kochi to Shri A. B. Varghese,

FACT Ltd.

W4

-

True copy of Annual Statement of Accounts for the year 2005-2006 issued by the Regional Provident

Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Kochi to Shri M. Aman, FACT

Ltd.

W4(a) -

True copy of Annual Statement of Accounts for the year 2004-2005 issued by the Regional Provident

Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Kochi to Shri M. Aman, FACT

Ltd.

W5

-

Annual Statement of Accounts for the year 2001-2002 issued by the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Kochi to Smt K. K. Lalitha, FACT

Ltd.

W5(a) -

Annual Statement of Accounts for the year 2002-2003 issued by the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Kochi to Smt K. K. Lalitha, FACT

Ltd.

W5(b) -

Annual Statement of Accounts for the year 2003-2004 issued by the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Kochi to Smt K. K. Lalitha, FACT

Ltd.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3791

W5(c) -

Annual Statement of Accounts for the year 2004-2005 issued by the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Kochi to Smt K. K. Lalitha, FACT

Ltd.

W5(d) -

Annual Statement of Accounts for the year 2005-2006 issued by the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Kochi to Smt K. K. Lalitha, FACT

Ltd.

W6

-

Annual Statement of Accounts for the year 2001-2002 issued by the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Kochi to Smt K. K. Raghavan, FACT

Ltd.

W6(a) -

Annual Statement of Accounts for the year 2002-2003 issued by the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Kochi to Smt K. K. Raghavan, FACT

Ltd.

W6(b) -

Annual Statement of Accounts for the year 2003-2004 issued by the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Kochi to Smt K. K. Raghavan, FACT

Ltd.

W6(c) -

Annual Statement of Accounts for the year 2004-2005 issued by the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Kochi to Smt K. K. Raghavan, FACT

Ltd.

W6(d) -

Annual Statement of Accounts for the year 2005-2006 issued by the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Kochi to Smt K. K. Raghavan, FACT

Ltd.

W7

-

Pension Payment Order in respect of Shri C.C. Thankappan.

W8

-

Pension Payment Order PART-II & PART-III in respect of Shri A.C. Varghese.

W9

-

Pension Payment Order in respect of Shri Varghese A. B.

W10

-

Copy of Pension Payment Order PART-II & PART-III in respect of Shri M. Aman.

W11

-

Pension Payment Order in respect of Smt K. K. Lalitha.

W12

-

Pension Payment Order in respect of Smt K. K. Raghavan.

W13

-

Pension Payment Order in respect of Shri K. A. Kumaran.

W14

-

Cheque forwarding Memo dated 22.12.2007 issued by the Chief Manager (Finance), The Fertilisers

and Chemicals Travancore Limited, Udyogamandal for an amount of ` 33,234/- against Bill No.14-

7001611 dated 20.11.2007 to Shri V. I. Varghese, Vypin-682508.

Exhibits for the management

M1

-

True copy of the Circular bearing No.U-23013/27/99-LW dated 14.01.2000 issued by the Under

Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi to all Members of Central

Advisory Contract Labour Board.

M2

-

True copy of the letter bearing No.DGM(F)-MK-32-299 dated 20.08.1999 issued by the Deputy

General Manager, The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited, a Government of India

Enterprise, Marketing Division (Head Office), Udyogamandal to the Deputy Chief Labour

Commissioner(Central), Indian Institute of Workers Education Complex, Kurla(W), Mumbai –

400070.

M3

-

True copy of the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam in OP Nos.9130 &

15060 of 2000 dated 03.03.2008.

M4

-

True copy of the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam in OP Nos.9130 &

15060 of 2000 dated 03.03.2008.

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1691-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV

vkWiQ VsyhdE;wfuds'ku ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

3792

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ dsl la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@129@2000) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@144@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2016

S.O. 1691.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/129/2000) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Department of Telecommunication and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 02.08.2016.

[No. L-40012/144/2000-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/129/2000

Shri Wahid Khan,

S/o Gafoor Khan,

C/o Md.Wasim H.No.165,Mufti Bagh,

Shahjahanabad,

Bhopal (MP)

…Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. Of Telecommunication,

Hoshangabad Road, MP Circle,

Bhopal.

General Manager,

Telecom. CTO Building,

T.T.Nagar, Bhopal

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 18th day of July 2016

1.

As per letter dated 30-6-2000 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-40012/144/2000-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager, Telecom in terminating the services of

Shri Wahid Khan S/o Shri Gafoor Khan w.e.f. July 92 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?”

2.

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 2/1 to 2/3. Case of workman is that he was employed by management as casual labour for 355 days in 1982-83,

70 days in June 83 to December 86, 807 days in February 87 to August 90. That in 1993, he worked for 51 days from

June 83 to 86 on ACG. The entries regarding his working were verified by the authorities from his personal record

book issued by the department. Above contentions are reiterated by Ist party contending that despite working more than

240 days, he was not accorded temporary status, no steps were taken for his regularization by the management, he was

continued as casual labour. His services were terminated orally, he was not paid retrenchment compensation, notice of

termination was not issued to him. The action of the management is discriminatory and illegal. On such ground,

workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3793

3.

2nd party management filed Written Statement opposing claim of Ist party workman at Page 6/1 to 6/2. 2nd

party submits that workman as engaged as casual labour as per availability of work. Workman was never appointed. Ist

party worked for 240 days during June 82 to December 84. 151 days during Jan 83 to May 83. Ist party workman was

continuously absent from June 83 to Jan 87. During feb87 to December87, he worked for 332 days. Feb 88 to Dec-88

for 289 days, Jan-89 to Nov-89 for 91 days, feb90 to Aug 90 for 95 days. That Ist party himself absent from work

without informing management. He was irregular on work. Workman is not eligible for regularization as per scheme of

department as per circular dated 17-12-93. That casual mazdoors who were engaged during 31-3-83 to 26-6-88 and

who was still continuing for such work in the circles where they initially engaged and who are not absent for the last

more than 365 days are eligible for benefit of said scheme. 2nd party reiterates that workman is not entitled for any

relief.

4.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the management of

Chief

General

Manager,

Telecom

in

terminating the services of Shri Wahid Khan

S/o Shri Gafoor Khan w.e.f. July 92 is

justified?

Services of Ist party are not terminated in July 1992.

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman is entitled

to?”

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

5.

Workman is challenging termination of his service contending that his services are orally terminated after

completion of 240 days, he was not given temporary status or regularization in service, retrenchment compensation is

not paid to him. The termination of his service is illegal. 2nd party reiterates that workman was engaged as casual

employee, he was intermittently working, workman himself remained absent from work, he is not entitled for

regularization/ reinstatement.

6.

Ist party workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting his contentions in statement of claim that he

worked for 355 days during 1982-83, he worked for 70 days as ACG and for the period from 87 to 90, he worked for

807 days. The term of reference indicates his services were terminated in July 1992. The evidence of workman himself

shows that he worked till August 1990. It is clear from his own evidence that he was not terminated in July 1992.

Besides above, workman in his cross says he has passed 1th standard, the post was not advertised, his name was not

sponsored through Employment Exchange. He was paid wages for his actual working days. He denies that he left work

himself. He denies that he not completed 240 days continuous service. management has shown working days of Ist

party workman in Para-3 of the Written Statement, 240 days during June 82 to December 84, during feb87 to

December87, he worked for 332 days. Feb 88 to Dec-88 for 289 days. During all those years, as per Written Statement

of the 2nd party, Ist party worked more than 240 days . that Ist party workman is not entitled to benefit of schemeof

department as he remained absent more than 365 days during relevant period. Document Exhibit W-1 shows working

days of workman during 1982 to 1989. As per term of reference, services of Ist party were terminated in July 992

Exhibit W-3 shows Ist party worked for 186 days during January 89 to August 1990. Workman has not worked for

240 days preceding alleged termination of his service therefore termination of his service in violation of Section 25-F

is not established. Copy of the circular dated 17-12-93 is produced at Exhibit W-2. Relevant portion of circular

provides the matter has further been examined in this office and it is decided that all those casual mazdoors who were

engaged by the circles during the period from 31-3-85 to 22-6-88 and who are still continuing for such works in the

circles where they were initially engaged and who are not absent for the last more than 365 days counting from the

date of issue of this order be brought under the above said scheme. The evide4nce of workman doesnot fulfill above

criteria’s besides the term of reference doesnot pertain to regularization of services of workman. The contentions of

workman pertaining to regularization of his service is beyond term of reference.

7.

The evidence of management’s witness Sayed Tahir Mahmood is in nature of denial of the claim.

8.

As workman has not worked more than 240 days preceding termination of his service in July 1992 or even 12

calendar months preceding August 1990, termination of Ist party workman in violation of Section 25-F is not

established. Considering the evidence on record, termination of services of workman in July 1992 is not established.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.1.

9.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

3794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

The termination of service of workman w.e.f. July 1992 is not established.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1692-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaVy

dSaVhu] VsyhdkWe iSQDVªh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ dsl la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@90@98) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@138@96&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2016

S.O. 1692.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/90/98) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Departmental Canteen, Telecom Factory and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 02.08.2016.

[No. L-40012/138/96-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/90/98

Shri Raj Kumar,

Qr.No. 955, Cherital,

Harijan Basti, Jabalpur (MP)

…Workman

Versus

Secretary,

Departmental Canteen,

Telecom Factory,

Jabalpur

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 20th day of July, 2016

1.

As per letter dated 16-4-98 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-40012/138/96-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Departmental Canteen, Telecom Factory, Jabalpur in terminating

the services of Shri Rajkumar is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

2.

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was appointed as cleaner in 1982 against clear vacant post. He

worked with honesty. He could not perform his duties for certain period due to ill health. However he had sent

information with medical certificates to the department regarding his illness. On 28-4-92, punishment of withholding

increment of 5 years was imposed against him. His pay was reduced from Rs.762/- to Rs.750/- for 5 years. Workman

further submits it was alleged by management that he worked for 193 days w.e.f. June 89 to April 90 and major

punishment was imposed against him without giving opportunity for defence. The departmental enquiry was conducted

behind his back. His absence was totally ignored by the management. Chargesheet was also issued to him on 18-3-92

for unauthorized absence from 16-8-91 till date. He had appeared before Enquiry Officer on 5-8-92 and accepted that

he was absent from duty because of his illness. Doctor has advised him for complete bed rest. Showcause notice was

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3795

issued to him which was replied by him. The workman explained his absence due to serious illness. He had submitted

Medical Certificate that he was advised by Doctor for bed rest. He had resumed duty after submitting medical

certificate. That he was absent from duty due to compelling circumstances. Management did not consider his

explanation on humanitarian ground.

3.

Ist party further submits that enquiry conducted against him is not proper and legal. Principles of natural

justice were violated. Enquiry Officer recorded his findings ignoring his defence. No reasons were assigned by defence

of Ist party . Extreme punishment imposed against him is disproportionate. On such ground, Ist party prays for his

reinstatement.

4.

Management filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/2 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that Ist

party was appointed as cleaner on 1-11-1988, he was negligent towards his duty, he was remaining absent without

intimation or permission. On account of his absence cleaning work in canteen was suffering at large and uncleanliness

was increasing. After regular appointment of Ist party between March 89 to April-90, his attendance was only days.

Due to his absence and negligence, management was compelled to take disciplinary action. Enquiry was conducted

against him. Penalty of stoppage of increment for 5 year was imposed on 28-4-92. It is reiterated that the Ist party was

habitual absentee. Fresh enquiry was started against workman on 18-3-92 and enquiry ended by imposing penalty of

dismissal on 9-11-92. There is no illegality in the enquiry conducted or punishment imposed against workman. 2nd

party submits that reference be answered in its favour.

5.

Rejoinder is filed by Ist party at Page 7/1 to 7/3 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

6.

As per order dated 29-5-15, enquiry conducted against workman is held proper and legal.

7.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the misconduct alleged against

workman is proved from evidence in Enquiry

proceedings?

In Affirmative

(ii)

Whether

the

punishment

of

dismissal

imposed against workman is proper and

legal?

In Negative

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman is entitled

to?”

As per final order.

REASONS

8.

As per order dated 29-5-15, enquiry conducted against workman is found proper and legal. Question arise

whether charges alleged against workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Learned counsel for Ist

party Shri P.Yadav pointed out my attention that Ist party workman was not able to speak and he could not be cross-

examined. The record of Enquiry Proceeding is produced. Workman in his statement dated 5-8-92 admitted charges

against him that he was absent without intimation since 16-8-91. He had nothing to say in his defence. From above

statement, the charges alleged against workman are proved. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

9.

Point No.2- Next question arise as to whether punishment of dismissal imposed against workman is proper

and legal, whether punishment is disproportionate. Ist party workman in his affidavit of evidence stated that he was

working as cleaner since 1982. The chargesheet for unauthorized absence was issued on 18-3-92. While imposing

punishment of dismissal, length of service of Ist party was not considered. For alleged unauthorized absence,

punishment of dismissal imposed against workman appears disproportionate, punishment of dismissal deserves to be

modified to compulsory retirement. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The punishment of dismissal imposed against workman is not legal.

(2)

The punishment of dismissal imposed on workman is modified to compulsory retirement. 2nd party is

directed to allow retiral benefits to Ist party as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

3796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1693-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xouZesaV

vksfi;e ,aM vYdykWbM iSQDVªh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ dsl la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@69@03) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@14@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2016

S.O. 1693.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/69/03) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Factory, Neemuch and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 02.08.2016.

[No. L-42012/14/2000-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/69/2003

Shri Jagdishchandra

S/o Shri Nandlalji,

Jaisinghpura,

Neemuch (MP)

… Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch (MP)

… Management

AWARD

Passed on this 19th day of July, 2016

1.

As per letter dated 6-5-03 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-42012/14/2000-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of General Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Works in terminating

the services of Shri Jagdish Chandra S/o Shri Badbkakhu w.e.f. 8-6-90 is justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled for?”

2.

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at

Page 9 to 15. Case of Ist party workman is that he was working as casual labor with 2nd party. He was paid scale pay

plus 51 % DA. His service record was unblemished. He was appointed on 18-4-76. His services were terminated

illegally on 8-6-90 without order in writing. That he had completed more than 240 days except artificial breaks given

by the management. That there are several vacant post with 2nd party but he was not regularized on the vacant post. His

grievance was also raised by the Union but no action was taken by the management. Other junior casual employees

engaged by management were absorbed as temporary unskilled employees in pay scale 196-232. The services of Ist

party workman were terminated without giving any opportunity of hearing in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. He

wasnot paid retrenchment compensation, termination notice was not served on him. That more than 100 employees are

working in establishment of 2nd party, termination of his service is in violation of Section 25 N of ID Act. 2nd party had

not taken permission of Central government for terminating his services. Termination of his service is in violation of

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3797

principles of natural justice by way of victimization. Ist party workman further submits that he is rendered unemployed

after his termination, he prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

3.

Workman died during pendency, his LR Smt. Chanda Bai - widow, Sangita and Puja daughters and Ravindra

son are brought on record as his LRs.

4.

2nd party appeared through Advocate Shri R.C.Shrivastva, Sajid Akhtar, Kanak Gaharwar. However no

Written Statement is filed by 2nd party.

5.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of

General Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid

Works in terminating the services of Shri Jagdish

Chandra S/o Shri Badbkakhu w.e.f. 8-6-90 is

justified?

In Negative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

As per final order.

REASONS

6.

The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of Ist party workman Jagdish Chandra

w.e.f. 8-6-90. Ist party died during pendency of reference proceeding. His LRs are brought on record. 2nd party has not

filed Written Statement. Widow Chandra Bai filed affidavit of her evidence stating that her husband was appointed on

18-4-76. Her husband was given certificates about is working. Services of her husband were terminated in 1993

without order in writing, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. From his evidence, documents W-1 to W-9

/1 to 9/10 are admitted in evidence. Her evidence remained unchallenged as 2nd party not participated in reference.

Document Exhibit W-1 shows Jagdish Chandra , S/o Nandlalji was engaged as mazdoor at wages Rs.8.75 per day on

6-6-80. Exhibit W-2 shows the appointment letter dated 10-2-82. The conditions of appointment are mentioned that his

appointment was to the post of casual labour purely temporary. Exhibit W-3 is certificate about his engagement from

18-4-76, W-4 is certificate about his engagement from 28-5-78 to 14-8-78. Exhibit W-5 is certificate about his

engagement as casual worker from 6-10-79 to 3-5-80. W-6 is certificate about his engagement from 12-6-80 to 4-2-81.

Exhibit W-7 is certificate about his engagement from 11-2-81 to 26-6-81, W-8 is certificate about his engagement from

3-10-82to 31-12-82. Exhibit W-9/1 shows payment made to deceased workman from 1-4-85 to 12-7-85, 24-10-85 to

15-12-85, W-9/2 shows payment made to late Jagdish for the year 1-2-84 to 27-7-84 – 178 days, W-9/3 shows payment

made to Late Jagdish for the period 18-10-84 to 4-1-85 for 79 days. W-9/4 is payment made to workman for 153 days

for the period 2-2-86 to 15-7-86. W-9/5 payment made to Jagdish for 117 days during 3-3-87 to 30-6-87. W-9/6 shows

payment made to Jagdish for period 1-11-87 to 30-1-87, 15-3-87 to 14-6-88 for 68 days, W-9/7 shows payment made

to Jagdish for 120 days and 74 days for the period 8-2-89 to 7-6-89, 15-3-90 to 8-6-90. W-9/10 shows payment made

to Jagdish for 10 days for the period 15-10-90 to 14-11-90. The evidence of Chanda Bai remained unchallenged as 2nd

party failed to participate in reference proceeding. I find no reason to discard her evidence. That Ist party has produced

documents available with her. 2nd party has not filed Written Statement nor participated in reference proceeding. As

per evidence of workman and documents produced, termination of Late Jagdish without notice, not paying

retrenchment compensation is illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

7.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 termination of Ist party workman Shri Jagdishi is illegal, the

question remains for consideration whether he is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. Workman died in year

2004. Considering Ist party workman was working with 2nd party since 1976 till termination of his services in 1990,

reasonable compensation deserves to be awarded. Considering the length of service of deceased Jagdish, compensation

Rs. One Lakh would be adequate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

8.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management is not proper and legal.

(2)

2nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. One Lakh to Smt. Chanda Bai, widow of deceased

workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman within 30 days from the date of notification of award.

In case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

3798

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1694-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV

vkWiQ VsyhdE;wfuds'ku ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ dsl la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@163@95) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40011@3@94&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2016

S.O. 1694.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/163/95) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Department of Telecommunication and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 02.08.2016.

[No. L-40011/3/94-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/163/95

Shri Jalam, S/o Shri Mangal,

Towadi Mohalla,

Machchi Bazar,

Khargone (MP)

…Workman

Versus

Director,

Telecom Department,

Bhopal

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 25th day of July 2016

1.

