5918 GI/2016

(1)

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- 1]

ubZ fnYyh] tuojh 1—tuojh 7] 2017] 'kfuokj@ ikS"k 11—ikS"k 17] 1938

No. 1]

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 1—JANUARY 7, 2017, SATURDAY/ PAUSA 11—PAUSA 17, 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)

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

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

ubZ fnYyh] 26 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1-—naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 (1974 dk vf/fu;e la- 2) dh /kjk 24 dh mi/kjk (8) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjr ljdkj Jh vuqjkx [kUuk] vf/oDrk dks fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu (lhchvkbZ) }kjk 'kq# fd, x, dsUæh;

vUos"k.k C;wjks ds ekeyk la- vkjlh 1 (,l)@2008@,llh;w-oh@,llh- II @,uMh ^vk:f"k gR;kdkaM* esa mifLFkr gksus ds fy, uqiwj

ryokj rFkk jkts'k ryokj }kjk nk;j dh xbZ Øe'k% 2014 dh vkijkf/d vihy la- 293 rFkk 2014 dh vkijkf/d vihy la- 294

vFkok mlls lacaf/r vU; ekeyksa rFkk ifj.kkeh ekeyksa bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksus ds fy, fu;qfDr dh rkjh[k ls vFkok

vf/oDrk dks lkSaih xbZ vihyksa ds fuLrkj.k] tks igys gks] ls rhu o"kZ ds fy, fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[iQk- la- 225@21@2016&,ohMh&II]

,l- ih- vkj- f=kikBh] voj lfpo

2 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 26th December, 2016

S.O. 1.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Anurag Khanna, Advocate as

Special Public Prosecutor for appearance in ‘Aarushi Hemraj Murder Case’ CBI case No. RC/1(S)/2008/SCU.V/

SC.II/N.D. instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) to appear in the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad in Criminal Appeal 293 of 2014, in Criminal Appeal 293 of 2014 filed by Nupur Talwar and Rajesh Talwar

respectively or other matters connected therewith and incidental thereto for a period of three years from the date of

appointment or disposal of the appeals entrusted to the counsel whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 225/21/2016-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2016

का

का.आ. . . . 2.— केीय सरकार एत ारा दली िवशेष पुिलस थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का अिधिनयम सं. 25) क( धारा

6 के साथ प)ठत धारा 5 क( उपधारा (1) ,ारा -द. त शाि/य0 का -योग करते 3ए के सरकार उ4र -देश रा5य सरकार, गृह (पुिलस)

अनुभाग-11 क( दनांक 10/09/2015 के आदेश सं. 2778/6-पी-11-2014-540एम/2013 लखनऊ ,ारा -ा> सहमित से भारतीय दंड

संिहता, 1860 (1860 का अिधिनयम सं. 45) क( धारा 364 के अंतगBत पुिलस थाना नैनी, िजला इलाहाबाद, उ4र -देश मG पंजीकृत

मुकदमा अपराध सं. 561/2013 तथा उ/ अपराध करने के दौरान कए गए अपराध0 से संबंिधत अथवा उससे सIबJ अपराध0 मG कए

गए कोई अय अपराध (अपराध0), -यास0, दुL-ेरणाN और षडयंP0 अथवा उसी संQवहार मG कए गए या उहR तSय0 अथवा मुकदमे

से संबंिधत तSय से उ.पT कसी अय अपराध या अपराध0 का अवेषण करने के िलए दली िवशेष पुिलस थापन के सदय0 क(

शि/य0 और UेPािधकार का िवतार समत उ4र -देश रा5य मG करती है।

[iQk- la- 228@44@2015&,ohMh&II]

,l- ih- vkj- f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2016

S.O. 2.—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 Uttar Pradesh, Grih (Police) Anubhag-11 Lucknow vide Order No.2778/6-P-11-2014-540M/2013

Lucknow dated 10/09/2015 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole of the state of Uttar Pradesh for investigation of Case Crime No.561/2013 under Section

364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No.45 of 1860), registered in Police Station Naini, District Allahabad, Uttar

Pradesh and any other offence(s), attempts, abetments and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the offence(s)

committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts or fact in relation to the case.

[F.No. 228/44/2015-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

िव

िव मंालय

मंालय

(य िवभाग

य िवभाग

य िवभाग)

नई दली, 3 दसIबर , 2016

का

का.आ. . . . 3.—कG सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासक(य -योजन0 के िलए -योग) िनयम 1976 के िनयम 10 के उप- िनयम (4)

के अनुसरण मG भारत सरकार के भारतीय लेखापरीUा एवं लेखा िवभाग के िनYिलिखत कायाBलय0 को, िजनके असी -ितशत

कमBचा)रय0 ने िहदी का कायBसाधक [ान -ा> कर िलया है, अिधसूिचत करती है :

1. UेPीय -िशUण संथान, जयपुर, भारतीय लेखापरीUा एवं लेखा िवभाग।

2. -धान लेखापरीUा िनदेशक (केीय) कोलकाता का कायाBलय, शाखा कायाBलय गुवाहाटी।

[la- ए.-12034/02/2014-ईजी]

ऐनी जॉजB मैSयू, संयु/ सिचव

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Expenditure)

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2016

S.O. 3.—In pursuance of sub- rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Government of India in the

Indian Audit and Accounts Department, in which eighty per cent of the staff have acquired the working knowledge of

Hindi, namely:-

1. Office of the Regional Training Institute, Jaipur, Indian Audit and Accounts Department.

2. Office of the Principal Director of Audit (Central), Kolkata, Branch office Guwahati;

[No. A-12034/02/2014-EG]

ANNIE GEORGE MATHEW, Jt. Secy.

fons'k ea=kky;

(lh-ih-oh- izHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 27 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 4-—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] cS:r esa Jh jktho V.Mu] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad

27 fnlEcj] 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 27th December, 2016

S.O. 4.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Rajeev Tandon,

Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Embassy of India, Beirut to perform the Consular services

with effect from 27th December, 2016.

[No. T-4330/01/2016]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 5-—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 iz/ku dksalykokl] tathckj esa Jh Vksarax eks'kkax ek¯jx] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad

28 fnlEcj] 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)

4 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2016

S.O. 5.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Tontang Moshang

Maring, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Embassy of India, Zanzibar to perform the Consular

services with effect from 28th December, 2016.

[No. T-4330/01/2016]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

laLÑfr ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 19 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 6-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e

(4) ds vuqlj.k esa] laLÑfr ea=kky; ds varxZr vkus okys dk;kZy; dq:{ks=k iSuksjek ,oa foKku dsaæ] dq:{ks=k&136118 (gfj;k.kk)

ftlesa 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d vf/dkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vfèklwfpr djrh gS A

;g vf/lwpuk jkti=k esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls izo`Ùk gksxh A

¹iQk- la- bZ&13016@1@2011&¯gnhº

iadt jkx] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF CULTURE

New Delhi, the 19th December, 2016

S.O. 6.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the offices of Kurushetra Penorama and Science Centre,

Kurushetra-136118 (Harayana) under the Ministry of Culture wherein more than 80% officers/staff have acquired

working knowledge of Hindi.

This notification shall come into force from the date of publication in the Official Gazette.

[F. No. E-13016/1/2011-Hindi]

PANKAJ RAG, Jt. Secy.

वा

वा य

य

य और प रवार क या

और प रवार क या

और प रवार क याण मंालय

ण मंालय

( वा

वा

वा य

य

य और परवार क या

और परवार क या

और परवार क याण िवभाग

ण िवभाग

ण िवभाग)

शुि

शुि-प

प

ubZ fnYyh] 30 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 7-—bl foHkkx dh vf/lwpuk la- ;w&12012@483@2015&,ebZ&I fnukad 04-08-2015 ds vuqØe esa Hkkjrh;

vk;q£oKku ifj"kn~ vf/fu;e] 1956 (1956 dk 102) dh /kjk 11 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznRr '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'kksèku djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %–

उ/ -थम अनुसूची मG –

“मिणपाल िव`िवaालय, मिणपाल” के समU ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>करण’ कालम(3) शीषBक के अंतगBत

डी.एम.(गेbोएंbोलॉजी) ‘मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह मंगलूर, कनाBटक क( बजाय कतूरबा मेिडकल

कॉलेज मिणपाल, कनाBटक मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 को मिणपाल िव`िवaालय, मिणपाल, कनाBटक ,ारा -द4

होगी”।

¹la- ;w&12012@483@2015&,ebZ&Iº

Mh- oh- ds- jko] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 30th November, 2015

S.O. 7.—In continuation to this Department’s Notification No. U-12012/483/2015-ME-I dated 4.8.2015, 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 “Manipal University, Manipal”, under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’ (column 3), the

DM(Gastroenterology) qualification shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Manipal

University, Manipal, Karnataka in respect of students being trained at Kasturba Medical College, Manipal,

Karnataka instead of Mangalore, Karnataka”.

[No. U-12012/483/2015-ME-I]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

शुि

शुि-प

प

ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 8-—bl foHkkx dh vf/lwpuk la- ;w&12012@33@2011&,ebZ- (ih- II) fnukad 16-01-2012 ds vuqØe esa Hkkjrh;

vk;q£oKku ifj"kn~ vf/fu;e] 1956 (1956 dk 102) dh /kjk 11 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznRr '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'kksèku djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %–

उ/ -थम अनुसूची मG –

क) “नागपुर िव`िवaालय/आर.टी.एम. नागपुर िव`िवaालय” के समU ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>करण’ कालम(3)

शीषBक के अंतगBत एमडी (रेिडयो डॉयeोिसस) ‘मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह इंदरा गांधी मेिडकल

कॉलेज, नागपुर मG 1990 क( बजाए 1988 अथवा उसके पfात -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 को नागपुर

िव`िवaालय/आर.टी.एम. नागपुर िव`िवaालय, नागपुर, ,ारा -द4 होगी।

¹la- ;w&12012@26@2015&,ebZ&Iº

Mh- oh- ds- jko] voj lfpo

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 31st August, 2016

S.O. 8.—In continuation to this Department’s Notification No. U.12012/33/2011-ME(P.II) dated 16.01.2012,

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 “Nagpur University/R.T.M. Nagpur University” under the heading ‘Abbreviation for

Registration’ (column 3), the MD(Radio Diagnosis) qualification shall be a recognised medical

qualification when granted by Nagpur University/R.T.M. Nagpur University in respect of students being

trained at Indira Gandhi Medical College,Nagpur on or after 1988 instead of 1990”.

[No. U-12012/26/2015-ME-I]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 12 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 9-—भारतीय आयुcव[ान प)रषद अिधिनयम 1956 (1956 का 102) क( धारा 11 क( उप धारा (2) ,ारा -द. त

शि/य0 का -योग करते 3ए कG सरकार, भारतीय आयुcव[ान प)रषद से परामशB के उपरांत उg त अिधिनयम क( -थम अनुसूची मG

िनI निलिखत संशोधन करती है, अथाBत:-

6 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

उg त अनुसूची मG -

(क)

“रानी दुगाBवती िवi विवaालय, मjय -देश” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम (2) के lप मG संदcभत

है] शीषB मG अितम -िविn के पi चात और “पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>” [आगे कालम (3) के lप मG संदcभत है] शीषB के अधीन

िनI निलिखत अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

“आpथैिमक मेिडिसन एंड सजBरी मG िडkलोमा”

डीओएमएस

यह एक मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब नेताजी

सुभाष च बोस मेिडकल कॉलेज, जबलपुर, मj य -देश मG

-िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध अकादिमक सP, 2008 तक

रानी दुगाBवती िवi विवaालय, मjय -देश ,ारा -द4 होगी।

“gलीिनकल पैथॉलोजी मG िडkलोमा”

डीसीपी

यह एक मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब नेताजी

सुभाष च बोस मेिडकल कॉलेज, जबलपुर, मj य -देश मG

-िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध अकादिमक सP, 2008 तक

रानी दुगाBवती िवi विवaालय, मjय -देश ,ारा -द4 होगी।

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (िकन एंड वेनेरॉलोजी, डमाBटॉलोजी)”

“एमडी (िकन एंड वीडी)”

यह एक मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब नेताजी

सुभाष च बोस मेिडकल कॉलेज, जबलपुर, मj य -देश मG

-िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध अकादिमक सP, 2008 तक

रानी दुगाBवती िवi विवaालय, मjय -देश ,ारा -द4 होगी।

“िडkलोमा इन टयुबरकुलोिसस एंड चेट िडिसिजज़”

डीटीसीडी

यह एक मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब नेताजी

सुभाष च बोस मेिडकल कॉलेज, जबलपुर, मj य -देश मG

-िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध अकादिमक सP, 2008 तक

रानी दुगाBवती िवi विवaालय, मjय -देश ,ारा -द4 होगी।

“िडkलोमा इन लाइtरगोलोजी एंड ओटोलोजी”

डीएलओ

यह एक मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब नेताजी

सुभाष च बोस मेिडकल कॉलेज, जबलपुर, मj य -देश मG

-िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध अकादिमक सP, 2008 तक

रानी दुगाBवती िवi विवaालय, मjय -देश ,ारा -द4 होगी।

(ख) “ए.पी.vसह िवi विवaालय, मjय -देश” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम (2) के lप मG संदcभत है] शीषB

मG अितम -िविn के पi चात और “पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>” [आगे कालम (3) के lप मG संदcभत है] शीषB के अधीन िनम् निलिखत

अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

“माटर ऑफ सजBरी (ओटो-राइनो- लाइtरगोलोजी)”

“एमएस (ईएनटी)”

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

एस.एस. मेिडकल कॉलेज, रीवा, मjय -देश मG -िशिUत कए

गए छाP0 के संबंध मG अकादिमक सP, 2008 तक ए.पी.vसह

िव`तिवaालय, मjय -देश ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“िडkलोमा इन लाइtरगोलोजी एंड ओटोलोजी”

डीएलओ

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

एस.एस. मेिडकल कॉलेज, रीवा, मjय -देश मG -िशिUत कए

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

गए छाP0 के संबंध मG अकादिमक सP, 2008 तक ए.पी.vसह

िवि`िवaालय, मjय -देश ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“िडkलोमा इन गायनोकॉलोजी एंड ऑबटे)bgस”

डीजीओ

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

एस.एस. मेिडकल कॉलेज, रीवा, मjय -देश मG -िशिUत कए

गए छाP0 के संबंध मG अकादिमक सP, 2008 तक ए.पी.vसह

िव`किवaालय, मjय -देश ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

(ग) “देवी अिहया िवi विवaालय, इंदौर, मjय -देश” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम (2) के lप मG संदcभत

िनI निलिखत अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

“िडkलोमा इन ऑरथोपीिडgस”

डी.ऑथx.

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

एम.जी.एम. मेिडकल कॉलेज, इंदौर, मjय -देश मG -िशिUत

कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG अकादिमक सP, 2007 तक देवी

अिहया िवि`िवaालय, इंदौर, मjय -देश ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

¹la- ;w&12012@49@2013&,ebZ&Iº

Mh- oh- ds- jko] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 12th November, 2015

S.O. 9.—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 “Rani Durgawati Vishwavidhalaya, Madhya Pradesh” under the heading ‘Recognised 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)

“Diploma in Ophthalmic Medicine & Surgery”

DOMS

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Rani Durgawati Vishwavidhalaya,

Madhya Pradesh to the students admitted and trained

at Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College,

Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh upto the academic session

2008).

“Diploma in Clinical Pathology”

DCP

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Rani Durgawati Vishwavidhalaya,

Madhya Pradesh to the students admitted and trained

at Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College,

Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh upto the academic session

2008).

8 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Doctor of Medicine (Skin & Venerology, Dermatology)”

MD(Skin & VD)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Rani Durgawati Vishwavidhalaya,

Madhya Pradesh to the students admitted and trained

at Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College,

Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh upto the academic session

2008).

“Diploma in Tuberculosis & Chest Diseases”

DTCD

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Rani Durgawati Vishwavidhalaya,

Madhya Pradesh to the students admitted and trained

at Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College,

Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh upto the academic session

2008).

“Diploma in Laryngology & Otology”

DLO

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Rani Durgawati Vishwavidhalaya,

Madhya Pradesh to the students admitted and trained

at Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College,

Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh upto the academic session

2008).

against “A.P. Singh University, Madhya Pradesh” under the heading ‘Recognised 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)

“Master of Surgery(Oto-Rhino-Laryngology)”

MS(ENT)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by A.P. Singh University, Madhya

Pradesh to the students admitted and trained at S.S.

Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh upto the

academic session 2008).

“Diploma in Laryngology & Otology”

DLO

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by A.P. Singh University, Madhya

Pradesh to the students admitted and trained at S.S.

Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh upto the

academic session 2008).

“Diploma in Gynaecology & Obstetrics”

DGO

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by A.P. Singh University, Madhya

Pradesh to the students admitted and trained at S.S.

Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh upto the

academic session 2008).

against “Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh” under the heading ‘Recognised 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)

“Diploma in Orthopaedics”

D. Ortho.

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya,

Indore, Madhya Pradesh to the students admitted and

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

trained at M.G.M. Medical College, Indore, Madhya

Pradesh upto the academic session 2007).

[No. U-12012/49/2013-ME-I]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 10-—भारतीय आयुcव[ान प)रषद अिधिनयम 1956 (1956 का 102) क( धारा 11 क( उप धारा (2) ,ारा -द. त

िनI निलिखत संशोधन करती है अथाBत:-

उg त -थम अनुसूची मG ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ शीषBक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] “केरल वा S य

िव[ान िवi विवaालय, तृiशूर, केरल” के सामने अंितम -िविn के पi चात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम

(3) कहा गया है] से संबंिधत -िविn के संबंध मG िनI निलिखत अंत: थािपत कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(जनरल मेिडिसन)”

एम.डी(जनरल मेिडिसन)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

मलनकरा ऑथxडॉgस सी)रयन चचB मेिडकल कॉलेज,

कोलेनiशेरी, केरल मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध

मG 2014 को या बाद मG, केरल वाSय िव[ान

िव`िवaालय, तृiशूर, केरल ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“माटर ऑफ सजBरी(ओटो)रनोलेtरगोलोजी)”

एमएस(इएनटी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

पुLपािग)र इंिटyूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस एंड )रसचB

सेटर,ितzवला, केरल मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के

संबंध मG 2014 को या बाद मG, केरल वाSय िव[ान

िव`िवaालय, तृiशूर, केरल ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(डम{टॉलोजी, वेनरोलॉजी एंड लेपरोसी)” एम.डी(डीवीएल)”

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

पुLपािग)र इंिटyुट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस एंड )रसचB

सेटर,ितzवला, केरल मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के

संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG, केरल वाSय िव[ान

िव`िवaालय, तृiशूर, केरल ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(फिज़यॉलोजी)”

एम.डी(फिज़यॉलोजी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

कTूर मेिडकल कॉलेज, कTूर, केरल मG -िशिUत कए गए

छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG, केरल वाSय

िव[ान िव`िवaालय, तृiशूर, केरल ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(फामाBकॉलोजी)”

एम.डी(फामाBकॉलोजी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

कTूर मेिडकल कॉलेज, कTूर, केरल मG -िशिUत कए गए

छाP0 के संबंध मG 2014 को या बाद मG, केरल वाSय

िव[ान िव`िवaालय, तृiशूर, केरल ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(बॉयोकेिमbी)”

एम.डी(बॉयोकेिमbी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

कlणा मेिडकल कॉलेज, पाल|ाड, केरल मG -िशिUत

10 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2014 को या बाद मG, केरल

वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, केरल ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(पमोनरी मेिडिसन)”

एम.डी(पमोनरी मेिडिसन)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

एमईएस मेिडकल कॉलेज, पे)रनतलाम}णा, मलापुरम,

केरल मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को

या बाद मG, केरल वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, केरल

,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(बॉयोकेिमbी)”

एम.डी(बॉयोकेिमbी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

एमईएस मेिडकल कॉलेज, पे)रनतलाम}णा, मलापुरम,

केरल मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को

या बाद मG, केरल वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, तृiशूर,

केरल ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(साइकएbी)”

एम.डी(साइकएbी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

एमईएस मेिडकल कॉलेज, पे)रनतलाम}णा, मलापुरम,

केरल मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को

या बाद मG, केरल वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, तृiशूर,

केरल ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(पेिडयॉ)bgस)”

एम.डी(पेिडयॉ)bgस)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

एमईएस मेिडकल कॉलेज, पे)रनतलाम}णा, मलापुरम,

केरल मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को

या बाद मG, केरल वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, तृiशूर,

केरल ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(कIयुिनटी मेिडिसन)”

एम.डी(कIयुिनटी मेिडिसन)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

~ी गोकुलम मेिडकल कॉलेज, bट एंड )रसचB फांउडेशन,

िPवेम, केरल मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG

2015 को या बाद मG, केरल वाSय िव[ान

िव`िवaालय, तृiशूर, केरल ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(माइोरबॉयलोजी)”

एम.डी(माइोरबॉयलोजी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

~ी गोकुलम मेिडकल कॉलेज,bट एंड )रसचB फांउडेशन,

िPवेम, केरल मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG

2015 को या बाद मG, केरल वाSय िव[ान

िव`िवaालय, तृiशूर, केरल ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(पैथॉलोजी)”

एम.डी(पैथॉलोजी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

~ी गोकुलम मेिडकल कॉलेज, bट एंड )रसचB फांउडेशन,

िPवेम, केरल मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG

2014 को या बाद मG, केरल वाSय िव[ान

िव`िवaालय, तृiशूर, केरल ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(साइकएbी)”

एम.डी(साइकएbी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

टी.डी. मेिडकल कॉलेज, आलपुढ़ा, केरल मG -िशिUत कए

गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG, केरल

वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, तृiशूर, केरल ,ारा -द4

होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(फामाBकॉलोजी)”

एम.डी(फामाBकॉलोजी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

टी.डी. मेिडकल कॉलेज, आलपुढ़ा, केरल मG -िशिUत कए

गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG, केरल

वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, तृiशूर, केरल ,ारा -द4

होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(रेिडयोथेरेपी)”

एम.डी(रेिडयोथेरेपी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

रीजनल कसर सेटर, ितzअनंतपुरम केरल मG -िशिUत

कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG, केरल

वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, तृiशूर, केरल ,ारा -द4

होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(साइकएbी)”

एम.डी(साइकएbी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

डॉ.सोमरवेल मेमो)रयल सीएसआई अपताल एंड

मेिडकल कॉलेज, ितzअनंतपुरम केरल मG -िशिUत कए

गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG, केरल

वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, तृiशूर, केरल ,ारा -द4

होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(कIयुिनटी मेिडिसन)”

एम.डी(कIयुिनटी मेिडिसन)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

डॉ.सोमरवेल मेमो)रयल सीएसआई अपताल एंड

मेिडकल कॉलेज, ितzअनंतपुरम केरल मG -िशिUत कए

गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG, केरल

वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, तृiशूर, केरल ,ारा -द4

होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(फिज़यॉलोजी)”

एम.डी(फिज़यॉलोजी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

अकादेमी ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस, पे)रयारम, कTूर, केरल

मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद

मG, केरल वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, तृiशूर, केरल

,ारा -द4 होगी।

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(पेिडयॉ)bgस)”

एम.डी(पेिडयॉ)bgस)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

डॉ.सोमरवेल मेमो)रयल सीएसआई अपताल एंड

मेिडकल कॉलेज, ितzअनंतपुरम केरल मG -िशिUत कए

गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG, केरल

वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, तृiशूर, केरल ,ारा -द4

होगी।)

12 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“माटर ऑफ सजBरी(ओटो)रनोलेtरगोलोजी)”

एम.डी(ईएनटी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

डॉ.सोमरवेल मेमो)रयल सीएसआई अपताल एंड

मेिडकल कॉलेज, ितzअनंतपुरम केरल मG -िशिUत कए

गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG, केरल

वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, तृiशूर, केरल ,ारा -द4

होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(साइकएbी)”

एम.डी(साइकएbी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

आमला इंिटyूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस, तृiशूर, केरल

मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2014 को या बाद

मG, केरल वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, तृiशूर, केरल

,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन/माटर ऑफ सजBरी(ऑ‚सटे)bgस एंड

गॉयनेकॉलोजी)”

एम.डी/एमएस(ओबीसी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

आमला इंिटyूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस, तृiशूर, केरल

मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद

मG, केरल वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, तृiशूर, केरल

,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(पेिडयॉ)bgस)”

एम.डी(पेिडयॉ)bgस)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

जुबली िमशन मेिडकल कॉलेज एंड )रसचB इंिटyूट,

तृiशूर, केरल मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG

2014 को या बाद मG, केरल वाSय िव[ान

िव`िवaालय, तृiशूर, केरल ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(रेिडयो डॉयeोिसस)”

एम.डी(रेिडयो डॉयeोिसस)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

जुबली िमशन मेिडकल कॉलेज एंड )रसचB इंिटyूट,

तृiशूर, केरल मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG

2014 को या बाद मG, केरल वाSय िव[ान

िव`िवaालय, तृiशूर, केरल ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

ख) ‘मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता’ शीषBक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] “अमृता िव` िवaापीठम

िव`िवaालय, कोयंब4ूर” के सामने अंितम -िविn के पfात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे

कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संवंिधत -िविn के संबंध मG िनYिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथाBत्:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(युिgलयर मेिडिसन)”

एम.डी(युिgलयर मेिडिसन)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

अमृता कूल ऑफ मेिडिसन,एIस. कोची, केरल मG

-िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद

मG, अमृता िव` िवaापीठम िव`िवaालय, कोयंब4ूर

,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(टयुबरgयूलोिसस एंड रेपीरेटरी

िडिसिसज/पमोनरी मेिडिसन)”

एम.डी(टीवी

एंड

रेपीरेटरी

िडिसिसज/पमोनरी

मेिडिसन)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

अमृता कूल ऑफ मेिडिसन,एIस. कोची, केरल मG

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

-िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद

मG, अमृता िव` िवaापीठम िव`िवaालय, कोयंब4ूर

,ारा -द4 होगी।)

ग) ‘मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता’शीषBक के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] “महाराƒ वाSय िव[ान

िव`िवaालय, नािसक, महाराƒ” के सामने अंितम -िविn के पfात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(पैथॉलोजी)”

एम.डी(पैथॉलोजी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

प„~ी डॉ. िव…राव िवखे पा)टल फांउडेशन मेिडकल

कॉलेज, अहमदनगर, महाराƒ मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0

के संबंध मG 2014 को या बाद मG, महाराƒ वाSय

िव[ान िव`िवaालय, नािसक, महाराƒ ,ारा -द4

होगी।)

माटर ऑफ सजBरी(ऑpथॉलमॉलोजी)”

एम.एस(ऑpथॉलमॉलोजी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

प„~ी डॉ. िव…राव िवखे पा)टल फांउडेशन मेिडकल

कॉलेज, अहमदनगर, महाराƒ मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0

के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG, महाराƒ वाSय

िव[ान िव`िवaालय, नािसक, महाराƒ ,ारा -द4

होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(बॉयोकेिमbी)”

एम.डी(बॉयोकेिमbी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

~ीमती काशीबाई नावले मेिडकल कॉलेज एंड जनरल

अपताल, पुणे, महाराƒ मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के

संबंध मG 2014 को या बाद मG, महाराƒ वाSय िव[ान

िव`िवaालय, नािसक, महाराƒ ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(फामाBकॉलोजी)”

एम.डी(फामाBकॉलोजी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

गवनBमGट मेिडकल कॉलेज, लातूर, महाराƒ मG -िशिUत

कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG, महाराƒ

वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, नािसक, महाराƒ ,ारा

-द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(पेिडयॉ)bgस)”

एम.डी(पेिडयॉ)bgस)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

गवनBमGट मेिडकल कॉलेज, लातूर, महाराƒ मG -िशिUत

कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2013 को या बाद मG, महाराƒ

वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, नािसक, महाराƒ ,ारा

-द4 होगी।)

“िडkलोमा इन चाइड हैथ”

डीसीएच

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

गवनBमGट मेिडकल कॉलेज, लातूर, महाराƒ मG -िशिUत

कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2013 को या बाद मG, महाराƒ

वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, नािसक, महाराƒ ,ारा

-द4 होगी।)

14 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन/माटर ऑफ सजBरी(ऑpथॉलमॉलोजी)”

एम.डी/एम.एस(ऑpथॉलमॉलोजी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

डॉ.शंकर राव च†हाण गवनBमGट मेिडकल कॉलेज, नांदेड़,

महाराƒ मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2014

को या बाद मG, महाराƒ वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय,

नािसक, महाराƒ ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“िडkलोमा इन ऑpथॉलमॉलोजी)”

डीओ

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

डॉ.शंकर राव च†हाण गवनBमGट मेिडकल कॉलेज, नांदेड़,

महाराƒ मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2014

को या बाद मG, महाराƒ वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय,

नािसक, महाराƒ ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(एनेिथिसयॉलोजी)”

एम.डी (एनेिथिसयॉलोजी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

डॉ.शंकर राव च†हाण गवनBमGट मेिडकल कॉलेज, नांदेड़,

महाराƒ मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2014

को या बाद मG, महाराƒ वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय,

नािसक, महाराƒ ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“िडkलोमा इन एनेिथिसयॉलोजी)”

डीए

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

डॉ.शंकर राव च†हाण गवनBमGट मेिडकल कॉलेज, नांदेड़,

महाराƒ मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2014

को या बाद मG, महाराƒ वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय,

नािसक, महाराƒ ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(फॉरेिसक मेिडिसन)”

एम.डी (फॉरेिसक मेिडिसन)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

बी.जे. मेिडकल कॉलेज, पुणे, महाराƒ मG -िशिUत कए

गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG, महाराƒ

वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, नािसक, महाराƒ ,ारा

-द4 होगी।)

“िडkलोमा इन ऑथxपीिडgस”

डी आथx.

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

बी.जे. मेिडकल कॉलेज, पुणे, महाराƒ मG -िशिUत कए

गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG, महाराƒ

वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, नािसक, महाराƒ ,ारा

-द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(पेिडयॉ)bgस)”

एम.डी(पेिडयॉ)bgस)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

महाराƒ इंिटyूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस एंड )रसचB,

लातूर, महाराƒ मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG

2014 को या बाद मG, महाराƒ वाSय िव[ान

िव`िवaालय, नािसक, महाराƒ ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

“माटर ऑफ सजBरी(जनरल सजBरी)”

एम.एस(जनरल सजBरी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

महाराƒ इंिटyूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस एंड )रसचB,

लातूर, महाराƒ मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG

2014 को या बाद मG, महाराƒ वाSय िव[ान

िव`िवaालय, नािसक, महाराƒ ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(साइकएbी)”

एम.डी(पेिडयॉ)bgस)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

डॉ. पंजाबराव एिलयास भाऊसाहब देशमुख मेमो)रयल

मेिडकल कॉलेज, अमरावती. महाराƒ मG -िशिUत कए

गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2014 को या बाद मG, महाराƒ

वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, नािसक, महाराƒ ,ारा

-द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन/माटर ऑफ सजBरी(ऑ‚सटे)bgस एंड

गॉयनेकॉलोजी)”

एम.डी/एमएस(ओबीजी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

महाराƒ इंिटyूट ऑफ मेिडकल ए5युकेशन, पूणे,

महाराƒ मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015

को या बाद मG, महाराƒ वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय,

नािसक, महाराƒ ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

घ) ‘मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता’शीषBक के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है]] “एमजीएम इंिटyूट ऑफ

हैथ सांइिसस(डीIड िव`िवaालय), नवी मुंबई, महाराƒ” के सामने अंितम -िविn के पfात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए

संिUि>करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संवंिधत -िविn के संबंध मG िनYिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया

जाएगा. अथाBत्:-

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(डम{टॉलोजी, वेनरोलॉजी एंड लेपरोसी)”

एम.डी(डीवीएल)”

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

महा.मा गांधी िमशन मेिडकल कॉलेज, औरंगाबाद,

महाराƒ मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2014

को या बाद मG, एमजीएम इंिटyूट ऑफ हैथ

सांइिसस(डीIड िव`िवaालय), नवी मुंबई, महाराƒ ,ारा

-द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(बॉयोकेिमbी)”

एम.डी(बॉयोकेिमbी)”

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

महा.मा गांधी िमशन मेिडकल कॉलेज, औरंगाबाद,

महाराƒ मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015

को या बाद मG, एमजीएम इंिटyूट ऑफ हैथ

सांइिसस(डीIड िव`िवaालय), नवी मुंबई, महाराƒ ,ारा

-द4 होगी।)

ङ) ‘मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता’शीषBक के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] “होमी भाभा नेशनल

इंिटyूट(डीIड िव`िवaालय), नवी मुंबई, महाराƒ” के सामने अंितम -िविn के पfात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए

जाएगा. अथाBत्:-

16 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(पेिडयॉ)bक ऑनकॉलोजी)”

डी.एम. (पेिडयॉ)bक ऑनकॉलोजी)”

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

टाटा मेमो)रयल अपताल मुंबई, महाराƒ मG -िशिUत

कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG, होमी

भाभा नेशनल इंिटyूट(डीIड िव`िवaालय), मुंबई,

महाराƒ ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(माइोबॉयलोजी)”

एम.डी.( माइोबॉयलोजी)”

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

टाटा मेमो)रयल अपताल मुंबई, महाराƒ मG -िशिUत

कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG, होमी

भाभा नेशनल इंिटyूट(डीIड िव`िवaालय), मुंबई,

महाराƒ ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(यूिgलयर मेिडिसन)”

एम.डी.(यूिgलयर मेिडिसन)”

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

टाटा मेमो)रयल अपताल मुंबई, महाराƒ मG -िशिUत

कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG, होमी

भाभा नेशनल इंिटyूट(डीIड िव`िवaालय), मुंबई,

महाराƒ ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन()टकल मेिडिसन)”

डी.एम.( )टकल मेिडिसन)”

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

टाटा मेमो)रयल अपताल मुंबई, महाराƒ मG -िशिUत

कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG, होमी

भाभा नेशनल इंिटyूट(डीIड िव`िवaालय), मुंबई,

महाराƒ ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(पैिलए)टव मेिडिसन)”

एम.डी.(पैिलए)टव मेिडिसन)”

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

टाटा मेमो)रयल अपताल मुंबई, महाराƒ मG -िशिUत

कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG, होमी

भाभा नेशनल इंिटyूट(डीIड िव`िवaालय), मुंबई,

महाराƒ ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

च) ‘मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता ’शीषBक के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] “भारती िवaापीठ(डीIड

िव`िवaालय), पुणे, महाराƒ” के सामने अंितम -िविn के पfात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(पेिडयॉ)bgस)”

एम.डी.( पेिडयॉ)bgस)”

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

भारती मुंबई, महाराƒ मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के

संबंध मG 2014 को या बाद मG, भारती िवaापीठ(डीIड

िव`िवaालय), पुणे, महाराƒ ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

सभी के िलए नोट

सभी के िलए नोट: 1. ना. को. तर कोसB को दी गई ऐसी मा यता अिधकतम 5 o"kZ के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण

करवाना होगा ।

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

2. उप)रकिथत उप खंड (4) मG यथा-अपेिUत मा यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने मG िवफल रहने पर,

प)रणाम वlप, िनरपवाद lप से, ना. को. तर कोसB मG -वेश बंद हो जाएगा ।

¹la- ;w&12012@672@2015&,ebZ&Iº

Mh- oh- ds- jko] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 27^th November, 2015

S.O. 10.—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 “Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala” under the heading ‘Recognised 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(General Medicine)”

MD(General Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church

Medical College, Kolencherry, Kerala on or after

2014).

