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 मुय 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, एतारा, 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)
डॉटर 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)
‘‘डॉटर 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 (᭠ यूिलयर मेिडिसन)’’
एमडी (᭠ यूिलयर 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 एतारा ि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 गोा (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 बᭅवान-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- गोा (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
ᭃेᮢ हेटेयर मᱶ
(लगभग)
ᭃेᮢ
एकड़ मᱶ
(लगभग)
ᳯट᭡ पिणयां
1.
पहाड़पुर
ललमᳯटया
32
गोा
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 संया 32 और मौजा बड़ा भोड़ाय संयांक 18 के सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु
क1 से शुᱨ होकर, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 मᱶ ᭡लॉट संयांक 01, का उᱫर-पि᳟मी सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए
मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 का ᭡लॉट संयांक 01 के पि᳟मी कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु क2 पर िमलती है।
क2-क3
रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 का ᭡लॉट संयांक 01 के पि᳟मी कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु क2 से शुᱨ होकर
᭡लॉट संयांक 01 का दिᭃण सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 के उसी ᭡लॉट संयांक का
दिᭃण-पूवᱮ कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु क3 पर िमलती है।
क3-क4
रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 का ᭡लॉट संयांक 01 का दिᭃण-पूवᱮ कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु क3 से शुᱨ
होकर, उसी ᭡लॉट संयांक के दिᭃण-पूवᱮ और पूवᱮ सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 एवं
बड़ा भोड़ाय संयांक 18 का सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु क4 पर िमलती है।
क4-क1
रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 और मौजा बड़ा भोड़ाय संयांक 18 का सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु
क4 से शुᱨ होकर उसी सि᭥मिलत सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 और बड़ा भोड़ाय
संयांक 18 का सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु क1 पर िमलती है।
ख1-ख2
रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 एवं बड़ा भोड़ाय संयांक 18 का सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ख1 से
शुᱨ होकर मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 का ᭡लॉट संयांक 2 के उᱫर-पि᳟मी एवं पि᳟मी सीमा से गुजरते
ᱟए, उसी ᭡लॉट संयांक का मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 दिᭃण-पि᳟मी कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ख2 पर
िमलती है।
ख2-ख3
रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 का ᭡लॉट संयांक 2 के दिᭃण-पि᳟मी कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ख2 से शुᱨ
होकर, उसी ᭡लॉट संयांक का दिᭃण सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 2 का ᭡लॉट संयांक 2
के दिᭃण-पूवᱮ कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ख3 पर िमलती है।
ख3-ख4
रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 का ᭡लॉट संयांक 2 के दिᭃण-पूवᱮ कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ख3 से शुᱨ
होकर, उसी ᭡लॉट संयांक का पूवᱮ सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 एवं मौजा बड़ा
भोड़ाय संयांक 18 का सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ख4 पर िमलती है।
ख4-ख1
रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 और बड़ा भोड़ाय संयांक 18 का सि᭥ मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ख4 से
शुᱨ होकर उसी सि᭥ मिलत सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 और बड़ा भोड़ाय संयांक 18
का सि᭥ मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ख1 पर िमलती है।
ग1-ग2
रेखा, मौजा बड़ा भोड़ाय संयांक 18 और मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 का सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु
ग1 से शुᱨ होकर मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 का ᭡लॉट संयांक 03 के पि᳟मी से गुजरते ᱟए मौजा
पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 के उसी ᭡लॉट संयांक का दिᭃण-पि᳟मी कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ग2 पर िमलती है।
ग2-ग3
रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 के ᭡लॉट संयांक 03 के दिᭃण-पि᳟मी कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ग2 से शुᱨ
होकर उसी ᭡लॉट संयांक के दिᭃण से गुजरते ᱟए मौजा पहाड़पुर संया 32 के ᭡लॉट संयांक 3 के दिᭃण-
पूवᱮ कोने पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ग3 पर िमलती है।
ग3-ग4
रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 के ᭡लॉट संयांक 03 के दिᭃण-पूवᱮ कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ग3 से शुᱨ
होकर, उसी ᭡लॉट संयांक के पूवᱮ और दिᭃण-पूवᱮ सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, पहाड़पुर संयंक 32 एवं मौजा
बड़ा भोड़ाय संयांक 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 संयांक 32 और मौजा बड़ा भोड़ाय संयांक 18 के सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु
ग4 से शुᱨ होकर उसी सि᭥मिलत सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 और मौजा बड़ा भोड़ाय
संयांक 18 के सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ग1 पर िमलती है।
घ1-घ2
रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 और बड़ा भोड़ाय संयांक 18 के सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु घ1 से
शुᱨ होकर मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 के ᭡लॉट संयांक 4 का उᱫर-पि᳟मी सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए मौजा
पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 के ᭡लॉट संयांक 4 के पि᳟मी कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु घ2 पर िमलती है।
घ2-घ3
रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 के ᭡लॉट संयांक 4 के पि᳟मी कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु घ2 से शुᱨ होकर
᭡लॉट संयांक 4 का दिᭃणी सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए मौजा पहाड़पुर 32 के उसी ᭡लॉट संयांक का दिᭃण-पूवᱮ
कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु घ3 पर िमलती है।
घ3-घ4
रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर संया 32 के ᭡लॉट संयांक 4 के दिᭃण कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु घ3 से शुᱨ होकर, उसी
᭡लॉट संयांक के दिᭃण-पूवᱮ एवं पूवᱮ सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 एवं मौजा बड़ा
भोड़ाय संयांक 18 का सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु घ4 पर िमलती है।
घ4-घ1
रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 और मौजा बड़ा भोड़ाय संयांक 18 का सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु
घ4 से शुᱨ होकर, उसी सि᭥मिलत सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 और मौजा बड़ा
भोड़ाय संयांक 18 का सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु घ1 पर िमलती है।
ङ1-ङ2
रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 और मौजा बड़ा भोड़ाय संयांक 18 का सि᭥मिलत सीमा से शुᱨ होकर
मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 के ᭡लॉट संयांक 05 के पि᳟मी सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक
32 के उसी ᭡लॉट संयांक के दिᭃण-पि᳟मी के कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ2 पर िमलती है।
ङ2-ङ3
रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर संया 32 के ᭡लॉट संयांक 05 का दिᭃण-पि᳟मी कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ2 से शुᱨ
होकर, ᭡लॉट संयांक 06 के पि᳟मी सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 के ᭡लॉट संयांक 6
का दिᭃण-पि᳟मी कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ3 पर िमलती है।
ङ3-ङ4
रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 के ᭡लॉट संयांक 6 के दिᭃण-पि᳟मी कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ3 से शुᱨ
होकर उसी ᭡लॉट संयांक के दिᭃण-पि᳟मी सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, उसी ᭡लॉट संयांक का दिᭃण-पि᳟मी
कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ4 पर िमलती है।
ङ4-ङ5
रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 के ᭡लॉट संयांक 6 का दिᭃण-पूवᱮ सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ4 से शुᱨ
होकर ᭡लॉट संयांक 7 के दिᭃण-पि᳟मी सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, ᭡लॉट संयांक 7 का दिᭃण-पि᳟मी कोना
पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ5 पर िमलती है।
ङ5-ङ6
रेखा, ᭡लॉट संयांक 7 का दिᭃण-पि᳟मी कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ5 से शुᱨ होकर, उसी ᭡लॉट संयांक के
दिᭃणी सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए और ᭡लॉट संयांक 7 के दिᭃण कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ6 पर िमलती है।
ङ6-ङ7
रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 के ᭡लॉट संयांक 07 का दिᭃण कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ6 से शुᱨ होकर,
उसी ᭡लॉट संयांक 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 संयांक 7 का दिᭃण-पूवᱮ कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ7 से शुᱨ होकर,
उसी ᭡लॉट संयांक का पूवᱮ सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, ᭡लॉट संयांक 7 के पूवᱮ सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ8 पर
िमलती है।
ङ8-ङ9
रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर न. 32 के ᭡लॉट संयांक 7 का पूवᱮ सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ8 से शुᱨ होकर, ᭡लॉट
संयांक 12 का दिᭃण सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, ᭡लॉट संयांक 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 संयांक 13 का पि᳟मी सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ9 से शुᱨ होकर,
᭡लॉट संयांक 13 का पि᳟मी सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, उसी ᭡लॉट संयांक 13 का दिᭃण-पि᳟मी कोना पर
ि᭭थत ङ10 पर िमलती है।
ङ10-ङ11
रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर न. 32 के ᭡लॉट संयांक 13 का दिᭃण-पि᳟मी कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ10 से शुᱨ
होकर, ᭡लॉट संयांक 13 का दिᭃण सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए, उसी ᭡लॉट संयांक का दिᭃण-पूवᱮ कोना पर
ि᭭थत ङ11 पर िमलती है।
ङ11-ङ12
रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर न. 32 के ᭡लॉट संयांक 13 का दिᭃण-पूवᱮ कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ11 से शुᱨ
होकर, उसी ᭡लॉट संयांक कᳱ पूवᱮ सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए उᱫर-पूवᱮ कोना पर ि᭭थत ङ12 पर िमलती है।
ङ12-ङ13
रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर न. 32 के ᭡लॉट संयांक 13 का उᱫर-पूवᱮ कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ12 से शुᱨ होकर,
᭡लॉट संयांक 12 कᳱ पूवᱮ सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए ᭡लॉट संयांक 12 का उᱫर-पूवᱮ कोना पर ि᭭थत ङ13 पर
िमलती है।
ङ13-ङ14
रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर न. 32 के ᭡लॉट संयांक 12 का उᱫर-पूवᱮ कोना पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ13 से शुᱨ होकर,
᭡लॉट संयांक 12 कᳱ उᱫर सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए ᭡लॉट संयांक 12 का उᱫरी सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ14
पर िमलती है।
ङ14-ङ15
रेखा, मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 के ᭡लॉट संयांक 12 का उᱫरी सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ14 से शुᱨ होकर
᭡लॉट संयांक 11 के पूवᱮ सीमा से गुजरते ᱟए मौजा पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 और मौजा बड़ा भोड़ाय संयांक
18 का सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ15 पर िमलती है।
ङ15-ङ1
रेखा, पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 और बड़ा भोड़ाय संयांक 18 का सि᭥मिलत सीमा पर ि᭭थत िब᭠दु ङ15 शुᱨ
होकर, पहाड़पुर संयांक 32 और बड़ा भोड़ाय संया 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'