As per letter dated 20-7-95 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-

40011/3/94-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Divisional Engineer (Telephone), Khargone in terminating the

services of 16 casual labours ( as shown in the list attached) w.e.f. the dates mentioned against each is justified

or not? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

2.

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 3/1 to ¾. Order of reference pertains to termination of 16 casual labours. Statement of claim is submitted by

Jalam. Case of Ist party workman is they were working as casual employee with 2nd party management on clear

vacancies. Their service details are shown in separate sheets. That all those employees have completed more than 240

days continuous service in each of the calendar year. They are covered as employee under Section 25 B of ID Act.

Their services are terminated under Section 25-F of ID Act. They were not paid retrenchment compensation at the time

of termination of their service. termination of their service is void-ab-initio. Ratio held in case Mohanlal versus Bharat

Electronics Ltd 1981-3(SCC)-225 Ist party further submits that retrenchment of the services of all those employees is

without permission of Government of India. It is in violation of Section 25-N of ID Act. Violation of 25-H of ID Act is

also alleged. Though the statement of claim refers to the service particulars given but no such list is found along with

statement of claim. Separate written submissions are found have been made by Kailash S/o bala that he was working

with 2nd party from 1991 to 1993. His services were terminated in 1994. Shri Hariram S/o Tukaram submitted

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3799

separate written submissions contending that he was working with 2nd party as labout till 1991 during 1987, he was

working at Village Barud, Distt. Khargone in 1992, his services were terminated. Considering he was working since

1984 to 1990, he was allowed to appear in exam. After termination of his service, he is rendered unemployed.

3.

2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 11/1to 11/3 opposing claim of Ist party. 2nd party submits that any of

the employees were not engaged, appointment letter was not issued to them. The services of any of the employees were

not terminated. Ist party be directed to produce their appointment orders if available. Claim of Ist party is false and

imaginary. That Ist party has made allegations, the same are denied. That 2nd party used to engage daily wag employees

as per exigencies for the work of laying cables, digging ditches etc. daily wage employees were paid their wages after

their working . daily wage employees are not covered under Section 25 B of ID Act. Any of the employees were not

given appointment. Termination of Ist party employees, violation of Section 25-F, 25-H –N is denied. 2nd party

reiterates it has not committed violation of any statutory rules.

4.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of

Divisional Engineer (Telephone), Khargone in

terminating the services of 16 casual labours ( as

shown in the list attached) w.e.f. the dates

mentioned against each is justified or not?

Termination of the 16 workmen shown in the list is

not proved.

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Workmen are not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

5.

The term of reference pertains to termination of services of 16 casual labours, their names are shown in

Annexure I. Jamal S/0 Mangal, appointed on 29-4-89 & terminated on 19-11-93, Shri Amarsingh S/o Sardar Singh,

Asharam S/o Chaganlal, Hariram, S/o Sakaram, Totaram S/o Tukaram, Nanuram S/o Dayaram, Karan S/o Chetram,

Maan singh S/o Kaluram, Santosh S.o Tulsiram, Jagdish S/o Hiralal, Hariram S/o Budhiya, Maheshpal S/o Ramcharan,

Pratap Singh S/o Motilal, Kailash S/o Govind, Kailash S/o Jaswant, Nanuram S/o Ganpat the date of appointment and

date of termination are shown against their name from 1989 to 1993.

6.

Ist party filed affidavit of Shri Jalam S/o Mangal. He failed to appear for his cross examination. Other casual

labours pertaining to the dispute not participated in the reference proceeding.

7.

Management filed affidavit of Rajendra Sakrawar, Ramesh Jaiswal. Above witnesses of management not

appeared for cross-examination. Management filed affidavit of Shri S.S.Mishra supporting contentions in Written

Statement that any of the casual workers pertaining to the dispute were not appointed by management. For exigency of

work, casual labours were engaged on daily wages for digging ditches, laying cables, wages were paid to them. In his

cross-examination, management’s witness says from 2013, he is working as SDO at Khargone. Any document

pertaining to working of casual labour during 1989 to 1992 is not available in the office. The documents about

payments made to casual labours are not available. The casual labours were engaged on work, they were not issued

appointment orders. Ist party has not adduced cogent evidence, Jalam has not appeared for cross-examination, his

evidence cannot be considered. Claim of Ist party workers are not supported by evidence. Therefore I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

8.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management is proper and legal.

(2)

Workmen are not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

3800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1695-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds

izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 09@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@252@1999&vkbZvkj (lh,e&2)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2016

S.O. 1695.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 09/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited, and their workman, received by the Central Government on 08.08.2016.

[No. L- 22012/252/1999-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. 09 OF 2000

PARTIES

: The management of Khas Kajora Colliery of M/s. ECL

Vs.

Shri Surendra Harijan

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management

: Sri P. K. Goswami, learned advocate

For the union (Workman)

: Sri Rakesh Kumar, President of union

INDUSTRY : COAL STATE : WEST BENGAL

Dated: 12.07.2016

A W A R D

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No.

L-22012/252/99/IR (CM-II) dated 30.12.1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Khas Kajora Colliery of M/s. ECL in dismissing Sri Surendra

Harijan, Underground Loader from services is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled

to? ”

1.

Having received the Order NO. L-22012/252/99/IR (CM-II) dated 30.12.1999 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

2000 was registered on 18.01.2000 /10.10.2001 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.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3801

2.

Case called out. Sri Rakesh Kumar, President of the Union appears on behalf of the workman and Sri P. K.

Goswami, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Management.

3.

Sri Rakesh Kumar submits that he has been unable to contact the workman. As a result he could not file

evidence of the workman. On perusal of case record I find that the case is running for evidence of the workman from

07.05.2013. So far 12 dates were granted to Sri Rakesh Kumar for filing evidence of the workman but all in vain.

Registered notice was also issued to the workman/union on 04.01.2012. It seems to me that the workman is now not at

all interested to proceed with the case further. Had he been interested to proceed with the case he would appear before

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

O R D E R

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

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

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1696-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds

izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 06@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-08-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@183@2002&vkbZvkj (lh,e&2)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2016

S.O. 1696.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 06/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the management of Bahula Colliery

under Kenda Area, M/s. ECL, and their workman, received by the Central Government on 08.08.2016.

[No. L-22012/183/2002-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 2003

PARTIES

: The management of Bahula Colliery, Kenda Area of M/s. ECL

Vs.

Sri Kartar Singh

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management

: Sri P. K. Das , learned advocate

For the union (Workman)

: Sri Rakesh Kumar, President of union

INDUSTRY : COAL STATE : WEST BENGAL

Dated: 14.07.2016

3802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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-22012/183/2002-IR(CM-II) dated 08.05.2003 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bahula Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited in dismissing Sri Kartar Singh, Underground Leader, from service w.e.f. 23.06.1998 is legal and

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

1. Having received the Order NO. L-22012/183/2002-IR(CM-II) dated 08.05.2003 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 2003

was registered on 19.05.2003 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 Rakesh Kumar, President of the union appears on behalf of the workman and Sri P. K. Das,

learned advocate appears on behalf of the Management.

3. Sri Rakesh Kumar submits that the case may be closed as the workman is dead. He has also put his remarks on the

order sheet to that effect. Since the workman has already expired and the union does not want to proceed with the

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

O R D E R

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

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

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1697-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds

izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 19@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-08-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@76@2009&vkbZvkj (lh,e&2)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2016

S.O. 1697.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited, and their workman, received by the Central Government on 08.08.2016.

[No. L-22012/76/2009-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. 19 OF 2010

PARTIES

: The management of Jambad O.C.P of M/s. ECL

Vs.

Sri Rahul Chatterjee

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3803

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management

: Sri P. K. Goswami , Learned Advocate

For the union (Workman)

: Sri G. P. Mal, Learned Advocate

INDUSTRY : COAL STATE : WEST BENGAL

Dated: 08.07.2016

A W A R D

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No.

L-22012/76/2009–IR(CM-II) dated 15.06.2010 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. ECL for allegedly not providing employment to Sri Rahul

Chatterjee, the adopted son of the deceased workman, Late Ms. Anita Chatterjee, on compassionate basis is

legal and justified? To what relief is the claimant entitled for? ”

1. Having received the Order No. L-22012/76/2009–IR(CM-II) dated 15.06.2010 of the above said reference

from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 19 of 2010

was registered on 02.07.2010. 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.

Sri Rahul Chartterjee has stated, in brief, in his written statement that he is adopted son of Late Ms. Anita

Chatterjee, daughter of Late Kamala Kanta Chatterjee resident of Village & Post- Baktar Nagar, P.S.- Raniganj, Dist-

Burdwan. Late Ms. Anita Chatterjee is his adoptive mother. His father’s name is Sri Dinanath Chatterjee, son of Late

Kamala Kanta Chatterjee, resident of Village & Post- Baktar Nagar, P.S.- Raniganj, Dist- Burdwan. Name of his

natural mother is Smt. Basanti Chatterjee resident of the same village. Her adoptive mother Late Ms. Anita Chatterjee

was unmarried and had no male or female issue. She with the consent of his natural father and mother adopted him (Sri

Rahul Chartterjee) as his adopted son. The said give and take between his adoptive mother and his natural parents took

place in the presence of witnesses and relatives, villagers and neighbours and same was solemnized at Village & Post-

Baktar Nagar, P.S.- Raniganj, Dist- Burdwan on 29.08.2000. Necessary rituals were observed. At the time of adoption

his age was 13 years. After the said adoption he begin to live in the house of his adoptive mother namely Late Ms.

Anita Chatterjee. Late Ms. Anita Chatterjee looked after him as her son with full affection and love. Sri Rahul

Chartterjee also loved respected and honoured her mother and he was fully dependent on her. His natural father is the

brother of adoptive mother but they live separately. His natural father is not an employee but he is unemployed. After

adoption, his natural parents did not look after him. Adoption deed was recorded on 29.08.2000 at Asansol court with

two witnesses of his Village & Post- Baktar Nagar, P.S.- Raniganj, Dist- Burdwan. It was duly stamped and signed and

certified by ‘Notary’ Sri Tapa Priya Chatterjee. His adoptive mother Late Ms. Anita Chatterjee was a permanent

employee of Jambad O.C.P under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited as clerk being U.M. No. 564036,

C.M.P.F. No. ASN 20/B/25, B.F. No. G-522, Date of Birth 28.02.1954, Date of Appointment 26.08.1982. His adoptive

mother applied before competent authority for inclusion of name of Sri Rahul Chartterjee as her adopted son in service

record / SRE kept in the office of the company. Competent authority after verification of documents, considering her

application to be genuine, approved the inclusion of the name of Sri Rahul Chartterjee in her service record. It was

communicated by letter Ref. No. Kj/Pm/C-6/69/284/2273 dated 02.05.2003 mentioned therein Note Sheet No. KA/J

OCP/C-6/2296 dated 06.01.2003 signed by Dy. P.M., Kajora Area on 05.05.2003 and further communication of the

same to my adoptive mother Late Ms. Anita Chatterjee under reference KJ/O.C.P/C-6/03/217 dated 15/16.05.2003

signed by Dy. P.M., Jambad O.C.P. His adoptive mother Late Ms. Anita Chatterjee availed 01.09.2004 - 07.05.2009

L.T.C./L.L.T.C. dated 01.12.2003 -08.12.2003. Benefit and Medical benefits mentioning his name as her adopted son

and thereby his adoptive mother and himself provided the benefit granted by the competent authority of the company.

His adoptive mother Late Ms. Anita Chatterjee died on 27.12.2006 at 09:40 AM at C. H. Kalla of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited where she was admitted on 22.12.2006 at 01:25 PM. The said Date of Death of my adoptive mother

was duly recorded with the Registrar Birth & Death, Asansol Municipal Corporation on 15.01.2007. Adoptive mother

of Sri Rahul Chatterjee, Late Ms. Anita Chatterjee was in service of the company in M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited on

27.12.2006 and she died at C.H. Kalla of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited on 27.12.2006. She died in harness while in

service. Being adopted and dependent son of Late Ms. Anita Chatterjee I performed “Shradha” and other ceremonies at

her / my residence at Village & Post- Baktar Nagar, P.S.- Raniganj, Dist- Burdwan as per Hindu rituals / laws in vogue

in the locality. After the death of his adoptive mother he have been still living in the same house / home of his adoptive

mother Late Ms. Anita Chatterjee. As per provisions of N.C.W.A. dependent adopted son or daughter is entitled to get

3804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

employment in company in place of deceased employee in service. He submitted application with necessary

documents. The concerned authority of Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited directed him to appear before

screening committee on 21.03.2007. He was again directed by competent authority to appear before screening

committee of Kajora area on 11.05.2007 along with original documents. He appeared before screening committee on

21.03.2007 and 11.05.2009. But he has not been provided employment in M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited as per

N.C.W.A. Sri Rahul Chartterjee has prayed that the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited be directed to

provide him employment in M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

3.

The Agent / Dy. CME of Jambad O.C.P. of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has stated, in brief, in his written

statement that Late Ms. Anita Chatterjee during her lifetime did not take adoption of Sri Rahul Chartterjee according to

the provisions of law. Statement of adoption is entirely vague. The deed of adoption is not duly registered which is

required by law to be registered. The alleged deed is supposed to have been prepared in the year 2000, but the

witnesses put there signature in the year 2002. Even a single word has not been uttered regarding eligibility of adoption

of Sri Rahul Chartterjee. Statement made in the written statement of the claimant is vague and frivolous. Claimant is

not adopted son of ex-employee. Dy. CME of Jambad O.C.P. under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has

prayed that Sri Rahul Chartterjee is not entitled for employment. He is not entitled to any relief.

4.

Sri Rahul Chartterjee has filed 6 (Six) documents as documentary evidence namely :

(i) Photocopy of Adoption Deed, (ii) Photocopy of Letter of Dy. PM of Jambad O.C.P. under Kajora Area of

M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited dated 02.05.2003, (iii) Photocopy of Medical I.D. Card of Late Ms. Anita Chatterjee,

(iv) Photocopy of letter of Dy. Estate Manager of Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited dated 05.07.93, (v)

Copy of Gas Consumer Book, (vi) Copy of Certificate from Pradhan of Ballavpur Gram Panchayat.

Sri Rahul Chartterjee has filed affidavit in his evidence he has been cross-examined by the learned advocate of

Jambad O.C.P. under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

Agent of Jambad O.C.P. under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has filed copy of L.T.C. of

Late Ms. Anita Chatterjee. Agent / Dy. CME of Jambad O.C.P. under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited

has not examined any witness.

5.

I have heard Sri G. P. Mal, learned advocate on behalf of employee and Sri P. K. Goswami, learned advocate

on behalf of Jambad O.C.P. under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

6.

Sri G. P. Mal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the employee has argued that Sri Rahul Chartterjee is

adopted son of miss Late Ms. Anita Chatterjee. The name of Sri Rahul Chartterjee has been recorded in the Service

Excerpts of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The name of Sri Rahul Chartterjee has been recorded in the Medical I.D.

card and other relevant documents. His has been allotted a seat in the school bus managed by colliery. Sri Rahul

Chartterjee still resided in the house of Late Ms. Anita Chatterjee after adoption. As per N.C.W.A. he is entitled for job

being dependent adopted son of Late Ms. Anita Chatterjee. He has also filed written argument. On other hand Sri P. K.

Goswami, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Jambad O.C.P. under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited has argued that the name of Sri Rahul Chartterjee is entered being dependent on Late Ms. Anita Chatterjee in

the Service Excerpts of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, but the Adoption Deed is not registered.

7.

It is admitted fact that Late Ms. Anita Chatterjee was permanent employee of Jambad O.C.P. under Kajora

Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited bearing U.M. No. 564036. It is not disputed that Late Ms. Anita Chatterjee

expired during employment. The claim of Sri Rahul Chartterjee is on the basis of Adoption Deed, being adopted

dependent son of Late Ms. Anita Chatterjee. But Jambad O.C.P. under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited

has denied the claim for employment because of Adoption Deed being unregistered.

8.

As per Clause 9.3.3 of Chapter IX of N.C.W.A. the adopted dependent son is entitled for the job. The relevant

rule is below :

“ The dependant for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and

legally adopted son. If no such direct dependant is available for employment, brother, widowed daughter/

widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependant on the

earnings of the deceased may be considered to be the dependant of the deceased.”

9.

The adoption of male or female Hindu has been described under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

As per section 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 the Adoption Deed need not be registered. Though, if

Adoption Deed is registered there will be presumptions regarding its validity. Even if Adoption Deed is unregistered

it will be enforceable, but it must be scrutinized so that its authenticity can be verified. Off course as per N.C.W.A.

which is bipartite agreement the adopted dependent son is entitled for employment in place of his or her deceased

adoptive father or mother. But it should be ensured that Adoption Deed is genuine and was really executed and was in

existence and enforced prior to the death of deceased adoptive mother.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3805

10.

At this stage perusal of Adoption Deed is necessary. As per Adoption Deed the ceremony of adoption has

been performed on 06.08.2000 in presence of friends, relatives and respectable persons including the attesting

witnesses. The Adoption Deed has not been registered, but it has been notarized by Notary Public on 29.08.2000. But it

is surprising to note that witnesses Sri Subrata Chatterjee and Sri Shibnath have put their signature on 20.09.2002.

When the Adoption Deed was notarized in the presence of witnesses why these witnesses put their signature after more

then two years? This fact has not been explained. This circumstance arouses serious suspension about genuineness of

Adoption Deed. It is also relevant to mention the names of any witness, friends or relatives have not been described in

the Adoption Deed. The so called witnesses Sri Subrata Chatterjee and Shibnath who put their signature after 2 (Two)

years for the reasons best known to them even their names are not mentioned in the Adoption Deed. This important

circumstance inspires to disbelieve on the Adoption Deed itself. It indicates that Adoption Deed has been manipulated

for procuring employment in M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. Moreover Sri Rahul Chartterjee has not filed any

document of his school etc. By submitting copies of school certificate it would have been verified that in School

Certificate whose name is entered as his mother. Though, name of Sri Rahul Chartterjee has been entered as dependent

in the Service Excerpt of Late Ms. Anita Chatterjee maintained by Jambad O.C.P. under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited. Name of Sri Rahul Chartterjee is also entered as adopted son of Late Ms. Anita Chatterjee in

medical ID card. He has been also allotted a seat in the school bus managed by concerned colliery. But these

documents can not create any right in favour of claimant when Adoption Deed is itself found to be suspicious. When

the basis of claim is itself not genuine, then entries in Service excerpt of Late Ms. Anita Chatterjee in favor of Sri Rahul

Chartterjee as adopted son will not create any right in favour of Sri Rahul Chartterjee.

11.