“Master of Surgery (Otorhinolaryngology)”

MS(ENT)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at Pushpagiri Institute of Medical

Sciences & Research Centre, Tiruvalla, Kerala on or

after 2014).

“Doctor of Medicine(Dermatology, Venereology

MD(DVL)

& Leprosy”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at Pushpagiri Institute of Medical

Sciences & Research Centre, Tiruvalla, Kerala on or

after 2015.

“Doctor of Medicine(Physiology)”

MD(Physiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at Kannur Medical College, Kannur,

Kerala on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine(Pharmacology)”

MD(Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at Kannur Medical College, Kannur,

Kerala on or after 2014).

18 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Doctor of Medicine(Biochemistry)”

MD(Biochemistry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at Karuna Medical College, Palakkad,

Kerala on or after 2014).

“Doctor of Medicine(Pulmonary Medicine)”

MD(Pulmonary Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being

trained

MES

Medical

College,

Perintalmanna, Malappuram, Kerala on or after

2015).

“Doctor of Medicine(Biochemistry)”

MD(Biochemistry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being

trained

MES

Medical

College,

Perintalmanna, Malappuram, Kerala on or after

2015).

“Doctor of Medicine(Psychiatry)”

MD(Psychiatry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being

trained

MES

Medical

College,

Perintalmanna, Malappuram, Kerala on or after

2015).

“Doctor of Medicine(Paediatrics)”

MD(Paediatrics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being

trained

MES

Medical

College,

Perintalmanna, Malappuram, Kerala on or after

2015).

“Doctor of Medicine(Community Medicine)”

MD(Community Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at Sri Gokulam Medical College Trust

& Research Foundation, Trivandrum, Kerala on or

after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine(Microbiology)”

MD(Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at Sri Gokulam Medical College Trust

& Research Foundation, Trivandrum, Kerala on or

after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine(Pathology)”

MD(Pathology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

being trained at Sri Gokulam Medical College Trust

& Research Foundation, Trivandrum, Kerala on or

after 2014).

“Doctor of Medicine(Psychiatry)”

MD(Psychiatry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at T.D. Medical College, Alappuzha,

Kerala on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine(Pharmacology)”

MD(Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at T.D. Medical College, Alappuzha,

Kerala on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine(Radiotherapy)”

MD(Radiotherapy)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being

trained

Regional

Cancer

Centre,

Thiruananthapuram, Kerala on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine(Psychiatry)”

MD(Psychiatry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at Dr. Somervel Memorial CSI Hospital

& Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala on

or after 2015)

“Doctor of Medicine(Community Medicine)”

MD(Community Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at Dr. Somervel Memorial CSI Hospital

& Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala on

or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine(Community Medicine)”

MD(Community Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at Academy of Medical Sciences,

Pariyaram, Kannur, Kerala on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine(Physiology)”

MD(Physiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at Academy of Medical Sciences,

Pariyaram, Kannur, Kerala on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine(Paediatrics)”

MD(Paediatrics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

20 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

being trained at Dr. Somervel Memorial CSI Hospital

& Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala on

or after 2015).

“Master of Surgery (Otorhinolaryngology)”

MS(ENT)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at Dr. Somervel Memorial CSI Hospital

& Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala on

or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine(Psychiatry)”

MD(Psychiatry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at Amala Institute of Medical Sciences,

Thrissur, Kerala on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery(Obstetrics

MD/MS(OBG)

& Gynaecology)”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at Amala Institute of Medical Sciences,

Thrissur, Kerala on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine(Paediatrics)”

MD(Paediatrics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at Jubilee Mission Medical College &

Research Institute, Thrissur, Kerala on or after 2014).

“Doctor of Medicine(Radio Diagnosis)”

MD(Radio Diagnosis)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at Jubilee Mission Medical College &

Research Institute, Thrissur, Kerala on or after 2014).

against “Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham University, Coimbatore” under the heading ‘Recognised 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(Nuclear Medicine)”

MD(Nuclear Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham

University, Coimbatore in respect of students being

trained at Amrita School of Medicine, AIMS, Kochi,

Kerala on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Tuberculosis & Respiratory

MD(TB & Respiratory Diseases/Pulmonary Medicine)

Diseases/Pulmonary Medicine)”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham

University, Coimbatore in respect of students being

trained at Amrita School of Medicine, AIMS, Kochi,

Kerala on or after 2013).

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

against “Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra” under the heading ‘Recognised

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 (Pathology)”

MD(Pathology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Maharashtra University of Health

Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra in respect of students

being trained at Padmashri Dr. Vithalrao Vikhe Patil

Foundation

Medical

College,

Ahmednagar,

Maharashtra on or after 2014).

“Master of Surgery (Ophthalmology)”

MS(Ophthalmology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Maharashtra University of Health

Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra in respect of students

being trained at Padmashri Dr. Vithalrao Vikhe Patil

Foundation

Medical

College,

Ahmednagar,

Maharashtra on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Biochemistry)”

MD(Biochemistry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Maharashtra University of Health

Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra in respect of students

being trained at Smt. Kashibai Navale Medical

College & General Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra on or

after 2014).

“Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)”

MD(Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Maharashtra University of Health

Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra in respect of students

being trained at Govt. Medical College, Latur,

Maharashtra on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Paediatrics)”

MD(Paediatrics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Maharashtra University of Health

Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra in respect of students

being trained at Govt. Medical College, Latur,

Maharashtra on or after 2013).

“Diploma in Child Health”

DCH

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Maharashtra University of Health

Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra in respect of students

being trained at Govt. Medical College, Latur,

Maharashtra on or after 2013).

“Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery

MD/MS(Ophthalmology)

(Ophthalmology)”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Maharashtra University of Health

Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra in respect of students

being trained at Dr. Shankar Rao Chavan Govt.

Medical College, Nanded, Maharashtra on or after

2014).

22 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Diploma in Ophthalmology”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Maharashtra University of Health

Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra in respect of students

being trained at Dr. Shankar Rao Chavan Govt.

Medical College, Nanded, Maharashtra on or after

2014).

“Doctor of Medicine (Anaesthesiology)”

MD(Anaesthesiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Maharashtra University of Health

Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra in respect of students

being trained at Dr. Shankar Rao Chavan Govt.

Medical College, Nanded, Maharashtra on or after

2014).

“Diploma in Anaesthesiology”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Maharashtra University of Health

Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra in respect of students

being trained at Dr. Shankar Rao Chavan Govt.

Medical College, Nanded, Maharashtra on or after

2014).

“Doctor of Medicine (Forensic Medicine)”

MD(Forensic Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Maharashtra University of Health

Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra in respect of students

being trained at B.J. Medical College, Pune,

Maharashtra on or after 2015).

“Diploma in Orthopaedics”

D. Ortho.

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Maharashtra University of Health

Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra in respect of students

being trained at B.J. Medical College, Pune,

Maharashtra on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Paediatrics)”

MD(Paediatrics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Maharashtra University of Health

Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra in respect of students

being trained at Maharashtra Institute of Medical

Sciences & Research, Latur, Maharashtra on or after

2014).

“Master of Surgery (General Surgery)”

MS(General Surgery)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Maharashtra University of Health

Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra in respect of students

being trained at Maharashtra Institute of Medical

Sciences & Research, Latur, Maharashtra on or after

2014).

“Doctor of Medicine (Psychiatry)”

MD(Psychiatry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Maharashtra University of Health

Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra in respect of students

being trained at Dr. Panjabrao Alias Bhausaheb

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

Deshmukh Memorial Medical College, Amravati,

Maharashtra on or after 2014).

“Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery (Obstetrics

MD/MS(OBG)

& Gynaecology)”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Maharashtra University of Health

Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra in respect of students

being trained at Maharashtra Institute of Medical

Education & Research, Pune, Maharashtra on or after

2015).

against “MGM Institute of Health Sciences(Deemed University), Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra” under the

heading ‘Recognised 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(Dermatology, Venereology

MD(DVL)

& Leprosy”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by MGM Institute of Health

Sciences(Deemed

University),

Navi

Mumbai,

Maharashtra in respect of students being trained at

Mahatma

Gandhi

Mission’s

Medical

College,

Aurangabad, Maharashtra on or after 2014).

“Doctor of Medicine (Biochemistry)

MD(Biochemistry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by MGM Institute of Health

Sciences(Deemed

University),

Navi

Mumbai,

Maharashtra in respect of students being trained at

Mahatma

Gandhi

Mission’s

Medical

College,

Aurangabad, Maharashtra on or after 2015).

against “Homi Bhabha National Institute (Deemed University), Mumbai, Maharashtra” under the heading

‘Recognised 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 (Paediatric Oncology)”

DM(Paediatric Oncology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Homi Bhabha National Institute

(Deemed University), Mumbai, Maharashtra in

respect of students being trained at Tata Memorial

Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)”

MD(Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Homi Bhabha National Institute

(Deemed University), Mumbai, Maharashtra in

respect of students being trained at Tata Memorial

Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Nuclear Medicine)”

MD(Nuclear Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Homi Bhabha National Institute

(Deemed University), Mumbai, Maharashtra in

respect of students being trained at Tata Memorial

Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra on or after 2015).

24 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Doctor of Medicine (Critical Medicine)”

DM(Critical Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Homi Bhabha National Institute

(Deemed University), Mumbai, Maharashtra in

respect of students being trained at Tata Memorial

Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Palliative Medicine)”

MD(Palliative Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Homi Bhabha National Institute

(Deemed University), Mumbai, Maharashtra in

respect of students being trained at Tata Memorial

Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra on or after 2015).

against “Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed University), Pune, Maharashtra” under the heading ‘Recognised

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 (Paediatrics)”

MD(Paediatrics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed

University), Pune, Maharashtra in respect of students

being trained at Bharati, Mumbai, Maharashtra on or

after 2014).

Note to all : 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. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub-clause-4 shall invariably result in

stoppage of admissions to the concerned Postgraduate Course.

[No.U.12012/672/2015-ME-I]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 11-—भारतीय आयुcव[ान प)रषद अिधिनयम 1956 (1956 का 102) क( धारा 11 क( उप धारा (2) ,ारा -द. त

िनI निलिखत संशोधन करती है अथाBत:-

उg त -थम अनुसूची मG “िहमाचल -देश िव`िवaालय, िहमाचल -देश” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे

कालम (2) के lप मG संदcभत है] शीषB मG अितम -िविn के पi चात और “पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>” [आगे कालम (3) के lप मG संदcभत

है] शीषB के अधीन िनI निलिखत अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

“िडkलोमा इन ओkथेलमोलोजी"

डीओ

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2007 को

अथवा उसके पi चात इंदरा गांधी मेिडकल कालेज, िशमला मG

-वेश पाए छाP0 के संदभB मG िहमाचल -देश िव`िवaालय,

िहमाचल -देश ,ारा -द. त हो)

“िडkलोमा इन ओkथेलिमक मेिडिसन एंड सजBरी”

डीओएमएस

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2007 को

अथवा उसके पi चात इंदरा गांधी मेिडकल कालेज, िशमला मG

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

-वेश पाए छाP0 के संदभB मG िहमाचल -देश िव`िवaालय,

िहमाचल -देश ,ारा -द. त हो)

[सं. यू. 12012/218/2015-एमई.1 पाटB ]

डी. वी. के. राव, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2015

S.O. 11.—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 “Himachal Pradesh University, Himachal 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)

“Diploma in Ophthalmology”

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by Himachal Pradesh University,

Himachal Pradesh in respect of students being

Admitted at Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla

upto the academic session 2007).

Diploma in Ophthalmic Medicine and Surgery

DOMS

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by Himachal Pradesh University,

Himachal Pradesh in respect of students being

Admitted at Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla

upto the academic session 2007).

[No. U-12012/218/2015-ME.I pt]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 15 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 12-—भारतीय आयुcव[ान प)रषद अिधिनयम 1956 (1956 का 102) क( धारा 11 क( उप धारा (2) ,ारा -द. त

शि/य0 का -योग करते 3ए कG सरकार, भारतीय आयुcव[ान प)रषद से परामशB करके उg त अिधिनयम क( -थम अनुसूची मG

िनI निलिखत और संशोधन करती है अथाBत:-

उg त -थम अनुसूची मG

ग) ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ शीषBक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] “राज थान िवi विवaालय, जयपुर,

राज थान” के सामने अंितम -िविn के पi चात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से

संबंिधत -िविn के संबंध मG िनI निलिखत अंत: थािपत कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

डॉ. ऑफ मेिडिसन ( कIयुिनटी मेिडिसन)

एमडी(कIयुिनटी मेिडिसन)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

एस.पी. मेिडकल कॉलेज, बीकानेर, राजथान मG -िशिUत

कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 1978 को या बाद मG,

राजथान िव`िवaालय, जयपुर, राजथान ,ारा -द4

होगी।

सभी के िलए नोट

सभी के िलए नोट: 1. अधो नातक कोसB को दी गई ऐसी मा यता अिधकतम 5 o"kZ के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण

करवाना होगा ।

26 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. अपेिUत मा यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने मG िवफल रहने पर, प)रणाम वlप, िनरपवाद lप से,

संबंिधत अधो नातक कोसB मG -वेश बंद हो जाएगा ।

¹la- ;w&12012@576@2015&,ebZ&Iº

Mh- oh- ds- jko] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 15th March, 2016

S.O. 12.—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 “Rajasthan University, Jaipur, Rajasthan” under the heading ‘Recognised 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 (Community Medicine)”

MD (Community Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Rajasthan University, Jaipur Rajasthan in

respect of students being trained at S.P. Medical

College, Bikaner, Rajasthan on or after 1978.

Note to all: 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. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub-clause-4 shall invariably result in

stoppage of admissions to the concerned Postgraduate Course.

[No. U.12012/576/2015-ME-I]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 13-—भारतीय आयुcव[ान प)रषद अिधिनयम 1956 (1956 का 102) क( धारा 11 क( उप धारा (2) ,ारा -द. त

िनI निलिखत संशोधन करती है अथाBत:-

उg त -थम अनुसूची मG “एच आई एच टी िवi विवaालय, देहरादून” से पूवB “वामी राम िहमालय िवi विवaालय, देहरादून”

क( -िविn क( जाएगी और “वामी राम िहमालय िवi विवaालय, देहरादून” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम

(2) के lप मG संदcभत है] शीषB मG अितम -िविn के पi चात और “पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>” [आगे कालम (3) के lप मG संदcभत है]

शीषB के अधीन िनI निलिखत अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

“िडkलोमा इन एिनिथिसया”

डीए

“िडkलोमा इन चाईड हैथ”

डीसीएच

“िडkलोमा इन कलीिनकल पैथॉलोजी”

डीसीपी

“िडkलोमा इन ऑ‚सbे)टgस एंड गायनेकॉलोजी”

डीजीओ

“िडkलोमा इन ऑथxपीिडgस”

डी ऑथx

“िडk लोमा इन मेिडकल रेिडयो डॉयŠ नोिसस”

डी एम आर डी

“डॉg टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (एने थेिसयॉलोजी)”

एमडी (एने थेिसयॉलोजी)

“डॉg टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (बायोकेिम bी)”

एमडी (बायोकेिम bी)

“डॉg टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (जनरल मेिडिसन)”

एमडी (जनरल मेिडिसन)

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

“डॉg टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (माइोबायोलॉजी)”

एमडी (माइोबायोलॉजी)

“डॉg टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (पेिडए)bg स)”

एमडी (पेिडयए)bg स)

“डॉg टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (पैथॉलोजी)”

एमडी (पैथॉलोजी)

“डॉg टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (फारमाकोलॉजी)”

एमडी (फरमाकोलॉली)

“डॉg टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (फिजयॉलोजी)”

एमडी (फिजयॉलोजी)

“डॉg टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (रेिडयो डॉयŠ नोिसस/रेिडयोलॉजी)”

एमडी (रेिडयोडायŠ नोिसस/रेिडयोलॉजी)

“डॉg टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (सोशल ए} ड -ीवG)टव मेिडिसन/कI युिनटी मेिडिसन)”

एमडी(एस पी एम/ कI युिनटी मेिडिसन)

“डॉg टर ऑफ मेिडिसन/मा टर ऑफ सजBरी (एनाटॉमी)”

एमडी/एमएस (एनाटॉमी)

“डॉg टर ऑफ मेिडिसन/मा टर ऑफ सजBरी (ऑ‚ सbे)टg स ए} ड गायनेकॉलोजी)”

एमडी/ एमएस(ओबीजी)

“डॉक् टर ऑफ मेिडिसन/मा टर ऑफ सजBरी (ऑk थै मॉलोजी)”

एमडी/एमएस(ऑk था मॉलोजी)

“मा टर ऑफ सजBरी (इएनटी)”

एमएस(इएनटी)

“मा टर ऑफ सजBरी(जनरल सजBरी)”

एमएस(जनरल सजBरी)

“मा टर ऑफ सजBरी(ऑथxपेिडg स)

एमएस (ऑथxपेिडg स)

ये मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता ह0गी जब ये जून, 2014 को अथवा उसके पi चात वामी रामा िहमालयन इंिटyूट ऑफ मेिडकल

सांइिसस, देहरादून मG -वेश पाने वाले छाP0 के संदभB मG “वामी रामा िवi विवaालय, देहरादून” ,ारा -द. त हो।

नोट

नोट:

1. ना. को. तर कोसB को दी गई ऐसी मा यता अिधकतम 5 o"kZ के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा ।

2. मा यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क( -या वही होगी जो मा यता -दान करने के िलए लागू होती है ।

3. समय से यथा-अपेिUत मा यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने मG िवफल रहने पर, प)रणामत, िनरपवाद lप से, संबंिधत

ना. को. तर कोसB मG -वेश बंद हो जाएगा ।

[सं. यू. 12012/84/2012-एमई.1 पाटB ]

डी. वी. के. राव, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 29th March, 2016

S.O. 13.— 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,due to change in name of affiliating University

namely:-

In the said First Schedule before “HIHT University,Dehradun” and entries thereto “Swami Rama Himalaya

University, Dehradun” shall be added and against “Swami Rama Himalaya University, Dehradun” 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)

(“Diploma in Anaesthesia”

D.A.

“Diploma in Child Health”

D.C.H.

“Diploma in Clinical Pathology”

D.C.P.

“Diploma in Obstretics & Gynaecology”

D.G.O.

“Diploma in Orthopaedics”

D.Ortho.

“Diploma in Medical Radio Diagnosis”

D.M.R.D.

“Doctor of Medicine(Anaesthesiology)”

MD(Anaesthesiology)

“Doctor of Medicine(Biochemistry)”

MD(Biochemistry)

“Doctor of Medicine(General Medicine)”

MD(General Medicine)

“Doctor of Medicine(Microbiology)”

MD(Microbiology)

28 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Doctor of Medicine(Paediatrics)”

MD(Paediatrics)

“Doctor of Medicine(Pathology)”

MD(Pathology)

“Doctor of Medicine(Pharmacology)”

MD(Pharmacology)

“Doctor of Medicine(Physiology)”

MD(Physiology)

“Doctor of Medicine(Radio diagnosis/Radiology)”

MD(Radiodiagnosis/Radiology)

“Doctor of Medicine(Social &Preventine Medicine/

MD(S.P.M./Community Medicine)

Community Medicine)”

“Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery(Anatomy)”

MD/MS(Anatomy)

“Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery(Obstretics

MD/MS(OBG)

& Gynaecology)”

“Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery(Opthalmology)”

MD/MS(Ophthalmology)

“Master of Surgery(ENT)”

MS(ENT)

“Master of Surgery(General Surgery)”

MS(General Surgery)

“Master of Surgery(Orthopaedics)”

MS(Orthopaedics)

These shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by “Swami Rama Himalaya University,

Dehradun” in respect of students being trained at Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences,Dehradun on or after June

2014).

Note:

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.

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

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

admissions to the concerned Postgraduate Course.

[No. U.12012/84/2012-ME.I pt]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 14-—भारतीय आयुcव[ान प)रषद अिधिनयम 1956 (1956 का 102) क( धारा 11 क( उप धारा (2) ,ारा -द. त

िनI निलिखत संशोधन करती है अथाBत:-

उg त अनुसूची मG -

(क) “केरल वा S य िव[ान िवi विवaालय, िPशूर, केरल” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम (2) के lप मG

संदcभत है] शीषB मG अितम -िविn के पi चात और “पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>” [आगे कालम (3) के lप मG संदcभत है] शीषB के अधीन

िनI निलिखत अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (एनेथीिसया)”

“एमडी (एनेथीिसओलोजी)”

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात मलंकारा ओथxडॉgस सी)रयन चचB

मेिडकल कालेज, कोलGचेरी मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG केरल

वा S य िव[ान िवi विवaालय, िPशूर, केरल ,ारा -द. त हो)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (पेिडए)bक Nकोलोजी)”

“एमडी (पेिडए)bक Nकोलोजी)”

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात UेPीय कसर कG, ितlअनंतपुरम मG

-िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG केरल

वा S य िव[ान

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

िवi विवaालय, िPशूर, केरल ,ारा -द. त हो)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (पैथोलॉजी)”

“एमडी (पैथोलॉजी)”

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात कTौर मेिडकल कालेज, कTौर, केरल मG

-िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG केरल

वा S य िव[ान

िवi विवaालय, िPशूर, केरल ,ारा -द. त हो)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (पेिडए)bgस)”

“एमडी (पेिडए)bgस)”

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2014 को

अथवा उसके अमला आयुcव[ान संथान, िPशूर , केरल मG

-िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG केरल

वाSय िव[ान

िवi विवaालय, िPशूर, केरल ,ारा -द. त हो)

“माटर ऑफ सजBरी (ईएनटी)”

“एमएस (ईएनटी)”

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात टीडी मेिडकल कॉलेज, अलापुजा, केरल मG

-िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG केरल

वा S य िव[ान

िवi विवaालय, िPशूर, केरल ,ारा -द. त हो)

“िडkलोमा इन लाइtरगोलोजी एंड ओटोलोजी”

डीएलओ

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात टीडी मेिडकल कॉलेज, अलापुजा, केरल मG

-िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG केरल

वा S य िव[ान

िवi विवaालय, िPशूर, केरल ,ारा -द. त हो)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (पैथोलॉजी)”

“एमडी (पैथोलॉजी)”

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात आयुcव[ान अकादमी, प)रयारम, कTौर,

केरल मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG केरल वा S य िव[ान

िवi विवaालय, िPशूर, केरल ,ारा -द. त हो)

“माटर ऑफ सजBरी (जनरल सजBरी)”

“एमएस (जनरल सजBरी)”

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2014 को

अथवा उसके पi चात मलंकारा ओथxडॉgस सी)रयन चचB

मेिडकल कालेज, कोलGचेरी मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG केरल

वा S य िव[ान िवi विवaालय, िPशूर, केरल ,ारा -द. त हो)

“िडkलोमा इन ओkथेलमोलोजी ”

डीएमआरडी

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2014 को

अथवा उसके पi चात पुLपिगरी आयुcव[ान और अनुसंधान

संथान कG, ितzवला, केरल मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG केरल

वा S य िव[ान िवi विवaालय, िPशूर, केरल ,ारा -द. त हो)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (कIयूिनटी मेिडिसन)”

“एमडी (कIयूिनटी मेिडिसन)”

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2014 को

अथवा उसके पi चात अमला आयुcव[ान संथान, कोलGचेरी,

केरल मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG केरल वा S य िव[ान

30 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

िवi विवaालय, िPशूर, केरल ,ारा -द. त हो)

(ख) “राजीव गांधी वा S य िव[ान िवi विवaालय, बंगलौर, कनाBटक” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम (2) के

lप मG संदcभत है] शीषB मG अितम -िविn के पi चात और “पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>” [आगे कालम (3) के lप मG संदcभत है] शीषB के

अधीन िनI निलिखत अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (डीवीएल)”

“एमडी (डीवीएल)”

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात एस. िनजvलगkपा मेिडकल कालेज और

एचएसके अपताल और अनुसंधान कG, बगलकोट, कनाBटक मG

-िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG राजीव गांधी वा S य िव[ान

िवi विवaालय, बंगलौर, कनाBटक ,ारा -द. त हो)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (डीवीएल)”

“एमडी (डीवीएल)”

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात एस.एस. आयुcव[ान संथान और

अनुसंधान कG, देवांिगरी, कनाBटक मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG

राजीव गांधी वा S य िव[ान िवi विवaालय, बंगलौर, कनाBटक

,ारा -द. त हो)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (बायोकेिमbी)”

“एमडी (बायोकेिमbी)”

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात एस.एस. आयुcव[ान संथान और

अनुसंधान कG, देवांिगरी, कनाBटक मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG

राजीव गांधी वा S य िव[ान िवi विवaालय, बंगलौर, कनाBटक

,ारा -द. त हो)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (पैथोलॉजी)”

“एमडी (पैथोलॉजी)”

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात एस.एस. आयुcव[ान संथान और

अनुसंधान कG, देवांिगरी, कनाBटक मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG

राजीव गांधी वा S य िव[ान िव`िवaालय, बंगलौर, कनाBटक

,ारा -द. त हो)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (फोरGिसक मेिडिसन)”

“एमडी (फोरGिसक मेिडिसन)”

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात रायचूर आयुcव[ान संथान, रायचूर,

कनाBटक मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG राजीव गांधी वा S य

िव[ान िवi विवaालय, बंगलौर, कनाBटक ,ारा -द. त हो)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (ने‹ोलॉजी)”

“एमडी (ने‹ोलॉजी)”

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2014 को

अथवा उसके पi चात एम.एस. रमैया मेिडकल कॉलेज, बंगलौर,

कनाBटक मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG राजीव गांधी वा S य

िव[ान िवi विवaालय, बंगलौर, कनाBटक ,ारा -द. त हो)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (फिजओलॉजी)”

“एमडी (फिजयोलॉजी)”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचकत् सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात बीदर आयुcव[ान संथान, बीदर, कनाBटक

मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG राजीव गांधी वा S य िव[ान

िवi विवaालय, बंगलौर, कनाBटक ,ारा -द. त हो)

(ग) “महाराƒ वा S य िव[ान िवi विवaालय, नािसक, महाराƒ” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम (2) के lप मG

िनI निलिखत अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (डीवीएल/िकन और वीडी)”

“एमडी (डीवीएल/िकन और वीडी)”

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2013 को

अथवा उसके पi चात सरकारी मेिडकल कालेज, नागपुर, महाराƒ

मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG महाराƒ वा S य िव[ान

िवi विवaालय, नािसक, महाराƒ ,ारा -द. त हो)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (माइोबायोलॉजी )”

“एमडी (माइोबायोलॉजी)”

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2013 को

अथवा उसके पi चात सरकारी मेिडकल कालेज, लातूर, महाराƒ

मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG महाराƒ वा S य िव[ान

िवi विवaालय, नािसक, महाराƒ ,ारा -द. त हो)

(घ) “पिfम बंगाल वा S य िव[ान िवi विवaालय, कोलकाता, पिfम बंगाल” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम

शीषB के अधीन िनI निलिखत अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (बायोकेिमbी)”

“एमडी (बायोकेिमbी)”

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2016 को

अथवा उसके पi चात नीलरतन सरकार मेिडकल कालेज,

कोलकाता, पिfम बंगाल मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG पिfम

बंगाल वा S य िव[ान िवi विवaालय, कोलकाता, पिfम

बंगाल ,ारा -द. त हो)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (फामाBकोलोजी)”

“एमडी (फामाBकोलोजी)”

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2014 को

अथवा उसके पi चात मेिडकल कालेज, कोलकाता, पिfम बंगाल

मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG पिfम बंगाल वा S य िव[ान

िवi विवaालय, कोलकाता, पिfम बंगाल ,ारा -द. त हो)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (काcडयोलोजी)”

“डीएम (काcडयोलोजी)”

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात बदBवान मेिडकल कालेज, बदBवान, पिfम

बंगाल मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG पिfम बंगाल वा S य

िव[ान िवi विवaालय, कोलकाता, पिfम बंगाल ,ारा -द. त हो)

32 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(ङ) “चेŒीनाद अनुसंधान और िशUा अकादमी (मानद िवi विवaालय), कांचीपुरम, तिमलनाडु” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान

अहBता’ [आगे कालम (2) के lप मG संदcभत है] शीषB मG अितम -िविn के पi चात और “पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>” [आगे कालम (3) के

lप मG संदcभत है] शीषB के अधीन िनI निलिखत अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (एनाटोमी)”

“एमडी/एमएस (एनाटोमी)”

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2014 को

अथवा उसके पi चात चेŒीनाद अपताल और अनुसंधान संथान,

कांचीपुरम, तिमलनाडु मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG चेŒीनाद

अनुसंधान और िशUा अकादमी (मानद िवi विवaालय),

कांचीपुरम, तिमलनाडु ,ारा -द. त हो)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (डीवीएल)”

“एमडी (डीवीएल)”

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2014 को

अथवा उसके पi चात चेŒीनाद अपताल और अनुसंधान संथान,

कांचीपुरम, तिमलनाडु मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG चेŒीनाद

अनुसंधान और िशUा अकादमी (मानद िवi विवaालय),

कांचीपुरम, तिमलनाडु ,ारा -द. त हो)

(च) “पांिडचेरी िव`िवaालय, पुदुेरी” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम (2) के lप मG संदcभत है] शीषB मG

अितम -िविn के पi चात और “पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>” [आगे कालम (3) के lप मG संदcभत है] शीषB के अधीन िनI निलिखत

अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (फामाBकॉलोजी)”

एमडी(फामाBकॉलोजी)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात ~ी वGकटे`र मेिडकल कॉलेज, अपताल

एवं अनुसंधान के, पांिडचेरी मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG

पांिडचेरी िव`िवaालय, पुदुेरी ,ारा -द. त हो)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (फिज़योलॉजी)”

एमडी(फिज़योलॉजी)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात ~ी वGकटे`र मेिडकल कॉलेज, अपताल

एवं अनुसंधान के, पांिडचेरी मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG

पांिडचेरी िव`िवaालय, पुदुेरी ,ारा -द. त हो)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (माइोबायोलॉजी)”

एमडी(माइोबायोलॉजी)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात ~ी वGकटे`र मेिडकल कॉलेज, अपताल

एवं अनुसंधान के, पांिडचेरी मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG

पांिडचेरी िव`िवaालय, पुदुेरी ,ारा -द. त हो)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (एनाटोमी)”

एमडी(एनाटोमी)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात ~ी वGकटे`र मेिडकल कॉलेज, अपताल

एवं अनुसंधान के, पांिडचेरी मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG

पांिडचेरी िव`िवaालय, पुदुेरी ,ारा -द. त हो)

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (बायोकैिमbी)”

एमडी(बायोकैिमbी)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात ~ी वGकटे`र मेिडकल कॉलेज, अपताल

एवं अनुसंधान के, पांिडचेरी मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG

पांिडचेरी िव`िवaालय, पुदुेरी ,ारा -द. त हो)

(छ) “डॉ. एनटीआर वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, िवजयवाड़ा, आंŽ -देश” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम

शीषB के अधीन िनI निलिखत अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (डीवीएल)”

एमडी(डीवीएल)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2014 को

अथवा उसके पi चात कतूरी मेिडकल कॉलेज, गुंटूर, आंŽ -देश मG

-िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG डॉ. एनटीआर वाSय िव[ान

िव`िवaालय, िवजयवाड़ा, आंŽ -देश ,ारा -द. त हो)

“माटर ऑफ सजBरी (ओkथेमॉलोजी)”

एमएस(ओkथेमॉलोजी)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2013 को

अथवा उसके पi चात कतूरी मेिडकल कॉलेज, गुंटूर, आंŽ -देश मG

-िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG डॉ. एनटीआर वाSय िव[ान

िव`िवaालय, िवजयवाड़ा, आंŽ -देश ,ारा -द. त हो)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (एनेथीिसया)”

एमडी(एनेथीिसया)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2012 को

अथवा उसके पi चात कतूरी मेिडकल कॉलेज, गुंटूर, आंŽ -देश मG

-िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG डॉ. एनटीआर वाSय िव[ान

िव`िवaालय, िवजयवाड़ा, आंŽ -देश ,ारा -द. त हो)

“िडkलोमा इन एनेथीिसया”

डीए

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2012 को

अथवा उसके पi चात कतूरी मेिडकल कॉलेज, गुंटूर, आंŽ -देश मG

-िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG डॉ. एनटीआर वाSय िव[ान

िव`िवaालय, िवजयवाड़ा, आंŽ -देश ,ारा -द. त हो)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (रेिडयो डायeोिसस)”

एमडी(रेिडयो डायeोिसस)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात डॉ. िपTIमानेनी िसJाथB इंटीyूट ऑफ

मेिडकल साइंिसस एंड )रसचB फाउंडेशन, िचTाउटपली, आंŽ

-देश मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG डॉ. एनटीआर वाSय

िव[ान िव`िवaालय, िवजयवाड़ा, आंŽ -देश ,ारा -द. त हो)

“माटर ऑफ सजBरी (ओkथेमॉलोजी)”

एमएस(ओkथेमॉलोजी)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात डॉ. िपTIमानेनी िसJाथB इंटीyूट ऑफ

मेिडकल साइंिसस एंड )रसचB फाउंडेशन, िचTाउटपली, आंŽ

-देश मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG डॉ. एनटीआर वाSय

िव[ान िव`िवaालय िवजयवाड़ा, आंŽ -देश ,ारा -द. त हो)

34 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“डॉgटर ऑफ ऑिटयोपैथी”

डीओ

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात डॉ. िपTIमानेनी िसJाथB इंटीyूट ऑफ

मेिडकल साइंिसस एंड )रसचB फाउंडेशन, िचTाउटपली, आंŽ

-देश मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG डॉ. एनटीआर वाSय

िव[ान िव`िवaालय िवजयवाड़ा, आंŽ -देश ,ारा -द. त हो)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (एनेथीिसयोलोजी)”

एमडी (एनेथीिसयोलोजी)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात सांथीराम मेिडकल कॉलेज, नांदयाल, आंŽ

-देश मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG डॉ. एनटीआर वाSय

िव[ान िव`िवaालय िवजयवाड़ा, आंŽ -देश ,ारा -द. त हो)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (माइोबायोलोजी)”

एमडी (माइोबायोलोजी)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात सांथीराम मेिडकल कॉलेज, नंदयाल, आंŽ

-देश मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG डॉ. एनटीआर वाSय

िव[ान िव`िवaालय िवजयवाड़ा, आंŽ -देश ,ारा -द. त हो)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (डीवीएल)”

एमडी (डीवीएल)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात कोनासीमा इंटीyूट ऑफ मेिडकल

साइंिसस एंड )रसचB फाउंडेशन, अमलापुरम, आंŽ -देश मG

-िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG डॉ. एनटीआर वाSय िव[ान

िव`िवaालय िवजयवाड़ा, आंŽ -देश ,ारा -द. त हो)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (माइोबायोलोजी)”

एमडी (माइोबायोलोजी)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2014 को

अथवा उसके पi चात शडन इंटीyूट ऑफ मेिडकल साइंिसस,

हैदराबाद मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG डॉ. एनटीआर वाSय

िव[ान िव`िवaालय िवजयवाड़ा, आंŽ -देश ,ारा -द. त हो)

“मिजbार चीlरजी (यूरोसजBरी)”