In the view of discussion above the action of management of Jambad O.C.P. under Kajora Area of M/s.

Eastern Coalfields Limited for not providing employment to Sri Rahul Chartterjee, the adopted son of deceased

employee, Late Ms. Anita Chatterjee on compassionate basis is legal and justified. The claimant is not entitled for any

relief.

ORDER

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

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

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1698-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-lh-lh-

,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] xksnkojh[kUuh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 12@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-08-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22013@1@2016&vkbZvkj (lh,e&2)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2016

S.O. 1698.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/12/2014)

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL, and

their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 08.08.2016.

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

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM-VI ADDL. DIST.

AND SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI

Present:- SRI G.V.KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No.12 OF 2014

Tuesday, the 5th day of July, 2016

3806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Between:-

KOVVURI RAYAMALLU, S/o. Banaiah,

Age 50 years, Occ: Badli Filler, R/o.Mallapalli,

Mandal Manthani, Dist.Karimnagar.

…Petitioner

AND

1.

The Colliery Manager, 5 Incline, Godavarikhani.

2.

The General Manager, RG-I, Godavarikhani.

3.

The Managing Director, Singareni Collieries (Administration),

PO: Kothagudem, District: Khammam.

4.

The Chief Managing Director, SC Company Ltd.,

Erramangil colony, Singareni Bhavan,

Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.

…Respondents

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Bhagavantha Rao, Advocate for the

petitioner and of Sri D.Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the respondents; and having been heard and having stood over

for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered the following:-

AWARD

1.

This petition is filed U/Sec. 2(A)(2) of I.D., Act challenging the dismissal of petitioner by respondent No. 2

praying for his reinstatement into service with continuity of service, all attendant benefits, full back wages release of

gratuity P.F., and other benefits or compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

2.

Petitioner was dismissed from service orally by the respondent No.2 on 30-01-1992.

3.

Petitioner challenges his dismissal order as follows. He was appointed as Badli Filler in the year 1973 and

worked upto 31-3-1985. Petitioner was foisted a charge of absenteeism and he was terminated from service. Petitioner

was not issued charge memo, charge sheet and he was abruptly terminated from service. Petitioner submitted several

representations to the respondents to supply the documents, but they did not supply them to petitioner. Petitioner also

submitted a letter dt.6-1-2005 to release gratuity and P.F., amount, but the respondents did not release, kept with them

and the company is under obligation to pay with penal interest. Again petitioner submitted a written representation to

GM, RG-I through RPAD claiming gratuity of Rs.3,42,000/- but the respondent did not reply or paid any amount to

petitioner. Petitioner’s case was covered by several settlements such as 1998 to 2000 and 2000 to 2010. At present,

petitioner is out of employment. Therefore, petitioner prays to allow the petition.

4.

In response to this challenge, respondents filed counter justifying the dismissal of the petitioner. Petitioner

was initially appointed in the company during the year 1972 and was dismissed from service in the year 1993 for his

misconduct of un-authorised absenteeism. Petitioner kept quiet for all these years and filed this petition after lapse of

20 years which is barred by limitation U/Sec. 2A(3) of Industrial Disputes Amendment Act, 2010. As per the MOS

dt.12-03-1990, though the respondents re-appointed petitioner into service on 01-06-1990, he did not change his

attitude and continued to absent himself for duty. As such, Respondents’ Company dis-empanelled the petitioner

w.e.f., 25-07-1993. As petitioner was re-appointed in the year 1990 and was dis-empanelled in 1993, he is not entitled

for gratuity as total service rendered by him was less than 5 years. The appropriate authority for settlement and pay of

CMPF is the Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Godavarikhani and the respondents have no control

over the same. As per the service register of petitioner, his age was recorded as 21 years as on 7-3-1973. Petitioner

had already crossed the age of superannuation in the year 2012. Therefore, respondents pray to dismiss the petition

without granting any relief to the petitioner.

5.

During the course of hearing, Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-14 on behalf of petitioner. No documents are marked on

behalf of respondents.

6.

Heard both sides. Perused the material papers on record.

7.

The point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief?

8.

POINT:- Petitioner was appointed in the respondents’ company during the year 1972. He was dismissed

from the services of the company for his misconduct of unauthorized absenteeism; and was reappointed in the year

1990. Again he was dis-empanelled in the year 1993. Petitioner kept quiet fore more than 20 years and raised the

dispute in the year 2014. Admittedly age of the petitioner as on 7-3-1973 (date of his initial appointment) was recorded

as 21 years. As such, petitioner already attained the age of superannuation in March, 2012 itself. The relief of

reinstatement sought for in this petition has become infructuous. Petitioner failed to raise any dispute regarding his dis-

empanelment in the year 1993, within a reasonable time. The averments of the petition that petitioner was dismissed

from service is not correct and admittedly no dismissal order is filed. No evidence is produced before this court by

petitioner to substantiate his unauthorized absenteeism. No plausible explanation is offered for 20 years long delay in

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3807

raising the dispute. Under those circumstances, I am constrained to hold that petitioner is not entitled to any relief and

petition is liable to be dismissed, for want of merits. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

9.

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 5th day of July,

2016.

G.V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For workman:-

For Management;-

-Nil-

-Nil-

EXHIBITS

For workman:-

Ex.W-1

Dt.

05-04-2000

Demand letter and its postal receipts

Ex.W-2

Dt.

15-03-1989

Representation of petitioner for appointment

Ex.W-3

Dt.

31-05-1990

Office order of appointment as Badli Filler

Ex.W-4

Dt.

06-01-2005

Application for gratuity and CMPF

Ex.W-5

Dt.

30-03-2011

Application for supply of removal order

Ex.W-6

Dt.

13-09-2011

Form-I application for gratuity with Regd.Post receipt

Ex.W-7

Dt.

09/1990

Pay slip, x.copy

Ex.W-8

Dt.

21-12-2011

Letter to petitioner by Sri N.S.Chakravarthi

Ex.W-9

Dt.

24-06-2011

Letter to the petitioner seeking information by Sri N.S.Chakravarthi,

Public Information Officer

Ex.W-10

Dt.

14-04-2011

Letter issued to petitioner by Public Information Officer

Ex.W-11

Dt.

13-05-2011

Letter to the petitioner by Sri N.S.Chakravarthi, Public Information

Officer, RG-I Area.

Ex.W-12

Dt.

30-03-2011

Application for supply of documents 1 to 6.

Ex.W-13

Dt.

11-04-2011

Letter issued to petitioner by P.I.O., corporate area for providing

information under RTI Act, 2005.

Ex.W-14

Dt.

05-04-2014

Application for supply of documents letter addressed under Regd.Post

with Ack., postal receipt.

For Management:-

-Nil-

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1699-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 197@97) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-08-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@193@1996&vkbZvkj (lh,e&2)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

3808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2016

S.O. 1699.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 197/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of SECL, Dhelwadih

Project and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.08.2016.

[No. L-22012/193/1996-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/197/97

Shri Lada Ram,

Ex.Driller, Dhelwadih Project,

R/o Prem Nagar,

Post Bhairotal,

Distt. Bilaspur (MP)

…Workman

Versus

Dy.General Manager,

SECL, Dhelwadih Project,

Post Banki Mongra,

Distt. Bilaspur (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 20th day of July 2016

1.

As per letter dated 11-15/7/97 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-22012/193/96/IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Dhelwadih Project of SECL, Distt. Bilaspur in terminating the

services of Shri Lada Ram Ex-Driller w.e.f. 14-4-94 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman

entitled and from which date?”

2.

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 4/1 to 4/2. Case of Ist party workman is that he was working with 2nd party as driller since last 15 years. He

performed service to the satisfaction of his superiors. He was dismissed from service as per order dated 14-4-94, no

chargesheet was issued to him neither enquiry was conducted as per rules. Further Ist party contends if enquiry

conducted by 2nd party is illegal, workman was not given full opportunity for his defence. Enquiry Officer did not

inform him date of hearing. Enquiry was conducted. Principles of natural justice were not followed. The copy of

findings of Enquiry Officer was not given to him. Termination of his service is illegal. On such ground, Ist party prays

for his reinstatement with backwages.

3.

Management filed Written Statement at Page 9 to 11 opposing claim of Ist party workman. 2nd party submits

that Ist party was appointed as casual piecerated worker on 15-2-85, he was regularized on 1-1-1990. Showcause

notice was issued to him on 28-8-93 giving the details of his attendance from January to July 1993. It is reiterated that

the Ist party was remaining absent from work affecting coal production. The workman was again informed by Letter

dated 29-8-93 about his attendance during January to July 93 was only 81 days. Chargesheet was issued to workman on

23-1-93 on absence from duty without information. Ist party workman was given warning but there was no

improvement. Chargesheet was issued to Ist party on 6-10-93 pertaining to his absence from duty from March to Sept

93. Ist party workman accepted charges against him. Workman was allowed co-worker in the enquiry proceedings,

opportunity for his defence was given. As workman admitted charges, the same have been proved considering the

report of Enquiry Officer, punishment was imposed. Action of management is proper and legal.

4.

As per order dated 18-9-14, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3809

5.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the charges alleged against workman is

proved from evidence in Enquiry proceedings?

In Affirmative

(ii) Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed

against workman is proper and legal?

In Affirmative

(iii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

6.

Enquiry conducted against workman is found legal as per order dated 18-9-14. Question remains whether

charges against Ist party workman are proved needs to be decided from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. During

course of argument, learned counsel for 2nd party Shri A.K.Shashi pointed out documents MD-6 chargesheet issued to

workman dated 6-10-93 pertaining to unauthorized absence from 56-3-93. Document MD-13 Ist party workman has

admitted charge explained to him. At Page 26 of Enquiry Proceedings, statement of CSE was recorded. Workman has

admitted his absence from duty as he had property dispute with his brother. Apprehending danger to his life, he was

unable to attend duty. He had requested for leniency in the matter. When workman admitted charges against him, the

charges against Ist party was proved. No further evidence was required when fact was admitted. For above reasons, I

record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

7.

Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 charges of unauthorized absence alleged against workman

are proved, question remains for consideration is whether punishment of dismissal imposed against workman is proper

and legal. Perusal of record shows that workman did not participate in the reference proceeding, he failed to adduce

evidence on the preliminary issue as well as on other issues. When workman has not adduced any evidence in the

matter, the evidence of management’s witness was recorded.

8.

Learned counsel for management Shri A.K.Shashi submits that punishment of dismissal deserved no

interference. In support of his argument, Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in case of Chairman-cum-Managing

Director versus Mukul Kumar Choudhuri reported in AIR 2010-SC-75. Their Lordship dealing with departmental

enquiry held delinquent admitting charges conclusion arrived at by Inquiry Officer about proof of charges. Absence of

any procedural illegality or irregularity in conduct of departmental enquiry. It has to be held that charges against

delinquent stood proved and warranted no interference,.

Considering ratio in above cited case and workman remained absent, not adduced evidence in reference

proceeding, punishment of dismissal doesnot call for interference, I record my finding in Point No.2 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 Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1700-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 73@1996) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-08-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@235@1995&vkbZvkj (lh,e& II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2016

S.O. 1700.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 73/96) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of SECL, Ramnagar Area

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.08.2016.

[No. L-22012/235/1995-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

3810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/73/96

Secretary,

Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (UTUC),

Hasdeo Area,

Post Jhimar Colliery,

Distt. Shahdol (MP)

…Workman/Union

Versus

Sub Area Manager,

Ramnagar Area of SECL,

Post Jhimar Colliery,

Distt. Shahdol (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 14th day of July 2016

1.

As per letter dated 28-2-96 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-22012/235/95-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the demand of the Secretary, Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (UTUC), Hasdeo Area that the Sub Area

Manager, Ramnagar R.O.Sub Area of Hasdeo Area of SECL should take 48 workers (Schedule annexed)

engaged in the work of water carriers and other misc. civil works should be taken on the roll of management is

legal and justified? To what relief these workers are entitled?”

2.

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party Union filed statement of claim at Page

3/1 to 3/7. Case of Ist party Union is that it is registered Union having right to collective bargaining system. That Shri

Lallan Tiwari and 48 other workers were carrying the work of waterman, fetching water from wells and supplying

drinking water to staff mazdoors and officers to their families residing in the colonies of Jhimer colliery of Ramnagar

sub area. The workers were employed in March 1985. They were paid Rs.30/- per day. The rates were increased to

Rs.50 per day from March 97, that salary was paid directly by the Colliery Management. That Lallan was shown as

contractor, was himself also doing the work of supplying water. All those workers were not paid wages as per NCWA.

They were not extended benefits of the regular employees of colliery. As per NCWA Appendix V Item 8, waterman are

classified in Category I unskilled. It is reiterated that all those waterman were not absorbed in service. his services were

not regularized despite they completed more than 240 days continuous service during each of the year. The Union

prays that management be directed to regularize services of those workers. Continuing them on Badli casual

temporaries denying regularization amount to unfair labour practice. On such ground, Union is demanding

regularization of those workers.

3.

2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of Union. It is submitted that the Union has raised demand

for regularization of Lallan and 47 others claiming to be contractual. Present reference was merged with R/70/93. The

names of worker shown in R/70/93 and present reference are common. As shown in Para 3(d) of Written Statement, 2nd

party denies that those workers are engaged for water supply since March 985 @ Rs.30 per day increased to Rs.50/- in

March 97. The wage structure and other conditions of services including fringe benefits of employees of Coal India Ltd

are covered on recommendations of Wage Board for Coal Mining Industry which is known as NCWA. As per the long

prevailing practice, drinking water facility is provided to Officers and others daily 2-4 times. The amount was paid as

per the quantity of water supplied. The contractor was engaged for supply of water was paid the amount as per quantum

of supply. 2nd party denies that all those 48 workers were engaged by management. Management was making them

payment. Rather it is contented that the claimants were engaged by the contractors, they were never engaged by

management of SECL. The person employed in mine has to mark his attendance in Form B Regioster in the mine.

There is no employer employee relationship. The appointment of claimants was not made as per the rules and

regulations of CIL. The claim of claimants is violative of Article 16 of guarantee of employment to the citizens. It is

reiterated that the workmen were not directly engaged by the management rather they were engaged by the

contractors. There is no employer employee relationship. The claimants are not entitled for regularization.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3811

4.

I may also mention here that the 2nd party management had submitted application for supplying better

particulars. The particulars requested by 2nd party were not furnished.

5.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the demand of the Secretary, Koyla

Mazdoor Sabha (UTUC), Hasdeo Area that

the Sub Area Manager, Ramnagar R.O.Sub

Area of Hasdeo Area of SECL should take

48 workers (Schedule annexed) engaged in

the work of water carriers and other misc.

civil works should be taken on the roll of

management is legal and justified?

Ist party failed to adduce evidence, point could not

be decided on merit.

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman is entitled

to?”

Workmen are not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

6.

Present dispute pertains to the demand of Union for regularization of services of Lallan Tiwari and 47 others

working as waterman supplying drinking water to the officers and employees in the colony. The claim of Ist party is

opposed by 2nd party filing detailed Written Statement. That Ist party Union did not participate in reference proceeding

and adduce evidence in support of its demand. The evidence of Ist party Union is closed on 17-11-2014.

7.

2nd party management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri T.Samuel S/o Late Rathnaiah Sr.Personal Manager

supporting contentions of management in Written Statement. Ist party remained absent and failed to cross examine the

management’s witness. The evidence of management’s witness remained unchallenged. I donot find any reason to

disbelieve his evidence. As Ist party Union failed to adduce evidence in support of their demand, the point could not be

decided in merit.

8.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

As Ist party failed t properly participate in the reference proceeding, the dispute could not be decided

on merit.

(2)

Employees are not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1701-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ¯lfMdsV

cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 21@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-08-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@67@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 9th August, 2016

S.O. 1701.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.08.2016.

[No. L-12012/67/2012-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

3812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqca/k

vuqca/k

vuqca/k

vuqca/k

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

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

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

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

lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 21 /2013

Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

jsQjsUl ua- L-12012/67/2012– IR (B-II) fnukad 05/03/2013

Shri Deepak Kumar Garg, S/o. Shri Nar Singh Garg,

H.No.153/18, Saydagar Mohalla,

Diggi Bazar, Distt.- Ajmer. (Rajasthan)

v/s

Dy.General Manager, (Personnel Section),

Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Jaipur.

Jaipur

izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jh ih- Mh- [kUuk & ,MoksdsV

vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jh lat; oekZ & ,MoksdsV

% iapkV %

fnukad % 29- 04- 2016

1-

dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 10 mi/kkjk 1 [k.M+ ¼?k½ ds vUrxZr fnukad 05@03@2013 ds vkns’k ls izsf"kr fookn ds

vk/kkj ij ;g izdj.k U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lafLFkr gSA dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr fookn fuEuor~ gS %&

2-

‘Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank, Kishangarh District Ajmer in terminating the

services of Shri Deepak Kumar Garg w.e.f. 05/01/2012 is justified or legal ? What relief the workman is

entitled to?’

3-

LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse esa fn;s x;s rF;ksa ds vuqlkj laf{kIr% ;kph nhid dqekj xxZ dk dFku gS fd izkFkhZ

dh fu;qfDr flafMdsV cSad] 'kk[kk fd’kux<+] ftyk vtesj esa fnukafdr 1-4-2010 dks vLFkkbZ ifjpj ds in ij

gqbZ FkhA izkFkhZ us fnukad 1-4-2010 ls fnukad 5-1-2012 rd yxkrkj esgur vkSj bZekunkjh ls dk;Z fd;kA

4-

vkxs izkFkhZ dk ;kfpdk ds izLrj 5 esa dFku gS fd foi{khx.k us izkFkhZ dks fnukad 17-3-2007 dks ,d

i= Hkstdj lk{kkRdkj gsrq fnukad 26 ekpZ 2007 dks flafMdsV cSad] 'kk[kk u;k cktkj] vtesj cqyk;k D;ksafd

izkFkhZ dk iath;u jkstxkj dk;kZy;] vtesj esa FkkA

5-

izkFkhZ ds O;ogkj] dk;Z ds izfr tkudkjh] drZO; rFkk lkFk&lkFk jkstxkj dk;kZy; ds dkMZ ds vk/kkj

ij lk{kkRdkj desVh us izkFkhZ dk p;u vLFkk;h ifjpj ds in ij dj fy;kA lk{kkRdkj ds le; lk{kkRdkj

desVh }kjk izkFkhZ dh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk dh tkudkjh ls lEcfU/kr iz’u ugha iwNs x;s FksA

6-

fnukad 20-3-2010 dks 'kk[kk izcU/kd] iqjkuk fey pkSjkgk] fd’kux<+ us izkFkhZ dks ,d i= Hkstdj cqyk;k

ftlds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ fd’kux<+ 'kk[kk igq¡pkA 'kk[kk izcU/kd us izkFkhZ dks ekSf[kd :Ik ls izkFkhZ ds dk;Z]

drZO; ,oa vf/kdkjksa dh tkudkjh iznku dhA izkFkhZ dh lEiw.kZ 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds lEcU/k esa tkudkjh rFkk

izek.k i= fy;kA izkFkhZ dk iSjk 7 esa dFku gS fd fu;qfDr ds le; gh vizkFkhZx.k dks izkFkhZ dh 'kS{kf.kd

;ksX;rk dh tkudkjh Fkh rks mlds ckn Hkh izkFkhZ ls 2 lky rd ukSdjh djok ysus ds ckn izkFkhZ dh lsok

lekfIr xyr] fof/k fo:) vkSj voS/k gSA fnukad 1-4-2010 dks izkFkhZ dks vLFkk;h ifjpj gsrq foi{kh la[;k 1 us

fu;qfDr i= fn;k ftlesa lsok dh frfFk 1-4-2010 ls 30-4-2010 ds fy, Fkh vkSj ekfld osru 4060 :- vafdr

FkkA eagxkbZ HkRrk vkSj edku fdjk;k HkRrk vyx ls ns; crk;k x;kA izkFkhZ us fnukad 1-4-2010 dks dk;ZHkkj

xzg.k fd;kA

7-

foi{k }kjk izkFkhZ dks ,d&,d ekg dk fu;qfDr i= fn;k tkrk jgk ftlesa foi{kh izkFkhZ dk osru c<+krs

jgsA 2011 esa izkFkhZ dk osru 5500 :- izfrekg Fkk ftl ij egaxkbZ HkRrk vkSj edku fdjk;k HkRrs dk Hkqxrku

vyx ls vfrfjDr :Ik esa ns; Fkk izkFkhZ us fnlEcj 2011 rd yxkrkj 523 fnu dk;Z fd;kA

8-

foi{kh us izkFkhZ dks ,d i= fnukafdr 15-9-2011 dks tkjh dj 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk fNikus ds lUnHkZ esa

Li"Vhdj.k ekaxk ftldk tokc izkFkhZ us vius i= fnukad 26-9-2011 }kjk fn;kA foi{khx.k us tokc ls lUrq"V

gksus ds Ik’pkr fnukad 5-1-2012 rd izkFkhZ ls dk;Z Hkh djok;k vkSj fnukad 5-1-2012 dks 'kke 6 cts izkFkhZ dh

lsok lekfIr ls lEcfU/kr i= fn;kA bl i= ds lkFk foi{khx.k us 2 is vkMZj psd dze’k% 9]778-27 :Ik;s ¼,d

ekg dh uksfVl ds cnys esa½ rFkk nwljk psd 13]037-69 :Ik;s ¼NaVuh eqvkotk ls lEcfU/kr½ layXu fd;k FkkA

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3813

izkFkhZ lsok lekfIr dk vkns’k ikdj grizHk gks x;k D;ksafd foi{khx.k }kjk mlh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds vk/kkj ij

fnukad 1-4-2010 ls fnukad 5-1-2012 rd dk;Z djok;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ us foi{khx.k dks lsok lekfIr ds i= ds

ckn ;g Hkh crk;k fd tc mldk lk{kkRdkj fy;k x;k Fkk rks lk{kkRdkj desVh us izkFkhZ ls dsoy nloha d{kk

dk izek.k i= fy;kA

9-

fnukad 9-1-2012 dks izkFkhZ us foi{kh ds i= dk tokc nsrs gq, nksuksa psd ykSVk fn;s tks foi{khx.k dks

fnukad 10-1-2012 dks izkIr gks x;s D;ksafd foi{kh cSad ds lsok fu;eksa esa ;g Li"V :Ik ls of.kZr fd;k gqvk gS

fd ftl vLFkk;h deZpkjh us 180 fnu ;k 240 fnu yxkrkj fu;fer :Ik ls viuh lsok,a nh gS og LFkk;h gksus

dk gdnkj gks tkrk gSA

10-

foi{khx.k }kjk izkFkhZ dk LIk"Vhdj.k izkIr djus ds Ik’pkr izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ,d LFkk;h deZpkjh

ds :Ik esa fu;e dk vuqlj.k djuk pkfg, Fkk tks ugha fd;k x;k gS blfy;s lsok lekfIr esa voS/krk vkSj =qfV

dh xbZ gSA izkFkhZ us 528 fnu yxkrkj fu;fer :Ik ls dk;Z fd;k gS blfy;s og LFkk;h gks pqdk gS rFkk mldh

lsok lekfIr esa /kkjk 25&,Q dk vuqikyu dk foi{k us xyr lgkjk fy;k gSA foi{khx.k us izkFkhZ dh lsok

lekfIr ds iwoZ dksbZ tkap ugha dh gS vkSj lquokbZ dk volj ugha fn;k gS rFkk izkd`frd U;k; ds fl)kUr ds

fo:) vpkud voS/k :Ik ls lsok lekIr dj nh gS tks fof/k fo:) gksus ds dkj.k 'kwU; o fu"izHkkoh gSA izkFkhZ

dh lsok lekfIr esa foi{khx.k us vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds izkfo/kkuksa ,o¡ Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds

vuqPNsn 14 o 16 dk mYya?ku fd;k gSA

11-

izkFkhZ us fnukad 5-1-2012 dh lsok lekfIr ds vkns’k ls {kqC/k gksdj /kkjk 10]11] o 12 vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e 1947 ds vUrxZr Je vk;qDr dsUnzh;@le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k vkosnu izLrqr dh vkSj foi{khx.k

}kjk tokc fnuk¡d 22-2-2012 dks izLrqr fd;k x;kA tokc ds fo:) tokcqytokc fnuakd 19-4-2012 izLrqr

fd;kA le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k okrkZ vlQy gksus ds ckn vlQy okrkZ fjiksVZ le>kSrk vf/kdkjh us Je

eU=ky; dks izsf"kr dh ftlds vk/kkj ij Je eU=ky; }kjk izsf"kr fookn U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k ;kph us izLrqr

fd;k gSA

12-

;kph us izkFkZuk dh gS fd lsok lekfIr dk vkns’k fnukad 5-1-2012 xSj&dkuwuh ?kksf"kr dj mDr izkFkhZ

dks LFkk;h deZpkjh ekurs gq, leLr osru 18 izfr’kr C;kt ds lkFk [kpkZ eqdnek lfgr fnyok;k tk;A

13-

oknksÙkj izLrqr dj foi{khx.k }kjk ;kfpdk ds izLrj 1]2]3]4 vkSj 5 ds lecU/k esa dgk x;k gS fd

fjdkMZ ls lEcfU/kr gksus ds dkj.k tokc dk eksgrkt ugha gSA izLrj 3 ds lEcU/k esa vfrfjDr dFku esa dgk

x;k gS fd vLFkk;h ifjpjksa dh vtesj ftys dh lwph cukus ds mn~ns’; ls jkstxkj dk;kZy; vtesj dks ,d

ekax i= fn;k x;k Fkk rkfd lwph gsrq vH;kfFkZ;ksa dk p;u fd;k tk lds rFkk vko’;drkuqlkj fjfDr;ksa ds

fo:) mudh fu;qfDr dh tk ldsA oknksÙkj ds lkFk layXud vuqyXud 1 gksus dk mYys[k gS ftlesa ik=rk

lEcfU/kr 'krksZa dk mYys[k FkkA vkxs ;g mYys[k gS fd izkFkhZ nhid dqekj xxZ us viuk uke jkstxkj dk;kZy;

esa iathdj.k la[;k 30941@99@96 ds vUrZxr dsoy nloha ijh{kk mRrh.kZ vH;kFkhZ ds :Ik esa iathd`r djk

j[kk Fkk vkSj blh vk/kkj izkFkhZ dk uke jkstxkj dk;kZy; }kjk vxzsflr fd;k x;k FkkA foi{k }kjk jkstxkj

dk;kZy; dh flQkfj’k ds vk/kkj ij cSad us izkFkhZ dks lk{kkRdkj gsrq fnukad 17-3-2007 ds i= }kjk vkefU=r

fd;k FkkA lk{kkRdkj gsrq izsf"kr i= MkD;wesUV la[;k 1 vkSj nhid dqekj xxZ dh jkstxkj dk;kZy; esa iath;u

gsrq izLrqr vkosnu nLrkost 2 ds :Ik esa oknksRrj ds lkFk layXu gSA

14-

izkFkhZ dh ;kfpdk ds izLrj 6 ds lEcU/k esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd izLrj 6 esa of.kZr rF; dsoy fjdkMZ

lEcfU/k gksus dh gn rd Lohdkj gSA izLrj 6 ds fo:) vfrfjDr dFku esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd vH;kFkhZ viuh

vkosnu esa tks lwpuk izLrqr djrk gS mlh vk/kkj ij lk{kkRdkj fy;k tkrk gSA vH;kFkhZ }kjk viuh vkosnu esa

izLrqr lwpuk mldh O;fDrxr tkudkjh eas gksrh gS vkSj mlls vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd og lgh&lgh lwpuk

izLrqr djs c’krZsa mldk dksbZ xyr bjknk uk gksA bl ekeys ds lUnHkZ esa lk{kkRdkj ds nkSjku vH;kFkhZ ls

mldh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds ckjs esa u;s fljs ls iwNrkN djus dh dksbZ t:jr ugha FkhaA vkxs ;g mYys[k gS fd

izkFkhZ us jkstxkj dk;kZy; esa nh xbZ lwpuk eas viuh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk d{kk 10 ikl fn[kkbZ vkSj egRoiw.kZ rF;

fNik;s gSA izkFkhZ us iath;u ds uohuhdj.k ds le; Hkh viuh mPprj f’k{kk dh tkudkjh jkstxkj dk;kZy; dks

ugha nh gSA mDr rF;ksa ls ;g iznf’kZr gksrk gS fd jkstxkj izkIr djus ds izFke pj.k esa gh izkFkhZ us fo’okl

Hkax fd;k gSA izLrj 7] 18]19 o 20 ds lEcU/k esa dgk x;k gS fd fjdkMZ lEcfU/kr gksus ds dkj.k mRrj dk

eksgrkt ugha gSA izLrj 21 ds lEcU/k esa dgk x;k gS fd dkuwu ij vk/kkfjr gksus ds dkj.k mRrj dk eksgrkt

ugha gSA izLrj 17 ds lEcU/k esa dgk x;k gS fd fookn ls lEcfU/kr ugha gksus ds dkj.k mRrj dk og eksgrkt

ugha gSA izLrj 8]9]11]12]13]14]15 vkSj 16 ds lEcU/k esa dgk x;k gS fd ftl izdkj of.kZr gS Lohdkj ugha gSA

vfrfjDr dFku esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd lgh rF; ;g gS fd cSad us 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk fNikus ds lEcU/k esa

fnukad 15-9-2011 ds i= ¼MkD;wesUV& 8½ }kjk izkFkhZ ls Li"Vhdj.k ekaxk Fkk] bl lEcU/k esa izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku

lgh ugha gS fd cSad us izkFkhZ dk Li"Vhdj.k Lohdkj dj fy;k Fkk] pwafd izkFkhZ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947

esa nh xbZ ifjHkk"kk ds vuqlkj dkexkj dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS blfy;s ,sls ekeys esa dk;Zokgh djrs le; ,d

fu/kkZfjr izfØ;k dk ikyu djuk iMrk gS] rnuqlkj cSad us vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds izkfo/kku dks

ykxw djus dh izfdz;k 'kq: dh gSA cSad }kjk izkFkhZ dks uksfVl dh vof/k ds cnys ,d ekg dk osru nsdj rFkk

3814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

NaVuh dk eqvkotk nsdj NaVuh dj nh gSA izkFkhZ dh NaVuh mldh dk;Z fUk"iknu esa fdlh deh ds dkj.k ugha

dh xbZ] njvly lEcfU/kr in ds fy;s visf{kr 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ls mPprj 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk j[kus ds dkj.k

izkFkhZ dk uke vLFkk;h ifjpjksa dh lwph esa j[kuk cSad dh uhfr vkSj ljdkj ds fn’kk funsZ’k ds fo:) gSA cSad

}kjk izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds fdlh izkfo/kku dk mYya?ku ugha fd;k x;k gS rFkk

/kkjk 25 dk iwjh rjg ikyu fd;k x;k gSA okLrfodrk ;g gS fd izkFkhZ bl rF; ls iwjh rjg ls voxr Fkk fd

mlus xyr lwpuk nh gS vkSj lR;rk dks fNik;k gSA

15-

izkFkhZ us 10 oha d{kk mRrh.kZ djus ds ckn jkstxkj dk;kZy; esa viuk iathdj.k djok;k ysfdu iath;u

dk uohuhdj.k djkrs le; mlus jkstxkj dk;kZy; dks ;g lwpuk ugha nh fd mlus 12 oha d{kk ikl dj yh

gSA

16-

;kfpdk ds izLrj 10 ds fo:) izkFkhZ dks fnukad 15-9-2011 dk i= Hkstk tkuk vkSj izkFkhZ }kjk i= dk

tokc nsus ds rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA vfrfjDr dFku esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd fu/kkZfjr 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk

ls mPprj 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk j[kus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ vLFkk;h ifjpjksa dh lwph 'kkfey gksus rFkk LFkk;h fu;qfDr ikus

ls vik= gks x;k bl dkj.k cSad dh ftEesnkjh ugha gS fd vLFkk;h ifjpj dh lsok dks fu;fer djasA cSad us

bl rF; ls Li"V bUdkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ nhid dqekj dh NaVuh djus esa cSad us /kkjk 25 ,Q vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/kfu;e dk nq:Ik;ksx fd;k gSA oknksRrj ds izLrj 11 esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dh NaVuh djrs

le; fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k dk ikyu fd;k x;k gS rFkk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vUrxZr

dk;Zokgh dh x;h gSA izkFkhZ ls 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk fNikus ds lEcU/k esa Li"Vhdj.k dh ekax izkd`frd U;k; ds

fl)kUrksa ds vuqlj.k esa fd;k x;k gSA

17-

vkxs oknksRrj esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dk p;u jkstxkj dk;kZy; ds iath;u dkMZ vkSj vuqyXud

1 esa n’kkZ;h x;h izkFkhZ dh ;ksX;rk ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k FkkA mDr in ds fy, fu/kkZfjr 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk ls

mPprj 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk j[kus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ mDr in ij cus jgus ds fy, vik= gks x;k gSA izkFkhZ dk mDr

in ij cuk jguk cSad dh uhfr vkSj ljdkj ds fn’kk funZs’kksa dk mYya?ku gksxk] vr% bl ckr ls bUdkj gS fd

cSad us dksbZ voS/k] xyr vFkok dkuwu ds fo:) dk;Z fd;kA

18-

;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ LFkk;h deZpkjh ugha gS] blfy;s LFkk;h deZpkfj;ksa ij ykxw lsok 'krsZa

izkFkhZ ij ykxw ugha gksrhA LFkk;h deZpkfj;ksa ij ykxw lsok 'krksZa dk mYys[k fofHkUu ,okMksZa vkSj f}i{kh;

le>kSrksa esa of.kZr gS tks izkFkhZ ij ykxw ugha gSA vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e esa NaVuh ds ekeys esa tkWp izfdz;k

dk ikyu djus dk dksbZ izkfo/kku ugha gS vr% izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa tkWp djus dk iz’u mRiUu ugha gksrk fQj Hkh

cSad us vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ds izkfo/kkuksa dks ykxw djus ls igys izkFkhZ ls Li"Vhdj.k ekaxk

x;k Fkk] bl izdkj cSad }kjk izkFkhZ ds fo:) dk;Zokgh fu;ekuqlkj dh x;hA cSad }kjk ljdkj dh rjQ ls Hkh

fu/kkZfjr lHkh fu;eksa ,oa fofu;eksa dk ikyu fd;k x;k gSA

19-

;kfpdk ds izLrj 17 ds lEcU/k esa dgk x;k gS fd blesa of.kZr rF; fookn ls lEcfU/kr ugha gS] vr%

tokc dh vko’;drk ugha gS vkSj izLrj 21 ds lEcU/k esa dgk x;k gS fd dkuwuh rF; ls lEcfU/kr gksus ds

dkj.k tokc dh vko’;drk ugha gSA izLrj 18]19 vkSj 20 ds lEcU/k esa dgk x;k gS fd fjdkMZ ij vk/kkfjr

gksus ds dkj.k tokc dh vko’;drk ugha gS vkSj izLrj 22 ds lEcU/k esa dgk x;k gS fd ;kph vuqrks"k ikus dk

gdnkj ugha gS rFkk ;kfpdk lO;; [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA

20-

Tkokcqytokc esa ;kfpdk esa izLrqr rF;ksa dh iqujko`fRr dh x;h gS vkSj dgk x;k gS fd foi{kh cSad dh

eq[; 'kk[kk }kjk fuxZr ljD;wyj la[;k 034&2006&ch-lh-&,p-vkj-Mh- Appointment of Temporary Employees in

Sub Staff Cadre tks fnukad 24-6-2006 dks tkjh gSa mlesa ;g vafdr ugha gS fd vLFkk;h ifjpkjd ds :Ik esa

izkFkhZ dh 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk D;k gksxh] ,slh fLFkfr esa tc foi{kh ds nLrkost esa 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk dk mYys[k ugha

gS rks izkFkhZ }kjk 2 lky dh lsok iwjh djus ds ckn mldh lsok lekfIr voS/k ,oa xyr gSA

21-

;kph dh rjQ ls lwph ds lkFk 66 vfHkys[k QksVksizfr ds :Ik esa izLrqr gS tks Ex-w/1 yxk;r Ex-w/66

gSA blds vfrfjDr rhu vfHkys[k fnukad 8-12-15 dks izLrqr gSA

22-

foi{khx.k dh rjQ ls leLr cSadks ds izeq[k dks lEcksf/kr Hkkjr ljdkj foRr eU=ky; dk i=

fnukafdr 8-9-2004 izLrqr gS ftlesa caSdks esa fu;qfDRk ls lECkfU/kr 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk dk vuqlj.k djus gsrq funsZ’k

vafdr gS ,oa ;g funsZ’k blh fcUnq ij fnuakd 19-9-2001 ds funsZ’k ds vuqdze esa gSA