एमसीएच (यूरोसजBरी)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात ममता मेिडकल कॉलेज, खIमम, आंŽ -देश

मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG डॉ. एनटीआर वाSय िव[ान

िव`िवaालय िवजयवाड़ा, आंŽ -देश ,ारा -द. त हो)

(ज) “द तिमलनाडु डॉ. एमजीआर िचक.सा िव`िवaालय, चेTै, तिमलनाडु” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम

शीषB के अधीन िनI निलिखत अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (bांसpयूज़न मेिडिसन)”

एमडी(bांसpयूज़न मेिडिसन)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात िfयन मेिडकल कॉलेज, वेलूर,

तिमलनाडु मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG डॉ. एमजीआर

िचक.सा िव`िवaालय, चेTै, तिमलनाडु ,ारा -द. त हो)

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन ()रयूमेटोलोजी)”

एमडी ()रयूमेटोलोजी)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2014 को

अथवा उसके पi चात िfयन मेिडकल कॉलेज, वेलूर,

तिमलनाडु मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG डॉ. एमजीआर

िचक.सा िव`िवaालय, चेTै, तिमलनाडु ,ारा -द. त हो)

“मिजbार चीlरजी (वकुलर सजBरी)”

एम.सीएच (वकुलर सजBरी)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2014 को

अथवा उसके पi चात िfयन मेिडकल कॉलेज, वेलूर,

तिमलनाडु मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG डॉ. एमजीआर

िचक.सा िव`िवaालय, चेTै, तिमलनाडु ,ारा -द. त हो)

झ) “डॉ. राम मनोहर लोिहया अवध िव`िवaालय, फैजाबाद, उ4र -देश” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम (2)

के lप मG संदcभत है] शीषB मG अितम -िविn के पi चात और “पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>” [आगे कालम (3) के lप मG संदcभत है] शीषB के

अधीन िनI निलिखत अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (एनाटोमी)”

एमडी(एनाटोमी)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात इरा’ज़ लखनऊ मेिडकल कॉलेज, उ4र

-देश मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG डॉ. राम मनोहर लोिहया

अवध िव`िवaालय, फैजाबाद, उ4र -देश ,ारा -द. त हो)

ण) “सुमनदीप िवaापीठ, वडोदरा, गुजरात” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम (2) के lप मG संदcभत है] शीषB मG

अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

“िडkलोमा इन लैtरगोलोजी एंड ओटोलोजी”

डीएलओ

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात ~ीमती बी.के.शाह िचक.सा संथान एवं

अनुसंधान के, वडोदरा, गुजरात मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG

सुमनदीप िवaापीठ, वडोदरा, गुजरात ,ारा -द. त हो)

त) “एमजेपी रोिहलखंड िव`िवaालय, बरेली, उ4र -देश” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम (2) के lप मG

िनI निलिखत अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (िकन एंड वेनेरल िडसीिसज़)”

एमडी(िकन एंड वीडी)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात रोिहलखंड मेिडकल कॉलेज एवं अपताल,

बरेली, उ4र -देश मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG एमजेपी

रोिहलखंड िव`िवaालय, बरेली, उ4र -देश ,ारा -द. त हो)

36 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

थ) “नॉथB-ईटनB िहल िव`िवaालय, मेघालय” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम (2) के lप मG संदcभत है] शीषB

मG अितम -िविn के पi चात और “पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>” [आगे कालम (3) के lप मG संदcभत है] शीषB के अधीन िनI निलिखत

अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (काcडयोलोजी)”

डीएम(काcडयोलोजी)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात नॉथB-ईटनB इंदरा गांधी रीज़नल इंटीyूट

ऑफ हेथ एंड मेिडकल साइंिसस, िशलांग, मेघालय मG -िशिUत

छाP0 के संदभB मG नॉथB-ईटनB िहल िव`िवaालय, मेघालय ,ारा

-द. त हो)

द) “~ीमंत शंकरदेव वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, गुवाहाटी, असम” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम (2) के

अधीन िनI निलिखत अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (माइोबायोलोजी)”

एमडी (माइोबायोलोजी)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात िसलचर मेिडकल कॉलेज, िसलचर, असम

मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG ~ीमंत शंकरदेव वाSय िव[ान

िव`िवaालय, गुवाहाटी, असम ,ारा -द. त हो)

ध) “चौ. चरण vसह िव`िवaालय, मेरठ, उ4र -देश” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम (2) के lप मG संदcभत

िनI निलिखत अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (फामाBकोलोजी)”

एमडी (फामाBकोलोजी)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा

उसके

पi चात

मुजpफरनगर

मेिडकल

कॉलेज,

मुजpफरनगर, उ.-. मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG चौ. चरण

vसह िव`िवaालय, मेरठ, उ4र -देश ,ारा -द. त हो)

न) “गुz गोिबद vसह इं-थ िव`िवaालय, नई दली” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम (2) के lप मG

िनI निलिखत अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

“मिजbार चीlरजी (यूरोलोजी)”

एम.सीएच (यूरोलोजी)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात ातको4र िचक.सा िशUा एवं अनुसंधान

संथान, डॉ. आरएमएल अपताल, नई दली मG -िशिUत

छाP0 के संदभB मG गुz गोिबद vसह इं-थ िव`िवaालय, नई

दली ,ारा -द. त हो)

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

प) “मीनाUी िव`िवaालय, चेTै, तिमलनाडु” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम (2) के lप मG संदcभत है] शीषB

अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

“मिजbार चीlरजी (यूरोलोजी)”

एम.सीएच (यूरोलोजी)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2014 को

अथवा उसके पi चात मीनाUी मेिडकल कॉलेज एवं अनुसंधान

संथान, एनाथुर, तिमलनाडु मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG

मीनाUी िव`िवaालय, चेTै, तिमलनाडु ,ारा -द. त हो)

फ) “द4ा मेघे िचक.सा िव[ान संथान (डीIड िव`िवaालय), नागपुर, महाराƒ” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे

है] शीषB के अधीन िनI निलिखत अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

“मिजbार चीlरजी (यूरोलोजी)”

एम.सीएच (यूरोलोजी)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात जवाहर लाल नेहl मेिडकल कॉलेज, वधाB,

महाराƒ मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG द4ा मेघे िचक.सा

िव[ान संथान (डीIड िव`िवaालय), नागपुर, महाराƒ ,ारा

-द. त हो)

ब) “देवी अिहया िव`िवaालय, इंदौर, मjय -देश” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम (2) के lप मG संदcभत है]

शीषB मG अितम -िविn के पi चात और “पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>” [आगे कालम (3) के lप मG संदcभत है] शीषB के अधीन िनI निलिखत

अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

" मिजbार चीlरजी (सcजकल Nकोलोजी)"

एम.सीएच (सcजकल Nकोलोजी)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात ~ी अरिबदो मेिडकल एंड पोट ेजुएट

संथान, इंदौर, मjय -देश मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG देवी

अिहया िव`िवaालय, इंदौर, मjय -देश ,ारा -द. त हो)

भ) “राजथान वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, जयपुर, राजथान” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम (2) के lप

मG संदcभत है] शीषB मG अितम -िविn के पi चात और “पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>” [आगे कालम (3) के lप मG संदcभत है] शीषB के अधीन

िनI निलिखत अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

"डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (गैbोएटेरोलोजी)"

डीएम (गैbोएटेरोलोजी)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात डॉ. एसएन मेिडकल कॉलेज, जोधपुर,

राजथान मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG राजथान वाSय

िव[ान िव`िवaालय, जयपुर, राजथान ,ारा -द. त हो)

38 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

म) “एलएन िमिथला िव`िवaालय / आयBभŒ नोिलज िव`िवaालय, पटना, िबहार” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे

है] शीषB के अधीन िनI निलिखत अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

डीटीएम एंड एच

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2014 को

अथवा उसके पi चात दरभंगा मेिडकल कॉलेज, दरभंगा, िबहार

मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG एलएन िमिथला िव`िवaालय /

आयBभŒ नोिलज िव`िवaालय, पटना, िबहार ,ारा -द. त हो)

य) “उ.कल िव`िवaालय, उड़ीसा” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम (2) के lप मG संदcभत है] शीषB मG अितम

-िविn के पi चात और “पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>” [आगे कालम (3) के lप मG संदcभत है] शीषB के अधीन िनI निलिखत अंतcवL ट कया

जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

"डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (एनेथीिसया)"

एमडी (एनेथीिसया)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात हाई-टेक मेिडकल कॉलेज एवं अपताल,

भुवने`र, उड़ीसा मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG उ.कल

िव`िवaालय, उड़ीसा ,ारा -द. त हो)

र) “रांची िव`िवaालय, रांची, झारख}ड” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम (2) के lप मG संदcभत है] शीषB मG

अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

"डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (कIयुिनटी मेिडिसन)"

एमडी (कIयुिनटी मेिडिसन)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात राजे आयुcव[ान संथान, रांची,

झारख}ड मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG रांची िव`िवaालय,

रांची, झारख}ड ,ारा -द. त हो)

ल) “कुमाऊं िव`िवaालय, नैनीताल, उ4राख}ड” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम (2) के lप मG संदcभत है]

अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

"डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (एनेथीिसया)"

एमडी (एनेथीिसया)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2014 को

अथवा उसके पi चात सरकारी मेिडकल कॉलेज (पूवB मG उ4राखंड

फॉरेट हॉिपटल bट मेिडकल कॉलेज), ह,ानी, उ4राखंड मG

-िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG कुमाऊं िव`िवaालय, नैनीताल,

उ4राख}ड ,ारा -द. त हो)

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

व) “सIबलपुर िव`िवaालय, सIबलपुर, ओिडशा” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम (2) के lप मG संदcभत है]

अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

"डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (माइोबायोलोजी)"

एमडी (माइोबायोलोजी)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2014 को

अथवा उसके पi चात वीएसएस मेिडकल कॉलेज, बलाB, ओिडशा

मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG सIबलपुर िव`िवaालय,

सIबलपुर, ओिडशा ,ारा -द. त हो)

श) “एमजीएम वाSय िव[ान संथान, नवी मुIबई, महाराƒ” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम (2) के lप मG

िनI निलिखत अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

"डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (पेिडए)bgस)"

एमडी (पेिडए)bgस)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2014 को

अथवा उसके पi चात महा.मा गांधी िमशस मेिडकल कॉलेज,

औरंगाबाद, महाराƒ मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG एमजीएम

वाSय िव[ान संथान, नवी मुIबई, महाराƒ ,ारा -द. त हो)

स) “पं. बी.डी.शमाB वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, रोहतक, ह)रयाणा” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम (2) के

अधीन िनI निलिखत अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

"एम.सीएच (काcडयेक थोरािसक सजBरी)"

एम.सीएच (काcडयेक थोरािसक सजBरी)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2014 को

अथवा उसके पi चात पं. बी.डी.शमाB ातको4र आयुcव[ान

संथान, रोहतक, ह)रयाणा मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG पं.

बी.डी.शमाB वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, रोहतक, ह)रयाणा

,ारा -द. त हो)

ह) “आयBभŒ नोिलज िव`िवaालय, पटना, िबहार” के समU ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ [आगे कालम (2) के lप मG संदcभत है]

अंतcवL ट कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

"डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (पेिडए)bgस)"

एमडी (पेिडए)bgस)

(यह मा यता -ाk त िचक. सा अहBता होगी जब यह 2015 को

अथवा उसके पi चात जवाहरलाल नेहl मेिडकल कॉलेज,

भागलपुर, िबहार मG -िशिUत छाP0 के संदभB मG आयBभŒ नोिलज

िव`िवaालय, पटना, िबहार ,ारा -द. त हो)

40 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ट प

ट पणी

णी

णी : 1. इस -कार से नातको. तर पा’म को दी गई मा यता अिधकतम 5 वषB के िलए होगी िजसका तदनंतर नवीनीकरण

कराया जाएगा।

2. उप-खंड -4 क( अपेUा के अनुlप मा यता का नवीनीकरण समय से करवाने मG िवफल रहने पर संबंिधत नातको. तर

कोसB मG -वेश िनरपवाद lप से रोक दया जाएगा ।

[सं. यू. 12012/25/2016-एमई.1 पाटB ]

अिमत िबवास, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 16^th May, 2016

S.O. 14.—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 “Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala” under the heading ‘Recognised 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 (Anaesthesia)”

MD (Anesthesiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church

Medical College, Kolenchery on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Paediatric Oncology)”

DM (Paediatric Oncology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being

trained

Regional

Cancer

Centre,

Thiruvananthapuram on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Pathology)”

MD (Pathology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at Kannaur Medical College, Kannaur,

Kerala on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Paediatrics)”

MD (Paediatrics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at Amala Institute of Medical Sciences,

Thrissur, Kerala on or after 2014).

“Master of Surgery (ENT)”

MS (ENT)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at T.D. Medical College, Alappuzha,

Kerala on or after 2015).

“Diploma in Laryngology & Otology”

DLO

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at T.D. Medical College, Alappuzha,

Kerala on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Pathology)”

MD (Pathology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at Academy of Medical Sciences,

Pariyaram, Kannaur, Kerala on or after 2015).

“Master of Surgery (General Surgery)”

MS (General Surgery)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church

Medical College, Kolenchery on or after 2014).

“Diploma in Ophthalmology”

DMRD

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at Pushpagiri Institute of Medical

Sciences and Research Centre, Tiruvalla, Kerala on

or after 2014).

“Doctor of Medicine (Community Medicine)”

MD (Community Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala in respect of students

being trained at Amala Institute of Medical Sciences,

Kolenchery, Kerala on or after 2014).

against “Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka” under the heading ‘Recognised

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 (DVL)”

MD (DVL)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health

Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka in respect of

students being trained at S. Nijalingappa Medical

College & HSK Hospital & Research Centre,

Bagalkot, Karnataka on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (DVL)”

MD (DVL)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health

Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka in respect of

students being trained at S.S. Institute of Medical

Sciences & Research Centre, Davangere, Karnataka

on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Biochemistry)”

MD (Biochemistry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health

Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka in respect of

42 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

students being trained at S.S. Institute of Medical

Sciences & Research Centre, Davangere, Karnataka

on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Pathology)”

MD (Pathology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health

Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka in respect of

students being trained at S.S. Institute of Medical

Sciences & Research Centre, Davangere, Karnataka

on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Forensic Medicine)”

MD (Forensic Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health

Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka in respect of

students being trained at Raichur Institute of Medical

Sciences, Raichur, Karnataka on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Nephrology)”

MD (Nephrology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health

Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka in respect of

students being trained at M.S. Ramaiah Medical

College, Bangalore Karnataka on or after 2014).

“Doctor of Medicine (Physiology)”

MD (Physiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health

Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka in respect of

students being trained at Bidar Institute of Medical

Sciences, Bidar, Karnataka on or after 2015).

against “Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra” under the heading ‘Recognised

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 (DVL/Skin & VD)”

MD (DVL/Skin & VD)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Maharashtra University of Health

Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra in respect of the

students being trained at Government Medical

College, Nagpur, Maharashtra on or after 2013).

“Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)”

MD (Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Maharashtra University of Health

Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra in respect of the

students being trained at Government Medical

College, Latur, Maharashtra on or after 2013).

against “West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata, West Bengal” under the heading ‘Recognised

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 (Biochemistry)”

MD (Biochemistry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by West Bengal University of Health

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

Sciences, Kolkata, West Bengal in respect of the

students being trained at Nilratan Sircar Medical

College, Kolkata, West Bengal on or after 2016).

“Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)”

MD (Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by West Bengal University of Health

Sciences, Kolkata, West Bengal in respect of the

students being trained at Medical College, Kolkata,

West Bengal on or after 2014).

Doctor of Medicine (Cardiology)”

DM (Cardiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by West Bengal University of Health

Sciences, Kolkata, West Bengal in respect of the

students being trained at Burdwan Medical College,

Burdwan, West Bengal on or after 2015).

against “Chettinad Academy of Research and Education (Deemed University), Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu”

under the heading ‘Recognised 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 (Anatomy)”

MD / MS (Anatomy)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Chettinad Academy of Research

and Education (Deemed University), Kanchipuram,

Tamil Nadu in respect of the students being trained

at Chettinad Hospital and Research Institute,

Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu on or after 2014).

“Doctor of Medicine (DVL)”

MD (DVL)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Chettinad Academy of Research

and Education (Deemed University), Kanchipuram,

Tamil Nadu in respect of the students being trained

at Chettinad Hospital and Research Institute,

Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu on or after 2014).

against “Pondicherry University, Puducherry” under the heading ‘Recognised 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 (Pharmacology)”

MD (Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when

granted

Pondicherry

University,

Puducherry in respect of the students being trained at

Sri Venkateswaraa Medical College, Hospital &

Research Centre, Pondicherry on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Physiology)”

MD (Physiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when

granted

Pondicherry

University,

Puducherry in respect of the students being trained at

Sri Venkateswaraa Medical College, Hospital &

Research Centre, Pondicherry on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)”

MD (Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when

granted

Pondicherry

University,

44 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Puducherry in respect of the students being trained at

Sri Venkateswaraa Medical College, Hospital &

Research Centre, Pondicherry on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Anatomy)”

MD (Anatomy)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when

granted

Pondicherry

University,

Puducherry in respect of the students being trained at

Sri Venkateswaraa Medical College, Hospital &

Research Centre, Pondicherry on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Biochemistry)”

MD (Biochemistry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when

granted

Pondicherry

University,

Puducherry in respect of the students being trained at

Sri Venkateswaraa Medical College, Hospital &

Research Centre, Pondicherry on or after 2015)

against “Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh” under the heading

‘Recognised 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 (DVL)”

MD (DVL)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Dr. NTR University of Health

Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in respect of

the students being trained at Katuri Medical College,

Guntur, Andhra Pradesh on or after 2014).

“Master of Surgery (Ophthalmology)”

MS (Ophthalmology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Dr. NTR University of Health

Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in respect of

the students being trained at Katuri Medical College,

Guntur, Andhra Pradesh on or after 2013).

“Doctor of Medicine (Anaesthesia)”

MD (Anaesthesia)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Dr. NTR University of Health

Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in respect of

the students being trained at Katuri Medical College,

Guntur, Andhra Pradesh on or after 2012).

“Diploma in Anaesthesia”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Dr. NTR University of Health

Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in respect of

the students being trained at Katuri Medical College,

Guntur, Andhra Pradesh on or after 2012).

“Doctor of Medicine (Radio Diagnosis)”

MD (Radio Diagnosis)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Dr. NTR University of Health

Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in respect of

the students being trained at Dr. Pinnammaneni

Siddhartha Institute of Medical Sciences & Research

Foundation, Chinnaoutpalli, Andhra Pradesh on or

after 2015).

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

“Master of Surgery (Ophthalmology)”

MS (Ophthalmology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Dr. NTR University of Health

Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in respect of

the students being trained at Dr. Pinnammaneni

Siddhartha Institute of Medical Sciences & Research

Foundation, Chinnaoutpalli, Andhra Pradesh on or

after 2015).

“Doctor of Osteopathy”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Dr. NTR University of Health

Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in respect of

the students being trained at Dr. Pinnammaneni

Siddhartha Institute of Medical Sciences & Research

Foundation, Chinnaoutpalli, Andhra Pradesh on or

after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Anaesthesiology)”

MD (Anaesthiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Dr. NTR University of Health

Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in respect of

the students being trained at Santhiram Medical

College, Nandyal, Andhra Pradesh on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)”

MD (Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Dr. NTR University of Health

Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in respect of

the students being trained at Santhiram Medical

College, Nandyal, Andhra Pradesh on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (DVL)”

MD (DVL)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Dr. NTR University of Health

Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in respect of

the students being trained at Konaseema Institute of

Medical

Sciences

and

Research

Foundation,

Amalapuram,, Andhra Pradesh on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)”

MD (Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Dr. NTR University of Health

Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in respect of

the students being trained at Shadan Institute of

Medical Sciences, Hyderabad on or after 2014).

“Magistrar Chirurgiae (Neurosurgery)”

M.Ch (Neurosurgery)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Dr. NTR University of Health

Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in respect of

the students being trained at Mamata Medical

College, Khammam, Andhra Pradesh on or after

2015).

against “The Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu” under the heading

‘Recognised 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:-

46 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(2)

(3)

“Doctor of Medicine (Transfusion Medicine)”

MD (Transfusion Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by The Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical

University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu in respect of the

students being trained at Christian Medical College,

Vellore, Tamil Nadu on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Rheumatology)”

DM (Rheumatology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by The Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical

University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu in respect of the

students being trained at Christian Medical College,

Vellore, Tamil Nadu on or after 2014).

“Magistrar Chirurgiae (Vascular Surgery)”

M.Ch (Vascular Surgery)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by The Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical

University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu in respect of the

students being trained at Christian Medical College,

Vellore, Tamil Nadu on or after 2014).

against “Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University, Faizabad, U.P.” under the heading ‘Recognised 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 (Anatomy)”

MD(Anatomy)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh

University, Faizabad, U.P.in respect of the students

being trained at Era’s Lucknow Medical College,

Uttar Pradesh on or after 2015).

against “Sumandeep Vidyapeeth, Vadodara, Gujarat” under the heading ‘Recognised 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)

“Diploma in laryngology & Otology”

DLO

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Sumandeep Vidyapeeth, Vadodara,

Gujarat in respect of the students being trained at

Smt. B.K. Shah Medical Institute and Research

Centre, Vadodara, Gujarat on or after 2015).

against “MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareily, Uttar Pradesh” under the heading ‘Recognised 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

(Skin & VD)

(Skin & Veneral Diseases)”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by MJP Rohilkhand University,

Bareily, Uttar Pradesh in respect of the students

being trained at Rohilkhand Medical College &

Hospital, Bareily, Uttar Pradesh on or after 2015).

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

against “North-Eastern Hill University, Meghalaya” under the heading ‘Recognised 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 recognised medical qualification

when granted by North-Eastern Hill University,

Meghalaya in respect of the students being trained at

North-Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional Institute of

Health and Medical Sciences, Shillong Meghalaya

on or after 2015).

against “Srimanta Shankardeva University of Health Sciences, Guwahati, Assam” under the heading

‘Recognised 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 (Microbiology)”

MD (Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Srimanta Shankardeva University

of Health Sciences, Guwahati, Assam in respect of

the students being trained at Silchar Medical

College, Silchar, Assam on or after 2015).

against “Ch. Charan Singh University, Meerut, U.P.” under the heading ‘Recognised 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 (Pharmacology)”

MD (Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Ch. Charan Singh University,

Meerut, U.P. in respect of the students being trained

at Muzaffarnagar Medical College, Muzaffarnagar,

U.P. on or after 2015).

against “Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi” under the heading ‘Recognised 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)

“Magistrar Chirurgiae (Urology))”

M.Ch (Urology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha

University, New Delhi in respect of the students

being trained at Post Graduate Institute of Medical

Education and Research, Dr. RML Hospital, New

Delhi on or after 2015).

against “Meenakshi University, Chennai, T.N.” under the heading ‘Recognised 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)

“Magistrar Chirurgiae (Urology))”

M.Ch (Urology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Meenakshi University, Chennai,

48 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

T.N. in respect of the students being trained at

Meenakshi Medical College and Research Institute,

Enathur, T.N. on or after 2014).

against “Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed University), Nagpur, Maharashtra” under the

heading ‘Recognised 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)

“Magistrar Chirurgiae (Cardio Thorasic Surgery )”

M.Ch (Cardio Thoracic Surgery)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Datta Meghe Institute of Medical

Sciences (Deemed University), Nagpur, Maharashtra

in respect of the students being trained at Jawahar

Lal Nehru Medical College, Wardha, Maharashtra

on or after 2015).

against “Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore, Madhya Pradesh” under the heading ‘Recognised 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)

“Magistrar Chirurgiae (Surgical Oncology)”

M.Ch (Surgical Oncology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya,

Indore, Madhya Pradesh in respect of the students

being trained at Sri Aurobindo Medical and Post

Graduate Institute, Indore, Madhya Pradesh on or

after 2015).

against “Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur, Rajasthan” under the heading ‘Recognised 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 (Gastroenterology)”

DM (Gastroenterology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Rajasthan University of Health

Sciences, Jaipur, Rajasthan in respect of the students

being trained at Dr. SN Medical College, Jodhpur,

Rajasthan on or after 2014).

against “LN Mithila University / Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna, Bihar” under the heading

‘Recognised 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)

DTM & H

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by LN Mithila University / Aryabhatta

Knowledge University, Patna, Bihar in respect of the

students being trained at Darbhanga Medical

College, Darbhanga, Bihar on or after 2014).

against “Utkal University, Orissa” under the heading ‘Recognised 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:-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

(2)

(3)

“Doctor of Medicine (ANAESTHESIA)”

MD (ANAESTHESIA)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Utkal University, Orissa in respect

of the students being trained at Hi-Tech Medical

College & Hospital, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa on or

after 2015).

against “Ranchi University, Ranchi, Jharkhand” under the heading ‘Recognised 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 (Community Medicine)”

MD (Community Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Ranchi University, Ranchi,

Jharkhand in respect of the students being trained at

Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi,

Jharkhand on or after 2015).

against “Kumaon University, Nainital, Uttarakhand” under the heading ‘Recognised 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 (Anaesthesia)”

MD (Anaesthesia)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Kumaon University, Nainital,

Uttarakhand in respect of the students being trained

at Government Medical College (Prev. Uttarakhand

Forest Hospital Trust Med. Col.), Haldwani,

Uttarakhand on or after 2014).

against “Sambalpur University, Sambalpur, Odisha” under the heading ‘Recognised 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 (Microbiology)”

MD (Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Sambalpur University, Sambalpur,

Odisha in respect of the students being trained at

VSS Medical College, Burla, Odisha on or after

2014).

against “MGM Institute of Health Sciences, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra” under the heading ‘Recognised

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 (Paediatrics)”

MD (Paediatrics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by MGM Institute of Health Sciences,

Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra in respect of the

students being trained at Mahatma Gandhi Mission’s

Medical College, Aurangabad Maharashtra on or

after 2014).

50 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

against “Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak, Haryana ” under the heading ‘Recognised

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)

M.Ch (Cardiac Thoracic Surgery)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Pt. B.D. Sharma University of

Health Sciences, Rohtak, Haryana in respect of the

students being trained at Pt. B.D. Sharma Post

Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak,

Haryana on or after 2014).

z2)

against “Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna, Bihar” under the heading ‘Recognised 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 (Paediatrics)

MD (Paediatrics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification

when granted by Aryabhatta Knowledge University,

Patna, Bihar in respect of the students being trained

at Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Bhagalpur,

Bihar on or after 2015).

Note to all : 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. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub-clause-4 shall invariably result in

stoppage of admissions to the concerned Postgraduate Course.

[No. U-12012/25/2016-ME-1]

AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ebZ] 2016

dk-vk- 15-—भारतीय आयुcव[ान प)रषद अिधिनयम 1956 (1956 का 102) क( धारा 11 क( उप धारा (2) ,ारा -द. त

िनI निलिखत और संशोधन करती है, अथाBत:-

उg त -थम अनुसूची मG

क) ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ शीषBक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] “एनआईएमएस िवi विवaालय (डीI ड

िवi विवaालय), जयपुर” के सामने अंितम -िविn के पi चात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा

गया है] से संबंिधत -िविn के संबंध मG िनI निलिखत अंत: थािपत कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(फामाBकालोजी)”

एम.डी(फामाBकालोजी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

नेशनल इंिटyूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस एंड )रसचB, मG

-िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2014 को या बाद मG,

एन.आई.एम.एस. िव`िवaालय (डीIड िव`िवaालय),

जयपुर ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

ख) ‘मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता’शीषBक के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] “बाबा फरीद वाSय िव[ान

िव`िवaालय), फरीदकोट, पंजाब” के सामने अंितम -िविn के पfात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (रेिडयो थेरेपी)”

एम.डी (रेिडयो थेरेपी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह गुl

गोvबद vसह मेिडकल कॉलेज, फरीदकोट, पंजाब मG -िशिUत

कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG, बाबा

फरीद वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, फरीदकोट, पंजाब

,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (कIयुिनटी मेिडिसन)”

एमडी (कIयुिनटी मेिडिसन)”

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह गुl

गोvबद vसह मेिडकल कॉलेज, फरीदकोट, पंजाब मG -िशिUत

कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG, बाबा

फरीद वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, फरीदकोट, पंजाब

,ारा -द4 होगी।)

ग) ‘मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता’ शीषBक के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] “डॉ.एनटीआर वाSय िव[ान

िव`िवaालय), िवजयवाड़ा” के सामने अंितम -िविn के पfात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3)

कहा गया है] से संवंिधत -िविn के संबंध मG िनYिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथाBत्:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (फिजयॉलोजी)”

एम.डी (फिजयॉलोजी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

जीएसएल मेिडकल कॉलेज, राजमुंदरी, आंŽ -देश मG

-िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG,

डॉ.एनटीआर वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, िवजयवाड़ा

,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“िडkलोमा इन रेिडयो डायeोिसस”

डीएमआरडी

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

गांधी मेिडकल कॉलेज, िसकाबाद, आंŽ -देश मG

-िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG,

डॉ.एनटीआर वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, िवजयवाड़ा

,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“माटर ऑफ सजBरी (ऑथxपीिडgस)”

एमएस (ऑथxपीिडgस)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

कोनासीमा इंिटyूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांईिसस एड )रसचB,

आंŽ -देश मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015

को

या

बाद

मG,

डॉ.एनटीआर

वाSय

िव[ान

िव`िवaालय, िवजयवाड़ा ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

घ) ‘मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता’ शीषBक के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] “राजीव गांधी वाSय िव[ान

िव`िवaालय, बGगलुz, कनाBटक” के सामने अंितम -िविn के पfात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम

(3) कहा गया है] से संवंिधत -िविn के संबंध मG िनYिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथाBत्:-

(2)

(3)

“मिजbार ऑफ िचzग“ (kलॉिटक सजBरी)”

एमसीएच (kलॉिटक सजBरी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

ए.जे.इंिटyूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस, मंगलूर मG -िशिUत

कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG, राजीव

गांधी वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, बGगलुz, कनाBटक ,ारा

-द4 होगी।)

52 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (माइोबायलोजी)”

एम.डी (माइोबायलोजी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

आदचुंचनािग)र इंिटyूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस,

बालगंगाधरनाथ नगर मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध

मG 2015 को या बाद मG, राजीव गांधी वाSय िव[ान

िव`िवaालय, बGगलुz, कनाBटक ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (फारGिसक मेिडिसन/ फारGिसक मेिडिसन

एंड टॉgसीकॉलॉजी)”

एम.डी (फारGिसक मेिडिसन/ फारGिसक मेिडिसन एंड

टॉgसीकॉलॉजी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

िशमोगा इंिटyूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस, िशमोगा मG

-िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG,

राजीव गांधी वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, बGगलुz,

कनाBटक ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (टयुबरgयूलोिसस एंड रेपीरेटरी

िडिसिसज/पमोनरी मेिडिसन)”

एम.डी (टयुबरgयूलोिसस एंड रेपीरेटरी िडिसिसज/पमोनरी

मेिडिसन)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह वैदेही

इंिटyूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस एंड )रसचB सेटर, बGगलुz मG

-िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG,

राजीव गांधी वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, बGगलुz, कनाBटक

,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (गेbोएंbॉलोजी)”

डी एम (गेbोइंbॉलोजी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

एम.एस.राम”या मेिडकल कॉलेज, बGगलुz मG -िशिUत कए गए

छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG, राजीव गांधी वाSय

िव[ान िव`िवaालय, बGगलुz, कनाBटक ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

ङ) ‘मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता’ शीषBक के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] “केरल वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय

एंड )रसचB फांउडेशन सेटर अपताल, तृiशूर” के सामने अंितम -िविn के पfात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे

कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संवंिधत -िविn के संबंध मG िनYिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथाBत्:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (पैथालोजी)”

एमडी(पैथालोजी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

एम.ई.एस. मेिडकल कॉलेज पेtरतालमTा, िजला मलापुरम

मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद

मG केरल वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय एंड )रसचB

फांउडेशन सेटर अपताल, तृiशूर ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (फिजयॉलोजी)”

एम.डी (फिजयॉलोजी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

टी.डी.मेिडकल कॉलेज, अलपुझा मG -िशिUत कए गए

छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG केरल वाSय

िव[ान िव`िवaालय एंड )रसचB फांउडेशन सेटर

अपताल, तृiशूर ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (माइोबायलोजी)”

एम.डी (माइोबायलोजी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

पुLपािग)र इंटीyूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइसेज एंड )रसचB मG

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

-िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG

केरल वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय एंड )रसचB फांउडेशन

सेटर अपताल, तृiशूर ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (bांसpयूज़न मेिडिसन)”

एमडी (bांसpयूज़न मेिडिसन)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

टी.डी.मेिडकल कॉलेज आलपुझा मG -िशिUत कए गए

छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG केरल वाSय

िव[ान िव`िवaालय एंड )रसचB फांउडेशन सेटर

अपताल, तृiशूर ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

““माटर ऑफ सजBरी (ऑथxपीिडgस)”

एमएस (ऑथxपीिडgस)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

एम.ई.एस. मेिडकल कॉलेज पेtरतालमTा, िजला मलापुरम

मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद

मG केरल वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय एंड )रसचB

फांउडेशन सेटर अपताल, तृiशूर ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन/माटर ऑफ सजBरी (ऑ‚सटे)bgस एंड

गॉयनेकॉलोजी)”

एम.डी/एमएस (ओबीसी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

एम.ई.एस. मेिडकल कॉलेज पेtरतालमTा, िजला मलापुरम

मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद

मG केरल वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय एंड )रसचB

फांउडेशन सेटर अपताल, तृiशूर ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (रेिडयो डॉयeोिसस)”

एमडी (रेिडयो डॉयeोिसस)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

टी.डी.मेिडकल कॉलेज आलपुझा मG -िशिUत कए गए

छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG केरल वाSय

िव[ान िव`िवaालय एंड )रसचB फांउडेशन सेटर

अपताल, तृiशूर ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

च) ‘मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता’ शीषBक के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] “~ी बालाजी िवaापीठ

िव`िवaालय, पु•दुेरी” के सामने अंितम -िविn के पfात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा

गया है] से संवंिधत -िविn के संबंध मG िनYिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा, अथाBत्:-

(2)

(3)

“िडkलोमा इन साइकएbी”

डीपीएम

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब

यह महा.मा गांधी मेिडकल कॉलेज एंड )रसचB

इंिटyूट, पु•दुेरी मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के

संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG ~ी बालाजी िवaापीठ

िव`िवaालय, पु•दुेरी ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

छ) ‘मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता’ शीषBक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] “उ.कल िव`िवaालय,

भुवने`र, ओिडशा” के सामने अंितम -िविn के पfात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया

है] से संवंिधत -िविn के संबंध मG िनYिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथाBत्:-

(2)

(3)

54 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (पैथालोजी)”

एमडी (पैथालोजी)”

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

हाई-टेक मेिडकल कॉलेज एंड अपताल, भुवने`र,

ओिडशा मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015

को या बाद मG उ.कल िव`िवaालय, भुवने`र, ओिडशा

,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (माइोबायलोजी)”

एमडी (माइोबायलोजी)”

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

हाई-टेक मेिडकल कॉलेज एंड अपताल, भुवने`र,

ओिडशा मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015

को या बाद मG उ.कल िव`िवaालय, भुवने`र, ओिडशा

,ारा -द4 होगी।)

ज) ‘मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता’ शीषBक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] “राजथान वाSय िव[ान

िव`िवaालय, जयपुर” के सामने अंितम -िविn के पfात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा

गया है] से संवंिधत -िविn के संबंध मG िनYिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा, अथाBत्:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (बायोकेिमbी)”

एमडी (बायोकेिमbी)”

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब

यह डॉ.एस.एन. मेिडकल कॉलेज, जयपुर मG -िशिUत

कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG

राजथान वाSय िव[ान िव`िवaालय, जयपुर ,ारा

-द4 होगी।)

झ ) ‘मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता’ शीषBक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] “बी.एन.मंडल िव`िवaालय,

िबहार” के सामने अंितम -िविn के पfात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से

संवंिधत -िविn के संबंध मG िनYिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथाBत्:-

(2)

(3)

“माटर ऑफ सजBरी (जनरल सजBरी)”

एमएस (जनरल सजBरी)”

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब

यह क)टहार मेिडकल कॉलेज, क)टहार मG -िशिUत

कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2012 को या बाद मG

बी.एन.मंडल िव`िवaालय, िबहार ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

ञ ) ‘मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता’ शीषBक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] “मिणपाल िव`िवaालय,

मिणपाल” के सामने अंितम -िविn के पfात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से

संवंिधत -िविn के संबंध मG िनYिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा, अथाBत्:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटरेट ऑफ मेिडिसन (ने–ालोजी)”

डीएम (ने–ालोजी)”

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब

यह कतूरबा मेिडकल कॉलेज, मिणपाल मG -िशिUत

कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG

मिणपाल िव`िवaालय, मिणपाल ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

ट) ‘मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता’ शीषBक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] “जेएसएस िव`िवaालय,

मैसूर” के सामने अंितम -िविn के पfात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संवंिधत

-िविn के संबंध मG िनYिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा, अथाBत्:-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटरेट ऑफ सजBरी (यूऱॉलोजी)”

डीएम (यूरॉलोजी)”

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब

यह जेएसएस मेिडकल कॉलेज, मैसूर मG -िशिUत कए

गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG जेएसएस

िव`िवaालय, मैसूर ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“मिजbार ऑफ िचlग“ (यूरोलोजी)”

एमसीएच (यूरोलोजी)”

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब

यह जेएसएस मेिडकल कॉलेज, मैसूर मG -िशिUत कए

गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG जेएसएस

िव`िवaालय, मैसूर ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटरेट ऑफ मेिडिसन (मेिडकल गेbोएंbॉलोजी)”

डीएम (मेिडकल गेbोएंbॉलोजी)”

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब

यह जेएसएस मेिडकल कॉलेज, मैसूर मG -िशिUत कए

गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG जेएसएस

िव`िवaालय, मैसूर ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

ठ) ‘मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता’ शीषBक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] “देवी अिहया िव`िवaालय,

इंदौर” के सामने अंितम -िविn के पfात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संवंिधत

-िविn के संबंध मG िनYिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथाBत्:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (बॉयोकेिमbी)”

एमडी (बॉयोकेिमbी)”

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब

यह इंडेgस मेिडकल कॉलेज अपताल एंड )रसचB

सेटर, इंदौर मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG

2015 को या बाद मG देवी अिहया िव`िवaालय,

इंदौर ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (माइोबॉयोलोजी)”

एमडी (माइोबॉयोलोजी)”

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब

यह इंडेgस मेिडकल कॉलेज अपताल एंड )रसचB

सेटर, इंदौर मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG

2015 को या बाद मG देवी अिहया िव`िवaालय,

इंदौर ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन/माटर ऑफ सजBरी (अनाटमी)”

एमडीएमएस (अनाटमी)”

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब

यह इंडेgस मेिडकल कॉलेज अपताल एंड )रसचB

सेटर, इंदौर मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG

2015 को या बाद मG देवी अिहया िव`िवaालय,

इंदौर ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

ड) ‘मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता’ शीषBक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] “होमी भाभा िव`िवaालय,

मुंबई” के सामने अंितम -िविn के पfात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संवंिधत

-िविn के संबंध मG िनYिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथाBत्:-

56 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटरेट ऑफ मेिडिसन(गेbोएंbॉलोजी)”

डीएम (गेbोएंbॉलोजी)”

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब

यह टाटा मेमो)रयल अपताल, मुंबई मG -िशिUत कए

गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद मG होमी भाभा

िव`िवaालय, मुंबई ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

ढ) ‘मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता’शीषBक के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] “~ी वGकटे`रा इंिटyूट मेिडकल

सांइिसस(डीIड िव`िवaालय) ितzपित” के सामने अंितम -िविn के पfात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(रेिडयोथेरेपी)”

एमडी (रेिडयोथेरेपी)”

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

~ी वGकटे`रा इंिटyूट मेिडकल सांइिसस, ितzपित मG

-िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद

मG ~ी वGकटे`रा इंिटyूट मेिडकल सांइिसस (डीIड

िव`िवaालय) ितzपित ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

ण) ‘मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता’शीषBक के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] “एमजीएम इंिटyूट ऑफ हैथ

सांइिसस नबी मुंबई” के सामने अंितम -िविn के पfात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया

है] से संवंिधत -िविn के संबंध मG िनYिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथाBत्:-

(2)

(3)

“मिजbार िचzग“(कॉcडयो थोरेिसस एंड वेgयुलर

सजBरी)”

एमसीएच(कॉcडयो

थोरेिसस

एंड

वेgयुलर

सजBरी)”

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब

यह एमजीएम िमशनस मेिडकल कॉलेज, नवी मुंबई मG

-िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG 2015 को या बाद

मG एमजीएम इंिटyूट ऑफ हैथ सांइिसस, नबी मुंबई

,ारा -द4 होगी।)

त) ‘मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता’शीषBक के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] “महाराƒ इंिटyूट ऑफ हैथ

सांइिसस, नािसक” के सामने अंितम -िविn के पfात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है]

से संवंिधत -िविn के संबंध मG िनYिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथाBत्:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(जनरल मेिडिसन)”

एमडी (जनरल मेिडिसन)”

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब

यह महाराƒ इंिटyूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस एंड

)रसचB, लातूर मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG

2015 को या बाद मG महाराƒ इंिटyूट ऑफ हैथ

सांइिसस, नािसक ,ारा -द4 होगी।)

[सं. यू-12012/25/2016-एमई-1 (पाटB )]

अिमत िबवास, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 26th May, 2016

S.O. 15.—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:-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

In the said Schedule –

against “NIMS University (Deemed University), Jaipur” under the heading ‘Recognised 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 (Pharmacology)”

MD (Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by NIMS University (Deemed University),

Jaipur in respect of students being trained at National

Institute of Medical Science & Research on or after

2014).

against “Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot, Punjab” under the heading ‘Recognised 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 (Radiotherapy)”

MD (Radiotherapy)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,

Faridkot, Punjab in respect of students being trained

at Guru Govind Singh Medical College, Faridkot,

Punjab on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Community Medicine)”

MD (Community Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,

Faridkot, Punjab in respect of students being trained

at Guru Govind Singh Medical College, Faridkot,

Punjab on or after 2015).

against “Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada” under the heading ‘Recognised 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 (Physiology)”

MD (Physiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences,

Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in respect of students

being trained at GSL Medical College, Rajahmundry,

Andhra Pradesh on or after 2015).

“Diploma in Radio-Diagnosis”

DMRD

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences,

Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in respect of students

being

trained

Gandhi

Medical

College,

Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh on or after 2015).

“Master of Surgery (Orthopaedics)”

MS (Orthopaedics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences,

Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in respect of students

being trained at Konaseema Institute of Medical

Sciences & Research Foundation, Amalapuram

Andhra Pradesh on or after 2015).

58 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

against “Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka” under the heading ‘Recognised

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)

“Magistrar Chirurgiae (Plastic Surgery)”

M.Ch. (Plastic Surgery)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health

Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka in respect of students

being trained at A. J. Institute of Medical Sciences,

Mangalore on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)”

MD (Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health

Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka in respect of students

being trained at Adichunchanagiri Institute of Medical

Sciences, Balagangadharanath Nagar on or after

2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Forensic Medicine/

MD (Forensic Medicine/

Forensic Medicine & Toxicology)”

Forensic Medicine & Toxicology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health

Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka in respect of students

being trained at Shimoga Institute of Medical

Sciences, Shimoga on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Tuberculosis & Respiratory

MD (Tuberculosis & Respiratory

Diseases/ Pulmonary Medicine)”

Diseases/ Pulmonary Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health

Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka in respect of students

being trained at Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences

& Research Centre, Bangalore on or after 2015).

“Doctorate of Medicine (Gastroenterology)”

DM (Gastroenterology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health

Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka in respect of students

being trained at M S Ramaiah Medical College,

Bangalore on or after 2015).

against “Kerala University of Health Sciences & Research Foundation Centre Hospital, Thrissur” under the

heading ‘Recognised 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 (Pathology)”

MD (Pathology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences &

Research Foundation Centre Hospital, Thrissur in

respect of students being trained at M E S Medical

College, Perintalmanna, Malappuram Distt. on or

after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Physiology)”

MD (Physiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences &

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

Research Foundation Centre Hospital, Thrissur in

respect of students being trained at T. D. Medical

College, Alappuzha on or after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)”

MD (Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences &

Research Foundation Centre Hospital, Thrissur in

respect of students being trained at Pushpagiri

Institute of Medical Sciences & Research on or after

2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Transfusion Medicine)”

MD (Transfusion Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences &

Research Foundation Centre Hospital, Thrissur in

respect of students being trained at T. D. Medical

College, Alappuzha on or after 2015).

“Master of Surgery (Orthopaedics)”

MS (Orthopaedics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences &

Research Foundation Centre Hospital, Thrissur in

respect of students being trained at M E S Medical

College, Perintalmanna, Malappuram Distt. on or

after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine/ Master of Surgery

MD/ MS (OBG)

(Obstetrics and Gynecology)”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences &

Research Foundation Centre Hospital, Thrissur in

respect of students being trained at M E S Medical

College, Perintalmanna, Malappuram Distt. on or

after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Radiodiagnosis)”

MD (Radiodiagnosis)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences &

Research Foundation Centre Hospital, Thrissur in

respect of students being trained at T. D. Medical

College, Alappuzha on or after 2015).

against “Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth University, Puducherry” under the heading ‘Recognised 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)

“Diploma in Psychiatry”

DPM

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth University,

Puducherry in respect of the students being trained at

Mahatama Gandhi Medical College & Research

Institute, Pondicherry on or after 2013).

against “Utkal University, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa” under the heading ‘Recognised 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:-

60 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(2)

(3)

“Doctor of Medicine (Pathology)”

MD (Pathology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Utkal University, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa in

respect of students being trained at High-Tech

Medical College & Hospital, Bhubaneshwar on or

after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)”

MD (Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Utkal University, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa in

respect of students being trained at High-Tech

Medical College & Hospital, Bhubaneshwar on or

after 2015).

against “Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur” under the heading ‘Recognised 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 (Biochemistry)”

MD (Biochemistry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Rajasthan University of Health Sciences,

Jaipur in respect of students being trained at Dr. S. N.

Medical College, Jaipur on or after 2015).

against “B. N. Mandal University, Bihar” under the heading ‘Recognised 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)

“Master of Surgery (General Surgery)”

MS (General Surgery)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by B. N. Mandal University, Bihar in respect

of students being trained at Kathiyar Medical College,

Kathiar on or after 2012).

against “Manipal University, Manipal” under the heading ‘Recognised 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)

“Doctorate of Medicine (Nephrology)”

DM (Nephrology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Manipal University, Manipal in respect of

students being trained at Kasturba Medical College,

Manipal on or after 2015).

against “JSS University, Mysore” under the heading ‘Recognised 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)

“Doctorate of Medicine (Neurology)”

DM (Neurology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by JSS University, Mysore in respect of

students being trained at JSS Medical College,

Mysore on or after 2015).

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

“Magistrar Chirurgiae (Urology)”

M.Ch.(Urology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by JSS University, Mysore in respect of

students being trained at JSS Medical College,

Mysore on or after 2015).

“Doctorate of Medicine (Medical

DM (Medical Gastroenterology)

Gastroenterology)”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by JSS University, Mysore in respect of

students being trained at JSS Medical College,

Mysore on or after 2015).

against “Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore” under the heading ‘Recognised 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 (Biochemistry)”

MD (Biochemistry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore in

respect of students being trained at Index Medical

College Hospital & Research Centre, Indore on or

after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)”

MD (Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore in

respect of students being trained at Index Medical

College Hospital & Research Centre, Indore on or

after 2015).

“Doctor of Medicine/ Master of Surgery (Anatomy)”

MD/ MS (Anatomy)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore in

respect of students being trained at Index Medical

College Hospital & Research Centre, Indore on or

after 2015).

against “Homi Bhabha, University, Mumbai” under the heading ‘Recognised 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)

“Doctorate of Medicine (Gastroenterology)”

DM (Gastroenterology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Homi Bhabha, University, Mumbai in

respect of students being trained at Tata Memorial

Hospital, Mumbai on or after 2015).

against “Sri Venkateshwra Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed University), Tirupati” under the heading

‘Recognised 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 (Radiotherapy)”

MD (Radiotherapy)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Sri Venkateshwra Institute of Medical

Sciences (Deemed University), Tirupati in respect of

62 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

students being trained at Sri Venkateshwra Institute of

Medical Sciences, Tirupati on or after 2015).

against “MGM Institute of Health Scinecs, Navi Mumbai” under the heading ‘Recognised 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)

“Magistrar Chirurgiae (Cardio Thoracic &

M.Ch.( Cardio Thoracic & Vascular Surgery)

Vascular Surgery)”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by MGM Institute of Health Scinecs, Navi

Mumbai in respect of students being trained at MGM

Mission’s Medical College, Navi Mumbai on or after

2015).

against “Maharashtra Institute of Health Sciences, Nashik” under the heading ‘Recognised 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 (General Medicine)”

MD (General Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Maharashtra Institute of Health Sciences,

Nashik in respect of students being trained at

Maharashtra Institute of Medical Sciences &

Research, Latur on or after 2015).

[No. U-12012/25/2016-ME-1(Pt.)]

AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 16-—भारतीय आयुcव[ान प)रषद अिधिनयम 1956 (1956 का 102) क( धारा 11 क( उप धारा (2) ,ारा -द. त

शि/य0 का -योग करते 3ए कG सरकार, भारतीय आयुcव[ान प)रषद से परामशB करके उg त अिधिनयम क( -थम अनुसूची मG िनI निलिखत

और संशोधन करती है अथाBत:-

उg त -थम अनुसूची मG ‘’बरकतउ लाह िवi विवaालय भोपाल मj य -देश’’ और -िविnय0 के बाद ‘’पीप स िवi विवaालय मj य -देश’’

जोडा जाएगा ‘और मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ शीषBक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] के सामने अंितम -िविn

के पi चात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंिधत -िविn के संबंध मG िनI निलिखत

अंत: थािपत कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (ऐिनथीि˜यॉलोजी)

एम.डी.( ऐिनथीि˜यॉलोजी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह पीपस

कॉलेज ऑफ मेिडकल सा™िसस एंड )रसचB सGटर, भानपुर, भोपाल

मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG जून, 2014 को या बाद मG

1 छाP के संबंध मG, पीपस िव`िवaालय. मjय -देश ,ारा -द4

होगी।

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (बायोकेिमbी)

एम.डी.(बायोकेिमbी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह पीपस

कॉलेज ऑफ मेिडकल सा™िसस एंड )रसचB सGटर, भानपुर, भोपाल

मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG जून, 2014 को या बाद मG

2 छाP0 के संबंध मG, पीपस िव`िवaालय. मjय -देश ,ारा -द4

होगी।

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (डम{टॉलोजी, वेनरोलोजी एंड ले-सी)

एम.डी.(डीवीएल)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह पीपस

कॉलेज ऑफ मेिडकल सा™िसस एंड )रसचB सGटर, भानपुर, भोपाल

मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG जून, 2014 को या बाद मG

2 छाP0 के संबंध मG, पीपस िव`िवaालय. मjय -देश ,ारा -द4

होगी।

डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (माइोबॉलोजी)

एम.डी.( माइोबॉलोजी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह पीपस

कॉलेज ऑफ मेिडकल सा™िसस एंड )रसचB सGटर, भानपुर, भोपाल

मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG जून, 2014 को या बाद मG

3 छाP0 के संबंध मG, पीपस िव`िवaालय. मjय -देश ,ारा -द4

होगी।

डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (पैथॉलोजी)

एम.डी.(पैथॉलोजी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह पीपस

कॉलेज ऑफ मेिडकल सा™िसस एंड )रसचB सGटर, भानपुर, भोपाल

मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG जून, 2014 को या बाद मG

2 छाP0 के संबंध मG, पीपस िव`िवaालय. मjय -देश ,ारा -द4

होगी।

डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (फामाBकालोजी)

एम.डी.( (फामाBकालोजी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह पीपस

कॉलेज ऑफ मेिडकल सा™िसस एंड )रसचB सGटर, भानपुर, भोपाल

मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG जून, 2014 को या बाद मG

2 छाP0 के संबंध मG, पीपस िव`िवaालय. मjय -देश ,ारा -द4

होगी।

डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (फिज़यॉलोजी)

एम.डी.( (फिज़यॉलोजी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह पीपस

कॉलेज ऑफ मेिडकल सा™िसस एंड )रसचB सGटर, भानपुर, भोपाल

मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG जून, 2014 को या बाद मG

2 छाP0 के संबंध मG, पीपस िव`िवaालय. मjय -देश ,ारा -द4

होगी।

डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (साइकएbी)

एम.डी.( (साइकएbी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह पीपस

कॉलेज ऑफ मेिडकल सा™िसस एंड )रसचB सGटर, भानपुर, भोपाल

मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG जून, 2014 को या बाद मG

1 छाP के संबंध मG, पीपस िव`िवaालय. मjय -देश ,ारा -द4

होगी।

64 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (सोशल एंड ि-वेिटव मेिडिसन/कIयुिनटी

मेिडिसन)

एम.डी.(सोशल एंड ि-वेिटव मेिडिसन/कIयुिनटी मेिडिसन )

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह पीपस

कॉलेज ऑफ मेिडकल सा™िसस एंड )रसचB सGटर, भानपुर, भोपाल

मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG जून, 2014 को या बाद मG

4 छाP0 के संबंध मG, पीपस िव`िवaालय. मjय -देश ,ारा -द4

होगी।

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(टयुबरgयुलोिसस एंड रेपीरेटरी

िडिसिसज/पमोनरी मेिडिसन)”

एम.डी.(टीबी एंड रेपीरेटरी िडिसिसज/पमोनरी मेिडिसन )

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह पीपस

कॉलेज ऑफ मेिडकल सा™िसस एंड )रसचB सGटर, भानपुर, भोपाल

मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG जून, 2014 को या बाद मG

1 छाP के संबंध मG, पीपस िव`िवaालय. मjय -देश ,ारा -द4

होगी।

डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (अनाटमी)/माटर ऑफ सजBरी (अनाटमी)

एम.डी/एम.एस.(अनाटमी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह पीपस

कॉलेज ऑफ मेिडकल सा™िसस एंड )रसचB सGटर, भानपुर, भोपाल

मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG जून, 2014 को या बाद मG

2 छाP0 के संबंध मG, पीपस िव`िवaालय. मjय -देश ,ारा -द4

होगी।

माटर ऑफ सजBरी (ओटोरिहनेनोलेtरगोलोजी)

एम.डी/एम.एस.(ओटोरिहनोलेtरगोलोजी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह पीपस

कॉलेज ऑफ मेिडकल सा™िसस एंड )रसचB सGटर, भानपुर, भोपाल

मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG जून, 2014 को या बाद मG

2 छाP0 के संबंध मG, पीपस िव`िवaालय. मjय -देश ,ारा -द4

होगी।

माटर ऑफ सजBरी (जनरल सजBरी)

एम.एस.(जनरल सजBरी)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह पीपस

कॉलेज ऑफ मेिडकल सा™िसस एंड )रसचB सGटर, भानपुर, भोपाल

मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG जून, 2014 को या बाद मG

4 छाP0 के संबंध मG, पीपस िव`िवaालय. मjय -देश ,ारा -द4

होगी।

माटर ऑफ सजBरी (ऑथxपीिडgस)

एम.एस.(ऑथxपीिडgस)

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह पीपस

कॉलेज ऑफ मेिडकल सा™िसस एंड )रसचB सGटर, भानपुर, भोपाल

मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG जून, 2014 को या बाद मG

1छाP के संबंध मG, पीपस िव`िवaालय. मjय -देश ,ारा -द4

होगी।

नोट

नोट:

2. मा यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क( -या वही होगी जो मा यता -दान करने के िलए लागू होती है ।

3. यथा-अपेिUत मा यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने मG िवफल रहने पर, प)रणाम वlप, िनरपवाद lप से, उg त

सं थान/मेिडकल कालेज मG संबंिधत ना. को. तर कोसB मG -वेश बंद हो जाएगा ।

¹la- ;w&12012@330@2015&,ebZ&Iº

Mh- oh- ds- jko] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 31st August, 2016

S.O. 16.—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,due to change in name of affiliating University

namely:-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

In the said First Schedule before “Barkatulla University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh” and entries thereto

“People’s University, Madhya Pradesh” shall be added and against “People’s University, Madhya 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(Anaesthesiology)

MD(Anaesthesiology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by “People’s University, Madhya

Pradesh” in respect of 1 student being trained at

People’s College of Medical Sciences & Research

Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after June 2014).

Doctor of Medicine(Biochemistry)

MD(Biochemistry)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by “People’s University, Madhya

Pradesh” in respect of 2 students being trained at

People’s College of Medical Sciences & Research

Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after June 2014).

Doctor of Medicine (Dermatology, Venerology & Leprosy)

MD(DVL)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by “People’s University, Madhya

Pradesh” in respect of 2 students being trained at

People’s College of Medical Sciences & Research

Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after June 2014).

Doctor of Medicine(Microbiology)

MD(Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by “People’s University, Madhya

Pradesh” in respect of 3 students being trained at

People’s College of Medical Sciences & Research

Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after June 2014).

Doctor of Medicine(Pathology)

MD(Pathology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by “People’s University, Madhya

Pradesh” in respect of 2 students being trained at

People’s College of Medical Sciences & Research

Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after June 2014).

Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)

MD(Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by “People’s University, Madhya

Pradesh” in respect of 2 students being trained at

People’s College of Medical Sciences & Research

Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after June 2014).

Doctor of Medicine(Physiology)

MD(Physiology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by “People’s University, Madhya

Pradesh” in respect of 2 students being trained at

People’s College of Medical Sciences & Research

Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after June 2014).

Doctor of Medicine(Psychiatry)

MD(Psychiatry)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by “People’s University, Madhya

66 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Pradesh” in respect of 1 student being trained at

People’s College of Medical Sciences & Research

Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after June 2014).

Doctor of Medicine(Social &Preventine

MD(Social &Preventine Medicine/

Medicine/Community Medicine)

Community Medicine)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by “People’s University, Madhya

Pradesh” in respect of 4 students being trained at

People’s College of Medical Sciences & Research

Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after June 2014).

Doctor of Medicine(Tuberculosis &

MD(Tuberculosis & Respiratory

Respiratory Diseases/Pulmonary Medicine)

Diseases/Pulmonary Medicine)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by “People’s University, Madhya

Pradesh” in respect of 1 student being trained at

People’s College of Medical Sciences & Research

Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after June 2014).

Doctor of Medicine(Anatomy)/

MD/ MS(Anatomy)

Master of Surgery(Anatomy)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by “People’s University, Madhya

Pradesh” in respect of 2 students being trained at

People’s College of Medical Sciences & Research

Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after June 2014).

Master of Surgery(Otorhinolaryngology)

MS(ENT)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by “People’s University, Madhya

Pradesh” in respect of 2 students being trained at

People’s College of Medical Sciences & Research

Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after June 2014).

Master of Surgery(General Surgery)

MS(General Surgery)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by “People’s University, Madhya

Pradesh” in respect of 4 students being trained at

People’s College of Medical Sciences & Research

Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after June 2014).

Master of Surgery(Orthopaedics)

MS(Orthopaedics)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by “People’s University, Madhya

Pradesh” in respect of 1 student being trained at

People’s College of Medical Sciences & Research

Centre, Bhanpur, Bhopal on or after June 2014).

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.12012/330/2015-ME.I ]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

ubZ fnYyh] 30 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 17-—भारतीय आयुcव[ान प)रषद अिधिनयम 1956 (1956 का 102) क( धारा 11 क( उप धारा (2) ,ारा -द. त

िनI निलिखत और संशोधन करती है अथाBत:-

उg त -थम अनुसूची मG ‘मा यता -ाk त आयुcव[ान अहBता’ शीषBक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है]

“कलक. ता िवi विवaालय” के सामने अंितम -िविn के पi चात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिUि>करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा

गया है] से संबंिधत -िविn के संबंध मG िनI निलिखत अंत: थािपत कया जाएगा, अथाBत:-

(2)

(3)

“िडk लोमा इन गायिनकॉलोजी एंड ऑ‚सटे)bgस”

डीजीओ

(यह एक मायता -ा> आयुcव[ान अहBता होगी जब यह

िचतरंजन सेवासदन कॉलेज ऑफ ऑ‚सटे)bgस,

गायिनकॉलोजी एंड चाइड हैथ एंड अपताल,

कोलकाता मG -िशिUत कए गए छाP0 के संबंध मG

31.12.1999 तक कलक4ा िव`िवaालय ,ारा -द4

होगी।

नोट

नोट:

1. स् ना. को. तर कोसB को दी गई ऐसी मा यता अिधकतम 5 o"kZ के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा ।

2. मा यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क( -या वही होगी जो मा यता -दान करने के िलए लागू होती है ।

3. मा यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने मG िवफल रहने पर, प)रणाम वlप, संबंिधत ना. को. तर कोसB मG -वेश िनरपवाद

lप से बंद हो जाएगा ।

[सं. यू-12011/02/2016-एमई.1]

डी. वी. के. राव, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 30th September, 2016

S.O. 17.—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 “Calcutta University” 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)

“Diploma in Gynaecology and Obstetrics”

DGO

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Calcutta University in respect of students

trained at Chittaranjan Sevasadan College of Obstetrics,

Gynaecology and Child Health and Hospital, Kolkata

upto 31.12.1999.

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-12011/02/2016-ME.I]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

कोयला मं ालय

नई दली, 29 दस बर, 2016

का

का.आ.

आ.

आ. 18

18.—केीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक े (अजन और िवकास) अिधिनयम,1957 (1957 का 20) (िजसे इसम'

इसके प)ात् उ- अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क1 धारा 7 क1 उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के कोयला मंालय क1

अिधसूचना सं6यांक का.आ. 2342(अ), तारीख 8 जुलाई,2016 जो भारत के राजप, भाग II, खंड 3, उप-खंड (ii), तारीख 11

जुलाई,2016 म' <कािशत क1 गई थी, उस अिधसूचना से संल? अनुसूची म' िविनAदB पCरे क1 68.000 हेEटेयर (लगभग) या

168.028 एकड़ (लगभग) भूिम म' या उस पर के सभी अिधकारG का अजन करने के अपने आशय क1 सूचना दी थी;

और सम <ािधकारी ने उ- अिधिनयम क1 धारा 8 के अनुसरण म' केीय सरकार को अपनी Cरपोट दे दी है;

और केीय सरकार को पूवI- Cरपोट पर िवचार करने के प)ात् और छKीसगढ़ सरकार से पुन: परामश करने के प)ात् यह

समाधान हो गया है क इससे संल? अनुसूची म' वNणत 68.000 हेEटर (लगभग) या 168.028 एकड़ (लगभग) माप वाली भूिम म' या

उस पर के सभी अिधकार अNजत कए जाने चािहए;

अत:,अब, उ- अिधिनयम क1 धारा 9 क1 उप-धारा (1) Qारा <दK शि-यG का <योग करते Rए, यह घोषणा करती है क

इससे संल? अनुसूची म' वNणत 68.000 हेEटर (लगभग) या 168.028 एकड़ (लगभग) माप वाली भूिम म' या उस पर के सभी अिधकार

अNजत कए जाते हU ।

इस अिधसूचना के अंतगत आने वाले रेखांक सं6या एसईसीएल/बीएसपी/जीएम(पीएलजी)/भूिम/500, तारीख 29 अगYत,

2016 का िनरीण कलेEटर, िजला रायगढ़ (छKीसगढ़) के कायालय म' या कोयला िनयंक, 1, काउंिसल हाउस YZीट, कोलकाता-700

001 के कायालय म' या साउथ ईYटन कोलफ1\स िलिमटेड (राजYव अनुभाग), सीपत रोड, िबलासपुर-495 006 (छKीसगढ़) के

कायालय म' कया जा सकता है ।

अनुसूची

बरौद वाशरी

बरौद वाशरी, , , , रायगढ़ े

रायगढ़ े

िजला रायगढ़ (छीसगढ़)

(रेखांक सं6या एसईसीएल/बीएसपी/जीएम(पीएलजी)/भूिम/500, तारीख 29 अगYत, 2016 )

सभी अिधकार:

सं.

_ाम का नाम

पटवारी

हका

सं6यांक

तहसील

िजला

े हेEटेयर

म'

Cट`पिणयां

फगुरम

घरघोड़ा

रायगढ़

68.000

भाग

कुल : 68.000 हेEटेयर (लगभग) या 168.028 एकड़ (लगभग)

1. _ाम फगुरम (भाग) म' अNजत कए गए `लाट सं6या: 646/1(भाग), 647, 648, 648/1क, 648/1ख, 648/1ड., 648/1छ,

648/1ज, 648/2 से 648/8, 649/1, 649/2, 650 से 652, 653/1, 653/2, 654, 655, 656/1, 656/2, 656/3, 657/3,

658/1क, 658/1ख, 658/1ग, 658/2, 659, 660/1क(भाग), 685, 695/1, 766/1, 766/2, 766/3, 766/4, 767, 768.

सीमा वणन:

क-ख

रेखा, िबदु ‘क’ से आरंभ होती है और _ाम फगुरम के `लाट सं6या 646/1क से होती Rई और िबदु ‘ख’ पर िमलती है ।

ख-ग

रेखा, िबदु ‘ख’ से आरंभ होती है और _ाम फगुरम के `लाट सं6या 646/1क, 648/1क, `लाट सं6या 657/3 के पि)मी सीमा,

660/1क से होती Rई और िबदु ‘ग’ पर िमलती है ।

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

ग-घ

रेखा, िबदु ‘ग’ से आरंभ होती है और _ाम फगुरम के `लाट सं6या 660/1क, 659, 658/क, 658/2, 648/1क, 685,

648/1क, 695/1, 648/1ख के उKरी सीमा, `लाट सं6या 648/1ख, 648/1क, 766/1, 767 के पूवa सीमा से होती Rई और

िबदु ‘घ’ पर िमलती है ।

घ-ड.

रेखा, िबदु ‘घ’ से आरंभ होती है और _ाम फगुरम के `लाट सं6या 767, 768, 648/1क, 647 के पूवa सीमा, 648/1क,

646/1क के दिणी सीमा से होती Rई और िबदु ‘ड.’ पर िमलती है ।

ड.-च

रेखा, िबदु ‘ड.’ से आरंभ होती है और _ाम फगुरम के `लाट सं6या 646/1क से होती Rई और िबदु ‘च’ पर िमलती है ।

च-क

रेखा, िबदु ‘च’ से आरंभ होती है और _ाम फगुरम के `लाट सं6या 646/1क से होती Rई और आरंिभक िबदु ‘क’ पर िमलती

है ।

[ फा.सं. 43015/4/2016-पीआरआईडbयू-I]

हCर मोहन मीना, उप सिचव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 29th December, 2016

S.O. 18.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O.

2342(E), dated the 8^th July, 2016 issued under sub-section (1) of section 7 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 11^th July, 2016 the Central Government gave notice of its intention to

acquire 68.000 hectares (approximately) or 168.028 acres (approximately) land as all rights in or over such lands

specified in the Schedule appended to that notification;

And whereas the competent authority in pursuance of section 8 of the said Act has made his report to the

Central Government;

And whereas, the Central Government after considering the aforesaid report and after consulting the

Government of Chhattisgarh, is satisfied that the lands measuring 68.000 hectares (approximately) or 168.028 acres

(approximately) as all rights in or over such lands as described in Schedule appended hereto, should be acquired;

Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section (1) of section 9 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that the land measuring 68.000 hectares (approximately) or 168.028 acres (approximately)

as all rights in or over such lands as described in Schedule are hereby acquired.

The plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/LAND/ 500, dated the 29^th August, 2016 of the area covered

by this notification may be inspected in the Office of the Collector, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) or in the office of

the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata – 700001 or in the Office of the South Eastern Coalfield Limited

(Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh).

SCHEDULE

Baroud Washery, Raigarh Area

District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

(Plan bearing number SECL/ BSP/ GM(PLG)/ LAND/ 500, dated 29^th August, 2016)

All Right:

Sl.

No.

Name of

village

Patwari

halka

number

Tahsil

District

Area in

hectares

Remarks

Phaguram

Gharghora

Raigarh

68.000

Part

Total: 68.000 hectares (approximately) or 168.028 acres (approximately)

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Plot numbers acquired in village Phaguram (Part): 646/1(P), 647, 648, 648/1ka, 648/1kha, 648/1anga,

648/1chha, 648/1ja, 648/2 to 648/8, 649/1, 649/2, 650 to 652, 653/1, 653/2, 654, 655, 656/1, 656/2, 656/3, 657/3,

658/1ka, 658/1kha, 658/1ga, 658/2, 659, 660/1ka(P), 685, 695/1, 766/1, 766/2, 766/3, 766/4, 767, 768.

Boundary Description:

A-B

Line starts from point ‘A’ and passes in village Phaguram through plot number 646/1ka and meets at point

‘B’.

B-C

Line starts from point ‘B’ and passes in village Phaguram through plot number 646/1ka, 648/1ka, along the

western boundary of plot number 657/3, through 660/1ka and meets at point ‘C’.

C-D

Line starts from point ‘C’ and passes in village Phaguram along the northern boundary of plot numbers

660/1ka, 659, 658/ka, 658/2, 648/1ka, 685, 648/1ka, 695/1, 648/1kha, eastern boundary of plot numbers

648/1kha, 648/1ka, 766/1, 767 and meets at point ‘D’.

D-E

Line starts from point ‘D’ and passes in village Phaguram along the eastern boundary of plot numbers 767,

768, 648/1ka, 647, southern boundary of plot numbers 648/1ka, 646/1ka and meets at point ‘E’.

E-F

Line starts from point ‘E’ and passes in village Phaguram through plot number 646/1ka and meets at point

‘F’.

F-A

Line starts from point ‘F’ and passes in village Phaguram through plot number 646/1ka and meets at starting

point ‘A’.