23-

vtesj ftys ds fy, caSd ds mi;ksx gsrq vLFkk;h ifjpjksa dh lwph rS;kj djus ds mn~ns’; ls caSd }kjk

vH;kfFkZ;ksa ds p;u gsrq jkstxkj dk;kZy;] vtesj dks foi{kh caSd us ekax i= Hkstk Fkk rkfd vko’;drk iMus

ij fjfDr;ksa ds fo:) ifjpjksa dh fu;qfDr dh tk ldsA ekax i= ds lkFk ik=rk lEcU/kh lwpuk Hkh jkstxkj

dk;kZy; dks Hksth x;h FkhA caSd dh rjQ ls mDr izLrqr vfHkys[k fnukafdr 8-9-2004 ds fo:) ;kph dh rjQ

ls [k.Msyoky desVh dh ftu laLrqfr;ksa dks Hkkjr ljdkj us Lohdkj dj fy;k mudh lwph fnukafdr 21-10-11

izLrqr gSA ;g lwph leLr caSdksa ds izeq[kksa dks lEcksf/kr dj muls vis{kk dh x;h gS laLrqfr;ksa dk lekos’k dj

HR PLAN rS;kj fd;k tk; rFkk rS;kj HR PLAN dh laLrqfr 31-12-11 rd vius vius caSdksa ds cksMZ vkQ

Mk;jsDVlZ ls djkyh tk;A cksMZ vkQ Mk;jsDVlZ dh laLrqfr ls lEcfU/kr dksbZ lwpuk ;kph i{k us ugha izLrqr

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3815

dh gSA caSd dh rjQ ls izLrqr fnukafdr 8-9-2004 ds i= esa ifjpjksa dh 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk “A pass in eight

standard or it’s equivalent but the candidate should not have passed 10+2 exam or it’s equivalent” gSA ;kph i{k }kjk

21-10-11 ds i= esa izLrkfor ;ksX;rk] “minimum qualification for ……..sub staff to be X Standard pass” gSA

24-

;kph i{k dh rjQ ls ;kph Jh nhid dqekj dh 'kiFk&i= lk{; esa izLrqr gS ftudh izfrijh{kk foi{k

}kjk dh x;h gSA foi{khx.k dh rjQ ls Jh vo/ks’k frokjh] eq[; izcU/kd ,oa izHkkjh vf/kdkjh] 'kk[kk fd’kux<+

dh 'kiFk i= lk{; esa izLrqr gS ftudh izfrijh{kk ;kph i{k }kjk dh x;h gSA

25-

eSusa ;kph dh rjQ ls rFkk foi{khx.k dh rjQ ls muds fo}ku izfrfuf/kx.k dh cgl lquh rFkk

i=koyh dk le;~d voyksdu fd;kA ;kph i{k dh rjQ ls fyf[kr cgl Hkh izLrqr dh x;h gSA foi{k us

fyf[kr cgl ugha izLrqr dh gSA

26-

;kph i{k dh rjQ ls fuEufyf[kr fof/kd n`"VkUr izLrqr fd;s x;s gS % &

¼1½ 2014 LAB. I. C. 4193 ¼loksZPp U;k;ky;½ ykbQ bU’;ksjsaUl dkjiksjs’ku vkWQ bfUM;k ,o¡ vU;

cuke f=os.kh’kju feJk

¼2½

2014 LAB. I. C. 2822 ¼dukZVd mPp U;k;ky;½ csaxyksj bysfDVªd flVh lIykbZ dEiuh

fyfeVsM csaxyksj ,o¡ vU; cuke ,l- T;ksfr ,o¡ vU;

¼3½

2014 LAB. I. C. 2643 ¼loksZPp U;k;ky;½] Hkqous’k dqekj f}osnh ---vihykFkhZ] cuke eSllZ

fgUMkYdks b.MLVªht fyfeVsM----izR;FkhZ

¼4½

2014 LAB. I. C. 4266 ¼loksZPp U;k;ky;½ j?kqohj flag cuke tujy eSustj] gfj;k.kk jksMost]

fgalkj

27-

foi{k dh rjQ ls dksbZ fof/kd n`"VkUr ugha izLrqr gSA

28-

izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh rjQ ls cgl dh x;h gS ,oa fyf[kr cgl esa Hkh mYys[k gS fd izkFkhZ dks

vLFkk;h ifjpj ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq lk{kkRdkj esa cSad ds i= fnukafdr 17-3-2007 }kjk cqyk;k x;k Fkk ,oa

mldk p;u gqvk FkkA ;g Hkh dgk gS fd mldks fu;qfDr gsrq i= fnukafdr 20-3-10 Hkstk x;k Fkk rFkk fu;qfDRk

1-4-10 dks vLFkk;h ifjpj ds in ij gqbZ Fkh ,oa 5-1-12 rd mlus yxkrkj dk;Z fd;kA ;g Hkh dgk gS fd

lk{kkRdkj esa 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk ds lEcU/k esa iz’u ughas iwNs x;s Fks ,oa fu;qfDr ds le; izkFkhZ ls lEiw.kZ 'kSf{kd

;ksX;rk dk izek.k i= fy;k x;k rFkk mls {ks=h; dk;kZy; Hkstk x;k FkkA cgl esa ;g mYys[k Hkh gS fd mlus

fu;qfDRk i= fnukafdr 1-4-2010 esasa fu;qfDRk dh vof/k 31-4-10 rd ds fy, FkhA

vkxs cgl esa ;g dk x;k gS fd mls viuh 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk Nqikus ds lEcU/k esa LIk"Vhdj.k izLrqr djus gsrq

cSad dk ,d i= fnukafdr 15-9-2011 izkIr gqvk ftldk mRrj izkFkhZ us fnukad 26-9-11 dks fn;k rRi’pkr

fnukad 5-1-12 dks mls lsok lekfIr dk ,d i= feykA vpkud bl i= dh izkfIr ls izkFkhZ grizHk gks x;kA

izkFkhZ us lsok lekfIr ds vkns’k dks xyr crkus ds vk/kkj n’kkZ;s gS ftuesa ,d vk/kkj ;g Hkh gS fd lk{kkRdkj

ds le; mlls 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk lEcfU/kr iz’u gha ughasa iwNs x;s Fks ,oa dsoy d{kk 10 dk izek.k i= gh fy;k

x;kA

29-

foi{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us cgl dh gS fd izkFkhZ us lgh rF; dks Nqikdj ukSdjh gkfly dhA mls

dkj.k crkvks uksfVl fn;k x;k] vkSj tokc lUrks"ktud u ikdj vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds izkfo/kkuksa dk

ikyudj uksfVl ds cnys osru ,oa eqvkotk dh vnk;xh dj gVk;k x;k gSA ;g cgl Hkh dh x;h gS fd izkFkhZ

us 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk Nqikus dk dk;Z jkstxkj dk;kZYk; esa iathdj.k ds uohuhdj.k ds le; Hkh fd;k gSA ;g Hkh

foi{k dh rjQ ls dgk x;k gS fd lsok esa lfEefyr gksus ds le; izkFkhZ }kjk b.VjehfM,V dk 'kSf{kd izek.k

i= tek djuk vkSj yxHkx nks lky dh lsok dj ysuk izkFkhZ }kjk gkfly dh x;h fof/k fo:) fu;qfDRk dks

fof/kekU; ugha cuk ldrhA ;g cgl Hkh dh x;h gS lsok ls izkFkhZ dk i`FkDdj.k lgh ,oa fof/klaxr gS rFkk

izkFkhZ dh vkosnu [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA

30-

mHk;i{k ds vfHkopuksa ls fuEu eq[; iz’u fopkj.k gsrq mRiUu gksrs gS %&

1-

D;k izkFkhZ us p;u izfØ;k esa viuh 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk Nqikdj p;u gkfly fd;k gSA

2-

D;k izkFkhZ dh foi{k }kjk lsokeqfDRk dk vkns’k mfpr ,oa fof/k laxr gSA

31-

tgkW rd izFke fcUnq ds fuLrkj.k dk iz’u gS mHk;i{k ds vfHkopuksa ls ;g tkfgj gS fd vLFkk;h

ifjpjksa dh tuin vtesj ds fy, lwph rS;kj djus (panel) ds dk;Z esa cSad layXu Fkk rkfd lwph ls fjfDr;ksa

ds fo:) vko’;drkuqlkj fu;qfDr dh tk ldsA blds fy;s cSad us jkstxkj dk;kZYk; dks bl lEcU/k esa ekax

i= Hkstk vkSj ekax i= ds lkFk vH;kfFkZ;kas dh ;ksX;rk dh lwpuk Hkh HksthA ;kph Jh nhid dqekj xxZ us Hkh

viuk iath;u lu~ 1996 esa jkstxkj dk;kZy; esa djok;k Fkk ftldh iath;u la[;k 30941@99@96 gS ftlesa

3816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk d{kk 10 ikl vafdr djk;h FkhA i=koyh ij ;kph }kjk izLrqr vfHkys[k Ex-w/42 iath;u izek.k

i= ls ;g tkfgj gS fd lu 99] 2002] 2005] 2008 RkFkk 2011 esa ;kph us iath;u dk uohuhdj.k Hkh djok;k

vkSj vfUre ckj vafdr 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk d{kk 10 ikl dh lwpuk esa dksbZ ifjorZu vafdr ugha djk;k x;k gS

tcfd ;kph us d{kk 12 dh ijh{kk lu 2000 esa mRrh.kZ dh gS vkSj cSad }kjk ekax i= lu 2007 esa jkstxkj

dk;kZYk; Hkstk x;k gSA izkFkhZ us iath;u dk;kZy; eas b.VjehfM,V ikl dh lwpuk vafdr u gks ikus dk vius

Li"Vhdj.k esa tks dkj.k n’kkZ;k gS mlls lEcfU/kr fooj.k dk va’k fuEuor~ gS] **------------ eSaus viuh vkBoha d{kk

ikl djus ds Ik’pkr ls gh eSa vtesj esa futh nqdkuksa ij dk;Z djus ds lkFk&lkFk gh eSaus viuh i<kbZ fy[kkbZ

dks vkxs c<k;k Fkk /khjs&/khjs le; fudyrk x;k fQj eSaus lu 2000 esa d{kk ckjgoha ikl dh FkhA ckjgoha d{kk

ikl djus ds Ik’pkr gh eSa futh ukSdfj;ksa dh ryk’k esa 'kgj ls ckgj pyk x;k Fkk o futh dk;Z djus yx

x;k Fkk vkSj uk gh eq>s ,slh tkudkjh Fkh fd viuh fu;fer f’k{kk chp esa gh fdlh dkj.ko’k cUn dj nsus ds

Ik’pkr Hkh chp esa jksdh xbZ f’k{kk dks Hkh jkstxkj dk;kZYk; esa iathd`r dkMZ esa ntZ djokuh vko’;d gksrh

FkhA rRi’pkr iathd`r dkMZ eas rkjh[k ifjofrZRk djokus dk dk;Z esjs ?kj ds lnL;ksa }kjk fd;k tkrk FkkA vr%

bUgha ewyHkwr dkj.kksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa o vufHkKrk ds dkj.k gh eSaus uk rks igys vkSj uk gh vkt rd viuh

ckjgoha d{kk ikl dh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk jkstxkj dk;kZYk; ds iathd`r dkMZ esa ntZ ugha djok ldkA**

32-

;kph }kjk p;u ds nkSjku 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk Nqik;h x;h bldh tkudkjh gksus ij foi{k us ;kph dks

dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh dh tks fuEuor~ gS %&

izs"kd

mi egk izca/kd]

dkfeZd vuqHkkx]

{ks=h; dk;kZy;]

t;iqj

lsokesa

Jh nhid dqekj xxZ] vLFkk;h ifjpj] 'kk[kk fd’kux<

la+nHkZ la./ Ref. No. 773/ROJ/PS/US/2011 fnukad 15-9-2011

fo"k; % izkIr 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk dks fNikuk

vkids }kjk Hksts x, vuqcU/k–II esa izLrqr lwpuk ls ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd vki 12 d{kk o"kZ 2000 esa gh

izkIr dj pqds Fks tcfd vkidk p;u o"kZ 2006 esa nloha ds vk/kkj ij gqvk FkkA vLFkk;h ifjpj gsrq vf/kdre

visf{kr 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk 10 oha gSA vkius jkstxkj dsUnz esa o"kZ 2002] 2005] 2008 RkFkk 2011 esa uohdj.k

djokus ij Hkh mDr izkIr 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk dks ntZ ugha djok;kA vr% ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd vLFkk;h ifjpj ds

iSuy ds lk{kkRdkj ds le; vkius nloha d{kk n’kkZ;k] tcfd vki ml oDr 12 oha d{kk mRrh.kZ dj pqds FksA

mDr dks ennsutj j[krs gq, d`I;k bl mPp 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds ckjs esa viuk Li"Vhdj.k nasA d`I;k vkidk

mRrj bl i= dh izkfIr ls 7 ds vanj geas izLrqr djsa o uksV djsa vkidk mRrj izkIr u gksus ij mDRk rF;ksa

dks lgh ekurs gq, rnuqlkj dk;Zokgh dj tk,xhA

Hkonh;

gLrk{kj viBuh;

mi egk izcaU/kd DY GENERAL MANAGER

33-

;kph }kjk foi{k dks dkj.k crkvks uksfVl dk tokc fnukafdr 26-9-2011 fuEuor~ gS %&

Lksokesa]

Jheku miegkizcU/kd egksn;]

dkfeZd vuqHkkx] {ks=h; dk;kZy;]

t;iqjA

}kjk & 'kk[kk izcU/kd] fd’kux< 'kk[kkA

fo"k; % izkIr 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds ckjs esaA

lanHkZ la- @Ref. No. 773/ROJ/PS/US/2011

egksn;]

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3817

mijksDr lanHkZ esa esjk fuosnu gS fd %&

1- eS ,d xjhc o lk/kkj.k ifjokj dk O;fDr gwWaA eSaus viuh vkBoha d{kk ikl djus ds Ik’pkr~ ls gh eSa

vtesj esa futh nqdkuksa ij dk;Z djus ds lkFk&lkFk gh eSaus viuh i<kbZ fy[kkbZ dks vkxs c<k;k Fkk

/khjs&/khjs le; fudyrk x;k fQj eSaus lu 2000 esa d{kk ckjgoha ikl dh FkhA ckjgoha d{kk ikl djus

ds Ik’pkr gh eSa futh ukSdfj;ksa dh ryk’k esa 'kgj ls ckgj pyk x;k Fkk o futh dk;Z djus yx x;k

Fkk vkSj uk gh eq>s ,slh tkudkjh Fkh fd viuh fu;fer f’k{kk chp esa gh fdlh dkj.ko’k cUn dj nsus

ds Ik’pkr Hkh chp esa jksdh xbZ f’k{kk dks Hkh jkstxkj dk;kZYk; esa iathd`r dkMZ esa ntZ djokuh

vko’;d gksrh FkhA rRi’pkr iathd`r dkMZ eas rkjh[k ifjofrZRk djokus dk dk;Z esjs ?kj ds lnL;ksa

}kjk fd;k tkrk FkkA vr% bUgha ewyHkwr dkj.kksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa o vufHkKrk ds dkj.k gh eSaus uk rks

igys vkSj uk gh vkt rd viuh ckjgoha d{kk ikl dh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk jkstxkj dk;kZYk; ds iathd`r

dkMZ esa ntZ ugha djok ldkA

2- flafMdsV cSad 'kk[kk vtesj ds }kjk ,d i= izkIr gqvk ftlesa eq>s fnuakd 26-3-2007 dks lk{kkRdkj ds

fy, cqyk;k x;kA ml fnu eSa 'kk[kk esa lHkh ewy 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ls lEcfU/kr nLrkostksa ds lkFk

'kk[kk esa mifLFkr FkkA cSad ds lk{kkRdkj ds vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk eq>ls tks Hkh iz’u fd,s o esjs dRrZO;ksa

ds ckjs esa iwNk x;kA mu lHkh iz’uksa o dRrZO;ksa dk eSaus viuh tkudkjh ds vuqlkj lgh&lgh mRrj

fn;sA eq>ls tks Hkh nLrkost ekaxs x, mu lHkh nLrkostksa dks esjs }kjk tek djk fn;k x;k FkkA fQj

yxHkx 3 ekg Ik’pkr~ 'kk[kk IkzcU/kd dk esjs ikl Qksu vk;k vkSj eq>s cSad esa vkdj viuh lsok,as nsus

dk vkns’k fn;k vkSj 'kk[kk izcU/kd }kjk eq>ls dqN nLrkostksa ij uke] irk] tUe rkjh[k o eksckby

uEcj vafdr djokdj esjs gLrk{kj djok, x, vkSj eq>ls dgk x;k fd vki dk;Z djks vkids dk;Z ds

vk/kkj ij o vkids tek nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij ge bls Hkjdj gekjs mPp vf/kdkfj;ksa dks vkidh

fjiksVZ is’k djsxsA 'kk[kk izcU/kd }kjk eq>ls nks fnukas rd dk;Z djok;k x;k fQj eq>s dgk x;k fd

vc gekjh fdlh Hkh 'kk[kk ds }kjk vkids ntZ irs ij fu;qfDRk gsrq i= fHktok fn;k tkosxkA

vRk% bUgha gkykrksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds dkj.k gh eSa lk{kkRdkj ds le; nloha d{kk gh n’kkZ ik;k Fkk

D;ksafd lk{kkRdkj ds le; iwNs x, iz’u esjs gkFk esa ugha Fks vkSj vxj lk{kkRdkj ds le; eSa fcuk iwNs

x, iz’uksa dk mRrj nsrk rks og Hkh fu;eksa o lk{kkRdkj ds okrkoj.k ds vuqdwy ugha gksrkA bl dkj.k

tc esjk lk{kkRdkj gqvk mlesa nloha d{kk gh ntZ gqbZ FkhA {ks=h; dk;kZy;] t;iqj }kjk Hksts x, i=

esa eq> ij tks 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk fNikus dk tks vkjksi yxk;k x;k gS eSa bu vkjksiksa dks iw.kZ

bZekunkjh@lR;fu"Bk o esjs iw.kZ lg;ksx ds vk/kkj ij fuEu izdkj ls fujk/kkj o vlR; lkfcr dj jgk

gWawA

¼1½ flafMdsV cSad 'kk[kk fd’kux< ls fnukad 20-3-2010 dks fyf[kr Ik= izkIr gqvk ftlesa eq>s 'kk[kk

fd’kux< esa vLFkk;h ifjpj in ij dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dk vkns’k izkIr gqvk eSaus fnukad 1-4-2010 dks

fd’kux< 'kk[kk esa mifLFkfr nsdj inHkkj xzg.k fd;k o 'kk[kk izcU/kd }kjk eq>ls ekSf[kd :Ik ls esjk

uke]irk o lEiw.kZ 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk o esjs dk;Z ds izfr :fp ds ckjs esa iwNk x;k rFkk lkFk lkFk esjs

dk;Z eq>s crk, x,A ftu&ftu nLrkostksa dh izfrfyfi;ka ekaxh] esjs }kjk 'kk[kk izcU/kd dks ns nh xbZ