[F. No. 43015/ 4/ 2016-PRIW-I]

H. M. MEENA, Dy. Secy.

miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=kky;

([kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 19-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e

(4) ds vuqlj.k esa miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=kky; ([kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k foHkkx) ds iz'kklfud

fu;a=k.kk/hu fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkjho`Un us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks jkti=k esa

vfèklwfpr djrh gS %

1- Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe]

ftyk dk;kZy;] dsvkjihth dkWEIysDl]

foftukiqjk] nwjok.khuxj]

csaxyq:&560016

¹la- bZ&11011@1@2008&fgUnhº

Vh- ds- eukst dqekj] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Food and Public Distribution)

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2017

S.O. 19.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following office under the administrative control of the

Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Deptt. of Food and Public Distribution), whereof more

than 80% of staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :

1. Food Corporation

District Office, KRPG Complex,

vijinapura, Doorvaninagar,

Bangalore-560016

[No. E-11011/1/2008-Hindi]

T. K. MANOJ KUMAR, Jt. Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

वािण य एवं उोग मं ालय

(वािणय िवभाग)

नई द ली, 4 जनवरी , 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 20

20.—केीय सरकार, िनयात (गुणवKा िनयंण एवं िनरीण) िनयम, 1964 के िनयम 12, के उपिनयम (2) के

साथ पCठत, िनयात (गुणवKा िनयंण एवं िनरीण) अिधिनयम, 1963 (1963 का 22) क1 धारा 7 क1 उपधारा (1) Qारा <दK

शि-यG का <योग करते Rए, मैसस एसजीएस इंिडया <ाइवेट िलिमटेड, 4बी, आद शंकराचाय माग, पोवई रोड, िव^ोली पि)म, मुंबई,

महाराd Z–400083, को इस अिधसूचना के राजप म' <काशन क1 तारीख से तीन वष क1 अविध के िलए भारत सरकार के वािणeय

मंालय क1 अिधसूचना सं. का.आ. 3975, तारीख 20 दस बर, 1965 क1 अनुसूची म' िविनAदB खिनज और अयYक समूह-I, अथात्

बॉEसाइट अयY क के िनयात से पूव िनgिलिखत शतh के अधीन जयगढ पKन, दघी पKन, धमतार पKन तथा अंगरे पKन पर उ-

खिनजG और अयYकG का िनरीण करने के िलए एक अिभकरण के iप म' मायता देती है, अथात् :-

(i)

मैसस एसजीएस इंिडया <ाइवेट िलिमटेड, 4बी, आद शंकराचाय माग, पोवई रोड, िव^ोली पि)म, मुंबई,

महाराd Z–400083 खिनज और अयYक समूह-I का िनयात (िनरीण) िनयम, 1965 के िनयम 4 के अधीन िविनAदB

िनरीण का कायावयन करने के िलये उनके Qारा अपनाई गई िविध क1 जांच करने के िलये िनयात िनरीण पCरषद्

Qारा नािमत अिधकाCरयG को पयाj सुिवधाएं देगी; और

(ii)

महाराd Z–400083, इस अिधसूचना के अधीन अपने कायh के िनdपादन म' िनदेशक (िनरीण और गुणवKा

िनयंण), िनयात िनरीण पCरषद Qारा समय-समय पर िलिखत kप म' दए गए ऐसे िनदmशG से आबn होगी।

[फा.सं. 4/14/2016 - िनयात िनरीण]

संतोष कुमार सारंगी, संयु- सिचव

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2017

S.O. 20.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

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

Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognizes M/s. SGS India Private Ltd. 4B, Adi

Shankarachary Marg, Powai Road, Vikhoroli(W), Mumbai-400083, as an agency for a period of three years with effect

the date of publication of this notification, for the inspection of Minerals and Ores Group-I namely, Bauxite Ore as

specified in the Schedule to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce number S.O.

3975 dated the 20 December 1965, prior to export of said Minerals and Ores at Jaigarh Port, Dighi Port, Dharamtar

Port and Angre Port, subject to the following conditions, namely: -

(i)

M/s. SGS India Private Ltd. 4B, Adi Shankarachary Marg, Powai Road, Vikhoroli(W), Mumbai-

400083, shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this

behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores - Group I

(Inspection) Rules, 1965;

(ii)

M/s. SGS India Private Ltd. 4B, Adi Shankarachary Marg, Powai Road, Vikhoroli(W), Mumbai-

400083, in the performance of their function under this notification shall be bound by such directions as

the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give in writing from time

to time.

[F. No. 4/14/2016-Export Inspection]

SANTOSH KUMAR SARANGI, Jt. Secy.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 21-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,;jiksVZ

vFkkWfjVh vkWiQ bafM;k ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 39@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 21-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11011@19@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2016

S.O. 21.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Airport Authority of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

21.12.2016.

[No. L-11011/19/2013-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No. 39/2014

The General Secretary,

Indian Airport Kamgar Union,

Quarter No.B-173, Pocket A, INA Colony,

New Delhi – 110 023

…Workman

Versus

The Chairman,

Airport Authority of India Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,

Safdarjung Airport,

New Delhi – 110 003

…Management

AWARD

A reference was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment vide letter No.

L-11011/19/2013-IR(M) dated 19.02.2014 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-Section 2(A) of Section of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ID Act) for adjudication, terms of which are as under:

“Whether the action of the management of Airport Authority of India in making compulsory retirement of

employees on the basis of AAI Circular No.62/2012 dated 17.01.2012 on premature retirement is legal? If

not, what relief the workman are entitled to?”

Later on, Corrigendum was received vide letter No.L-11011/19/2013-IR(M) dated 26.05.2014 as under:

‘In partial modification of this Ministry’s Order of even number dated 19.02.2014, in the second line of the

schedule, the figure ‘62/2012’ may be treated as replaced with ‘02/2012’ and in the third line the word

‘workman’ may be treated as replaced with ’workmen’.

It is alleged by the claimants in the statement of claim that prior to 1972, all the airports, both international as

well as domestic, were maintained and managed by Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation through Director

General of Civil Aviation. In the year 1971, International Airport Authority of India (in short IAAI) was carved out of

the Civil Aviation Department and was constituted as such vide International Airports Authority of India Act, 1971, to

maintain and manage the International Airports in the country. It started functioning from 1972.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

It is the case of the claimant that in the year 1985, National Airport Authority(in short(NAA) was carved out

of balance Civil Aviation department of the Government of India vide NAA Act 1985 to maintain and manage

domestic airports throughout the country. Upon constitution of IAAI and NAA, as stated above, employees who came

from Ministry of Civil Aviation ceased to be Government servants on joining autonomous body/industrial organization.

In the year 1994, IAAI and NAA were merged into Airport Authority of India (in short AAI) which started functioning

from 01.04.1985. Section 18 of the Airport Authority of India Act provides that officers and employees of IAAI and

NAA became employees of AAI created under the Act. Thus, workmen became employees of AAI. It is clearly

provided under sub-section 2 of Section 18 of the above Act that every officer and employee of IAAI and NAA shall

continue to be governed by the same terms and conditions as were applicable to them earlier under IAAI and NAA

respectively. It is also provided under Section 18(7) of the Act after expiry of one year or extended period provided

under Section 18 of the Act, Officer and employees of AAI shall be governed by rules and regulations made by the

Authority in respect of their service conditions. Section 42 of the Act empowers the Authority to frame conditions of

service and it further provides that regulation made by AAI under the Act, shall have effect only if approval is given by

the Central Government. Further, Section 43 also provides that further rules and regulations made under the said Act

shall be placed as soon as possible before each House of Parliament while it is in session. It is, thus, clear that under

Section 42 and 43 of the Act, following conditions are to be fulfilled:

(i)

prior approval of the Central Government

(ii)

Notification in the official Gazette

(iii)

Laying of rules & regulations before each House of Parliament and agreement or disagreement of

both the Houses of Parliament for making or not making the rules & regulations.

It is also alleged by the claimant in Para 16 of the statement of claim that in the year 2003, after 8 years from

constitution of AAI management of AAI prepared Airport Authority of India (General Conditions of Service and

Remuneration of Employees ) Regulation 2003 (hereinafter called the 2003 Regulation) and got them straightway

notified in the official Gazette skipping the necessary approval from either House of Parliament as well as prior

approval of the Central Government.

It is also the case of the workman that no rule or regulation of IAAI and NAA contained any provision of pre-

mature retirement of employee on attaining age of 50 years on the grounds of inefficiency or doubtful integrity or

medical unfitness. Rather the Central Government provided for protection of service to his employees who came to

NAA by incorporating a clause in para 5 of its letter dated 22.09.1989 to the effect that dismissal/removal of an

employee for any misconduct from service of NAA would be subject to review by Government before taking final

decision and copy of the said letter is Annexure A-7. In short provisions, compulsory retirement made in the new

regulation was never in existence previously, which empowers the Authority to compulsorily retire an employee, being

inefficient or of doubtful integrity of medically unfit etc. Claimants have quoted in extenso the various

provisions/regulations made under IAAI Act.

Claimant union has made a representation to the Chairman vide letter dated 27.01.2012 demanding immediate

cancellation of circular of 2012 as is clear from Annexure A-9. Since the said Regulation of 2003 is legally invalid and

having been made without proper approval of the Central Government and have not been laid before either House of

Parliament, as such this provision regarding pre-mature retirement was also invalid under the law. There is also

reference to Section 9A of the ID Act which requires notice to the workmen before making any change in their

conditions of service. It is further alleged that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the claimant before making

any new service condition for them or changing old service conditions. The new provision made by the management

of AAI for pre-mature retirement of the workmen, that too without show cause notice amounts to termination of their

service. Finally, prayer has been made for declaring the impugned 2003 regulation, including the provision of

premature retirement of employees as illegal and invalid under the law.

Notice served on the management and Shri Surender Kumar, Junior Executive (HR) put upp appearance on

06.0.2014 and 02.07.2014. Thereafter, none appeared on behalf of the management, as such, this Tribunal vide order

dated 21.01.2015 proceeded ex-parte against the management.

This Tribunal, vide order dated 18.02.2015, framed the following issue:

(i)

Whether action of the management of Airport Authority of India in making compulsory retirement of

employees on the basis of AAI Circular No.62/2012 dated 17.01.2012 on premature retirement is

legal? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?

10.

Claimant union, in support of its stand, examined Shri G.A. Rudrappa as WW1, whose affidavit is

Ex.WW1/A. He has also tendered in evidence documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/9.

11.

I have heard Shri Kamlesh Kumar, A/R for the claimant union and perused the record.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12.

It is clear from pleadings of the claimant as well as perusal of affidavit Ex.WW1/A that prior to 1972 all the

airports in the country were maintained by Ministry of Civil Aviation and Government of India. It is further clear from

pleadings of the claimant as well as perusal of affidavit Ex.WW1/A that prior to 1972, international as well as domestic

airports in the country were maintained by Ministry of Civil Aviation and Government of India. It is also apparent

from the evidence on record that IAAI was carved out of Civil Aviation Department of Government of India and as

such IAAI was to maintain and manager the international airports in the country. It started functioning in 198\72.

Further in the year 1995, NAA was carved out of the balance Civil Aviation Department of the Government of India

vide National Airports Authority Act 1985. This Act was to maintain and manage the domestic airports in the country.

Consequent upon creation of these two bodies and upon constitution of IAAI and NAA, employees who came from

Civil Aviation ministry ceased to be government servants on their joining the respective autonomous bodies and

industrial organizations. It is further clear from record that in the year 1994, IAAI and NAA were merged to constitute

Airport Authority of India under the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994. It started functioning on 01.04.1995.

13.

In order to appreciate the controversy in proper perspective, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section

18 and 42 (1) & (2) of the AAI Act, which is reproduced as under:

Section 18. (1) (a) Every officer or other employee of the International Airports Authority serving in its

employment immediately before the appointed day shall, in so far as such officer or other employee is

employed in connection with the undertaking which has vested in the Authority by virtue of this Act,

becomes, as from the appointed day, an officer or, as the case may be, other employee of the International

Airports Division of the Authority. (b) Every officer or other employee of the National Airports Authority

serving in its employment immediately before the appointed day shall, in so far as such officer or other

employee is employed in connection with the undertaking which has vested in the Authority by virtue of this

Act, becomes, as from the appointed day, an officer or, as the case may be, other employee of the National

Airports Division of the Authority.

(2) Every officer or other employee of the International Airports Authority or the National Airports Authority

who becomes an officer or, as the case may be, other employee of the Authority, as referred to in sub-section

(1), shall hold his office or service therein by the same tenure, at the same remuneration, upon the same terms

and conditions, with the same obligations and with the same rights and privileges as to leave, passage, 17

insurance, superannuation scheme, provident fund, other funds, retirement, pension, gratuity and other benefits

as he would have held under the International Airports Authority or, as the case may be, the National Airports

Authority if its undertaking had not vested in the Authority and shall continue to do so as an officer or other

employee, as the case may be, of the Authority or until the expiry of a period of one year from the appointed

day if such officer or other employee opts not to be the officer or other employee of the Authority within such

period: Provided that if the Authority thinks it expedient to extend the period so fixed, it may extend the same

up to a maximum period of one year.

(3) Where an officer or other employee of the International Airports Authority or the National Airports

Authority opts under sub-section (2) not to be in the employment or service of the Authority in which the

undertakings of the International Airports Authority and the National Airports Authority have vested, such

officer or other employee shall be deemed to have resigned from the respective cadre.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or in any other law for the time

being in force, the transfer of the services of any officer or other employee of the International Airports

Authority or the National Airports Authority to the Authority shall not entitle such officer or other employee

to any compensation under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force and no such claim shall

be entertained by any court, tribunal or other authority.

(5) The officers and other employees who have retired before the appointed day from the service of the

International Airports Authority or the National Airports Authority and are entitled to any benefits, rights or

privileges shall be entitled to receive the same benefits, rights or privileges from 18 the Authority in which the

undertaking of the International Airports Authority and the National Airports Authority have vested.

(6) The trusts of the Provident Fund and Group Insurance and Superannuation Scheme of the International

Airports Authority or the National Airports Authority and any other bodies created for the welfare of officers

or employees would continue to discharge their functions in the Authority as was being done hitherto in the

International Airports Authority or the National Airports and tax exemption granted to Provident Fund or

group Insurance and Superannuation Scheme would continue to be applied to the Authority.

(7) After the expiry of the period of one year, or the extended period, as referred to in sub-section (2), all the

officers and other employees transferred and appointed to the Authority, other than those opting not to be the

officers or employees of the Authority within such period, shall be governed by the rules and regulations made

by the Authority in respect of the service conditions of the officers and other employees of the said Authority.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

Section 42 (1) The Authority may make regulations not inconsistent with this Act and the rules made

thereunder to provide for all matters for which provision is necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving

effect to the provisions of this Act.

Section 42 (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for-

(a) the time and places of the meetings of the Authority and the procedure to be followed for the

transaction of business including the quorum at such meetings under subsection (1) of section 8;

(b) the conditions of service and the remuneration of officers and other employees to be appointed by the

Authority under sub-section (2) of section 10;

Authority under clause (e) of sub-section (3) of section 12;

(d) the storage or processing of goods in any warehouse established by the Authority under clause (g) of

sub-section (3) of section 12 and the charging of fees for such storage or processing;

(e) the contracts or class of contracts which are to be sealed with the common seal of the 45 Authority

and the form and manner in which a contract may be made by the Authority under sub-section (1) of

section 21;

(f) the custody and restoration of lost property and the terms and conditions under which lost property

may be restored to the persons entitled thereto under section 34;

(g) the disposal of any lost property in cases where such property is not restored;

(h) securing the safety of aircraft, vehicles and persons using the airport or civil enclave and preventing

danger to the public arising from the use and operation of aircraft in the airport or civil enclave;

(i) preventing obstruction within the airport or civil enclave for its normal functioning;

(j) prohibiting the parking or waiting of any vehicle of carriage within the airport or civil enclave except

at places specified by the Authority;

(k) prohibiting or restricting access to any part of the airport or civil enclave;

(l) preserving order within the airport or civil enclave and preventing damage to property therein;

(m) regulating or restricting advertising within the airport or civil enclave;

(n) requiring any person, if so directed by an officer appointed by the Authority in this behalf, to leave

the airport or civil enclave or any particular part of the airport or civil enclave; and

(o) generally for the efficient and proper management of the airport or civil enclave.

14.

On perusal of document Ex.WW1/3, i.e. office order dated 31.03.1997, which is in pursuance of section 18(7)

of AAI Act 1994, the authority resolved that every officer or other employee of the authority shall hold office on the

same remuneration and terms and conditions with the same obligation, including leave, passage, insurance,

superannuation scheme, provident fund, other funds, retirement, pension , gratuity and other benefits which such

employees were entitled in National Airports Division and International Airports Division of the authority.

15.

Further, letter Ex.WW1/4 filed by the claimant union also refers to the provisions contained in Section 42(1)

of AAI Act, which empowers the authority to frame conditions of services of its employees. Attention of this Tribunal

was also invited to notifications Ex.WW1/5, which is in fact regulation called AAI (General Conditions of service and

Remuneration of Employees )Regulation 2003. It appears that necessity arose to frame these regulations as both IAAI

and NAA were merged into one body, i.e. Airport Authority of India under the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994.

This detailed documents which deals with probation, discharge and termination of services as well as conditions for

appointment under the AAI. Clause 12 of the document deals with superannuation or retirement and reads as under;

12. Superannuation or Retirement.- (1) An employee shall retire from his service on superannuation on

attaining the age of 60 years. His/her actual retirement shall take effect as follows:- (a) if the employee’s date

of birth falls on the first day of the month in which he/she attains the age of 60 years, the retirement shall take

effect on the last date of the preceding month; (b) if his/her date of birth falls on the end or on a later date of

the month, his/her retirement shall be effective on the last date of the month in which he/she attains the age of

superannuation. (2) In case an employee seeks voluntary retirement under this clause after attaining the age of

50 years, he shall be entitled for gratuity as admissible under any regulation made by Authority in this regard.

10 (3) Employees retiring between the age of 50 and 60 years be eligible for full retirement benefits. (4)

Notwithstanding anything contained herein before, the Authority may introduce at an appropriate stage a

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

scheme for Voluntary Retirement in keeping with the Authority’s objectives and in line with the Government

Directives in this regard. (5) An employee, who has attained the age of 50 years and is considered to be - (i)

inefficient, or (ii) doubtful integrity, or (iii) medically unfit, may be prematurely retired by the Competent

Authority: Provided that the employees those covered under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947),

shall be prematurely retired following due process of law. Explanation – For the removal of doubts, the

criteria for determining inefficient, doubtful integrity or medically unfit of an employee under clause (c), the

following procedure shall be followed, namely:- (a) Inefficient : Inefficiency which shall be evaluated on the

basis of Performance Appraisal Reports. An employee, who has consecutively secured poor rating in his/her

Appraisal Reports for the preceding three years may be deemed as a fit case for premature retirement. (b)

Doubtful Integrity : An employee, who gets an adverse comment on his/her integrity consecutively for three

years in his/her Appraisal Reports, shall be recommended for premature retirement. (c) Medical Unfitness : If

an employee - (i) has been continuously on leave on medical grounds for a period of 12 weeks (including

Saturdays; Sundays and Holidays), or (ii) has been on leave for reasons of sickness for a total period of 120

days or more (including Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays) during a continuous period of six months, or, (iii)

(a) though attending duties, if found to be mentally deranged, the Head of the concerned Department may refer

the employee to a Medical Board for a thorough medical check up and report on:- - the disease he/she is

suffering from, - whether the disease is infectious/contagious, and - whether it is curable or incurable. (b) also,

in case of curable disease, whether the employee is likely to be fit to resume his/her normal duties within a

period of 12 months; 11 (c) in case the employee is not fit to resume his/her duties within a period of 12

months and in case of employee suffering from incurable and infectious/contagious disease, or suffering from

lunacy or mental derangement and whose services cannot be utilized by the Authority, or whose attendance is

likely to pose a health hazard to others, as may be certified by the Medical Board, premature retirement shall

be considered, on the recommendations of the Competent Authority; (d) premature retirement on medical

grounds is independent of and without prejudice to the right of the Authority under the contract employment

to dispense with the services of an employee after serving the prescribed notice. (6) Benefit under Premature

Retirement- An employee, who is prematurely retired, shall be entitled to the following benefits, namely :- (a)

pay for the notice period as applicable to the employee under the terms and conditions of service, plus leave

salary for unavailed Earned Leave. The quantum of leave salary shall not exceed the maximum limit to which

earned leave may be accumulated under any regulations made by the Authority in this regard; (b) Provident

Fund with accretions thereto in the account of the employee subject to the provisions of any regulations made

by the Authority in this regard; (c) Gratuity as per the any regulations made by the Authority in this regard; (d)

transfer benefits for self and his family as admissible under any regulations made by the Authority in this

regard for proceeding to home town or to the place where he/she intends to settle down in India; (e) Any other

benefit that may be extended from time to time to employees on retirement at the discretion of the Authority;

16.

There is also document Ex.WW1/6 i.e. International Airport Authority of India Regulation 1980 which were

applicable to such employees prior to their merger with Airport Authority of India in 1995. This detailed document

which deals with the appointment and general conditions regarding such appointment, method of recruitment, creation

of posts as well as matter relating to seniority, including transfers etc. Bare perusal of this document would show that

there was no provision for compulsory retirement or termination service at the age of 50. Para No.23 of the said

document deals with termination of permanent employee by giving 30 days notice in writing or pay in lieu of notice,

which appears to be identical to provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act.

17.

There is another document Ex.WW1/7 filed by the claimant union, which deals with details of pension matters

in relation to those employees who have been transferred to Airport Authority of India.

18.

The other important document is Ex.WW1/8 which is in fact HRM circular No.2/12 issued by Airport

Authority of India . This document in fact deals with the retirement of such employees who are found to be inefficient,

of doubtful integrity, and not in a position to perform duties due to medical unfitness etc.

19.

Lastly, there is a letter by General Secretary of the workman union to the Chairman of AAI, Ex.WW1/9

wherein it has been alleged that AAI Regulation 2003 was notified without prior approval of the Central Government.

In this regard, reference is also made to sub-section 4 and 5 of Section 42 of AAI, which is as under:

“(4)

No regulation made by the Authority under this section shall have effect until it has been approved

by the Central Government and published in the official gazette.”

(5)

Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the first regulations under this Act shall be made

by the Central Government and shall have effect on being published in the official gazette.”

20.

After going through the entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record, as discussed above, both IAAI

and NAA were admittedly merged and integrated into one authority, AAI and employees who were working in the

previous two organizations came to be governed by Regulations of AAI Act. It is clearly provided in sub-section 2 of

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

section 18 of the Act that such employees shall continue to be governed by the same terms and conditions and with the

same obligations, rights and privileges as they enjoyed in IAAI and NAA only after expiry of a period of one year from

the date of joining i.e. 01.04.1995 and the said period was further extendable by one year. It was after expiry of the

above period that employees of AAI shall be covered by Rules and Regulations made by AAI in view of the

powers given to AAI under sub-section-7 of section 18.

21.

It was strongly argued on behalf of the workmen that in the present case no approval was obtained from the

Central Government and HRM circular No.02/2012 was directly published in the official gazette in gross contravention

of provisions of section 42 (4 and 5) of AAI Act 1994.

22.

I have also gone through the ratio of law in Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board vs. Hari Shankar Jain (1978)

4 SCC 16 as well as Tata Iron and Steel Company vs. its workmen (AIR 1972 SCC 1917) regarding provisions of

Section 9A of the Act. Strong reliance was placed upon the case of Karnal Co-op Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Labour Court,

Rohtak, Haryana ((2003) II CLR 704).

23.

Admittedly, in the present case, it is apparent from perusal of the record that before publishing of HRM

circular No.02/2012, the Authority/management has not got approval of the Central Government nor there is anything n

record to suggest that these regulations were taken up for consideration and approval by either House of Parliament, as

required under the law. This Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that the management has not taken care to rebut the case of

the claimant union as no written statement was filed to the statement of claim of the claimants. Though, initially, Shri

Surender Singh appeared on behalf of the management on two dates, but later on for reasons best known to the

management, nobody put up appearance on behalf of the management as a result of which management was proceeded

ex-parte. In such a situation, this Tribunal, even otherwise, is entitled to draw adverse inference against the

management. Further, in Hari Shankar Jain case(supra)almost in similar circumstances, Hon’ble Apex Court held as

under:

“We, therefore, hold that the Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act is a special law in regard to the

matters enumerated in the schedule and the regulations made by the Electricity Board with respect to any of

those matters are of no effect unless such regulations are either notified by the Government under Sec. 13-B or

certified by The Certifying officer under Sec. 5 o the Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act. In regard

to matters in respect of which regulations made by the Board have not been notified by the Governor or in

respect o which n regulations have been made by the Board, the Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act

shall continue to apply. In the present case the regulation made by the Board with regard to age o

superannuation having been duly notified by the Government, the regulation shall have effect notwithstanding

the fact that it is a matter which could be the subject-matters) Standing orders under the Industrial

Employment (Standing orders) Act. The respondents were therefore, properly retired when they attained the

age of is years. the appeal is, therefore, allowed. The Writ Petition field in the Light Court is dismissed. The

appellants will pay the costs of the respondents as directed by this Court on 28-9- 1977. The costs are

quantified at Rs. 3,500/-.”

24.

In Tata Iron and Steel Company case (supra) question of delegation of power by Legislature under Article 255

of the Constitution of India was discussed and Hon’ble Apex Court, in fact, observed that power to frame such

regulation has been delegated by the Parliament to the Authority under Regulation 245. Delegation of such power is

permissible only when legislative principle and policy is adequately laid on such Authority as per the Act. When the

workmen are likely to be effected by change in the conditions of service, in such circumstances, approval of the

Government is required as discussed above under Section 18(7) of the Act.

25.

Lastly in the case of Karnal Co-op. Sugar Mills case (supra), Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana,

(speaking through Justice G.S. Singhvi as his lordship then was) dealt with the requirement of provisions of Section 9-

A of the ID Act, which clearly provides that any employer who proposes to effect changes in conditions of services

applicable to such workman without giving the workman notice, in writing, or in the prescribed manner, can make such

changes. In the said case, workman was retrenched in view of implementation of scheme of rationalization undertaken

by the employer on account of improvement of plant or technique in the industry. Labour court held the impugned

action of the management to be invalid being in violation of section 9-A of the Act. It was held that management

cannot effect any change in condition of service applicable to such workmen unless notice has been given in the

prescribed manner to such workmen who are likely to be effected by such change or proposed in the conditions of

service. In this regard, it is necessary to reproduce provisions of Section 9-A of the Act, which are relevant in the

present controversy:

9A. Notice of change.- No employer, who proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service

applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule, shall effect such

change,--

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(a) without giving to the workmen likely to be affected by such change a notice in the prescribed

manner of the nature of the change proposed to be effected; or

(b) within twenty- one days of giving such notice:

26.

In the case on hand also, admittedly no such notice was issued to the workmen when the above Regulation of

2003 was framed by the management. To my mind, it has really dealt a crippling blow to the case of the management.

27.

As a sequel to my detailed discussion made hereinabove, it is held that the impugned Regulation of 2003,

including provisions of pre-mature retirement of employees of AAI, is illegal and is legally not binding upon the

workmen, as the same is in violation of provisions of Section 18(7) of the Act as well as Section 9-A of the ID Act. 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 : December 8, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 22-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,p-Mh-

,iQ-lh- LVSaMMZ ykbiQ ba';ksjsal daiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 91@2016) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17012@7@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2016

S.O. 22.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 91/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 21.12.2016.

[No. L-17012/7/2016-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No. 91/2016

Shri Ajay Singh, S/o Shri Braham Prakash

R/o House No.30/6, Block 23,

MCD Colony, Azadpur,

Delhi 110 033

…Workman

Versus

M/s HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

A-24, Community Centre, Jwala Heri Market,

Paschim Vihar,

New Delhi – 110 063

…Management

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No.L-17012/7/2016-IR(M) dated 18.03.2016, referred the following industrial

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

“Whether Shri Ajay Singh S/o Shri Braham Prakash is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and

if yes, whether his services have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management of HDFC

Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, and if so, to what relief is the workman entitled to and what

directions are necessary in this respect?”

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party/ies 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 Ajay Singh opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

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.

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 : November 22, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 23-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ fnYyh

baVjus'kuy ,;jiksVZ izkbosV fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 68@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@10@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2016

S.O. 23.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 68/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. and others and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 21.12.2016.

[No. L-11012/10/2014-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT - II, ROOM NO. 33,

BLOCK-A, GROUND FLOOR, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, KARKARDOOMA,

DELHI 110 032

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID. No. 68/2016

Sh. Neeraj Tyagi, S/o Mangal Tyagi

C/o Airport Employees Union,

BTR Bhawan, 13A, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi

…Workman

Versus

The Chairman,

M/s. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,

New Udaan Bhawan, IGI Airport, New Delhi-37

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Manager,

Kappal Brady Services Pvt. Ltd.,

LB-17, New Delhi House,

27, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.

The Manager,

Brady Services Pvt. Ltd.,

LB-17, New Delhi House,

27, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi

…Managements

AWARD

On 21.01.2015 Labour Ministry of Government of India made reference No.L-11012/10/2014-IR(M) to this

tribunal for adjudication “Whether termination of services of Sh. Neeraj Tyagi S/o Sh. Mangal Tyagi by the

Managements M/s. Brady Services Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 16.12.2014 is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to?

Aforesaid reference has been received in the office of this tribunal which has been registered as ID Case No. 68

of 2016.

Notice to workman/respondent was issued to file claim statement/ response to reference fixing 16.09.2016.

On 16.09.2016 none turn up hence fixed 21.10.2016 for filing of claim statement.

On 21.10.2016 workman as well as Sh. Vipin Malik Manager (HR) came and informed that settlement is in

progress. Hence I fixed 9.11.2016 for filing of settlement report.

On 9.11.2016 parties sought adjournment hence I fixed 15.11.2016 for filing of settlement report.

On 15.11.2016 management M/s Brady services Pvt. Ltd. filed settlement report in respect of ID Case No. 68/16,

69/16, 70/16, and 71/16 through its Manager H.R and Admin Sh. Bipin Mallik.

After settlement outside court, Management handed over cheque of Rs. 41,715/- on 15.11.2016 to workman.

Who made an endorsement on ordersheet to this effect of receiving cheque to his full and final payment in compliance

of settlement. Workman filed photo copy of cheque which is introduced on record.

On such payment of Rs. 41,715/- claim of workman/claimant stands satisfied.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-15/11/2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 24-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ fnYyh

baVjus'kuy ,;jiksVZ izkbosV fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 69@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@9@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2016

S.O. 24.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. and others and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 21.12.2016.

[No. L-11012/9/2014-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT - II, ROOM NO. 33,

BLOCK-A, GROUND FLOOR, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, KARKARDOOMA,

DELHI 110 032

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID. No. 69/2016

Sh. Vivek, S/o Shambhu Prasad,

C/o Airport Employees Union,

BTR Bhawan, 13A, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi

…Workman

Versus

The Chairman,

M/s. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,

New Udaan Bhawan, IGI Airport, New Delhi-37

The Manager,

Kappal Brady Services Pvt. Ltd.,

LB-17, New Delhi House,

27, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.

The Manager,

Brady Services Pvt. Ltd.,

LB-17, New Delhi House,

27, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi

…Managements

AWARD

On 21.01.2015 Labour Ministry of Government of India made reference No.L-11012/9/2014-IR(M) to this

tribunal for adjudication “Whether termination of services of Sh. Vivek S/o Sh. Shambhu Prasad by the Managements

M/s Brady services Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 16.12.2014 is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman concerned is

entitled to?

Aforesaid reference has been received in the office of this tribunal which has been registered as ID Case No. 69

of 2016.

Notice to workman/respondent was issued to file claim statement/ response to reference fixing 16.09.2016.

On 16.09.2016 none turn up hence fixed 21.10.2016 for filing of claim statement.

On 21.10.2016 workman as well as Sh. Vipin Malik Manager (HR) came and informed that settlement is in

progress.Hence I fixed 9.11.2016 for filing of settlement report.

On 9.11.2016 parties sought adjournment hence I fixed 15.11.2016 for filing of settlement report.

On 15.11.2016 Sh. Bipin Mallik Manager H.R. and Admin filed settlement report in respect of this ID Case also

in ID case No. 68/2016.

After settlement outside court, Management handed over cheque of Rs. 46,347/- on 15.11.2016 to workman who

made an endorsement on ordersheet to this effect of receiving cheque to his full and final payment in compliance of

settlement. Workman filed photo copy of cheque which is introduced on record.

On such payment of Rs. 46,347/- claim of workman/claimant stands satisfied.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-15/11/2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 25-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ fnYyh

baVjus'kuy ,;jiksVZ izkbosV fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 70@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@6@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2016

S.O. 25.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 70/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. and others and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 21.12.2016.

[No. L-11012/6/2014-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT - II, ROOM NO. 33,

BLOCK-A, GROUND FLOOR, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, KARKARDOOMA,

DELHI 110 032

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID. No. 70/2016

Sh. Virender Yadav, S/o Ram Kumar Yadav,

C/o Airport Employees Union,

BTR Bhawan, 13A, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi

…Workman

Versus

The Chairman,

M/s. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,

New Udaan Bhawan, IGI Airport, New Delhi-37

The Manager,

Kappal Brady Services Pvt. Ltd.,

LB-17, New Delhi House,

27, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.

The Manager,

Brady Services Pvt. Ltd.,

LB-17, New Delhi House,

27, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi

…Managements

AWARD

On 21.01.2015 Labour Ministry of Government of India made reference No.L-11012/6/2014-IR(M) to this

tribunal for adjudication “Whether termination of services of Sh. Virender Yadav, S/o Sh. Ram Kumar Yadav by the

Managements M/s Brady services Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 16.12.2014 is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to?

Aforesaid reference has been received in the office of this tribunal which has been registered as ID Case No. 70

of 2016.

Notice to workman/respondent was issued to file claim statement/ response to reference fixing 16.09.2016.

On 16.09.2016 none turn up hence fixed 21.10.2016 for filing of claim statement.

On 21.10.2016 workman as well as Sh. Vipin Malik Manager (HR) came and informed that settlement is in

progress. Hence I fixed 9.11.2016 for filing of settlement report.

On 9.11.2016 parties sought adjournment hence I fixed 15.11.2016 for filing of settlement report.

On 15.11.2016 Sh. Bipin Mallik Manager H.R. and Admin filed settlement report in respect of this ID Case also

in ID case No. 68/2016.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

After settlement outside court, Management handed over cheque of Rs. 29,406/- on 15.11.2016 to workman.

Who made an endorsement on ordersheet to this effect of receiving cheque to his full and final payment in compliance

of settlement. Workman filed photo copy of cheque which is introduced on record.

On such payment of Rs. 29,406/- claim of workman/claimant stands satisfied.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-15/11/2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 26-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ fnYyh

baVjus'kuy ,;jiksVZ izkbosV fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 71@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@5@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2016

S.O. 26.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 71/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. and others and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 21.12.2016.

[No. L-11012/5/2014-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT - II, ROOM NO.33,

BLOCK-A,GROUND FLOOR, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, KARKARDOOMA,

DELHI 110 032

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID. No. 71/2016

Sh. Raj Singh, S/o Rattan Singh,

C/o Airport Employees Union,

BTR Bhawan, 13A, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi

…Workman

Versus

The Chairman,

M/s. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,

New Udaan Bhawan, IGI Airport, New Delhi-37

The Manager,

Kappal Brady Services Pvt. Ltd.,

LB-17, New Delhi House,

27, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.

The Manager,

Brady Services Pvt. Ltd.,

LB-17, New Delhi House,

27, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi

…Managements

AWARD

On 21.01.2015 Labour Ministry of Government of India made reference No.L-11012/5/2014-IR(M) to this

tribunal for adjudication “Whether termination of services of Sh. Raj Singh S/o Sh. Rattan Singh by the Managements

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

M/s Brady services Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 16.12.2014 is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman concerned is

entitled to?