FkhA 'kk[kk izcU/kd }kjk {ks=h; dk;kZy; dks bu lHkh ckrksa ls o esjh lEiw.kZ 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds ckjs

esa Hkh voxr djk fn;k x;k Fkk o lkFk&lkFk esjk ekfld fooj.k ftlesa fd esjh 12 oha ikl dh

'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk] esjs dk;Z fnol o osru dks n’kkZ;k tkrk FkkA gj ekg ds vUr esa {ks=h; dk;kZy; dks

Hkst fn;k tkrk FkkA

¼2½ {ks=h; dk;kZy; ds vf/kdkfj;ksa ds }kjk esjs dk;Z xzg.k djus ds yxHkx 3 ekg i’pkr esjs 'kk[kk

izcU/kd ls esjh mPp izkIr 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk tks fd eSaus lu 2000 esa izkIr dh Fkh ds ckjs esa iwNrkN

dh xbZ o esjh mPp 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk dks ntZ djus ds fy, mldh ,d izfrfyih ftldks fd lR;kfir

djds o lkFk&lkFk esjs 'kk[kk izcU/kd ds o esjs gLrk{kj djokdj fnukad 3-8-2010 dks {ks=h;

dk;kZy;] t;iqj eaxokbZ xbZ FkhA

¼3½ esjh mPp izkIr 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk dh izfrfyfi {ks=h; dk;kZy;] t;iqj esa eaxok, tkus ds rRi’pkr

gh {ks=h; dk;kZy;] t;iqj ls esjs futh irs ij ,d i= izkIr gqvk Fkk ftldk i= dzekad l-{ks-dk-t-

@8306@d-l-@44@10 FkkA bl i= esa eq>ls vtesj ls ckgj miuh lsok,as nsus dh lgefr ekaxh xbZ

vkSj dk;Z fu"iknu ds vk/kkj ij esjh lsokvksa dks fu;fer djus dk mYys[k Fkk ftls eSaus 23-10-2010

dks esjs }kjk vtesj o vtesj ls ckgj fdlh Hkh 'kk[kk esa ifjpj ds in ij dk;Z djus dh iw.kZ lgefr

ns nh xbZ FkhA

3- esjs 'kk[kk izcU/kd }kjk le; le; ij izR;sd ekg ds vUr esa esjk ekfld fooj.k ftlesa fd lu 2000 esa

12 oha ikl d{kk] esjs dk;Z fnol o osru dks n’kkZ;k tkrk jgkA ;g fooj.k {ks=h; dk;kZy;] t;iqj dks

le; le; ij Hkstk tkrk jgkA 'kk[kk izcU/kd }kjk fnukad 9-4-2011 dks cSad esa esjk 1 o"kZ dk lsokdky

3818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

iw.kZ gks tkus dh lwpuk rFkk lkFk lkFk bldk fooj.k ftlesa fd esjs }kjk iw.kZ o"kZ esa 365 fnukas rd cSad

dks tks lsok,sa nh xbZ Fkh mldk okf"kZd fooj.k {ks=h; dk;kZy;] t;iqj dks Hkstk x;k FkkA

4- fnukad 1-4-2010 ls fujUrj o vkt rd esjs dk;Z] xzkgdksa ds izfr esjk tks O;ogkj o esjh bZekunkjh ds

dkj.k gh fnukad 11-8-2011 dks 'kk[kk izcU/kd ds }kjk {ks=h; dk;kZy;] t;iqj dks ,d i= Hkstk x;k

ftlesa dqN vuqcU/k o esjs dqN nLrkostksa dh izfrfyfi;ka FkhA ftlesa ;g vuqjks/k fd;k x;k Fkk fd

nhid dqekj dks ifjpj ds in ij 'kk[kk fd’kux< esa LFkkbZ fu;qfDr nh tkosaA

5- fQj rRi’pkr fnukad 20-9-2011 dks eq>s ,d i= izkIr gqvk ftlesa {ks=h; dk;kZy;] t;iqj }kjk esjh

'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk dks fNikus ls lEcfU/kr vkjksi eq> ij yxk, x,A tks fd lgh ugha gSA

vr% vki lHkh vf/kdkfj;ksa ls esjk ;g vuqjks/k gS fd eq>ls lk{kkRdkj ds le; esjh mPp izkIr 'kS{kf.kd

;ksX;rk ds ckjs esa ftu lk{kkRdkj vf/kdkfj;ksa ds }kjk lgou ls esjh mPp izkIr 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds

ckjs esa eq>ls tkudkjh izkIr djus esa tks =qfV gks xbZ Fkh mldh ltk eq>s ugha nh tkosa D;ksafd vxj

esjs eu esa fdlh Hkh izdkj ls izkIr 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk dks fNikuk gksrk rks eSa vius thoudky ds vUr

rd mls fNik, j[krkA ij ysfdu eSaus 'kk[kk izcU/kd ds iwNs tkus ij esjs }kjk fnukad 1-4-2010 dks

izFke fnu gh lR; crk fn;k x;k FkkA vxj bl ckr dks lgh utj ls o fo’okliw.kZ rjhds ls ns[kk

tkosa rks ml le; rks eq>s ukSdjh ,d rjhds ls feyh gh ugha FkhA ij ysfdu eSaus tks lR; Fkk mls

eSaus iw.kZ bZekunkjh ls voxr djk fn;k x;k FkkA

bu lHkh ckrksa ls ;g Li"V fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd esjs }kjk fdlh Hkh izdkj ls esjh mPp izkIr 'kS{kf.kd

;ksX;rk dks fNik;k ugha x;k FkkA ;fn mlds ckn Hkh ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd esjh ckjgoha d{kk esjh

mDRk fu;qfDr esa ck/kk mRiUu dj ldrh gS rks eSa vkidks fo’okl fnykrk gwW fd eSa Hkfo"; esa 12 oha

d{kk ds vk/kkj ij cSad ls fdlh Hkh izdkj dk gd ugha trkmaxk vkSj uk gh dksbZ ykHk izkIr d:axkA

eSa vc vkxs cSad ls vkKk ysdj gh mPp f’k{kk izkIr d:axkA eSaus 1-4-2010 ls vc rd eSaus viuk dk;Z

iw.kZ esgur vkSj fu"BkiwoZd fd;k gS rFkk eSa vkidks ;g vk’oLr djrk gwa fd vkxs Hkh eSa lEiw.kZ

izfrc)rk rFkk yxu ls dk;Z djrk jgwaxkA esjh vkils djc) izkFkZuk gS fd esjs dk;Zfu"iknu ds vk/kkj

ij esjh detksj vkfFkZd fLFkfr o gkykr dks /;ku esa j[k dj vki esjh lsok dks fu;fer djus dh

d`ik djsaA

AA vknj lfgrAA

Hkonh;

fnukad 26-9-2011

gLrk{kj viBuh;

nhid dqekj xxZ

vLFkk;h ifjpj

'kk[kk fd’kux<

34-

izkFkhZ dh Li"Vhdj.k dh izkfIr ds ckn foi{k us Li"Vhdj.k ls vlUrq"V gksdj izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDRk dk

vkns’k fnukafdr 5-1-12 mlh frfFk dks izkFkhZ dks fn;kA

35-

izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr mDr fyf[kr Li"Vhdj.k ls Lor% ;g fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd izkFkhZ us d{kk 12

mRrh.kZ gksus ds rF; dks Nqik;k gS D;ksafd lk{kkRdkj ds le; mldh rjQ ls dsoy d{kk 10 ikl dk izek.k

i= gh izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA Li"Vhdj.k esa izkFkhZ us vufHkKrk Hkh tkfgj dh gS fd mls tkudkjh ugha Fkh fd

d{kk 12 ikl dh lwpuk iath;u dk;kZy; dks nsuh gSA ;fn izkFkhZ okLro esa bl ckr ls vufHkK Fkk fd mls

d{kk 12 ikl dh lwpuk jkstxkj dk;kZy; esa nsuh pkfg, rks lk{kkRdkj ds le; og fu’p; gh vius leLRk

'kS{kf.kd izek.k i= d{kk 12 ikl ds izek.k lfgr tek fd;k gksrk ijUrq ,slk ugha fd;k x;k gS] blls Hkh ;g

fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd izkFkhZ lk{kkRdkj ds le; okLrfod 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk izdV djus ds nq"ifj.kke ls voxr

FkkA izkFkhZ us ekSf[kd lk{; esa izfrijh{kk esa ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd ;g dguk xyr gS fd mlus vko’;d

rF;ksa dks fNikdj lsok esa izos’k fy;k FkkA ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd jkstxkj dk;kZy; }kjk vH;kFkhZ ds :Ik esa

izkFkhZ dk uke bl vk/kkkj ij lk{kkRdkj gsrq vxzsf"kr fd;k x;k Fkk fd mlus jkstxkj dk;kZy; ds le{k viuh

'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk dsoy d{kk 10 ikl crk;h Fkh] ;fn 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk d{kk 12 ikl crk;h gksrh rks jkstxkj

dk;kZy; }kjk mldk uke vxzlkfjr ugha gksrkA izkFkhZ }kjk ,XthfcV MCY;w@42 jkstxkj dk;kZy; dk igpku

i= izLrqr gS ftlesa izkFkhZ }kjk fuEu v.MjVsfdax gS] **uksV&;fn esjs }kjk nh xbZ dksbZ lwpuk ckn esa vlR;

lkfcr gks tkrh gS rks esjk iathdj.k jn~n fd;k tk ldrk gSA

gLrk{kj iBuh; nhid dqekj

gLrk{kj izkFkhZ**

mDr izkFkhZ }kjk gLrk{kfjr v.MjVsfdax ds ckn izkFkhZ ds ikl ;g dgus ds fy, dksbZ dkj.k ugha cprk fd og

bl ckr ls vufHkK Fkk fd mls d{kk 12 ikl dh lwpuk jkstxkj dk;kZy; esa ugha izLrqr djuh Fkh ;k ughaA

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3819

izkFkhZ us jkstxkj dk;kZy; esa d{kk 12 ikl dh lwpuk ntZ u gksus dk ,d dkj.k ;g Hkh n’kkZ;k gS fd mlds

?kj okys le; le; ij iath;u dk uohuhdj.k djk;s gS] ijUrq izkFkhZ }kjk mDr v.MjVsfdax lu~ 1996 esa

iath;u ds le; nh x;h gS blfy;s ?kj ds lnL;ksa }kjk uohuhdj.k djkus dks cpko ds :Ik esa vk/kkj ugha

cuk;k tk ldrkA ?kj ds lnL;ksa }kjk uohuhdj.k djkus dh ckr blfy;s Hkh xzg.k fd;s tkus ;ksX; ughas gS

D;ksafd izkFkhZ }kjk lu~ 1999 ls 2005 rd Loa; uohuhdj.k ds fy, miyC/k u jgus dk dksbZ lE;d] fo’oLkuh;

,oa fof/kekU; Li"Vhdj.k ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ us lu 2000 esa fu;fer vH;kFkhZ ds :Ik esa d{kk 12

dh ijh{kk mRrh.kZ dh gSA fu;fer (Regular) ijh{kkFkhZ ds :i esa ijh{kk mRrh.kZ djus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ dk ;g

dFku Hkh >wBk lkfcr gksrk gS fd og ukSdjh ds flyflys esa fofHkUu 'kgjksa esa ?kwerk jgk ftlds dkj.k

uohuhdj.k mlds ifjokj ds lnL; gh djkrs Fks vkSj og d{kk 12 dh f'k{kk dk mYys[k jkstxkj dk;kZy; esa

ugha djk ldkA okLro esa vufHkKrk vkSj mDr vleFkZrk nksuksa lkFk&lkFk pyus ;ksX; ugha gS] u Lohdk;Z ,oa

rdZ laxr gSA blls ,d gh vFkZiw.kZ fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk dh izfof"V dks nckuk ;k Nqikuk

mn~ns';iw.kZ FkhA

36-

fnukad 26-3-2007 dks lk{kkRdkj gsrq cqykok i= esa izkFkhZ dks funsZ’k Fkk fd lk{kkRdkj ds le; jkstxkj

dk;kZy; iath;u dkMZ] f’k{kk ,oa tkfr ds ewy izek.k i= rFkk mldh ,d ,d QksVks izfr izLrqr djsaA izkFkhZ us

dsoy d{kk 10 ikl gksus dk gh izek.k izLrqr fd;kA blh ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks ;ksX;rk dh ’krksZa

dk Kku Hkyh izdkj Fkk vkSj lk{kkRdkj ds le; izkFkhZ viuh lgh ;ksX;rk crk;k gksrk rks lk{kkRdkj esa

lfEefyr ugha fd;k tkrkA mDr fLFkfr ls ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS izkFkhZ dh vufHkKrk dh ckr Hkh xzg.k gksus

;ksX; ugha gS rFkk blls fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd izkFkhZ us lgh 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk fNik;h vkSj bl ckr ls HkyhHkkfr

og voxr Fkk fd lgh 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk dks mtkxj djus ij og lk{kkRdkj ,oa p;u ls ofUpr gksxkA

37-

Loa; izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr Ex-w/63 ds voyksdu ls ;g tkfgj gS fd fnukad 2-6-2007 dks izkFkhZ }kjk cSad

dks izLrqr viuh vkosnu esa mlus viuh 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk lu 1996 esa lsds.M~h ijh{kk mRrh.kZ crk;h gS tks izkFkhZ

dh feF;kokfnrk rFkk

'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk Nqikus ds rF; dks tkfgj djrk gSA izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls tokcqytokc esa

mDr dFku ds fo:) dksbZ izfrokn ugha gSA mDRk fLFkfr ls Hkh ;g izdV gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk

Nqikus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k vkSj mldh otg ls izkFkhZ voxr Fkk rFkk mlds }kjk ,slk lk’k; fd;k x;kA

38-

izkFkhZ }kjk ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd lk{kkRdkj ds le; 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk lEcfU/kr dksbZ loky ugha iwNk

x;k bl lEcU/k esa mYys[kuh; gS fd tc d{kk 12 ikl dh ;ksX;rk izkFkhZ us izdV gh ugha dh rks bl ekeys ls

lEcfU/kr dksbZ iwNrkN djus dk dkj.k ugha FkkA

39-

izkFkhZ }kjk lsokeqfDr dh viuk;h x;h izfdz;k ij Hkh vkifRr dh x;h gS fd /kkjk 25 ,Q dk vuqlj.k

dj mls gVk;k x;k tks fof/k laxr ugha gS RkFkk mlus 240 fnu ls T;knk lsok dj yh Fkh blfy, mls LFkk;h

fd;k tkuk pkfg, FkkA bl lUnHkZ esa mYys[kuh; gS fd okLrfod fLFkfr ;gh gS fd tc mls fu;fer djus dh

izfdz;k viuk;h tkus yxh ml nkSjku cSad ds laKku esa ;g rF; vk;k fd izkFkhZ dk p;u lk{kkRdkj ds le;

mlds }kjk f’k{kk ds lEcU/k esa izLrqr >wBh lwpuk izLrqr djus rFkk lgh 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk dks Nqikus dk ifj.kke

gS rc foi{k us dkj.k crkvksa uksfVl nh gSA mDr fLFkfr dks n`f"Vxr j[k ;g Li"V gS fd uksfVl dk tokc

feF;k ,oa cukoVh rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr gSA

40-

tgWk rd ykbQ bU’;ksjsUl cuke f=osuh’kj.k feJk esa nh x;h O;oLFkk dk nhid dqekj xXkZ ds ekeys

eas ykxw gksus dk iz’u gS bl lUnHkZ esa mYys[kuh; gS fd f=osuh’kj.k ds ekeys esa izR;FkhZ ds fo:) ;g vkjksi

Fkk fd bUgksus pijklh ds in ds fy, tc vkosnu izLrqr dh rks ;s ch-,-ikl Fks ,oa ,e-,- ¼vFkZ’kkL=½ izFke o"kZ

ds laLFkkxr Nk= Fks ,oa pijklh ds in ds fy, vuqeU; 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk d{kk 9 ikl Fkh rFkk d{kk 12 esa 50

izfr’kr ;k blls T;kns izkIrkad rFkk ch-,- ,oa ,e-,- ikl vH;kFkhZ vgZ ugha FksA izR;FkhZ us viuh okLrfod

'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk Nqik;h vkSj pijklh in ds vkosnu esa Loa; dks d{kk 11 ikl ¼gk;j lsds.Mjh½ gh crk;kA

izR;FkhZ dk p;u pijklh ds in ij gks x;kA yxHkx nks lky ckn izR;FkhZ dh 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk ds lEcU/k esa

tkudkjh gksus ij vihykFkhZ us izR;FkhZ dks 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk Nqikdj p;u gkfly djus ds vkjksi ls vkjksfir

fd;k vkSj foHkkxh; tkWp ds mijkUr dnkpkj dk nks"kh ikdj izR;FkhZ dks lsokeqfDr ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;kA

foHkkxh; vihyh; izkf/kdkjh us n.Mkns’k ds fo:) izR;FkhZ dh vihy [kkfjt dh ftlds fo:) izR;FkhZ us

ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k fjV ;kfpdk izLrqr dhA mHk;i{k dks lquus ds ckn ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us

;g ik;k fd n.Mkns’k HksnHkkoiw.kZ (discriminatory) Fkk D;ksfd f=os.kh’kj.k feJk ls lEcfU/kr ekeys ds ln`’k

,d vU; deZpkjh Jh nkywjke ds ekeys esa vihykFkhZ us dsoy nks o"kZ ds fy, osru o`f) jksdus dk n.Mkns’k

ikfjr fd;k FkkA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us ;g Hkh ik;k fd vihykFkhZ }kjk fu/kkZfjr 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk Hkkjrh;

lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 14 ds mYya?ku esa FkhA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us rnuqlkj fjV ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh ftlds

fo:) vihykFkhZ fu;kstd us ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds le{k vihy izLrqr dhA

41-

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds le{k ;g iz’u fopkj.kh; Fkk fd vihykFkhZ }kjk vH;kFkhZ ds fy, fu/kkZfjr

'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk ls D;k Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 14 dk mYya?ku gksrk gS vkSj D;k vihykFkhZ dks lsokeqfDRk

dh nh x;h ltk leku ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa Jh nkywjke ifVnkj dks dsoy nks o"kZ dh osru o`f) jksdus dh ltk dh

rqyuk esa HksnHkkoiw.kZ gS \

3820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

42-

cgl esa vihykFkhZ dh rjQ Kerala Solvent Extraction Ltd. v/s A. unntprishnan & anothers esa nh x;h fof/k

O;oLFkk dk izcy voyEc fy;k x;k ijUrq ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us mDr n`"VkUr dh fof/k O;oLFkk dks Jh

f=osnh’kj.k feJk ds ekeys ds fy, vuqi;qDr ik;k ,oa fu.kZ; ds izLrj 10 esa ;g izs{k.k fd;k] “10. We have

carefully gone through the aforesaid case law. In said case issue involved was not whether or not maximum

qualification can be fixed for a Class-IV/ Grade-D employee, nor was in said case the employer appears to be either

state or instrumentality of the state, What this Court has held in Kerala Solvent Extraction Ltd. (Supra) is that the court

should not be led by misplaced sympathy. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said judgment are re-produced below;

“9. Sri Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel for the appellant, submitted, in our opinion not without

justification, that the Labour Court’s reasoning bordered on perversity and such unreasoned, undue libeeralismand

misplaced sympathy would subvert all discipline in administration. He stated that the Management will have no answer

to the claims of similarly disqualified candidates which might have come to be rejected. Those who stated the truth

would be said to be at a disadvantage and those who suppressed it stood to gain. He further submitted that this laxity of

judicial reasoning will imperceptibly introduce slackness and unpredictability in the legal process and, in the final

analysis, corrode legitimacy of the judicial process.