Aforesaid reference has been received in the office of this tribunal which has been registered as ID Case No. 71

of 2016.

Notice to workman/respondent was issued to file claim statement/ response to reference fixing 16.09.2016.

On 16.09.2016 none turn up hence fixed 21.10.2016 for filing of claim statement.

On 21.10.2016 workman as well as Sh. Vipin Malik Manager (HR) case and informed that settlement is in

progress. Hence I fixed 9.11.2016 for filing of settlement report.

On 9.11.2016 parties sought adjournment hence I fixed 15.11.2016 for filing of settlement report.

On 15.11.2016 Sh. Bipin Mallik Manager H.R. and Admin filed settlement report in respect of this ID Case also

in ID case No. 68/2016.

After settlement outside court, Management handed over cheque of Rs. 31,034/- on 15.11.2016 to workman.

Who made an endorsement on ordersheet to this effect of receiving cheque to his full and final payment in compliance

of settlement. Workman filed photo copy of cheque which is introduced on record.

On such payment of Rs. 31,034/- claim of workman/claimant stands satisfied.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-15/11/2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 27-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ fgjhZ

ekbUl vkWiQ fHkykbZ bLikr la;a=k ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 71@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 21-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29011@21@2011&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2016

S.O. 27.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 71/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Hirri Mines of Bhilai Steel Plant and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 21.12.2016.

[No. L-29011/21/2011-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/71/12

The President,

Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC),

Village Chhatouna, Post Hirri Mines,

Distt. Bilaspur

…Workman/Union

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

Versus

Dy.General Manager (Incharge),

Hirri Mines of Bhilai Steel Plant,

At & Post Hirri Mines,

Distt. Bilaspur

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 28^th day of October 2016

As per letter dated 4-6-12 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-29011/21/2011-

IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the decision of the contractor M/S Jhajharia Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Engaged by Bhilai Steel Plant,

Bilaspur to reduce one shift from working 3 shifts, violating the terms and conditions of the work award, is

fair, legal and justified? What relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Union failed to participate in reference. Union has

proceeded exparte on 25-5-16.

Management filed exparte Written Statement and affidavit of evidence.

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 decision of the contractor M/S

Jhajharia Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Engaged by Bhilai Steel

Plant, Bilaspur to reduce one shift from working 3

shifts, violating the terms and conditions of the

work award, is fair, legal and justified?

Ist party Union failed to participate in reference, the

dispute couldnot be decided on merit.

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Union is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

Exparte Written Statement submitted by 2^nd party is devoted on the point that M/S Jhajharia Nirman Pvt. Ltd. was

awarded contract of crushing, sizing, transportation and loading of dolomite at Hirri Mines of Bhilai Steel Plant.

Working hours at Hirri mines were provided in 3 shifts per day. According to contractor, he was awarded contract of

crushing, sizing, transportation and loading of dolomite at Hirri Mines for 27 months. On expiry of 27 months from

9-1-09, according to contractor sufficient raw material had not been given by management for crushing the material

from March 2011 onwards. Therefore it was not possible to continue work in 3 shifts. Above facts are supported by

management’s witness Sanjay Boratwar filing affidavit of his evidence.

As Ist party has not participated in reference, the dispute under reference could not be decided on merit.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.1.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Ist party not participated in reference therefore dispute under reference could not be decided on merit.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 28-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ fHkykbZ

bLikr la;a=k ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 90@2009) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

21-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&26012@2@2009&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2016

S.O. 28.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 90/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Bhilai Steel Plant and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

21.12.2016.

[No. L-26012/2/2009-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/90/09

The Organizing Secretary,

Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC),

Dalli Rajhara,

Durg (CG)

…Workman/Union

Versus

Assistant General Manager(P, Mines & ES),

Bhilai Steel Plant,

Bhilai, Durg(CG)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 28^th day of October 2016

As per letter dated 22-10-09 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-26012/2/2009-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the management of Bhilai Steel Plant in their Jharandalli Mines, Dallirajhara is justified in not

changing the date of birth of Shri Kailash Nath, P.No.212002 from 29-9-49 to 6-2-1952 as demanded by the

Organising Secretary of S.K.M.S Union? To what relief the workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party SKMS Union submitted statement of claim.

The contentions of Ist party pertaining to dispute are that date of birth of Shri Kailash Nath Yadav was sought to be

corrected from 29-9-49 to 6-2-52. The dispute was raised before ALC. Failure report was also submitted on 29-5-09.

The concerned workman instead of waiting the outcome of failure report filed writ petition suit No. 15/A/09 for

declaration, correction of his date of birth alleging that his retirement on date of birth 29-9-09 is arbitrary and illegal.

Civil Judge Class II Dalli Rajhara decree the suit on 17-9-09. It is contented that the reference has become infructuous.

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of Ist party. 2^nd party w.r.t. civil suit 15A/09 submits said suit

for declaration and injunction on behalf of the Ist party workman. Workman had adopted remedy of civil suit. The

decree passed by Civil Judge, IInd class was challenged before ADJ, Balod, the matter was remanded back to the lower

court. Advocate R.K.Rastogi for Ist party and Shri A.K.shashi, Advocate for management submitted that the 2^nd appeal

in the matter of decree passed by Civil Judge IInd class is pending before Hon’ble High Court that workman is not

desiring to prosecute the present reference. In view of above facts discussed above, it is clear that Ist party has adopted

remedy of civil suit and his not prosecuting the dispute. Consequently No Dispute Award is passed.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 29-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Hkkjr

isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 8@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 21-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@8@2011&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2016

S.O. 29.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 8/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 21.12.2016.

[No. L-30012/8/2011-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

Present : Shri. K. Sasidharan, B. Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer

(Monday the 31^st day of October, 2016/09^th Kartika, 1938)

ID No. 8/2012

Workman

Shri. M. P. Manoj,

Veligil Veedu,

Pathirappally PO,

Alappuzha,

Kerala.

By Adv. Shri. P. P. Padmalayan

Management

The Executive Director,

BPCL,

No.1, Ranganatha Gardens,

Off 11^th Main Road,

Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 40.

By M/s. Menon & Pai

This case coming up for final hearing on 04.10.2016 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 31.10.2016 passed the

following:

AWARD

This is a reference under Section 10 sub-sections (1) clause (d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(Act 14 of 1947).

The dispute referred for adjudication is:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s BPCL with its headquarter at Mumbai in dismissing the

services of Shri Manoj M.P., Operator-III (Field) EDP No.79758, Lubricants, Ambalamughal, Dist.

Ernakulam, Kerala vide order dated 13/7/2009 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

After receipt of the reference Order No.L-30012/8/2011-IR(M) dated 14.02.2012, issued by the Ministry of

Labour, Government of India, summons was issued to the parties to appear, submit their pleadings and produce

documents to substantiate their respective contentions. On receipt of the summons the parties entered appearance

through counsel and submitted their pleadings.

The contentions in the claim statement filed by the workman in brief are as follows:

The management is a public sector undertaking. The workman joined as Sweeper Grade-I in the management’s

unit at Ernakulam Installation on 12.10.1990. Subsequently he was promoted to the post of Operator. Till the year

2002 he was working in the Ernakulam Installation unit of the management. Later he was transferred to the lubricants

depot of the management at Ambalamughal. He was working as Operator-III (Field), at the lubricants depot of the

management at Ambalamughal, Ernakulam. While so the management issued two charge sheets against the workman.

The management ordered an enquiry in that regard. The enquiry was conducted on 13.07.2007 and the evidence was

closed on the same day. After a lapse of two years from the date of closing the enquiry he was dismissed by the

management on 13.07.2009. Till the date of dismissal the workman was working in the unit of the management.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The workman met with two serious road accidents in the year 2003 and 2008 respectively. As a result he

sustained grievous injuries and unable to attend duty. The reason for his inability to attend duty has been intimated to

the management in advance. In the meantime the management issued two charge sheets to the workman. The enquiry

was conducted by an officer of the management in English language. The workman belongs to Schedulted Tribe

community and had only primary level of education. He could not understand the meaning of the questions put in

English language in the course of enquiry. The two charges levelled against the workman are – (i) habitual absence;

and (ii) misuse of housing loan. The workman explained the reason for his absence from duty and also the

circumstances that lead to the failure to use the housing loan properly. He explained his inability to attend duty as a

result of the injury sustained in accidents and the subsequent financial crisis thereof.

In the accident occurred in the year 2003 the workman lost his memory for some period and he was physically

incapacitated. During that period he could not attend duty. He had intimated that aspect to the management in time. In

the second accident he lost the eye sight of one eye partially. As a result he could not attend duty on several days. He

had to take rest as advised by the doctors. He had submitted leave applications before the management and requested

to grant leave. The enquiry officer has not afforded sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the workman to defend his

case properly. After closing the enquiry, the management issued the dismissal order after a lapse of two years. Till

then the workman was working in the management Corporation. The allegations levelled against the workman are

vague, flimsy, false and baseless. The enquiry was conducted in a clandestine manner, as a result of the collusion

between the management and the trade union leaders for the reason that the workman questioned the illegal demand for

contribution by the trade union leaders. In the course of enquiry the enquiry officer who was the supervisor in the

company directed the workman to sign in some papers from the office of the management Corporation. He informed

the workman that the enquiry was completed. The enquiry was completed in a single day within one hour. The

workman was not served with the list of documents or list of witnesses to be examined. He was not allowed to prove

his innocence during the enquiry. Moreover, the workman was not allowed to challenge the enquiry report before

issuing the order by the disciplinary authority. The management filed approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of

the ID Act, 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai.

The workman hails from a poor family back ground. He belongs to Scheduled Tribe community. He is the sole

bread winner of his family consisting of his wife, two children and aged parents. It is true that the workman availed

housing loan from the management with an undertaking to repay the same with interest. Due to the unexpected

accidents and the subsequent treatment for the same he had to spend huge amount to save his life. He utilized the loan

amount to meet the treatment expenses. He has not misused the loan amount. He is ready and willing to repay the

same. From the date of enquiry i.e., from 13.07.2007 till the date of dismissal i.e., 13.07.2009 the workman was

continuously and uninterruptedly working in the management Corporation. He was not suspended from duty on any

occasion. During the conciliation proceedings the workman expressed his regret and pleaded mercy from the side of

the management to allow him to resume work. His request was not considered by the management in the proper

prospective. Therefore the workman has requested to set aside the dismissal order passed against him by the

management and to reinstate him with back wages and other attendant benefits.

The averments in the written statement filed by the management in brief are as follows:-

Shri. M. P. Manoj joined the service of the management on 20.10.1990 in the post of Sweeper (Grade-I).

Subsequently he was promoted to the post of Operator. He was a habitual absentee. He was charge sheeted in the year

2000 for absence without permission for 300 days from 1996 to July, 2000. As per order dated 10.01.2002 he was

punished for the misconduct by ‘Reduction in Basic pay by three stages’. In spite of that punishment he failed to make

any improvement in his attendance. Again the workman absented from duty for 380 days from 01.01.2004 to

25.04.2007. Therefore the management issued charge sheet dated 13.07.2007 against the workman under Clauses

29.1.2, 29.1.21 and 29.1.41 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation. Apart from the above charge sheet

another charge sheet dated 13.07.2007 was issued by the management to the workman for misuse of housing loan to a

tune of `1,53,333/-. As per the housing loan scheme, construction of extension/enlargement of property has to be

completed within six months from the date of sanctioning of the first installment. The workman failed to report before

the management about the status of construction. The management inspected his premises and found that no

extension/enlargement of the house was carried out. Thereafter the management issued follow-up letters requiring him

to complete the construction and comply the provisions under the housing loan scheme. He submitted an explanation

dated 10.01.2007 to the effect that due to his family problem and health issue he could not commence the construction

work. The explanation was not satisfactory and hence the management charge sheeted him as provided under Clause

29.1.14 and 29.1.25 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation. The workman failed to submit any reply to

the charge sheet. Therefore the management ordered domestic enquiry. The enquiry officer conducted separate

enquiry in relation to the two charge sheets, one in the forenoon and the other in the afternoon on 13.12.2007. The

domestic enquiry in relation to the charges of absenteeism was conducted at 10:00 AM on 13.12.2007 and in relation to

the misuse of housing loan the enquiry was conducted at 02:00 PM on the same day. The workman fully participated

in the enquiry. The enquiry officer read out the contents of the charge sheet in detail in Malayalam to the delinquent

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

workman. He understood the charges levelled against him. He unconditionally admitted the charges levelled against

him. In the course of enquiry copies of documents relied on by the management were provided to the workman. After

the completion of enquiry the enquiry officer explained the details of the proceedings of enquiry in Malayalam to the

delinquent workman and after having understood the contents of the same he put his signature in all pages of the

proceedings. In the course of enquiry there was no objection or dissatisfaction on the part of the delinquent workman

in the conduct of enquiry.

On the basis of evidence on record and the clear admission by the workman in relation to the charges levelled

against him, the enquiry officer submitted reports dated 17.12.2007 with the finding that the workman is guilty of all

the charges levelled against him in both charge sheets. Thereafter the management served copy of the enquiry reports

and findings to the workman and requested him to submit his comments. In his response dated 22.01.2008 the

workman unconditionally apologized for all lapses on his side. After considering the representation and evaluation of

the matter in issue in detail, the disciplinary authority passed an order of punishment of dismissal of the workman from

the services of the management. The allegation that the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry without affording

opportunity to the workman to substantiate his contentions and without following the principles of natural justice, is

false and incorrect. The contention of the workman that he has applied for leave during the period of absence from

duty, is false and incorrect. The management has granted special medical leave to the workman for the period from

23.02.2003 to 07.03.2003 since he met with an accident in the year 2003. The aforesaid incident has nothing to do with

the charge sheet for unauthorized absence for the period from 2004 to 2007. The contention of the workman that the

charges levelled against him are vague, flimsy and baseless, is absolutely false. The management has requested to

consider the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue and in case it is found that it is vitiated on any

grounds they sought permission to adduce independent evidence to substantiate the charges levelled against the

workman.

10.

The workman is a habitual absentee and not interested in continuing the employment. Therefore the

management has requested to uphold their contentions and pass an award to that effect.

11.

After filing written statement by the management opportunity was afforded to the workman to file rejoinder.

He has not filed any rejoinder.

12.

Thereafter the matter was posted for taking steps and production of documents. The management produced two

enquiry files. As requested by the counsel for the management the validity of the domestic enquiry was considered as

the preliminary point. On this aspect, on behalf of the management MW1 was examined and Exts.M1 and M2 are the

documents marked. As per the Preliminary Order dated 15.06.2016 it is held that the domestic enquiry conducted by

the management in relation to the charges levelled against the workman is valid and proper. Thereafter the matter was

posted for final hearing and the counsel appearing for both sides were heard in detail.

13.

The points arising for consideration are:

“(i)

Whether the action of the management in dismissing the workman Shri Manoj M. P. from their

services as Operator-III (Field) EDP No.79758, Lubricants, Ambalamughal, Ernakulam District vide

order dated 13.07.2009 is just and proper?

(ii)

Whether the punishment imposed by the management is excessive, exorbitant or disproportionate to

the charges levelled against the workman?

(iii)

To what relief the workman is entitled?”

14.

Point Nos.(i) & (ii):-

The workman involved in this reference Shri. Manoj. M. P joined the services

under the management on 12.10.1990 as sweeper Grade-I. Subsequently he was promoted as operator. During the year

2002 he was working as Operator-III(Field) in the Ernakulam Installation division of the management. He was

transferred to the Lubricants Depot of the management at Ambalamughal. The management initiated disciplinary

proceedings against the workman on two counts – (i) for habitual absence and (ii) for misuse of housing loan. The

management has stated that the workman unauthorisedly absented from duty for 380 days from 01.01.2004 to

25.04.2007. The management issued a charge sheet dated 13.07.2007 to the workman for misconduct as specified

under Clauses 29.1.2, 29.1.21 and 29.1.41 of the Certified Standing Orders of the company. The said clauses read as

follows:-

“29.1.2

Habitual absence without leave or absence without leave for more than 10 consecutive days or

overstaying the sanctioned leave without sufficient grounds or proper and satisfactory

explanation;

29.1.21 Habitual neglect of work, or gross or habitual negligence;

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

29.1.41

Habitual breach of any Standing Order or any law applicable to the establishment or any rules

thereunder.”

15.

In addition to the above charge sheet for unauthorized absenteeism another charge sheet was issued to the

workman for misuse of housing loan. The management has stated that they disbursed a sum of `1,53,333/- to the

workman for the construction of extension/enlargement of his house. On verification it is seen that the workman has

not done any extension work or enlargement of the existing house within a period of six months from the date of

sanctioning of the first installment. Even though the management afforded opportunity to the workman to complete the

construction work, he failed to comply the same. According to the management the workman misused the housing loan

and accordingly they charge sheeted him under Clauses 29.1.14 and 29.1.25 of the Certified Standing Orders of the

company. Clauses 29.1.14 and 29.1.25 read as follows:-

“29.1.14 Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the corporation’s business or property;

29.1.25 Securing or attempting to secure in a fraudulent manner pecuniary advantage from the

corporation or from the funds created by the corporation.”

16.

The management ordered domestic enquiry. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and submitted report

before the management. The enquiry officer found that the workman is guilty of the charges levelled against him. The

management complied the statutory requirements and issued punishment order against the workman. According to the

management the punishment imposed by them is just and proper and in proportion to the gravity of the misconduct

committed by the workman.

17.

The workman has stated that he met with two accidents one in the year 2003 and the other in the year 2008. He

sustained grievous injury in those accidents and underwent treatment for a considerable long period and hence he could

not attend duty regularly. He has stated that in the second accident he lost sight of one eye and he is continuing

treatment even now. The workman has stated that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe community and having only primary

level of school education. He has further stated that he belongs to the poor strata of the society and he is socially and

educationally backward. He would further state that he has to look after his aged parents, his wife and two minor

children. He has stated that he had produced medical certificates and requested for leave before the authorities

explaining the reason for his absence from duty. According to him there is no willful latches on his part.

18.

The workman had challenged the domestic enquiry proceedings. As per the Preliminary Order dated

15.06.2016 it is held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management is just and proper and that it is not

vitiated on any of the grounds as alleged by the workman.

19.

Learned counsel for the workman submitted that the workman belongs to poor strata of society and his case has

to be looked into on humanitarian considerations. It is submitted that the workman could not attend duty regularly

because of ill health. The learned counsel submitted that the punishment imposed by the management is excessive and

disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct alleged against the workman.

20.

The learned counsel for the management referred to the Rulings reported in 2007 (115)FLR 9148 – Tata

Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. Vs. Suhas Madhukar Mulay and another. The learned counsel further

referred to the Ruling in 2010 1 CLR 170 – Pandurang Vithal Kevne Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (Telecom

Factory), Mumbai and Anr. The learned counsel also referred to the Ruling reported in 2013 LLR 121 – Amarjeet

Singh Vs. Management of National Thermal Power Corpn. Ltd. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the

dictum laid down in the decisions referred above, the punishment imposed by the management is just and proper and in

proportion to the gravity of misconduct committed by the workman. The facts and circumstances in the cases referred

by the learned counsel for the management differ from the facts and circumstances in the present case. It is true that in

the decisions referred above the Hon’ble High Courts have come to the conclusion that in the case of misconduct of

unauthorized absence, the punishment of dismissal from service is just and proper. In this case the workman belongs to

Scheduled Tribe community and he is having only primary level of education. His social and family background has to

be considered while imposing the punishment on the workman.

21.

From Ext.M1 file it can be seen that the workman had submitted medical certificates requesting the

management to grant leave for different periods. The enquiry officer has not considered those medical certificates

produced by the workman for the reason that he has not claimed any reimbursement from the corporation for the

treatment underwent during the period under reference in those medical certificates. The enquiry officer has referred to

the medical certificates issued by different doctors. It is true that there is discrepancy in the medical certificates

produced by the workman before the management. It is a fact that the workman requested the management to grant

leave for the reason that he could not report for duty due to ailment or inability to attend duty. It is true that the

management has doubted the genuineness of the medical certificates produced by the workman. The fact that the

workman remained absent from duty for a period of 380 days from 01.04.2004 to 25.04.2007 is proved from the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

documents produced by the management. Therefore it is evident that the workman has committed the misconduct of

unauthorized absence as alleged by the management.

22.

The next aspect to be considered is regarding the misappropriation or misuse of the housing loan by the

workman. It is a fact that the workman availed loan to a tune of `1,53,333/- from the management for construction of

extension/enlargement of his house. It has come out in evidence that the workman has not carried out any construction

work or extension/enlargement to his house after availing the housing loan from the management company. According

to the workman he expended the loan amount for his treatment and hence he could not commence the construction of

extension/enlargement of his house. It is true that the workman has to comply the terms and conditions in the scheme

for housing loan. If he fails to do so, he has to repay the housing loan to the management. This is a liability due from

the workman to the management. Since the workman has not utilized the housing loan for the purpose for which it was

availed by him from the management it is to be held that he is guilty for the misconduct of misuse of housing loan.

23.

The workman has stated that he was laid up and hence he could not commence the construction work or

extension work of his house. He has produced medical certificates before the management to substantiate his plea that

he was bed ridden due to ailment. It is true that the management has doubted the genuineness of the medical

certificates produced by the workman. The social and financial back ground of the workman has to be taken into

consideration while awarding punishment on the workman. Considering the fact that the workman belongs to

Scheduled Tribe community and he is from a socially, educationally and economically backward community and that

he has to look after his aged parents, minor children and wife, the punishment imposed by the management, it appears

that it is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the workman. Considering all these factual

aspects it will only to be just and reasonable to afford an opportunity to the workman to reform him so that his family

can be saved from total ruin and destruction. Therefore it is held that the management has succeeded in proving the

misconduct alleged against the workman. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is held that the

punishment imposed by the management is excessive and disproportionate. According to me the ends of justice will be

met by awarding the punishment of ‘reduction in basic pay by three stages and to reinstate the workman in service

without continuity of service’. He shall not be entitled to any service benefits from the date of dismissal in the year

2009 till the date of reinstatement. The points are answered accordingly.

24.

Point No.(iii):-

In view of the findings on Point Nos.(i) and (ii) it is held that the management has succeeded

in proving the misconduct of unauthorized absence and the misuse of housing loan alleged against the workman. It is

held that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the management is excessive. It is a fact that the

management initiated disciplinary proceedings against the workman in the year 2007 and he was dismissed from

service only in the year 2009. From the year 2007 i.e., from the date of initiation of disciplinary proceedings till the

date of issue of dismissal order the workman was in service under the management. This is a mitigating circumstance

enabling the workman to have some leniency in awarding the punishment to be imposed on him. He shall be reinstated

in service within three months from the date of publication of the Award in this case. His pay shall be reduced by three

stages. He shall not be entitled to any service benefits from the date of dismissal in the year 2009 till the date of

reinstatement in service. The award is passed 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 31^st day

of October, 2016.

SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the workman

NIL

Witness for the management

MW1

12.02.2016

Shri Jose Paul Chiramel.

Exhibits for the workman

NIL

Exhibits for the management

- Enquiry file

- Enquiry file (Volume-2)

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 30-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eè; jsyos 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; la- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 3@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-12-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@44@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2016

S.O. 30.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Railway

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 28.12.2016.

[No. L-41012/44/2013-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/3 of 2014

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF CENTRAL RAILWAY

The Chief Personnel Officer (Labour)

Central Railway

O/o. General Manager

CST

Mumbai 400 001

AND

THEIR WORKMAN

Shri JitendraYadav

C/o. Janata Power Laundry

BR Road, Near Pipeline

Mulund (W)

Mumbai-400 080.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mr. R.K. Yadav, Rep.

: Adv. AbhayKulkarni,

FOR THE WORKMAN

No appearance.

Mumbai, the 24^thJune, 2016.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour& Employment by its Order No.L-41012/44/2013-IR (B-I), dated

01.01.2014 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of Central Railway in terminating the services of Shri JitendraYadav,

Ex-Substitute Bunglow Peon w.e.f. 16/1/2003 is legal, just and proper? And whether the demand of Shri

JitendraYadav for re-employment of his service in the Central Railway is just and proper? To what relief the

workman concerned is entitled ?”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

After receipt of the Reference, notices were issued to both the parties.Notice sent to Second Party/ Workman,

Shri JitendraYadav returned un-served with postal remark ‘unclaimed’. It amount to service.Since Second party

workman did not remain present, again notice was issued to the workman vide Ex-3. Second party workman did not

appear and file his statement of claim. Without Statement of claim, theReference cannot be decided on merits and the

same deserves to be dismissed. Thus I pass the following order:

ORDER

Reference stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

Date: 24.06.2016

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 31-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

cSad ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 19@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-12-2016

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@09@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2016

S.O. 31.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of

India and their workman, received by the Central Government on 28.12.2016.

[No. L-12012/09/2014-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

Present : Shri. K. Sasidharan, B. Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer

(Monday the 25^th day of July, 2016/03^rd Shravana, 1938)

ID No. 19/2014

Workmen

Shri. Rajasekharan Nair. T & 13 others,

Narankara Veedu, Marukil,

Ooruttambalam-PO,

Trivandrum – 695507.

By Adv. Shri. A. J. Ahamed Kabeer

Management

The Chief Manager,

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office,

Thampanoor,

Trivandrum – 695001.

By Adv. Shri. Raynold Fernandez N

This case coming up for final hearing on 11.07.2016 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 25.07.2016 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.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The dispute referred for adjudication before this Tribunal is:

“Whether the demand of the aggrieved workmen (temporary guards) for regular appointment in the bank

based on their temporary service by relaxing the upper age limit prescribed in the guidelines is justified or not?

To what relief the workman are entitled?”

After the receipt of reference Order No.L-12012/09/2014-IR(B-I) dated 25.03.2014, issued by the Ministry of

Labour, Government of India, summons was issued to the parties to submit their pleadings. On receipt of the

summons the parties entered appearance through counsel.

The contentions in the claim statement filed by the workmen in brief are as follows:

The workmen were recruited as per the provisions of the Employment Exchanges Act by the Zilla Sainik

Welfare Officer, Thiruvananthapuram from the cadre exclusively reserved for ex-servicemen with preferential claim

for absorption in permanent substantial cadre, by the management. During the selection process conducted by the

management on the last occasion, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala interfered and issued direction to the management

to permit the workmen to participate in the physical fitness certificate and interview conducted on 26.04.2011 and on

subsequent dates. Till now, the management failed to declare the results of the aforesaid selection process with

deliberate intention. They suppressed the results for reasons unknown to the workmen. The workmen were expecting

regularization as done in the years 2002-2005. The workmen had uninterrupted and unblemished service under the

management in the cadre of watchman/guard from the year 2005. They worked for more than 240 days in a year

during their service under the management.

The workmen were having the required qualification prescribed as per the guidelines dated 21.07.2002 for

appointment as armed guards against the permanent vacancies notified by the management. The workmen are entitled

to the benefit of the guidelines dated 21.07.2002, issued by the management. The management has not issued

intimation regarding the termination of services of the workmen to the Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer who is their

sponsor. The workmen being ex-servicemen require special consideration in the matter of rehabilitation and

resettlement in civil society.

As per the judgment in WP(C) No.23928/2013 dated 21.02.2014 the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala directed the

management to prepare a select list for appointment as watchman, guard from among the ex-servicemen. The Assistant

Labour Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram as per F.O.C Report No.08(59)/ 2012/ALC-TVM dated 20.01.2014

explained the factual situation. Thereafter the management denied employment to the workmen with the willful

intention and without informing the Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer. The management is victimizing the workmen by

following the unfair labour practice which resulted in the unemployment of the workmen. Therefore the workmen have

requested to pass an award directing the management to reinstate them with full back wages, continuity of service and

all other service benefits.

The averments in the written statement filed by the management in brief are as follows:

They have denied all the averments in the claim statement filed by the workmen except those that are

specifically admitted.

The workmen are not employees under the management. They are temporary employees and their service will

not entitle them for regularization in the service. The workmen had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala

seeking absorption in the services of the bank permanently and to consider them for employment to the vacancy for

which advertisement was issued. The management could not accept the request by the workmen for the reason that as

per the guidelines ex-servicemen below the age of 45 alone are eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of

armed guard. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala observed that the management cannot alter the guidelines for

absorption of ex-servicemen in the services of the bank and that the Union of India is taking the decision regarding

relaxation of age limit for the appointment to the aforesaid posts.

As per the guidelines in force, a person who attained the age of 45 on the relevant date of notification cannot

participate in the selection process for absorption into the regular vacancy in the bank. The Hon’ble High Court of

Kerala considered this aspect and upheld the position while declining the request of the workmen for considering them

for the services of the bank. The workmen are bound by the directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in

this regard.

10.

The workmen were engaged as casual workers as per the list provided by the Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer,

Thiruvananthapuram. The posts of watchmen/guards are reserved exclusively for ex-servicemen. Formerly the

workmen were engaged only as substitutes, temporarily during the absence of permanent watchmen/guards on account

of leave/relief, only as a short-term measure on different occasions at various branches. The management never

recruited and employed them in the regular vacancies. No assurance was given to the workmen that they will be

absorbed at a later stage against the permanent vacancy that may arise in the bank. The workmen never underwent any

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

selection process such as physical test or interview before they were allowed to do work as casual and temporary

workers under the management bank. They are not entitled to make any claim against the guidelines now in force.

Since the workmen have submitted a representation seeking relaxation of the upper age limit, they are precluded from

contending that the stipulation regarding age limit is not binding on them. The decisions rendered by the Hon’ble High

Court of Kerala in WP Nos.8520/2011, 12597/2011, 12415/2011 and connected matters reveal that the claim of the

workmen will have the effect of res judicata. In WP No.8520/2011 and connected cases the Hon’ble High Court of

Kerala upheld the decision of the management. The workmen were engaged purely on temporary basis in the absence

of permanent watchmen/guard as a result of leave, relief and as a short term measure. The claim of the workmen is not

sustainable either in law or on facts. After the joining as the new recruits in the management bank, the workmen who

were engaged purely on temporary basis were not allowed to do any further duty. In the judgment pronounced by the

Hon’ble High Court of Kerala it was made clear that the workmen can approach the appropriate authority for the

redressal of their grievance. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has made it clear that the authority to grant upper age

limit for selection is the Government of India and that the workmen can approach them for appropriate remedy. The

Hon’ble High Court of Kerala dismissed the Writ Petitions with the observation that there was no circumstance

warranting interference in the selection process adopted by the management bank. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala

has made it clear that the workmen have to approach the Central Government seeking relaxation of upper age limit for

appointment.

11.

The Assistant Labour Commissioner has not made any adverse remarks against the management. The

allegation that the management is adopting unfair labour practice and victimization against the workmen, is absolutely

false. The workmen are bound by direction and guidelines issued by the management bank. The workmen have no

legal right for appointment against permanent vacancies in the management bank. They are bound by the guidelines

for selection, issued by the management. None of the workmen involved herein have worked continuously for 240

days in any year. Therefore the management has requested to disallow the claim of the workmen and pass an award

accordingly.

12.

After filing written statement by the management the workmen submitted rejoinder reiterating the contentions

in the claim statement.

13.

After affording sufficient opportunity to the parties for taking 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 to W34 were marked. On behalf of the management MW1 was examined and Ext.M1 is the document

marked. Heard both sides.

14.

The points arising for consideration are:

“(i)

Whether the demand of the aggrieved workmen for appointment against the regular vacancies

in the management bank on the basis of their temporary service in the bank by relaxing the

prescribed upper age limit is justifiable?

(ii)

To what relief the workmen are entitled?”

15.

Point Nos.(i) & (ii):-

The 14 workmen involved in this reference have stated that they were recruited as

per the provisions of the Employment Exchanges Act by the Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer, Thiruvananthapuram against

the cadre exclusively reserved for ex-servicemen. They have further stated that they are entitled to be absorbed against

the permanent substantial vacancies under the management. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has issued direction to

the management to allow the workmen to participate in the physical fitness test and interview conducted by the

management from 26.04.2011. The workmen have stated that the management failed to declare the results of the

interview for reasons were unknown to them. According to the workmen they were expecting regularization of

employment under the management as was done in the years 2002-2005. The workmen have stated that they are

qualified for appointment against permanent vacancies under the management. It is stated that the workmen have

uninterrupted and unblemished service under the management in the cadre of watchman/guard.

16.

The workmen have stated that they are having more than 240 days of employment in a year under the

management. On that score the workmen sought regularization of their service under the management. They have

stated that the management never informed the Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer, Thiruvananthapuram who is the sponsor

of the workmen regarding the termination of their service. They have stated that due to over age they are not in a

position to secure any employment elsewhere. They have stated that the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala directed the

management to redress the grievance of the workmen as per the judgment in WP(C) No.23928/2013 dated 21.02.2014.

The management has stated that the Assistant Labour Commissioner realized the factual situation and never directed

them to accept the demand by the workmen. According to the management the workmen are not entitled to be

reinstated in service with back wages and other benefits as claimed.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

17.

While examined as WW1 the workman No.1 has stated that he is working along with the remaining workmen

as temporary security staff under the management bank. He has stated that he had no knowledge about the guidelines

issued by the State Bank of India for appointment of security staff. WW1 has stated that as per the Exts.W3 and

W4 judgments the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala directed the workmen to approach the Central Government. He

has stated that as per the direction in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala they approached the

Central Government and submitted a representation. He has denied the suggestion that the claim of the workmen is

barred by res judicata.

18.

While examined as WW2 the Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer, Thiruvananthapuram has stated that as per Ext.W32

document dated 10.01.2014 the Zilla Sainik Welfare Board sponsored ex-servicemen for employment under the

management. WW2 has stated that as against one vacancy the Zilla Sainik Welfare Board sponsored nine ex-

servicemen. WW2 has stated that he has no knowledge as to whether the temporarily deputed persons were allowed to

work only in the absence of permanent staff on a particular date. He has no knowledge as to whether there is

permanent security staff working under the management bank. WW2 has denied the suggestion that there was no

obligation on the part of the management to issue termination letter against the workmen.

19.

While examined as MW1 the Chief Manager(HR) of the management bank has stated that the workmen were

allowed to do the work as temporary substitute watchmen, on daily wage basis. He has stated that the workmen were

selected from among the list furnished by the District Sainik Welfare Officer, Thiruvananthapuram. MW1 has denied

the suggestion that the workmen involved herein have worked under the management for more than 240 days in a year.

He has stated that the workmen were employed as temporary watchmen under the management.

20.

The workmen are relying on the judgments pronounced by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala to substantiate

their claim for continuity in service. Copy of the judgments pronounced by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala;

produced by the workmen do not reveal that the workmen are entitled to get permanency in appointment as

guards/watchmen under the management. The judgments pronounced by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala is to the

effect that the upper age limit for recruitment to the posts of guards/watchmen from among the ex-servicemen may be

relaxed by the appropriate government if they so desire. The workmen have not produced any document to prove that

they underwent selection process and eligible for appointment against the permanent vacancy of guards/watchmen

under the management. So also there is no documentary proof to show that the workmen involved in this reference

have worked under the management for more than 240 days in a year. The documents produced by the workmen do

not reveal that they are entitled to get preferential treatment for selection process against permanent vacancies of

guards/watchmen under the management.

21.

In the decision reported in the Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & Others 2006 (4) (SCC page 1) the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has made it clear that the temporary appointment will not confer right or eligibility for

consideration against permanent vacancies. It is made clear by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that for appointment

against the permanent vacancies the procedure of selection has to be followed by the management so as to allow the

persons similarly placed to compete for selection to that particular post. In view of the dictum laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision referred above, the workmen involved in this reference have no right to claim

preferential treatment for selection against the permanent vacancies under the management, unless and until the

guidelines for selection is varied, altered or modified by the competent authority. It follows that the workmen involved

in this reference are not entitled to get preferential treatment against the regular vacancies under the management bank

on the basis of their temporary service. Therefore the workmen are not entitled to get any relief as claimed in this

reference. The points are answered against the workmen.

22.

In view of the findings on the points for consideration the workmen are not entitled to be considered for regular

appointment under the management bank on the basis of their temporary service by relaxing the upper age limit

prescribed in the guidelines issued by the management.

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 25^th day

of July, 2016.

SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witnesses for the workmen

WW1

Shri Rajasekharan Nair

27.01.2016

WW2

Shri Premnath V. B.

03.03.2016

Witnesses for the management

MW1

Shri Jaz A. Haq

01.04.2016

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

Exhibits for the workmen

True copy of the Order dated19.04.2011 in WP(C) No.12415/2011(B) passed by the Hon’ble High

Court of Kerala, Ernakulam.

Copy of the notification dated 20.05.2011 issued by the Executive Director(Personnel), Life

Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai for

appointment of Peons in LIC of India.

True copy of the judgment dated 11.10.2012 in WP(C) No.12597/2011(Y) passed by the Hon’ble

High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam.

True copy of the judgment dated 11.10.2012 in WP(C) No.12415/2011(B) passed by the Hon’ble

High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam.

True copy of the representation dated 07.12.2012 submitted by Shri Manikantan Nair. S, Temporary

Guard, Main branch, MG Road, State Bank of India, Trivandrum.

True copy of the representation dated 07.12.2012 submitted by Shri Sreekumaran Nair. A, Temporary

Guard, Main branch, MG Road, State Bank of India, Trivandrum.

True copy of the letter dated 08.12.2012 addressed to Shri. A. K. Antony, Hon’ble Minister for

Defence, Government of India, New Delhi by the workmen.

True copy of the letter dated 12.12.2012 addressed to the Chairman, State Bank of India, Central

Office, State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra by Shri T. Rajasekharan Nair.

True copy of the Registered Legal Notice bearing No.3312/12/DW/D6 dated 22.12.2012 issued by

Shri. A. J. Ahamed Kabeer, Advocate & District Notary, Thiruvananthapuram to the management.

W10

True copy of the Office Memorandum bearing No.28(102)/2012/D(Res-I) dated 28.12.2012 issued

by the Under Secretary(Res-I), Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare, Ministry of Defence,

Government of India to the Director(Banking), Department of Financial Services, Ministry of

Finance, Jeevandeep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi.

W11

True copy of the letter D.O. letter No.1325 dated 17.01.2013 issued by Shri. Kodikunnil Suresh,

Hon’ble Minister of State for Labour & Employment, Government of India, New Delhi to Shri

Manikantan Nair S.

W12

True copy of the Office Memorandum bearing No.28(102)/2012/D(Res-I) dated 01.02.2013 issued

by the Under Secretary(Res-I), Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare, Ministry of Defence,

Government of India to the Director(Banking), Department of Financial Services, Ministry of

Finance, Jeevandeep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi.

W13

True copy of the Office Memorandum bearing No.28(102)/2012/D(Res-I)/216/13 dated 04.02.2013

issued by the Under Secretary(Res-I), Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare, Ministry of Defence,

Government of India to the Director(Banking), Department of Financial Services, Ministry of

Finance, Jeevandeep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi.

W14

True copy of the representation dated 22.03.2013 submitted before the Hon’ble Minister for Human

Resource Development, Government of India in the camp office in Thiruvananthapuram by the

workmen.

W15

True copy of the letter No.MOS(HRD)/428/13/Ptn. dated 25.03.2013 issued by Shri T. R. Sadasivan

Nair, Assistant Private Secretary to Minister of State for Human Resource Development, Government

of India to Shri Pratip Chaudhuri, Chairman & Managing Director, State Bank of India, S B Bhavan,

Madame Cama Road, Mumbai-400021.

W16

True copy of the representation dated 14.04.2013 submitted before the Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India, Main branch by Shri S. Manikantan Nair.

W17

True copy of the job certificate No.Nil dated 22.12.2007 issued by the Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India, Thiruvananthapuram.

W18

True copy of the certificate No.CM(O/A) dated 19.10.2007 issued by the Chief Manager (Office

Admn.), State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Thiruvananthapuram.

W19

True copy of the certificate No.Nil dated 20.07.2009 issued by the Chief Manager, State Bank of

India, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

W20

True copy of the certificate No.CM(ADMN)/002539 dated 06.03.2010 issued by the Chief

Manager(Admn.), State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Thiruvananthapuram.

W21

True copy of the certificate No.CM(ADMN)/002311 dated 11.11.2008 issued by the Chief

Manager(Admn.), State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Thiruvananthapuram.

W22

True copy of the certificate No.Nil dated 08.08.2006 issued by the Branch Manager, State Bank of

India, Marakkada Road, Thiruvananthapuram.

W23

True copy of the letter No.HR/921 dated 04.02.2010 issued by the Assistant General

Manager(Admin-I), State Bank of India, LHO Annexe, LMS Compound, Thiruvananthapuram to

Shri S. Justin Jose, Malayam.

W24

True copy of the Conduct Certificate bearing No.Misc/St/52 dated 31.08.2010 issued by the Assistant

General Manager, State Bank of India, MG Road, Thiruvananthapuram in respect of Shri. C.

Devarajan.

W25

True copy of the certificate No.Nil dated 12.11.2007 issued by the Assistant General Manager, State

Bank of India, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram.

W26

True copy of the certificate No.Nil dated 26.05.2007 issued by the Branch Manager, State Bank of

India, Thumba, Thiruvananthapuram.

W27

True copy of the letter No.CM(O/A)/MISC./183 dated 03.08.2007 issued by the Chief

Manager(Office Admn.), State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Thiruvananthapuram to Shri

Padmakumar, Trivandrum.

W28

True copy of the certificate No.Nil dated 24.10.2007 issued by the Assistant General Manager, State

Bank of India, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram.

W29

True copy of the certificate No.Nil dated 05.04.2007 issued by the Branch Manager, State Bank of

India, Marakkada Road, Thiruvananthapuram.

W30

True copy of the certificate No.Nil dated 26.02.2008 issued by the Assistant General Manager, State

Bank of India, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram.

W31

True copy of the reply dated 14.12.2013 submitted by the Chief Manager(HR) before the Hon’ble

Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central), Thiruvananthapuram in the matter of industrial dispute

between the Management of SBI and Shri Rajasekharan Nair. T & 13 others

W32

True copy of the reply vide letter No.A6/EMP/12869/2013 dated 10.01.2014 given by the Zilla

Sainik Welfare Officer, O/o the Zilla Sainik Welfare, Thiruvananthapuram to Advocate Shri V. J.

Ahamed Kabeer, Vanchiyoor sought under Right to Information Act.

W33

True copy of the judgment dated 21.02.2014 in WP(C) No.23928/2013(M) passed by the Hon’ble

High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam.

W34

True copy of the Registered Legal Notice bearing No.1911/14/DW/S3 dated 19.03.2014 issued by

Shri. A. J. Ahamed Kabeer, Advocate & Notary, A & M Law Office, Vanchiyoor,

Thiruvananthapuram to the management.

Exhibits for the management

True copy of the judgment in WA No.64/2014 dated 10.01.2014passed by the Hon’ble High Court of

Kerala, Ernakulam against the judgment in WP(C) No.22055/2013 dated 20.12.2013 passed by the

Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam.

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 32-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ LVsV

cSad vkWiQ =kkoudksj ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 331@2006) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

28-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@244@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2016

S.O. 32.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 331/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of

Travancore and their workman, received by the Central Government on 28.12.2016.

[No. L-12012/244/2002-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

Present : Shri. K. Sasidharan, B. Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer

(Wednesday the 20^th day of July, 2016/29^th Ashadha, 1938)

ID No. 331/2006

Workman

Shri V. Rajagopalan,

S/o K. Venketarao,

Marathaumadom, Eroor(West),

Tripunithura –

By M/s. H. B. Shenoy Associates

Management

The Deputy General Manager,

State Bank of Travancore,

Zonal Office,

ERNAKULAM – 682011.

By Adv. Shri P. Ramakrishnan

This case coming up for final hearing on 08.07.2016 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 20.07.2016 passed the

following:

AWARD

This is a reference under clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) for adjudication.

The dispute referred for adjudication is:

“Whether the dismissal from service of Shri V. Rajagopal, Cashier in charge of Pottenkadu Branch of

State Bank of Travancore by the management of State Bank of Travancore is legal and justified? If not,

what relief the workman is entitled?”

As per Order No.L-12012/244/2002-IR(B-I) dated 23.01.2003 the Central Government referred the said dispute

for adjudication before the Labour Court, Ernakulam. Before the Labour Court, Ernakulam the parties entered

appearance through counsel and submitted their pleadings. While so as per order dated 01.11.2006 passed by the

Labour Court, Ernakulam, the matter was transferred to this Tribunal on the basis of the order passed by the Hon’ble

High Court of Kerala in the Writ Petition. Subsequently the matter was numbered as ID 331/2006 and the parties

entered appearance before this Tribunal through counsel. Thereafter as per the Preliminary Order dated 20.08.2010 this

Tribunal held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management is vitiated and against the principles of natural

justice and fair play. Challenging that order the management preferred WP(C) No.34966/2010 before the Hon’ble

High Court of Kerala. As per the judgment dated 22.12.2015 the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala confirmed the finding

of this Tribunal that the enquiry conducted in this matter was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The

Hon’ble High Court of Kerala vacated the finding regarding the vagueness of charge and the observation in relation to

the imposition of punishment under the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement, observed by this Tribunal.

The contentions in the claim statement filed by the workman in brief are as follows:-

The issue referred for adjudication is:

“Whether the dismissal from service of Shri V. Rajagopal, Cashier in charge of Pottenkadu Branch of

State Bank of Travancore by the management of State Bank of Travancore is legal and justified? If not,

what relief the workman is entitled?”

100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The workman was employed as Cashier-in-charge at the Pottenkad branch of the management bank. While so,

a charge sheet dated 04.08.1998 was served on him by the management. The workman submitted a detailed reply

denying the charges levelled against him. The management failed to consider the submission in the reply statement by

the workman. They proceeded against the workman and ordered to conduct an enquiry. The workman requested the

management to cause production of certain documents required to prove his innocence. The management failed to

produce the same with the explanation that the documents were not traceable. The enquiry officer submitted a report

on 28.10.1999 with the finding that the charge Nos. 1, 3 and 8 alleged in the charge sheet stands proved and charge

Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were not proved. Against the finding of the enquiry officer the workman submitted a

representation pointing out that the finding is against the evidence on record and hence it is perverse. The management

thereafter issued a show cause notice to the workman requiring him to explain as to why he shall not be dismissed from

the service of the bank. Subsequently as per the order dated 29.12.1999 the management confirmed the proposed

punishment of dismissal from service against the workman. The workman preferred an appeal before the appellate

authority which was ended in dismissal.

The entire disciplinary proceedings initiated by the management against the workman is vitiated for the reason

that the finding of the enquiry officer is perverse and not based on any evidence on record. Charge No.1 as per the

charge sheet relates to misappropriation of a sum of `31,500/- from the cash balance while the workman was on duty as

cashier-in-charge and joint custodian of cash. The management failed to consider the fact that the difference occurred

not in the day’s cash closed but in the amount kept under joint custody. The relevant provisions in Chapter III of the

Book of Instructions of State Bank of Travancore which considers the possibility of finding a shortage in cash balance

and procedures to be followed therein were fully complied by the workman. Making a single custodian a scape goat

while allowing the other to wash his hands is against the principles of natural justice.

Regarding the charge No.3 in relation to pledging of gold ornaments in the fictitious name and subsequently

removing the gold loan bag containing gold ornaments, the entire transactions were signed by the then Manager and the

loanee. Apart from this those ornaments were redeemed subsequently. The sanctioning authority of the bank loan is

the Manager. The investigation report dated 10.10.1998 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajakkad reveals that the gold

bags that were reported to be missing from the bank are available in the bank.

Charge No.8 relating to the issue of cheques by the workman without keeping sufficient balance and retaining

the cheques pending at the branch when the same were received is also not proved. The bank Manager subsequently

entered the cheques in separate register to create false evidence against the workman. The audit report reveals that the

branch is not retaining records relating to cheques received for collection and hence the question whether the cheques

were retained in the branch cannot be made out. Apart from this not even a single cheque issued by the delinquent

workman was bounced for want of funds. The workman cannot be prosecuted for any misconduct in this regard.

The workman joined the services of the management bank in the year 1981 as peon. He was promoted as

cashier in the year 1990. The action of the management in dismissing him from service is on the basis of improper

appreciation of facts and evidence. The action is arbitrary. The workman has requested to pass an award holding that

the action of the management in dismissing him from service is illegal and hence to reinstate him with all benefits and

continuity of service.

10.

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

The management has denied all the averments in the claim statement filed by the workman except those that are

specifically admitted. The workman Shri V. Rajagopal while employed as cashier-in-charge at the Pottenkadu branch

of the management bank was proceeded for serious acts of misconduct. The charges levelled against him as per charge

sheet No.RMV/EKM/DPS/152/98-99 dated 04.08.1996 reads as follows:

“ 1.

On 4.4.98 you misappropriated a sum of Rs.31,500/- (Rs.thirty one thousand five hundred only) from the

cash held by you during the normal course of your duty as the Cashier-in-charge and joint custodian of

the cash.

You removed the gold loan bags containing the gold ornaments pledged to the Bank by the borrowers

under GL No.580/96, GL 8/96 and re-pledged the ornaments along with certain other spurious

ornaments on 3.3.98 in the name of your wife and brother in law for Rs.20,000/- and Rs.21,000/- as

AGL 2/98 and 3/98 respectively.

You yourself pledged gold ornaments for Rs.5,500/- on 23.3.98 in the fictitious name of one Shri Biju

Thomas as GL 71/98 and subsequently removed the gold loan bag containing the gold ornaments.

In respect of GL 17/98 dated 13.1.98 in the name of Shri T. Shaji, you altered the weight of gold

ornaments as 26.500 grams in the place of actual weight of 16.500 grams. Prepared the documents for

Rs.5,000/- but paid Rs.3,000/- only to the party and thus misappropriated Rs.2,000/-.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

101

You failed to note the denomination of notes on the reverse of the Receipts and Payments Vouchers.

You failed to keep note slips on section/bundles of currency notes and stitched/stapled before placing the

same under joint custody.

You had not maintained proper cash balance book from 2^nd April onwards.

You had issued several cheques without maintaining sufficient balance in the account and cheques were

kept pending till funds were remitted by you.

The above actions on your part if established, would constitute misconduct under the following clauses of

Bipartite Settlements rendering you liable for the appropriate punishments.

19.5(d) -

willful damage or attempt to cause damage to the property of the Bank or any of its customers.

19.5(c) -

willful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and reasonable orders of the Management

or of a superior.

19.5(j) -

doings acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or

likely to involve the bank in serious loss.

19.7(c) -

neglect of work, negligence in performing duties.

19.7(e) -

incurring debts to an extent considered by the Management as excessive.”

11.

On receipt of the charge sheet the workman submitted an explanation denying his involvement. The

management found that the explanation submitted by the workman was unsatisfactory and hence ordered an enquiry

placing him under suspension pending enquiry. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry in accordance with the

principles of natural justice affording fair and reasonable opportunity to the workman. He participated in the enquiry

and he was assisted by Shri V. J. Johny, Assistant Secretary, SBTEU, as per his request. The enquiry officer submitted

the report finding that the workman is guilty of charge Nos.1, 3 and 8 in the charge sheet. Thereafter the management

served a copy of the enquiry report to the workman with a request to submit his representation if any against the

findings of the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority considered the submission by the workman and issued an

order proposing to impose the punishment of dismissal from service. Against the proposed punishment the disciplinary

authority afforded the workman an opportunity of hearing and thereafter the disciplinary authority passed the

punishment of dismissal as per order No.DGM/EKM/DPS/109/1999-2000 dated 29.01.2000. Against that order the

workman preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which was ended in dismissal.

12.

The punishment imposed by the management is just, proper and in consonance with the gravity of misconduct

committed by the workman. Being an employee in a banking institution the workman is bound to maintain absolute

devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty especially while holding charge as cashier entrusted with money and valuable

gold ornaments pledged with the bank. The contention of the workman that the enquiry is vitiated and against the facts

and circumstance of the case is not sustainable. The punishment imposed by the management is not arbitrary or illegal.

The punishment of dismissal is just and commensurate with the gravity of the acts of misconduct committed by the

workman.

13.

In case this Tribunal finds that the enquiry and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the workman is

vitiated or defective in any manner, the management has requested permission to adduce evidence and prove the guilt

of the workman to justify the disciplinary action initiated against the workman. The management has requested to

uphold their contentions.

14.

After filing written statement by the management the workman submitted rejoinder reiterating the contentions

in the claim statement. The workman has stated that the management failed to produce the gold loan third party release

letter file and courier pick up sheet to prove his innocence. The then Manager-in-charge would have intentionally

destroyed those documents to wash off his hands since he is the joint custodian of gold and cash. As per the

instructions in the “Book of instructions”, the workman repaid the amount that was found short. The management

failed to trace out the heads under which the shortage of money occurred. The joint custodian on 04.04.1998

countersigned the vault register without finding any error. Apart from this the gold mentioned in charge No.3 was

subsequently released by the bank on 09.04.1998 after the suspension of the workman from service. Apart from this

the bank reported before the police authorities that the gold which was alleged to be missing were available with the

bank and that the workman made good shortage of cash. The workman has requested to uphold his contentions.

15.

At the stage of preliminary enquiry, on behalf of the management MW1 was examined and Ext.M1 was the

document marked. After the dismissal of the Writ Peition No.WP(C) No.34966/2010 dated 22.12.2015, on behalf of

the management MW2 was examined as a witness and Exts.M2 to M14 were marked. Exts.M5 and M8 to M12 were

marked subject to proof. Heard both sides.

102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

16.

The points arising of consideration are:

“(i)

Whether on 04.04.1998 the workman misappropriated a sum of `31,500/- from the cash held by

him during the normal course of duty as cashier-in-charge and joint custodian of the cash?

(ii)

Whether the workman committed misconduct or willful damage or attempted to cause damage

to the property of the bank or any of its customers?

(iii)

Whether the workman has done any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross

negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss?

(iv)

Whether the workman has done any act amounting to neglect of work or negligence in

performance of duties?

(v)

Whether the workman has incurred debts to an extent considered by the management as

excessive?

(vi)

Whether the dismissal from service of Shri V. Rajagopal, Cashier-in-charge at the Pottenkadu

branch of State Bank of Travancore by the management of State Bank of Travancore is legal

and justifiable?

(vii)

If not, what the relief the workman is entitled to?”

17.

Point Nos.(i) to (vi):-

The workman Shri V. Rajagopal involved in this reference, joined the services of

the management bank as peon in the year 1981 and in the year 1990 he was promoted as cashier. While holding charge

as cashier in charge at the Pottenkadu branch of the State Bank of Travancore; he was served with a charge sheet dated

04.08.1998 by the management. Ext.M3 document marked on behalf of the management is the charge sheet dated

04.08.1998 issued by the Regional Manager V, State Bank of Travancore, Thiruvananthapuram, to the delinquent

workman. As many as eight charges under different heads were levelled against the workman. According to the

management the workman has committed misconduct under the following clauses of Bipartite Settlements rendering

him liable for appropriate punishments. The misconduct alleged against the workman are:-

19.5(d) -

Willful damage or attempt to cause damage to the property of the Bank or any of its customers.

19.5(e) -

Willful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and reasonable orders of the Management

or of a superior.

19.5(j) -

doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or

likely to involve the bank in serious loss.

19.7(c) -

neglect of work, negligence in performing duties.

19.7(e) -

incurring debts to an extent considered by the Management as excessive.

18.

Before serving charge sheet on the workman the management issued a memo dated 07.04.1998 requiring him to

submit explanation and he was placed under suspension pending enquiry. The workman submitted explanation before

the management which was not acceptable to them and hence issued Ext.M3 charge sheet. Against the charge sheet

also the workman submitted Ext.M4 explanation denying the charges. The enquiry officer who conducted the enquiry

submitted the enquiry report which forms part of the Ext.M1 file finding that the workman is guilty under charge

Nos.1, 3 and 8. The enquiry officer found that the management failed to prove the charges under the remaining heads

as per the charge sheet. As per the final order dated 29.01.2000 the disciplinary authority ordered dismissal of the

workman from service with immediate effect and that the period of suspension is as such – off duty with no benefits of

increment and that he shall not be eligible for any benefit other than what he has already drawn.

19.

The workman challenged the dismissal order and contended that he is innocent and the proceeding initiated

against him by the management is illegal and unjust. He sought reinstatement with all benefits due to him.

20.

The management has contended that the workman is guilty of misconduct and that the punishment imposed by

them is just, proper and in consonance with the gravity of misconduct committed by the workman. They have also

stated that the workman being an employee in a banking institution is bound to maintain absolute devotion, diligence,

integrity and honesty and particularly as cashier entrusted with money and valuable gold ornaments pledged with the

bank. According to the management there is no ground to interfere with the punishment imposed on the workman.

21.

The management has stated that as per the provisions in the Books of Instructions when there is cash shortage

due to misappropriation or other cause the bank will not be in a position to close the cash without making good the

cash shortage by debiting Protested Bills of Account with the amount of cash shortage. They have stated that the

workman cannot put blame on the joint custodian.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

103

22.

The learned counsel for the management bank submitted that the workman has committed gross misconduct as

provided under clauses 19.5(d); 19.5(c); 19.5(j); 19.7(c) and 19.7(e) of the Bipartite Settlements and hence liable to be

proceeded against. Even though the management has proceeded against the workman under charge nos.1, 3 and 8 as

per the charge sheet, they are stressing on charge no.1 that the workman on 04.04.1998 misappropriated a sum of

`31,500/- from the cash held by him during the normal course of his duty as cashier-in-charge and joint custodian of

cash. The learned counsel for the management submitted that the evidence tendered by MW2, the then Manager of

Pottenkad branch reveal that the workman has misappropriated a sum of `31,500/- on 04.04.98 and hence liable to be

proceeded against. The learned counsel for the management relied on the entries in Exts.M5 and M12 documents to

substantiate the plea of misappropriation. The learned counsel has submitted that as per Ext.M5 document the opening

balance is `3,01,573.45 but closing balance is `2,05,000/- apart from the cash in hand of `13,533.45. It is submitted

that as per Ext.M12 Vault Register the balance at the time when the last entry by the workman is noted as `2,05,000/-

whereas on the same date after physical verification by another cashier Mr. Krishna Kumar, the actual amount of cash

balance was `1,75,000/-. It is submitted that the actual cash balance ought to have been `2,05,000/- and hence it is

evident that the workman has misappropriated the sum of `31,500/- as stated in the charge sheet. It is submitted that

the closing balance on the previous day was `3,01,573.45 and the opening balance on the next day i.e., on 04.04.1998

was `3,01,573.45 after adjusting the payments and receipts the balance ought to have been `2,18,533.45 giving credit

to the cash at hand amounting to `13,533.45. The learned counsel submitted that the workman has misappropriated the

amount and hence disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and the punishment imposed by the management

is just and proper.

23.

The learned counsel for the workman submitted that the workman has not misappropriated the amount of

`31,500/- as alleged in the charge sheet. It is submitted that there was no misappropriation and that the shortage of

`31,500/- occurred while the workman was on duty as cashier-in-charge was made good by him on the next working

day i.e., 06.04.1998. The learned counsel submitted that there was no misappropriation on the part of the workman. It

is submitted that as per Ext.M2 memo of charge dated 07.04.1998 the allegation against the workman is that the

management detected a shortage of `31,500/- in the closing cash balance. It is submitted that nowhere in Ext.M2

memo dated 07.04.1998 the management had a case that the workman has misappropriated the sum of `31,500/-

on 04.04.1998 while on duty as cashier-in-charge at the management bank. The learned counsel submitted that only in

the charge sheet dated 04.08.1998 the management has alleged misappropriation against the workman. The learned

counsel submitted that the management has not produced any documents to prove that the shortage of cash mentioned

in Ext.M2 document was due to misappropriation of cash by the workman. It is submitted that the workman has

admitted the shortage in cash and made good the loss on the next working day by remitting the amount.

24.

The crucial aspect to be considered is whether the act complied of by the management against the workman is

shortage of cash or misappropriation of money. If it comes under 2^nd category the management is justified in

proceeding against the workman and imposing punishment. If it is shortage of money and if it occurred due to the

negligence of the workman he has to be proceeded against in accordance with the relevant clauses in the Bipartite

Settlements. The learned counsel for the workman submitted that the entries in the cash balance register Ext.M5 or in

the Vault Register – Ext.M12 do not reveal that this is a case of misappropriation on the part of the workman. It is

submitted that Ext.M6 document prepared by the management bank on 04.04.1998 reveals that it is a ‘cash shortage at

the close of cash at the counter of V Rajagopal, Head Cashier on 4-4-98’. In Ext.M7 document also the request of

the workman was to adjust the amount by debiting in PB account and he sought permission to make good the shortage

immediately. Admittedly the workman paid the sum of `31,500/- on the next working day i.e., on 06.04.1998. It is

only after that the management issued Ext.M2 memo stating that there was shortage of cash to a tune of `31,500/-

while on duty as Head Cashier by the workman.

25.

While examined as MW2 the then Manager of the Pottenkad branch explained the manner in which the cash is

taken out from the safe and replaced in the safe as and when required during the day’s transaction in the bank. He has

also explained the procedure to be followed in case there is shortage of cash. MW2 has stated that when there is

misappropriation the matter will be reported to the controlling authority. He has stated that there is no document to

prove that the issue of misappropriation was reported to the controlling authority and on the basis of which the

controlling authority conducted an enquiry regarding misappropriation and entered a finding to that effect.

26.

MW2 has stated that the register regarding cash balance is in the joint custody of the Manager and the

workman. He has stated that the Vault Register is also in the joint custody of the workman and the Manager. MW2

has stated that the opening balance in the cash balance book will be the closing balance of the previous day. He has

stated that the cash taken out from the vault in section wise will be recorded in the Vault Register. In the cash

balance register, the amount retained in the box will also be added to make out the actual opening balance. He has

submitted that in the cash balance book initially cashier will put his signature and after verifying the same the

Manager also will put his signature and only after that the cash will be kept inside the safe and the entry to the effect

will be made in the Vault Register. MW2 has admitted that in Ext.M5 document the workman as well as himself put

104

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

signature after striking out the cash balance. He has stated that if there is any defect in the entries in the register then

the actual balance will be recorded. He has admitted that in Ext.M5 document no such defect is recorded. He has

stated that in the Vault Register the discrepancy is noted. MW2 has stated that on verification of the receipts and

payments by denomination-wise the details of the amount remitted and the details of the payments effected can be

verified except that there will be minor variations. MW2 has stated that on 04.04.1998 no such verification was also

done. MW2 has stated that on 04.04.1998 the Manager of Adimaly branch Mr. Thomas and Mr. Krishnakumar verified

the cash balance and recorded the same and a report to that effect was submitted before the Regional Office.

27.

Learned counsel for the workman submitted that if there is misappropriation the matter will have to be reported

to the controlling authority and on the basis of their instruction the matter will have to be reported before the police. In

this case admittedly there is no report of misappropriation before the police by the management. MW2 has stated that

in the normal course if there is loss of cash from the joint custodian both the custodians are responsible for the same.

He has admitted that he received a memo regarding the shortage of money on 04.04.1998 and that he received a charge

sheet to that effect on 31.03.2000. He has stated that the management imposed a punishment of barring promotion for

one year on him. MW2 has admitted that regarding the shortage there was no investigation except inspection by the

Adimaly Branch Manager. He has stated that before the enquiry officer the witness Mr.Krishnakumar has gave

evidence to the effect that the shortage was from the hand balance.

28.

On an evaluation of the evidence tendered by MW2 and the documents marked on behalf of the management it

can be seen that the management has failed to prove the allegation of misappropriation of a sum of `31,500/- against

the workman. The independent evidence adduced by the management after the disposal of the Writ Petition by the

Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and the supporting documents produced by them will not in any way prove the

misappropriation of a sum of `31,500/- by the workman involved in this case. Therefore the major charge against the

workman under clause 19.1(d) and 19.1(j) of the Bipartite Settlement stands disproved. At the most it can be held that

there was neglect of work or negligence on the part of the workman in performing duty while handling cash, as

provided under clause 19.7(c) of the Bipartite Settlement which is a minor misconduct which does not vitiate the

punishment of dismissal from service of the workman.

29.

Therefore it is held that the management has failed to prove the gross misconduct of misappropriation alleged

against the workman. At the most it can be held that the workman has failed to take due diligence while working as

cashier and dealing with cash in the management bank. In such circumstance the joint custodian of cash who is none

other than MW2 is also equally responsible for the shortage of cash especially in view of the entries in Ext.M12 Vault

the charges of shortage of cash. The disparity in the imposition of punishment on the workman and MW2 by the

management reveal that the management acted in a partisan manner and against the interest of the workman and that

their action caused prejudice to him. The action of the management cannot be just or reasonable. There should be

justification in imposing the same ty pe of punishment on the joint custodian as well. In view of the fact that the

workman has made good the shortage of cash immediately on the next working day and that the bank has accepted and

acknowledged the same, it cannot be held that there was willful misuse or misappropriation of money on the part of the

workman while handling the cash in the management bank. In such circumstance at the most on parity with the

punishment imposed on the MW2 the punishment that can be imposed on the workman can only be to stop promotion

for one year and nothing more.

30.

In view of the discussion made above it is held that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the

management on the workman is disproportionate, unjust and hence not sustainable in law. Since the workman being

the joint custodian and responsible for the shortage of cash to the tune of `31,500/- his promotion shall be withheld for

a period of one year and he shall be reinstated forthwith with all service benefits and his promotion shall be barred for

one year. The points are answered accordingly.

31.

Point No.(vii):-

In view of the point Nos.(i) to (vi) an award is passed holding that the punishment of

dismissal from service imposed by the management on Shri V. Rajagopal, Cashier-in-charge at the Pottenkadu branch

of the State Bank of Travancore is illegal and unjustified. The workman shall be reinstated forthwith with all service

benefits. His promotion shall be withheld for a period of one year from the date of suspension. He shall be paid all

service benefits right from the date of suspension till date of reinstatement.

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 20^th day

of July, 2016.

SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

105

APPENDIX

Witnesses for the workman

NIL

Witnesses for the management

MW1

22.11.2007

Shri. Mathews John

MW2

16.03.2016

Shri. Jayaprakashan K.G.

Exhibits for the workman

NIL

Exhibits for the management

Enquiry file

Duplicate Memo vide No.RMII/E/4 dated 07.04.1998 issued by the Disciplinary Authority, State

Bank of Travancore, Head Office, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram to the workman.

Charge Sheet vide No.RM V/EKM/DPS/152/98-99 dated 04.08.1998 issued by the Regional

Manager V/Disciplinary Authority, State Bank of Travancore, Head Office, Poojappura,

Thiruvananthapuram to the workman.

Reply to the Charge Sheet dated Nil addressed to the Regional Manager V(Disciplinary Authority),

State Bank of Travancore, Zonal Office, Ernakulam by the workman.

Copy of relevant page of Cash Balance book dated 04.04.1998 submitted by the Branch Manager,

State Bank of Travancore, Pottankad branch.

Protested Bills account Debit Voucher dated 04.04.1998 for an amount of `31,500/- drawn against

the workman.

Letter dated 04.04.1998 addressed to the Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Pottenkad by the

workman.

Copy of relevant page of Keys Transactions Register (Page No.12) submitted by the Branch

Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Pottankad branch.

Copy of relevant page of Cash Balance book dated 03.04.1998 submitted by the Branch Manager,

State Bank of Travancore, Pottankad branch.

M10

Copy of relevant page of Cash Receipts Register dated 04.04.1998 (page No.8) submitted by the

Branch Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Pottankad branch.

M11

Copy of relevant page of Cash Payments Register dated Nil (page No.154) submitted by the Branch

Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Pottankad branch.

M12

Copy of relevant pages of Vault Register(page Nos.116 & 117) submitted by the Branch Manager,

State Bank of Travancore, Pottankad branch.

M13

Current Account Pay-in-Slip dated 06.04.1998 for an amount of `31,500/- paid into the credit of the

workman.

M14

Savings Bank Account Ledger Sheet from 11/1997 to 12/2003 of Account No.Staff 10 in the name of

the workman maintained by State Bank of Travancore, Pottenkad.

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 33-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

dSFkksfyd lhfj;u cSad fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 26@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 28-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@12@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2016

S.O. 33.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

106

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Catholic Syrian

Bank Ltd. and their workman, received by the Central Government on 28.12.2016.

[No. L-12011/12/2011-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

Present : Shri. K. Sasidharan, B. Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer

(Monday the 30^th day of May, 2016/09^th Jyaistha, 1938)

ID No. 26/2011

Union

The General Secretary,

Catholic Syrian Bank Staff Association,

AIBEA House, Kaliath Royale Square,

Place Road,

Thrissur (Kerala) – 680020

By M/s. H. B. Shenoy Associates

Management

The Chairman,

Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.,

Head Office,

Thrissur (Kerala).

By M/s. B.S. Krishnan Associates

This case coming up for final hearing on 18.05.2016 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 30.05.2016 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.

The dispute is:

“Whether the action of the management of the Catholic Syrian Bank Limited Trichur, in imposing the

punishment of compulsory retirement from service on Shri Manu Jose, Sub-staff, Kadambanad branch

vide their order dated 26/6/2010, is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”

After the receipt of reference Order No.L-12011/12/2011-IR(B-I) dated 12.07.2011, issued by the Ministry of

Labour, Government of India, summons was issued to the parties to appear and answer all material questions relating to

the dispute and produce documents to substantiate their respective contentions. The union and the management

entered appearance through counsel and submitted their pleadings.

The contentions in the claim statement filed by the union in brief are as follows:

The workman Shri. Manu Jose, involved in this reference was employed as a Sub-staff at the Kadambanad branch of

the management bank. The management placed him under suspension pending enquiry as per letter dated 30.09.2009,

issued by the disciplinary authority. The allegation against the workman is:

“- that he had without any reason or provocation shouted against the Manager – Shri. P.V. George, by

using abusive language and then manhandled him;

that several oral and written complaints were received against the workman’s misbehavior from the

customers as well as general public and it has affected the reputation of the bank; and

that during office hours the workman was in the habit of behaving in a short tempered and indisciplined

manner inside the branch. Even though the Branch Manager – Shri. K. J. Joseph counseled him and

advised him to behave in a proper manner, the workman failed to mend his ways and his behaviour

affected the smooth functioning of the branch.”