10.

We are inclined to agree with these submissions. In recent times, there is an increasing evidence of

this, perhaps well-meant but wholly unsustainable, tendency towards a denudation of the legitimacy of judicial

reasoning and process. The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of

the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced

sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the

legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen

to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at

the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the

judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability”.

43-

ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us Jh nkywjke ifVnkj ds ekeys esa FkksMh ltk rFkk leku ifjfLFkfr;ksa us Jh

f=os.kh’kj.k feJk dks lsokeqfDRk dh cMh ltk dks HksnHkkoiw.kZ ekuk ,oa rnuqlkj fjV ;kfpdk Lohdkj dj

izR;FkhZ dks lsok esa iqu%LFkkfir dj Jh nkywjke dks nh x;h ltk gh izR;FkhZ dks nsus ds fy, fopkj djus gsrq

funsZf’kr fd;kA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dh iqf"V dh rFkk vihykFkhZ dh

vihy [kkfjt dhA

44-

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds le{k f=os.kh'kj.k ds ekeys esa vihykFkhZ dh rjQ ls izLrqr n`"VkUr

1994 II L.L.J. Page 888, S.C. (F.B.) : (2006) 13 S.C.C. 619 : 1994 A.I.R. S.C.W. 2534, Kerala

Solvent Extraction Ltd. ----- Appellant v/s A. unntprishnan & anothers-----Respondents ls lEcfU/kr

izdj.k dk orZeku izdj.k ds lUnHkZ esa foLr`r mYys[k djuk eSa vko';d ,oa izklafxd le>rk gWw tks fuEuor

gS %&

1994 II L.L.J. Page 888, S.C. (F.B.) : (2006) 13 S.C.C. 619 : 1994 A.I.R. S.C.W. 2534,

Kerala Solvent Extraction Ltd. ----- Appellant v/s A. unntprishnan & anothers-----Respondents esa

**cnyh** dfeZ;ksa dh lwph rS;kj gksuh FkhA vH;kfFkZ;ksa dh ;ksX;rk dh ,d 'krZ ;g Fkh fd vH;kFkhZ dh {kSf{kd

;ksX;rk d{kk 8 mRrh.kZ ls vf/kd ugha gksuh pkfg,A izR;FkhZ@vH;kFkhZ us {kSf{kd ;ksX;rk dk tks izek.k i=

izLrqr fd;k mlds vuqlkj og ebZ 15] 1974 dks d{kk 7 mRrh.kZ FkkA bl izek.k i= dh izLrqfr dk mn~ns’;

;g n’kkZuk Fkk fd mldh {kSf{kd ;ksX;rk d{kk 8 ls T;knk ugha FkhA rn~uqlkj izR;FkhZ viuk uke **cnyh**

dfeZ;ksa ds :Ik lwphc) djkus esa lQy gks x;kA vihykFkhZ dks tc f’kdk;r feyh fd lR; dks nckdj >wBh

izLrqfr ds vk/kkj ij izR;FkhZ us ukSdjh izkIr dh rks mlus izR;FkhZ dks uksfVl nh fd izR;FkhZ dkj.k crk;s fd

D;ksa u mlds fo:) LVSfUMax vkMZlZ ds v/khu dk;Zokgh dh tk;A izR;FkhZ us tokc izLrqr dj dgk fd fu;r

vof/k esa og d{kk 10 ikl Fkk rFkk mlds ekeys esa lgkuqHkwfriw.kZ fopkj fd;k tk;A diViw.kZ feF;k izLrqfr

ds dkj.k izR;FkhZ dh lsok vihykFkhZ }kjk fnukad 03 ekpZ 1989 dks lekIr dj nh x;hA Je U;k;ky; us vius

fu.k;Z esa ;g ik;k fd izR;FkhZ dh izLrqfr feF;k izLrqfr ugha FkhA Je U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k]

“According to the management if the candidates who acquired more qualifications than what is required in the

notification are appointed there are so many practical difficulties as the qualification prescribed for the supervisors is

only SSLC failed.

But it is to be noted that the qualification is not the criterion to supervise and control the subordinate. There is

no question of complex or any other things would arise if a supervisor is supervising and controlling his subordinate

who acquired more qualifications than that of the supervisors. Therefore the contention of the management is that if the

more qualified persons are appointed as Godown badli there would be so many practical difficulties would arise will

not hold good.”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3821

Je U;k;ky; ds vokMZ ds fo:) izLrqr fjV ;kfpdk esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us fu.kZ;

ds izLrj 4 esa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k] **---------------- workers were expected to give correct information as to their

qualification. They failed to do so. They were in fact over qualified and therefore ineligible to apply for the job. It has

been stated that applications received from some over qualified candidate were rejected, The petitioner as also the

workers are bound by the terms of Ext.P-1 which had to be given effect to. Over qualification is certainly, in the

circumstances, a disqualification, which aspect the first respondent failed to grasp. Ext. P 10 in these cases is

unsustainable and is accordingly set aside.”

5. But, the learned Single Judge said that there would be no hardship or prejudice caused to the appellant if the

respondent was reinstated. The learned Single Judge said;

“…….. As a special case and not by way of a precedent, the petitioner shall not implement the dismissal order

and let the two workers continue in employment as directed.”

45-

ekuuh; ,dyihB us rn~uqlkj fjV ;kfpdk [kkfjt dhA ,dyihB ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) ekuuh; [k.MihB

us Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds vUrxZr fjV vihy bl vk/kkj ij [kkfjt dh fd vuqPNsn 226 ds

vUrxZr [k.MihB }kjk gLrk{ksi ds fy, ;g mi;qDr izdj.k ugha FkkA ekuuh; [k.MihB ds fu.kZ; ds fo:)

vihykFkhZ us vihy izLrqr dhA ekuuh; [k.MihB ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) vihy esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us

vihy Lohdkj dh rFkk Je U;k;ky; ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; dks vikLr djrs gq, Je

U;k;ky; ds le{k izR;FkhZ dh ;kfpdk [kkfjt dhA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us fu.kZ; ds izLrj 6] 7 ,oa 8 esa

;g vo/kkfjr fd;k] **6. Sri Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel for the appellant, submitted, in our opinion not

without justification, that the Labour Court’s reasoning bordered on perversity and such unreasoned, undue libeeralism

and misplaced sympathy would subvert all discipline in administration. He stated that the Management will have no

answer to the claims of similarly disqualified candidates which might have come to be rejected. Those who stated the

truth would be said to be at a disadvantage and those who suppressed it stood to gain. He further submitted that this

laxity of judicial reasoning will imperceptibly introduce slackness and unpredictability in the legal process and, in the

final analysis, corrode legitimacy of the judicial process.

7.

We are inclined to agree with these submissions. In recent times, there is an increasing evidence of

this, perhaps well-meant but wholly unsustainable, tendency towards a denudation of the legitimacy of judicial

reasoning and process. The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of

the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced

sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the

legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen

to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at

the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the

judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability.

8.

In this case, we have no hesitation to hold that both the Labour Court and the High Court have erred.

We allow the appeal, set aside the orders of the Labour Court and of the High Court in the writ petition, and dismiss the

dispute raised by the respondent before the Labour Court.”

46-

nhid dqekj xxZ ds ekeys esa lEiw.kZ rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gwW fd mDr

Kerala Solvent Extraction Ltd. ----- Appellant v/s A. unntprishnan & anothers-----Respondents esa nh x;h fof/k

O;oLFkk orZeku ekeys esa iw.kZr% ykxw gksrh gS rFkk Jh f=os.kh'kj.k ds ekeys esa nh x;h fof/k O;oLFkk ls izkFkhZ

ds izdj.k esa dksbZ enn ugha yh tk ldrh gSA mDr leLr O;k[;k o fo’ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij

gwW fd izkFkhZ us p;u izfdz;k esa viuh 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk Nqikdj p;u gkfly fd;k gSA izFke iz'u dk fuLrkj.k

rn~uqlkj fd;k tkrk gSA

47-

tgkW rd f}rh; fcUnq ds fuLrkj.k dk iz'u gS fd D;k foi{k }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr dk vkns'k

mfpr ,oa fof/klaxr gS bl lUnHkZ esa mYys[kuh; gS fd /kkjk 25&,Q dh izfdz;k dk vuqlj.k dj izkFkhZ dks

lsokeqDr fd;k x;k gS ,oa /kkjk 25&,Q ds vuqikyu esa dksbZ fof/kd =qfV tkfgj ugha gksrh gS u n'kkZ;h x;h

gSA blds fo:) ;kph i{k dk dFku gS fd mls foi{k }kjk LFkk;h djus ds ctk; lsokeqDr dj fn;k x;k tks

fof/k fo:) gS D;ksafd mlus fu;fer gksus dh lsok vof/k iwjh dj yh FkhA bl lEcU/k esa mYys[kuh; gS

i=koyh ij vfHkys[k ;g n'kkZrs gS fd izkFkhZ dks fu;fer djus dh dk;Zokgh ij fopkj dh izfdz;k izkjEHk gh gks

jgh Fkh fd izcU/ku dks mDr dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku ;g rF; laKku esa vk;k fd izkFkhZ us 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk Nqik;h

Fkh ftlds ckn lsok ls fu"dklu dh dk;Zokgh dh x;h ftlesa dksbZ fof/kd deh ugha utj vkrhA izkFkhZ }kjk

ek= nks lky lsok iwjh dj ysus ls mls ;g NwV ugha nh tk ldrh fd mls fof/k fo:) lsok esa izfof"V dk

ykHk fn;k tk;A

48-

2014 LAB. I. C. 4266 ¼loksZPp U;k;ky;½ j?kqohj flag cuke tujy eSustj] gfj;k.kk jksMost] fgalkj

dk n`"VkUr izkFkhZ i{k dh rjQ ls bl fcUnq ij izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk bl vkS|ksfxd

3822

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fookn dks foyEc ls izLrqfr ds vk/kkj ij [kkfjt ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg, ,oa foxr osru de ls de fookn

mBk;s tkus fd frfFk ls fn;k tkuk pkfg,A bl ekeys esa mYys[kuh; gS fd foi{k dh rjQ ls ;kfpdk ds

foyEc ls izLrqfr ds vk/kkj ij [kkfjt djus ls lEcfU/kr dksbZ cgl ugha izLrqr dh x;h gS ,oa oknksRrj esa Hkh

,slk dksbZ mYys[k ugha gS vr% bl fcUnq ij fopkj.k dh vko’;drk ugha gS fd ;kfpdk ds foyEc ls izLrqfr ds

vk/kkj ij [kkfjt gksuk pkfg, ;k ughaA izLrqr n`"VkUr ds vuqlkj vihykFkhZ Jh j?kqohj flag] dUMDVj] gfj;k.kk

jksMost] gfj;kuk] ;k=h fVdV ls izkIr /kujkf’k u tek djus ds fy, izR;FkhZ dh f’kdk;r ij /kkjk 409 Hkk- na-

la- ds vijk/k gsrq 1993 esa U;kf;d eftLV~sV dh U;k;ky; esa ijhf{kr gq, Fks ftlesa mudh nks"keqfDr dh x;h

FkhA bl ekeys esa mudh fxjQ~rkjh 15-9-1994 dks gqbZ vkSj 15-11-94 dks tekur ij eqDr gq,A fnukad 27-10-

94 ds vkns'k ls mDr vijk/k dkfjr djus dkj.k Jh j?kqohj flag dh lsok,a egkizcU/kd] gfj;kuk jksMost

fglkj] us lekIr dj nhA izR;FkhZ us Jh j?kqohj flag dks tekur ij NwVus ds ckn fo’okl fnyk;k Fkk fd

nks"keqDr gksus ij mUgsa lsok esa iquLFkkZfir dj fn;k tk;sxk ijUrq 11-7-2002 dks lsokeqfDr ij izR;FkhZ us ,slk

ugha fd;k blds ckn Je U;k;ky; dks lqiqnZ fjQjsUl Je U;k;ky; us fnukad 22-5-99 dks vihykFkhZ ds i{k esa

fuf.kZr dj lsok esa iquLFkkZfir djus rFkk vihykFkhZ }kjk foi{kh dks fMekUM uksfVl tkjh djus dh frfFk ls

,okMZ dh foKfIr rd 60 izfr’kr rFkk foKfIr dh frfFk ls lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk dh frfFk rd iw.kZ foxr osru

gsrq ,okMZ ikfjr fd;kA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us 22-5-99 ds vkns'k ds fo:) 1-4-10 ds vkns’k ls vihy

Lohdkj dh vkSj ekeys dks fuLrkj.k gsrq izR;kofrZr dj fn;kA Je U;k;ky; dks izR;korZu vkns’k ds vuqlkj

izkFkhZ Jh j?kqohj flag ds ekeys esa Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 311 ¼2½ ¼ch½ ds ykxw gksus ds fcUnq ij fopkj

ds lkFk ekeys dks iqu% fuf.kZr djuk FkkA Je U;k;ky; us 17-5-11 ds vkns’k ls fjQjsUl dks le; ckf/kr (time

bound) vo/kkfjr dj [kkfjt dj fn;kA fnukad 17-5-11 ds vkns’k ds fo:) vihykFkhZ dh vihy ekuuh; mPp

U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us 14-11-11 dks bl vk/kkj ij [kkfjt dh fd vuq’kklfud izkf/kdkjh dh lsok ls

c[kkZLrxh dk vkns’k tufgr esa gS vr% gLrk{ksi dh vko’;drk ugha gSA 14-11-11 ds vkns’k ds fo:) vihy

ekuuh; [k.MihB us 9-1-12 dks bl vk/kkj ij [kkfjt dh fd izR;FkhZ us Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 311 ¼2½

¼dk½ ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr dk iz;ksx dj vihykFkhZ dh lsok,a 21-10-94 dks lekIr dh gS tcfd vihykFkhZ us

fookn lu 2002 esa fMekUM uksfVl ds ek/;e ls mBk;k gSA ekuuh; [k.MihB us ,dyihB ds fu.kZ; esa dksbZ

vfu;ferrk ;k voS/kkfudrk u ikdj mldh iqf"V dhA ekuuh; [k.MihB ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) lokZsPp U;k;ky;

us vihykFkhZ dh vihy Lohdkj dh rFkk vihykFkhZ dks lsokesa iquLFkkZiuk lfgr vkS|ksfxd fookn mBkus dh frfFk

fnukad 2-3-05 ls foxr osru ,oa vU; ifj.kkeh ykHk gsrq vuqrks"k iznku dhA bl n`"VkUr ls izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa

orZeku rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr esa dksbZ enn ugha yh tk ldrh gSA

49-

2014 LAB. I. C. 2822 ¼dukZVd mPp U;k;ky;½ csaxyksj bysfDVªd flVh lIykbZ dEiuh fyfeVsM

csaxyksj ,o¡ vU; cuke ,l- T;ksfr ,o¡ vU; esa lafonk ij fu;qDr dehZ lqygle>kSrk okrkZ ds nkSjku lsokls

gVk fn;s x;s FksA ekeyk iapkV gsrq vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k dks Hkstk x;k ftlesa U;k;kf/kdj.k us iapkV bl

funsZ'k ds lkFk ikfjr fd;k fd fu;ksDrk ds ;gka tc fjfDr;ka mRiUUk gks rFkk ;kphx.k vkosnu djs rks mUgsa

mUgh inksa ij fu;qfDRk nh tk;A ;g funsZ'k Hkh Fkk fd fu;ksDrk fu;qfDr esa vkj{k.k O;oLFkk dks /;ku esa j[ksxs

rFkk fu;fer lsok iznku djrs le; ;kphx.k dh ofj"Brk lwph cjdjkj j[kh tk;sxhA mHk;i{k us U;k;kf/kdj.k

ds vkns'k dks pqukSrh nh ftls i{kdkjksa ds e/; lqyg ds vk/kkj ij ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dihB us

fuf.kZr dhA lqyg dh 'krksZa esa foi{k dh rjQ ls ;g dgk x;k fd foi{k ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds

funZs'kkuqlkj yksd vnkyr esa lqyg dj ;kphx.k dks LFkk;h :Ik ls lsok esa fu;ksftr djus dks rS;kj gS ijUrq

fu;e ,sls lek;kstu dh vuqefr ugha nsrs vr% mDr fu;e dh ck/kk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk gVk nh tk;

rks fu;ksDrk ;kphx.k dks fu;ksftr dj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds funsZ'k dk ikyu djus dks rS;kj gSA ekuuh;

mPp U;k;ky; us i{kdkjksa dh lgefr ds vk/kkj ij lqyg dh Lohd`fr iznku dj N% lIrkg ds vUnj ;kphx.k

dks lek;ksftr djus gsrq funZs'k fn;kA i{kdkjksa dh lgefr ds vuqlkj foxr osru] vuqxkeh ykHk ,oa foxr

lsok dk ykHk izkIr ugha gksuk FkkA ckn esa fu;ksDrk i{k us ekuuh; ,dyihB ds le{k vkosnu lqyg ij

vk/kkfjr fu.kZ; dks fujLr djus dh izLrqr dh tks [kkfjt dh x;hA rRi'pkr ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh

[k.MihB ds le{k fu;ksDrk us vihy bl vk/kkj ij izLrqr dh fd i{kdkjksa dh lqyg dh 'krksZa ij lgefr ds

ckotwn ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds fofHkUu fu.kZ;ksa ,oa Regulation ds fo:) ekuuh; ,dyihB }kjk ;kphx.k

dks lek;ksftr djus ds lEcU/k esa ijekns'k (mandamus) tkjh ugha fd;k tk ldrk D;ksafd ,slk djus ls

voS/kkfudrk mRiUu gks jgh FkhA ;g Hkh vk/kkj fy;k x;k fd lqyg dh 'krsZa gLrk{kfjr djus ds iwoZ dEiuh ds

cksMZ vkQ Mk;jsDVlZ dh laLrqfr izkIr ugha dh x;h Fkh bl izdkj mlus laLrqfr u ysus dh xyrh dh Fkh

ftlls dEiuh ,DV dh /kkjk 291 dk mYya?ku gqvk gS ftldh btktr ugha nh tk ldrhA ;kphx.k dh rjQ

ls [k.MihB ds le{k ;g cgl dh x;h fd mudh rjQ ls dksbZ vihy ugha izLrqr gS blfy, ;fn fu;ksDrk dh

vihy fopkj.k gsrq xzg.k dh tkrh gS rks ;kphx.k }kjk izkjfEHkd ;kfpdk esa izLrqr rF;ksa ij Hkh vihy ds

fopkj.k ds le; fopkj fd;k tk;] vr% mHk;i{k dh lgefr ls ekuuh; [k.MihB us lsokeqfDr ds izkjfEHkd

vkns'k rFkk ;kphx.k }kjk ;kfpr vuqrks"k Hkh vihy esa fopkj.k gsrq xzg.k fd;kA

50-

;kphx.k vuqcU/k ij o"kZ 2003 ds iwokZ) eas fu;qDr gq, Fks vkSj lu 2004 esa lafonk dh vof/k dh

lekfIr ij ;kphx.k dh lsok;sa lekIr gksuh Fkh ftlds dkj.k mUgkasus ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa fjV ;kfpdk

izLrqr dh Fkh

ftlesa ;FkkfLFkfr cuk;s j[kus dk vkns'k gqvk FkkA fnukad 3-7-90 dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3823

us fjV ;kfpdk fuLrkfjr dj ;kphx.k }kjk fu;ksDrk ds le{k izLrqr izfrosnu dks fuLrkfjr djus dk vkns'k

fn;kA fu;ksDrk us 28-1-10 dks izfrosnu [kkfjt djrs gq, fuLrkfjr dh ,oa lkFk gh fnukad 1-3-10 dks ;kphx.k

dh lsok;sa lekIr djus dk vkns'k Hkh dj fn;kA blds fo:) vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr iapkV fnukad

19-8-11 dk mYys[k mij fd;k x;k gSA

51-

ekuuh; [k.MihB ds le{k ;g iz'u fopkju gsrq mRiUu gqvk fd D;k ;kphx.k dh lsok lekfIr

**NaVuh** Fkh vkSj D;k mDr fLFkfr esa /kkjk 25&,Q ds izkfo/kku vkdf"kZr gksrs gS \ nwljk iz'u ;g fopkj.kh;

Fkk fd le>kSrk okrkZ ds nkSjku dh x;h lsok lekfIr vkns'k fof/k laxr Fkk \ fu.kZ; ds izLrj 13 esa ekuuh;

mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB us ;FkkfLFkfr dk;e j[kus ds vkns'k ds vfLrRo esa cus jgus dh vof/k esa ;kphx.k

}kjk dh x;h lsok dks /kkjk 25&ch ds mn~ns'; gsrq fujUrj dh x;h lsok vo/kkfjr dh ,oa rnuqlkj /kkjk

25&,Q ds izkfo/kku ds mYya?ku esa lsok lekfIr vo/kkfjr dhA lsok lekfIr ds vkns'k fnukad 1-3-10 dks

lqygokrkZ fopkjk/khu Fkk blfy, /kkjk 33 vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds izkfo/kku ds fo:) lsoklekfIr dk

vkns'k vuqfpr ,oa voS/k vo/kkfjr fd;k x;kA ekuuh; [k.MihB us vihy fuLrkfjr djrs gq, fu.kZ; ds izLrj

21 esa vihykFkhZ dks funsZf'kr fd;k] “21- In view of the facts, circumstances and submissions narrated hereinabove

and in order to do complete justice and to bring the litigation to a quietus, it is found to be necessary and in the interest

of justice to direct appellant- BESCOM to pay to the workmen concerned full back wages at the rate last drawn by

them and also to pay to them all the terminal benefits due as on the date of payment as if their services were then being

terminated afresh, in compliance with the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act, after continuous

service from the date of their entry into service till the date of payment. The workmen shall also be entitled to any other

statutory benefits such as gratuity or any other terminal benefits to which they may be entitled under the Rules and

Regulations of BESCOM as may be applicable to the workmen, as on the date of their termination of service now on

payment of all such compensation and benefits. it is clarified that unless and until the amounts of terminal benefits as

aforesaid are paid to the workmen, they shall be deemed to be in continuous srevice of BESCOM and back wages and

terminal benefits shall be calculated and paid accordingly. each of workmen shall also be paid by BESCOM the sum of

Rs.3,000/, by way of costs. they shall also be entitled to the statutory benefit accruing to them under Section 25H of the

I.D. Act.”

52-

orZeku ekeys esa ;kph dh lsok,a fu;qfDr dh frfFk 1-4-10 ls ,d&,d ekg ds fy, foLrkfjr Fkh vkSj

vfUre foLrkj 1-12-11 ls 31-12-11 gsrq FkhA izkFkhZ ds dFkukuqlkj mlus fnukad 5-1-12 rd lsok dh gSA bl

izdkj izkFkhZ us yxkrkj lsok dh gSA Ex-w/31 Hkqxrku fooj.k ls ;g tkfgj gS fd izkFkhZ us 1-4-10 ls 31-3-11

rd dqy 365 fnu dk Hkqxrku izkIr fd;k gS bl vk/kkj ij 240 fnu ls T;kns yxkrkj dk;Z djus ds rF; dh

iqf"V gksrh gSA izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa /kkjk 2& (oo) (bb) ds izkfo/kku ykxw ugha gksrs gS bl izdkj izkFkhZ ds ekeys

esa /kkjk 25&,Q ds izkfo/kku vkdf"kZr gksrs gS ,oa mlds vuqikyu ds fcuk lsok lekfIr vkns'k fof/k fo:)

ekuk tk;sxk ijUrq bl lEcU/k esa izkFkhZ dks ,dekg dh uksfVl ds cnys osru ,oa NVuh eqvkotk ds nks vyx

vyx nks psd fnukafdr 5-1-12 dh lsokeqfDr vkns'k ds lkFk fn;s x;s gS ftlls LIk"V gS fd /kkjk 25&,Q dk

i;kZIr vuqikyu fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ us mDr en esa nksuks psd foi{k dks vius i= Ex-w/58 fnukafdr 9-1-12

ds ek/;e ls okil dj fn;s gS ftlesa izkFkhZ us ;g dgk gS fd mldh lsok;sa voS/k ,oa xSjdkuwuh rjhds ls

lekIr dh x;h gS rFkk foi{k dk ;g d`R; voS/kkfud ,oa vekU; gSA mDr fLFkfr esa EkSa bl er dk gWw fd

nhid dqekj dh lsok;sa vLFkk;h izd`fr dh Fkh ijUrq fu;fer fjfDr ds fo:) fu;qfDr izfdz;k dk ikyu dj

mls lsok esa inLFkkfir fd;k x;k Fkk ftls fu;fer fd;k tkuk Fkk vkSj mldh izfdz;k izkjEHk Hkh dh x;h Fkh

ftldk mYys[k foi{kh lk{kh dh izfrijh{kk rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k vfHkys[k ls Hkh tkfgj gksrk gSA lEcfU/kr

ifjfLFkfr esa /kkjk 25&,Q dk ikyu vko';d Fkk ftldk i;kZIr vuqikyu fd;k x;k gS ,oa lsok lekfIr ds

fy, viuk;k x;k rjhdk fof/kekU; gS ,oa 2014 LAB. I. C. 2822 ¼dukZVd mPp U;k;ky;½ csaxyksj bysfDVªd

flVh lIykbZ dEiuh fyfeVsM csaxyksj ,o¡ vU; cuke ,l- T;ksfr ,o¡ vU; ds ekeys ls izkFkhZ dks dksbZ enn

ugha feyrh gSA

53-

2014 LAB. I. C. 2643 loksZPp U;k;ky;½] Hkqous’k dqekj f}osnh ---vihykFkhZ] cuke eSllZ fgUMkYdks

b.MLVªht fyfeVsM----izR;FkhZ esa vihykFkhZ Je lqijokbtj ds in ij izR;FkhZ dh QSDV~h esa fnukad 30-12-1992

dks fu;qDr gq, vkSj vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&ch ds vuq:i lsok dh lekfIr dh frfFk fnuakd

28-7-98 rd lsok fd;sA vihykFkhZ dk dFku Fkk fd mlus 6 dys.Mj o"kkZsa rd lsok dh ,oa izR;sd o"kZ esa 240

fnu ls T;knk lsok dh ijUrq izR;FkhZ us vihykFkhZ dh lsok;as blfy, lekIr dj nh D;ksafd vihykFkhZ dh lsok

gsrq Lohd`r vof/k lekIr gks x;h Fkh vkSj vkxs dh lsok ds fy, Lohd`fr (sanction) ugha FkhA lsoklekfIr ds

fo:) izkFkhZ dh vkifRr Fkh fd uksfVl ugha nh x;h rFkk NVuh eqvkotk ugha fn;k x;k u uksfVl ds cnys

osru fn;k x;k ftlls /kkjk 6 ,u m-iz- vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dk mYya?ku gqvkA ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd

vihykFkhZ dh fu;qfDRk LFkk;h in ds fo:) dh x;h Fkh ysfdu mldh fu;qfDRk vLFkk;h rkSj ij 1992 ls 1998

rd dh tkrh jgh ftldk mn~ns'; vuqfpr Fkk D;ksafd gj fu;qfDRk ds chp rhu pkj fnu dk vUrjky j[kk x;k

gS vkSj gj lky dh lsok ds vUr esa mls izR;FkhZ **dk;ZeqfDRk** dh jlhn nsrs jgs gS ,oa lsok dh vof/k dHkh

rhu ekg dHkh N% ekg jgrh jgh gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd mls gj lky ds vUr esa izR;FkhZ }kjk osru o`f)

Hkh nh tkrh jgh gSA bl izdkj izR;FkhZ gj lky ds vUr esa lsok lekfIr ,oa iqfuZ;qfDr dk vkns'k nsrs jgs gSA

3824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vihykFkhZ dk dFku gS fd mldh lsokeqfDRk fof/k fo:) ,oa **NVuh** dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr gSA Je

U;k;ky; us lsoklekfIr dks vuqfpr vo/kkfjr dj foxr osru lfgr lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk dk vkns'k ikfjr

fd;kA Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV ds fo:) ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us flfoy fjV ;kfpdk Lohdkj

dh ,oa izR;FkhZ dks funsZf'kr fd;k fd ;kph dks {kfriwfrZ ds :Ik esa ,d yk[k :Ik;k M~kQV ds :i esa vFkok

uxn vnk djsaA lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk dk vkns'k ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us fujLr dj fn;kA ekuuh; mPp

U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vihy Lohdkj dh ,oa Je U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dh

iqf"V dhA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k fd Je U;k;ky; ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] nksuksa

us ;g fu"d"kZ fn;k Fkk fd izR;FkhZ }kjk dh x;h lsokeqfDRk **NaVuh** Fkh] ,slh fLFkfr esa vihykFkhZ dh lsok esa

iquLFkkZiuk ds vkns'k dh txg dsoy {kfriwfrZ iznku djus dk vkns'k ikfjr dj =qVh dkfjr dhA 2014 LAB. I.

C. 2643 ¼loksZPp U;k;ky;½] Hkqous’k dqekj f}osnh ---vihykFkhZ] cuke eSllZ fgUMkYdks b.MLVªht fyfeVsM----

izR;FkhZ dh leLr rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa rFkk Jh nhid dqekj xxZ ds ekeys dh rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh rqyuk

ls Li"V gS fd Jh nhid dqekj xxZ ds ekeys esa mDr n`"VkUr ls dksbZ enn ugha yh tk ldrh gSA mDr

O;k[;k ,oa fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gwWa fd foi{k }kjk lsok eqfDr dk vkns'k mfpr ,oa fof/k

laxr gSA fcUnq la[;k nks dk fuLrkj.k rn~uqlkj fd;k tkrk gSA

54-

i{kdkjksa ds vfHkopuksa ,oa mlds leFkZu esa muds }kjk izLrqr lk{; ,oa fof/kd n`"VkUrksa dh mDRk

O;k[;k ,oa fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gwWa fd flafMdsV cSad] fd'kux<+] tuin vtesj ds izcU/ku

}kjk fnukad 5-1-12 ls izkFkhZ Jh nhid dqekj xxZ dh lsok lekfIr dh dk;Zokgh mfpr ,oa fof/klaxr gS ,oa

izkFkhZ ;kfpr vuqrks"k ikus dk gdnkj ugha gSA izkFkhZ dh ;kfpdk rn~uqlkj [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq

izsf"kr funsZ’k dk mRrj mDr izdkj fn;k tkrk gSA iapkV rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

55-

iapkV dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrxZr

izdk’kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tk;A

Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

ubZ fnYyh] 9 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1702.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

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

v/;k;&IV ¼44 o 45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gaS½ v/;k;& V vkSj VI [èkjk&76 dh mi èkjk ¼1½ vkSj èkjk &77]

78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gaS] ds micaè jktLFkku jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

Øe la[;k

ftys dk uke

1-

ckjka

2-

djkSyh

3-

pq#

4-

tkykSj

5-

izrkix<+

[la- ,l&38013@34@2016&,l-,l-&1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 9th August, 2016

S.O. 1702.—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 September, 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 Rajasthan, namely:—

Sr. No.

Name of the District

1.

Karauli

2.

Jalore

3.

Churu

4.

Pratapgarh

5.

Baran

[No. S-38013/34/2016-S.S.-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3825

ubZ fnYyh] 9 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1703.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

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

v/;k;&IV ¼/kkjk 44 o 45 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr gks pqdh gaS½ v/;k;& V vkSj VI [èkjk&76 dh mi èkjk ¼1½ vkSj èkjk &77]

78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gaS] ds micaè dukZVd jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

Øe la[;k

ftyk@{ks= dk uke

1-

chnj

2-

fpDdcYykiqjk

3-

fpDdexywjk

4-

dksMxq

[la- ,l&38013@35@2016&,l-,l-&1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 9th August, 2016

S.O. 1703.—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 September, 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 District in the State of Karnataka where the

Provisions of ESI Act, 1948 are already in force :—

Sr. No.

Name of the District/Area

1.

Bidar

2.

Chikkaballapura

3.

Chikkamagaluru

4.

Kodagu

[No. S-38013/35/2016-S.S.-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 9 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1704.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

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

v/;k;&IV ¼/kkjk 44 o 45 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr gks pqdh gaS½ v/;k;& V vkSj VI [èkjk&76 dh mi èkjk ¼1½ vkSj èkjk &77]

78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gaS] ds micaè vkU/kz izns'k jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] uker% :—

Øe la[;k

ftyk@{ks= dk uke

1-

iwoZ xksnkojh

2-

if'pe xksnkojh

3-

d`".kk

4-

xaqVwj

5-

izdk'ke

6-

usYyksj

7-

fot;uxje

8-

Jhdkdqye

9-

fo'kk[kkiVue

[la- ,l&38013@36@2016&,l-,l-&1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 9th August, 2016

S.O. 1704.—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 September, 2016, as the date on

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

3826

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 District in the State of Andhra Pradesh

namely:—

Sr. No.

Name of the District/Area

1.

East Godavari

2.

West Godavari

3.

Krishan

4.

Guntur

5.

Prakasam

6.

Nellore

7.

Viziangaram

8.

Srikakulam

9.

Visakhapatnam

[No. S-38013/36/2016-S.S.-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 9 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1705.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

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

v/;k;&IV ¼/kkjk 44 o 45 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr gks pqdh gaS½ v/;k;& V vkSj VI [èkjk&76 dh mi èkjk ¼1½ vkSj èkjk &77]

78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gaS] ds micaè e/; izns'k jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] uker% :—

Ø-l-

ftyk@{ks= dk uke

Ø-l-

ftyk@{ks= dk uke

1-

fHk.M

12-

[kjxksu

2-

Hkksiky

13-

eaUnlkSj

3-

cqjgkuiqj

14-

eqjSuk

4-

nsokl

15-

uhep

5-

/kkj

16-

jk;lsu

6-

Xokfy;j

17-

jryke

7-

gks'kaxkckn

18-

jhok

8-

bankSj

19-

lkxj

9-

tcyiqj

20-

lruk

10-

dVuh

21-

'kgwMksy

11-

[k.Mok

22-

mTtSu

[la- ,l&38013@37@2016&,l-,l-&1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 9th August, 2016

S.O. 1705.—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 September, 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 District in the State of Madhya Pradesh where

the Provisions of ESI Act, 1948 are already in force :—

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1938

3827

Sl.No.

Name of the District

Sl.No.

Name of the District

1.

Bhind

12.

Khargone

2.

Bhopal

13.

Mandsaur

3.

Burhanpur

14.

Morena

4.

Dewas

15.

Neemuch

5.

Dhar

16.

Raisen

6.

Gwalior

17.

Ratlam

7.

Hoshangabad

18.

Rewa

8.

Indore

19.

Sagar

9.

Jabalpur

20.

Satna

10.

Katni

21.

Shahdol

11.

Khandwa

22.

Ujjain

[No. S-38013/37/2016-S.S.-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 9 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1706.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

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

v/;k;&IV ¼44 o 45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gaS½ v/;k;& V vkSj VI [èkjk&76 dh mi èkjk ¼1½ vkSj èkjk &77]

78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gaS] ds micaè fcgkj jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] uker% :—

Ø-la-

ftyk dk uke

1.

iVuk

2.

Hkkxyiqj

3.

eqaxsj

4.

csxwljk;

5.

eqt¶Qjiqj

6.

leLrhiqj

7.

njHkaxk

8.

dfVgkj

9.

x;k

10.

jksgrkl

11.

Lkkj.k

12.

oS'kkyh

13.

Hkkstiqj

14.

fcgkj ’kjhQ

15.

cDlj

16.

lhrke<+h

[la- ,l&38013@38@2016&,l-,l-&1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

3828

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2016/ SRAVANA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 9th August, 2016

S.O. 1706.—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 September, 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 District in the State of Bihar namely :—

S. No.

Name of District

S. No.

Name of District

1.

Patna

9.

Gaya

2.

Bhagalpur

10.

Rohtas

3.

Munger

11.

Saran

4.

Bengusarai

12.

Vaishali

5.

Muzaffarpur

13.

Bhojpur

6.

Samastipur

14.

Bihar Sharif

7.

Darbhanga

15.

Buxar

8.

Katihar

16.

Sitamarhi

[No. S-38013/38/2016-S.S.-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

Uploaded by the Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.

GORAKH

NATH YADAV

Digitally signed by

GORAKH NATH YADAV

Date: 2016.09.02

19:04:20 +05'30'