Accordingly a charge sheet dated 10.11.2009 was served on the workman by the disciplinary authority of the

management bank. The workman submitted explanation denying the allegations levelled against him. The

management ordered domestic enquiry. They appointed Shri P. J. Santhosh Tomy, Deputy Zonal Manager, Zonal

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

107

Office, Ernakulam as the enquiry officer and Shri. M. Vasudevan, Senior Manager(Law) at their Head Office,

Thrissur, as the Presenting Officer. The enquiry officer conducted a farce, namesake and partisan enquiry, in

violation of the principles of natural justice and denying the workman reasonable opportunity to substantiate his

contentions. The enquiry officer submitted a report finding that the workman is guilty of charge numbers one and three

as alleged in the charge sheet. The enquiry officer found that the charge No.2 has not been proved. Thereafter the

management served a copy of the enquiry report and requested him to make his submissions against the findings of the

enquiry officer. The workman submitted his objections on 07.06.2010. Subsequently the disciplinary authority after

hearing the workman, imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. The workman has stated that

the punishment imposed is arbitrary, illegal, excessive and highly disproportionate to the charges alleged against him.

He has denied the allegation of misconduct, stated by the management. According to the union the workman was

punished on the basis of mere suspicion, surmises and conjectures and without any concrete evidence against him.

Therefore the union has requested to declare that the punishment imposed by the management is illegal, unjust and

highly disproportionate in relation to the charges levelled against him.

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

The workman joined the management bank as probationary peon on 22.01.2007 at the Kadampanad branch,

under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme opted by his father. The branch Manager of Kadambanad branch reported that

at about 02:30 pm on 28.08.2009 the workman and the Manager Shri. P. V. George were talking in the dining hall of

the branch relating to the remittance of cash to the pooling branch. While so the workman shouted rude words against

Shri. P. V. George and suddenly without any reason Shri. Manu Jose caught and pressed the neck and stomach of Shri.

P. V. George with his knee. Apart from the aforesaid incident, the branch received oral and written complaints from

the public of Kadambanad against the workman. Subsequently the workman gave a letter admitting his mistake. He

promised that he will not repeat such instances in future. The management conducted a preliminary investigation

through Shri. Allie Francis, the Deputy Zonal Manager who submitted a report dated 19.09.2009 to the effect that the

incident reported as per the letter from the branch Manager is true and correct. The Investigating Officer further

reported that the workman was short tempered, living beyond his needs, always short of money, regular in consuming

liquor and beaten up by outsiders on a couple of occasion. After the receipt of the investigation report the management

placed the workman under suspension and he was relieved on suspension on 30.09.2009. Subsequently a charge sheet

was issued to him on 10.11.2009. The charges alleged against him are :

Riotous and disorderly behaviour in the premises of the bank;

ii)

Willful insubordination and disobedience to the lawful and reasonable orders of superiors; and

iii)

Doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank.

The explanation submitted to the charge sheet by the workman was not satisfactory and hence the management

ordered domestic enquiry against him. The management appointed Shri. P. J. Santhosh Tomy, Deputy Zonal Manager,

Ernakulam as the enquiry officer and Shri. M. Vasudevan, Senior Manager(Law) as the presenting officer. The

workman was represented by Shri. Jimmy. C. Akkarapatty, a representative of his choice. The defence representative

was an office bearer of the union wherein the workman was a member. The workman and his representative actively

participated in the domestic enquiry. All the management witnesses were cross examined by the defence

representative. The enquiry officer afforded full and reasonable opportunity to the workman to substantiate his

contentions. The findings of the enquiry officer is to the effect that charge Nos.(1) and (3) levelled against the

workman as per the charge sheet are proved. The enquiry officer held that charge No.2 is not proved.

Subsequently the management forwarded a copy of the enquiry report to the workman so as to enable him to

make his submissions against the finding of the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority considered the comments

and after hearing the submission by the workman imposed the punishment of ‘compulsory retirement from service with

superannuation benefits’. The appeal preferred against that order was dismissed by the appellate authority. The

management has requested to uphold their contentions.

After filing written statement by the management, the union filed replication reiterating the contentions in the

claim statement.

10.

As requested by the counsel for the parties, the validity of the domestic enquiry was considered as a preliminary

point. As per order dated 18.03.2016 it was held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was valid.

11.

After passing the preliminary order the learned counsel appearing for both sides were heard.

12.

The points arising for consideration are:

“(i) Whether the punishment imposed by the management against the workman is just, legal and

proper?

(ii) Whether the punishment imposed by the management is disproportionate to the gravity of the

misconduct alleged against him?

108

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(iii) To what relief the workman is entitled?”

13.

Point Nos.(i) & (ii):-

The workman involved in this reference Shri Manu Jose was employed as a sub-

staff at the Kadambanad branch of the management bank. As per the letter dated 30.09.2009 the disciplinary

authority placed the workman under suspension pending enquiry. The allegations levelled against the workman are

that he has committed several acts of gross misconduct while working as peon at the Kadambanad branch. The charges

levelled against him are:

(i)

Riotous and disorderly behaviour in the premises of the bank;

(ii)

Willful insubordination and disobedience to the lawful and reasonable orders of superiors; and

(iii)

Doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank.

On receipt of charge sheet the workman submitted explanation against the allegations levelled against him. The

management has stated that the explanation submitted by the workman was not satisfactory and hence they ordered

domestic enquiry. They appointed Shri P. J. Santhosh Tomy, Deputy Zonal Manager as the enquiry officer and Shri M.

Vasudevan, Senior Manager(Law) as the presenting officer. The contention of the union is that the enquiry officer was

biased and that no opportunity was afforded to the workman to substantiate his contentions. It is submitted that the

enquiry is vitiated. According to the workman the finding of the enquiry officer is erroneous, perverse and biased.

14.

As per the order dated 18.03.2016 this Tribunal found that the enquiry conducted by the management is valid

and proper. The charges alleged against the workman are gross misconduct. The enquiry officer has considered the

contentions raised by both sides. The fact that the workman involved in this reference shouted rude words towards his

superior officer during office hours inside the management bank is proved in the enquiry. His behaviour was riotous

and disorderly. Moreover he misbehaved towards his superior officer inside the bank premises. His action requires

deterrent punishment.

15.

The learned counsel for the management referred to the ruling reported in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board

Vs. Jagdish Chandra Sharma – CDJ 2005 SC 297 – Civil Appeal Nos.1339 & 1340 of 2003 in W.P. No.460 of 1999

dated 04.03.2005 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In that ruling the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held:

“Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1962 – Section 107A – Disciplinary Proceedings – Guilty of hitting

and injuring his Superior Officer at the Work Place – Correspondents to Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes

Act – Employee has been found guilty of hitting and injuring his superior officer at the work place, obviously in

the presence of other employees. This clearly amounted to breach of discipline in the organization. Discipline

at the work place in an organization like the employer herein, is the sine qua non for the efficient working of the

organization. When an employee breaches such discipline and the employer terminates his services, it is not

open to a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal to take the view that the punishment awarded is shockingly

disproportionate to the charge proved. We have already referred to the views of this Court – When in such a

situation, a punishment of termination is awarded for hitting and injuring a superior officer supervising the

work of the employee, with no extenuating circumstance established, it cannot be said to be not justified. It

cannot certainly be termed unduly harsh or disproportionate. The Labour Court and the High Court in this

case totally misdirected themselves while exercising their jurisdiction. The Industrial Court made the correct

approach and came to the right conclusion.”

16.

Considering the nature of the misconduct committed by the workman it is evident that the punishment imposed

by the management against the workman is in proportion to the gravity of the allegations levelled against him. In such

circumstance it will not be just, reasonable or proper to alter or modify the punishment imposed by the management on

the workman. Therefore the points for consideration are answered to the effect that the punishment imposed by the

management on the workman is just, proper and in proportion to the gravity of allegations levelled against him.

17.

Point No.(iii):-

In the result an award is passed holding that the workman is not entitled to any relief as per

this reference.

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 30^th day

of May, 2016.

SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

NIL

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

109

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 34-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

cSad ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 417@2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-12-

2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@147@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2016

S.O. 34.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 417/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank

of India and their workman, received by the Central Government on 28.12.2016.

[No. L-12012/147/2003-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. 417/2005

Registered on 19.08.2005

Sh. Bhola Ram Sharma, C/o J.N. Kapur, 33-34, Bank Enclave,

Ring Road, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027

…Applicant

Versus

The State Bank of India, through Asstt. General Manager,

Region-I, Zonal Office, Haryana, Sector 8C, Chandigarh-160008

…Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. C.L. Sharma, Adv.

For the management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on : 10.08.2016

Vide Order No.L-12012/147/2003-IR(B-I), dated 12.09.2003 the Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in

short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India imposing the penalty to dismissing the services

of Sh. Bhola Ram Sharma, Record Keeper w.e.f. 29.9.2000 is just and legal? If not, what relief the workman is

entitled to?”

In response to the notice, the workman submitted statement of claim to which reply was filed by the

management.

The facts, emerging, are that workman joined the respondent-management on 18.6.1974 as Peon and was

promoted as Record Keeper on 3.8.1984 and posted at Karnal Branch since 1996. He being less educated, was not

required to perform any clerical duty. The bank got a case registered against the Directors of M/s Anmol(India) Ltd.

and his name was not mentioned therein. However, he was placed under suspension and a charge sheet was issued to

him containing false charges vide letter dated 7.6.1999. The respondent-management appointed an enquiry officer, who

conducted the enquiry in a most arbitrary manner as he was a biased person. On the basis of the enquiry report, he was

dismissed from service vide order dated 29.9.2000. He preferred an appeal which was also dismissed.

110

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

It is pleaded that he was made a scapegoat to protect the senior officials of the bank. He was forced to work on a seat

with which he was not acquainted nor was eligible for any higher clerical post. He has been victimized and he be

reinstated in service.

According to the management, the workman while working as Clerk on cash credit counter at Kaithal,

committed certain acts of misconduct which facilitated M/s Anmol Agro India Limited to defraud the Bank to the tune

of Rs.2.60 crores. He was charge sheeted to which he submitted reply and an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct

the enquiry. The enquiry officer held the enquiry in a fair manner by observing the principles of natural justice. The

enquiry officer submitted a report which was considered by the Disciplinary Authority, who issued a show case notice

of proposed punishment. The workman was given an opportunity of personal hearing on 28.8.2000. The Disciplinary

Authority after hearing the workman, passed the final order on 29.9.2000, imposing a penalty of dismissal from service.

There is no defect in conducting the enquiry and considering the acts of misconduct, the punishment was awarded

which is legal.

The enquiry was held to be fair and proper vide order dated 17.06.2015, which has not been challenged by the

workman. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for hearing of arguments whether the imposed penalty is commensurate

with the acts of omission and commission of workman.

I have heard Sh. C.L. Sharma for the workman and Sh. N.K. Zakhmi for the management and perused the file.

It may be added that following charge-sheet was issued to the workman:-

Sh. Bhola Ram Sharma posted Cheque No.692883 Dated 20.2.1998 for Rs.18308707.80, in the Cash

Credit Account No.51 of M/s Anmol Agro India ltd. on 20.2.98 against credit vouchers of Rs.90 Lac,

Rs.90 Lac, Rs.80 Lac and Rs.60 Lac covering cheques sent in clearing, on behalf of the above

company and did not enter the cheques in Cheque Referred and Returned Register for getting the

authorization of the competent authority for payment.

He struck off the above four credit entries of Rs.90 lac, Rs.90 lac, Rs.80 lac and Rs.60 lac in the above

cash credit A/c of aforesaid company without authorization on 20.2.98.

On 2/3/98, he connived with Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Director of M/s Anmol Agro India Ltd. and

approached Sh. Prem Singh Thakur, Asstt.(Acctts.) working on clearing seat for sending

accommodation Cheques Nos. 118220 to 118222 for Rs.90 lac, Rs. 90 lac, and Rs.80 lac respectively

aggregating Rs. 2.60 crore drawn by M/s Mahalakshmi Rice Mills, an associate concern of the abiove

company to Central Bank of India, in special collection, knowing well that drawer of the above

cheques i.e. M/s Mahalakshmi Rice Mills were not keeping sufficient funds in their account for

payment thereof.

He made superfluous credit entries of Rs.90 lac, Rs.90 lac and Rs.80 lac aggregating Rs.2.60 crore

and against these credit entries, posted four cheque nos.692892 to 692895 for Rs.25 lac, Rs.25 lac,

Rs.2 crore and Rs.10 lac respectively each dated 2.3.98, on 2.3.98 in the said account of M/s Anmol

Agro India Ltd. and wrongly confirmed to the passing official of having received the credit against

above payments of the cheques drawn by the company.

He did not enter the above four cheques i.e. 692892 to 692895 in Cheque Referred and Returned

register for seeking authorization of the competent authority for payment against uncleared effects.

He did not post above three clearing credit vouchers for Rs.90 lac, Rs.90 lac, and Rs.80 lac meant for

the cash credit account No.51 of M/s Anmol Agro India Ltd. on 3^rd March 1998.”

During the enquiry, evidence was led and documents were produced. After considering the evidence on record,

the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the charge Nos.1 to 5 are proved against the workman, that the workman

posted cheque No.692883 dated 20.2.1998 for Rs.18308707.80 in the cash credit account No.51 of M/s Anmol Agro

India Ltd. On 20.2.1998 against credit voucher of Rs.90 lac, Rs.90 lac, Rs.80 lac and Rs.60 lac and later on struck out

the above said entries. He got cleared cheque No.118220 to 118222 of Rs.90 lac, Rs.90 lac, and Rs.80 lac aggregating

with Rs.2.60 crore in special collection and thereafter did not enter the said cheques in cheque referred and returned

produced before the enquiry officer which clearly established that the workman did make entries in the bank record and

facilitated the withdrawal of sum of Rs.2.60 crore.

The learned counsel for the workman submitted that a case bearing FIR No. RC No.51A 1998E 007–51U(X)

dated 5.11.1999 was registered by the CBI against the worman and others and all the accused were acquitted by the

CBI Court vide judgment dated 15.1.2013 and since the workman was also acquitted, a lenient view taken in view of

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

111

the provisions of Section 11A of the Act for awarding punishment to the workman. Suffice to say that the workman and

others faced trial regarding the embezzlement of the amount and the trial court held in the last para of the judgment as

follow:-

The job of accused Bhola Ram was merely to make necessary entries of cheques in the ledger sheet

after passing the same and in view of the practice prevailing that the entry into the account made twice

initially when the cheques were presented and whenever, the cheques were returned paid/upheld. PW-24

Jatinder Nath Kapil categorically admitted that the Ledger Clerk cannot make the payment to the parties.

He also admitted that before debiting the amount in the account of ledger of the party, credit entry is made

in the party account. Similarly, the other witnesses stated that accused Bhola Ram was not competent

either to pass the cheque or make the payment. He was only competent to make the entried after passing

the credit slips attached with the cheques. When the accused was not having any power to pass the

cheques or render any help to accused Sanjiv Kumar in cleaning the cheques, then the question of

favouring tto accused does not arise by abusing his position as public servant.”

The learned counsel submitted that since the workman was acquitted by the criminal Court and therefore, he be

given benefit in the present case and he be reinstated in service.

It is a settled law that scope of criminal case is different to that of departmental proceedings as the both have

conceptually different objectives, yardsticks and standard of proof. In the case of Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. General

Manager(PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia and others, reported in 2005 SCC(L&S) 1020. It was held as

follow:-

“….They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to

inflict appropriate punishment on the offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the

delinquent departmental and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules. In a criminal trial,

incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally

inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental

proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of

proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the

two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the

prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused “beyond reasonable doubt”, he cannot be convicted by a

court of law. In a departmental enquiry. On the other hand. Penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer

on a finding recorded on the basis of “preponderance of probability”. Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial

Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of

the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the contention of the appellant that since he was

acquitted by a criminal court, the impugned order dismissing him from service deserves to be quashed and

set aside.”

Thus, the acquittal in criminal case do not absolve the workman from the liability under the disciplinary

proceedings initiated by the management. The learned trial court took the view that the workman was not competent

either to pass the cheque or make the payment and he was competent only to make the entries after the passing of credit

slips attached with the cheques. But the workman himself has admitted in his statement of claim that though he was

posted as Record Keeper at Kaithal but he worked on a seat of which he was neither acquainted nor have knowledge of

the job for any higher Clerical work. Again in his rejoinder, it is pleaded that he was forced by the management to

perform duties on the seat of advances. Thus the workman himself pleaded that he was working on the seat of

advances. It cannot be said that he was not competent to do the job he did in the present case. Moreover he was not

honorably acquitted by the criminal court. The criminal court do not exonerate the workman from charges framed

during the enquiry proceedings and the evidence led therein is also not the same as was produced before the criminal

court. The enquiry officer considered all the material documents and came to a definite conclusion that the charge

Nos.1 to 5 against the workman are proved.

Thus, no benefit can be given to the workman if he is acquitted by the criminal court.

He made wrong entries in the bank’s books facilitating the withdrawal of Rs.2.60 crore fraudulently and

considering the circumstances, no other view can be taken for awarding punishment to the workman than taken by the

disciplinary authority and no ground is made to reduce the punishment.

In result, the reference is answered holding that the action of the respondent-management in imposing the

penalty of dismissal from service to the workman w.e.f.29.9.2000 is just and legal and he is not entitled to any relief.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

112

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 35-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos ds

çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky;&II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 286@2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-12-2016 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@197@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2016

S.O. 35.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 286/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court-II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of

Nothern Railway and their workman, received by the Central Government on 28.12.2016.

[No. L-41012/197/2003-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. 286/2005

Registered on 10.08.2005

Sh. Ramjas Pal S/o Sh. Mohan Lal, 335-L,

Railway Colony No.7, Ludhiana-141008

…Petitioner

Versus

Northern Railway, Ferozepur Cantt.

Through Divisional Railway Manager.

Northern Railway, Diesel Shed, Ludhiana.

Through Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer

…Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. B.N. Sehgal, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on :- 23.08.2016

Vide Order No.L-41012/197/2003-IR(B-I), dated 31.10.2003 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 Court.

“Whether the action of the management of the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Ferozepur,

Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway, Diesel Shed, Ludhiana in removing Sh. Ramjaspal, Ex-

Electrical Fitter from service is just and legal? If not what relief the workman is entitled to and from which

date?”

In response to the notice, workman filed statement of claim to which written reply was filed by the

management.

The facts, emerging, are that the workman joined as Diesel Cleaner in DSL Shed, Ludhiana on 18.08.1979 and

was promoted as Electrical Fitter in 1986. He met with an accident on 13.12.1990 while he was on duty and suffered

grievous injuries. He was removed to CMC Hospital from where he was referred to Railway Hospital, Ludhiana on

14.12.1990 and thereafter, he was referred to Divisional Railway Hospital, Ferozepur.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

113

Now according to the workman, he was referred to Central Hospital, New Delhi and then to Diwan Chand

Research Institution, New Delhi, and he is still under treatment. That he was wrongly discharged by Dr. Harinder

Singh, DMO, Ludhiana, on 1.1.1992. Due to complications, he was treated in Central Hospital, New Delhi, who issued

a certificate dated 04.10.1996 regarding his treatment. That he never remained absent from duty.

The management got conducted an enquiry for his alleged absence from 1.1.1992 to 31.10.1995 by appointing

Sh. L.D. Verma as the enquiry officer, who exonerated him of the charges. The management again appointed Sh. J.P.

Bhatia as the enquiry officer who arbitrarily held the charges as proved without considering the evidence and

conducting the enquiry as per rules. It is further pleaded that the management was not competent to appoint a new

enquiry officer as per rules and therefore, the enquiry conducted by Sh. J.P. Bhatia is illegal and consequently on its

basis his removal from service is illegal.

It is pleaded by the management that the workman was declared fit to perform a light duty on 12.7.1991. He

attended Divisional Hospital on 24.9.1991 and was referred to Central Hospital, New Delhi, for Ortho Specialist. It is

further pleaded that after availing G-92 on 28.10.1991, he was attended by Sh. Harminder Singh, DMO, who

discharged him. Thereafter, the workman remained absent from duty and did not inform his seniors about his sickness

and about his admission in New Delhi Hospital. He was issued a charge-sheet in form No.5 bearing No.577-

M/D&AR/DSL/482 dated 08.07.1995. It is admitted that an enquiry was conducted by Sh. L.D. Verma, but he did not

get verified the documents produced by the workman and the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with his findings and

since he was to retire shortly, the Disciplinary Authority appointed Sh. J.P. Bhatia as the enquiry officer to conduct the

enquiry afresh. Sh. J.P. Bhatia after conducting the enquiry, found the charges ‘as proved’ against the workman and

acting on this, the disciplinary authority removed him from service. That the proceedings conducted are legal and well.

I have heard Sh. B.N. Sehgal for the workman as well as Sh. N.K. Zakhmi for the management and perused the

enquiry file.

A charge-sheet was issued to the workman for remaining absent from duty from 1.1.1992 onwards to which he

filed written reply. The management appointed Sh. L.D. Verma as the enquiry officer. It is not disputed that the enquiry

officer exonerated the workman from the charges but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the report and

appointed Sh. J.P. Bhatia as the enquiry officer, who conducted the enquiry and submitted report with the following

observations:-

“On going through the case, one Certificate(photo copy)dated 10.9.96 placed at Sr. No.42(Case No.482) was

sent to the issuing authority for the verification under my letter No.577M/DAR/DSL/452 and 482 dated

23.7.97 placed at S.No.66. The issuing authority had clearly stated that he did not issue the certificate and

moreover he had said that certificate had no authenticity. The certificate did not indicate as to whom and for

whom the same has been issued i.e. it did not bear any name. Moreover, Sh. Ramjas Pal did not produce any

of the following “original” document/certificate.

(a)

G-92 issued by any Railway department.

(b)

Prescription slips which could indicate his ailment.

(c)

The certificate issued by Sr. DMO, Neuro-Specialist, Central Hospital, NDLS.

Further, Sh. Ramjas Pal did not sent any sick or interim sick certificate to the Shed in support of his

unauthorized absence from duty.

FINDINGS-

In view of the above facts, it is clear that Sh. Ramjas Pal had no original document to prove that he was

actually sick or he was injured on duty. He had produced photo copy of the fake certificate or Neuro-

Specialist, Central Hospital, NDLS to side track the enquiry and cover up the period of his unauthorized

absence from duty.

Thus, the charges framed against Sh. Ramjas Pal, Elect. Fitter, T.No.756 of unauthorized absence from

duty are proved as correct. Absence from 18.1.92 to 31.10.95.”

Acting on this report, the disciplinary authority passed the punishment order removing the workman from

service.

The only contention, raised by Sh. B.N. Sehgal is that the disciplinary authority can only remit the case to the

enquiring authority for further enquiry and was not competent to appoint a new enquiry officer and has drawn my

attention towards Rule10(1)(b) of the Railway Servants Disciplinary and Appeal Rules which is read as follow:-

“(b) is not itself the inquiring authority may for the reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to

the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to

hold further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 9, as far as may be.”

114

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Thus, as per rule, the case is to be remitted to the inquiring authority for further inquiry. In the present case, the

disciplinary authority made the following observations:-

While going through the case, following observations are made:-

Enquiry has been conducted in haste as E.O. was to retire from service on 31.1.97 and enquiry report

submitted on 22.1.97 just completing the formalities without going through the authenticity of the documents

produced during the enquiry viz.

Whether the certificate filed at Sl. No.23 pertains to Sh. Ramjas Pal as it has not been mentioned to whom

the certificate was issued, the dates on which Sh. Ramjas Pal visited hospital, as per photocopy attached at Sl

No.31. The accused failed to attend the enquiry on 13.3.96, 12.8.96, 17.9.96, 22.10.96, 2.12.96 and 23.11.96.

As such the enquiry report is not accepted. And Sh. J.P. Bhatia was nominated as E.O. to conduct the

enquiry again.

2.4.94

Thus, the disciplinary authority had gone through the report of Sh. L.D. Verma and observed that he was to

retire on 31.1.1997 and submitted a report in haste and by pointing out the discrepancies, appointed a new inquiry

officer vide order dated 2.4.1997 when Sh. L.D. Verma had already retired. Thus, in the present case, the disciplinary

authority could not remit the case to the enquiring officer who has already retired but was right in appointing a new

inquiry officer.

The charges against the workman are for remaining absent from 18.1.1992 to 31.10.1995 and the certificate he

produced before the enquiry officer for having treatment in the hospital was proved to be fake and thus, his absence

from duty was not justified in any way.

There is nothing on the file to suggest that enquiry was not conducted by Sh. Bhatia as per rules and the

contention raised by the learned counsel that the disciplinary authority cannot appoint a new enquiry officer is of no

avail in the present circumstances as stated above.

In result, it is held that the enquiry conducted in the present case is fair and legal.

It was argued by Sh. B.N. Sehgal that even if the workman remained absent from duty without informing his

seniors, the punishment awarded to him is harsh and this Court should intervene by using its powers under Section

11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Suffice to say that there is a long absence from duty on the part of the

workman, who did not inform the authorities concerned regarding his sickness and rather he tried to produce fake

documents during the enquiry. In the present circumstances, no other view can be taken as the one taken by the

disciplinary authority and no ground is made out to award him lesser punishment.

In result, the reference is answered against the workman holding that the removal of the workman is just and

legal and he is not entitled to any relief.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 36-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad

vkWiQ ifV;kyk ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 982@2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

28-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@140@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2016

S.O. 36.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 982/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank

of Patiala and their workman, received by the Central Government on 28.12.2016.

[No. L-12012/140/2001-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

115

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. 982/2005

Registered on 16.09.2005

Smt. Parkash Devi, W/o Sh. Mahabir, Kachavas,

Kamalu Road, Bhatinda(Punjab)-151001

…Applicant

Versus

State Bank of Patiala,

through its Asstt. General Manager I(B), Bhatinda

…Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. Madan Mohan, Adv.

For the management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on:-19.08.2016

Vide Order No.L-12012/140/2001-IR(B-I), dated 24.07.2001 the Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in

short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Patiala in terminating the services of Smt. Prakash Devi,

W/o Sh. Mahabir is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?”

In response to the notice, workman submitted statement of claim, to which written reply was filed.

The facts, emerging, are that the workman was engaged as a part time Sweeper by the management and his

services were terminated vide order dated 18.11.1998. According to the workman, she did not do any act of misconduct

and the enquiry officer wrongly held her guilty. That she did not commit any fault. That the termination order be set

aside.

According to the management, the workman got credited Rs.18,000/-, Rs.30,000/- from saving bank account

No.6585/32 of Sh. Lakhbir Singh on 03.10.1996 and 28.11.1996 respectively by forging his signatures. Thereafter, she

made withdrawals of Rs.10,000/- on 5.10.96, Rs.5,000/- on 7.10.96, Rs.3,000/- on 28.10.96 and Rs.15,000/- 30.11.96

and thus, committed a fraud.

She was served with a charge sheet to which she filed reply and the disciplinary authority found the same as

unsatisfactory. An enquiry officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry who conducted enquiry as per rules and did not

find the workman guilty. That the disciplinary authority, after considering the enquiry proceedings, enquiry report and

other relevant record, did not agree with the findings and imposed a penalty of terminating her services vide order dated

18.11.1998. It is further pleaded that the son of workman namely Sh. Devi Lal used to visit the branch for sweeping

and knew every staff member. She committed a fraud and punishment has been rightly awarded.

Parties were given opportunity to lead their evidence.

I have heard Sh. Madan Mohan for the workman and Sh. N.K. Zakhmi for the management and perused the file

carefully.

It was vehemently argued by Sh. Madan Mohan that the workman did not forge the signatures of Sh. Lakhvir

Singh for withdrawing amount from his account No.6585/32 and the withdrawal forms dated 5.10.96, 7.10.96, 28.10.96

and 30.10.96 also do not bear her thumb impression, and in the circumstances, she was rightly exonerated by the

enquiry officer and the punishing authority had no reason to take a contrary view for awarding the punishment and

therefore, the punishment order dated 18.11.98 is liable to be set aside.

On the other hand, it was argued by Sh. Zakhmi that the disciplinary authority has the right to agree or disagree

with the report of the enquiry officer and in the present case, the disciplinary authority rightly disagreed with the

enquiry report by giving a detailed and valid reasons, and since the workman indulged in for committing a fraud with

the bank, she has been rightly dismissed from service.

116

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

I have considered the respective contentions.

It may be added that a preliminary enquiry was conducted by Sh. Hardwari Lal, who after recording the evidence,

concluded in the last para of his report which is on the file as follow:-

“To be precise, it has been found that Sh. Devi Lal got transferred Rs.18,000/- on 3.10.96 and Rs.30,000/- on

28.11.96 to the account of his mother Smt. Parkash Devi by forging the signatures of Sh.Lakhbir Singh. Sh.

P.N. Bansal, SA, Sh. K.L. Jain, SA and Sh. Harmeet Singh were negligent in performing their duties.

A sum of Rs.33,000/- was withdrawn by smt. Parkash Devi against these forged credits. Sh. Devi Lal actively

supported her mother in withdrawing the amount. The amount has since been recovered and kept in Sundry

Deposit Account.”

Thereafter, the following charge sheet dated 1.10.1997 was served on the workman:-

On 03.10.1996 and 28.11.1996, you got the sums of Rs.18,000/- and Rs.30,000/- credited fraudulently to your

Savings Bank Account by debiting the SB Account No.6585/32 of Sh. Lakhbir singh by forging signatures of

the account holder in connivance with your son Devi La. Thereafter against these fictitious credits you made

withdrawals dated 5^th, 7^th, 28^th October and 30^th November, 1996 for Rs.10,000/-, 5,000/-3,000/- and 15,000/-

respectively and committed the fraud.”

She did not admit the allegations and an enquiry officer was appointed, who examined 6 witnesses on behalf of

the bank. The workman examined Dr. Atul Singla, handwriting expert besides other witnesses. Dr. Atul Singla

compared the thumb impression of the workman on the withdrawal forms dated 5.10.1996, 7.10.1996, 28.10.1996 and

30.10.1996, which were produced during the enquiry as Ex.P4, P5, P10 and P11 respectively with her specimen thump

impression and specifically opined vide his report as Ex.D3 that the thump impression found on the withdrawal forms

do not tally the specimen thump impression of the workman. After analyzing the entire evidence minutely, Enquiry

Officer concluded in the last paragraph of his report as follow:-

“From the above it is revealed that EPA has neither effected credit to her SB account nor has withdrawn

Rs.33,000/-. She never deposited any money in the Bank as stated by Bank’s witness nor colluded with her son

to commit the fraud. It is revealed that the fraud was committed by Shri Devi Lal without the knowledge of

EPA(the son of EPA)who has admitted the same in writing and has also deposited the amount of fraudulent

withdrawals by borrowing the amount from one Shri Ram Sawrup and with contributions from Shri K.L. Jain.

Had there been EPA’s involvement in the fraud she would certainly have withdrawn the remaining amount of

Rs.15,000/- lying in her account. Evidently she was not knowing that Rs.15,000/- were lying in her account.”

But the disciplinary authority did not agree with the said enquiry report and issued a show cause notice which

read as follow:-

“Shri K.K. Mittal, Enquiry Officer has submitted his enquiry report dated 27.7.1998 a copy of which is

enclosed for your information. I have carefully gone through the charge sheet dated 1.10.1997, your replies

dated 21.3.1997 and 18.10.1997, enquiry report, enquiry proceedings and all other relevant record. I do not

agree with the enquiry officer and do not accept his findings who has held the charges as not proved. The

enquiry officer has based his findings on the evidence of defence witness Sh. Atul Singla, who has opined that

RTIs on withdrawal forms dated 05.10.1996, 07.10.1996, 28.10.1996 and 30.11.1996 are not yours, but has

ignored the evidences of prosecuting witnesses Pw-1 to PW-6 and defence witness DW-3.

The Enquiry officer has not relied upon your statement given before the investigating officer but the reasons

given by Enquiry Officer for this are not convincing. One reason is that the statement was obtained under

pressure but reasons for putting pressure on you by Investigating Officer are not given. The reasons for not

believing that the statement was written by your son has also not been given. Another reason that it was not

witnessed does not make any valid reason. The reason that the person who wrote the statement was not

produced as prosecuting witness does not hold good. The last reason for not believing your statement before

Investigating Officer is that, your thumb impression has been affixed for below the last line is not true. In fact

after the last line of the statement date has been put after some distance and after some distance from the date

your thumb impression has been obtained. Moreover no other part of the investigating report has been

questioned by Enquiry Officer. On the other hand he had relied upon it. So I hold that your statement was

obtained by Inventing Officer without putting any pressure on you and you have denied the contents of your

statement given before the Investigating Officer only to save yourself. Shri K.L. Jain, Special Asstt., Raman

Branch PW-4 had stated that exhibits P-4 and P-5 were brought by you to him and he had passed these

withdrawal forms. P-10 and P-11 were brought by you to him and he has passed these withdrawals. Shri

Harmeet Singh, Cashier/Clerk DW-3 had stated that withdrawal of Rs.5,000/- dated 07.10.1996 was posted by

him and it was filled in by him at your request. Shri H.R. Khanna, Head Cashier, Raman PW-5 had stated that

the payment of Exhibit P-4, P-5, P-10, P-11 was made by him to you. As per Exhibit D-3, Exhibit P-4, P-5,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

117

P-10 and P-11 do not bear your thumb impression. I do not doubt it but at the same time the statements PW-4,

PW-5, PW-6 and DW-3 cannot be ignored. Actually you have exploited the negligence on the part of PW-4,

PW-6 and received the payment of Exhibit P-4, P-5, P-10 and P-11. You have admitted your mistake before

PW-2, PW-3, PW-5 and PW-6. You have also admitted before the investigating Officer in your statement dated

13.12.1996 that you have received the payment on different dates. Your son Shri Devi Lal had admitted before

the Investigating Officer in his statement dated 13.12.1996 that a sum of Rs.18,000/- and Rs.30,000/- were got

transferred to your account on 03.10.1996 and 28.11.1996 respectively. These credit entries also appear in

your Saving Bank Pass book exhibit D-6 which shows that these amounts were transferred in your account

with your connivance and were withdrawn by you later on.”

The learned counsel for the management submitted that the disciplinary authority considered all the aspects of

this case while disagreeing with the report of the enquiry officer and the conclusions drawn by it are legal and valid.

The perusal of the order passed by the punishing authority, and as reproduce above, shows that he had given

weightage to the statement made by the workman before the investigating officer which is on the file along with the

report, and she stated therein that her son took the payment on 05.10.1996, 07.10.1996, 28.10.1996 and 30.11.1996 and

handed over the money to her and she further deposed that she thumb impression the withdrawal forms. But her

statement do not carry weight, in view of the report of Sh. Atul Singla, handwriting expert, who did not find her thumb

impression on the withdrawal forms and this report is also not disputed by the punishing authority, as find mentioned in

the order itself. Since the withdrawal forms do not bear the thumb impression of the workman, the enquiry officer was

right for not relying on the statement made by her before the investigating officer.

Moreover, the investigating officer himself found that it was Sh. Devi Lal, who got transferred Rs.18,000/- on

03.10.1996 and Rs.30,000/- on 28.11.1996 to the account of his mother and thus, he found that it was Sh. Devi Lal,

who is the son of the workman, who made the withdrawals from the other account. The investigating officer further

observed, as stated above, that the amount was withdrawn by the workman, which is not supported by the documents

and the withdrawal forms P-4, P-5, P-10 and P11, do not bear her thumb impression as opined by Sh. Atul Singla,

handwriting expert.

Thus, the statement made by the workman before the investigating officer do not prove her guilt.

The punishing authority further relied on the statement of Sh. K.L Jain, Sh. Harmeet Singh, Sh. H.R. Khanna

who dealt with the withdrawal forms and made payment thereof by stating that these withdrawal forms were given by

the workman. But their statements cannot be believed in view of the specific report of Dr. Atul Singla, who did not find

her thump impression on the withdrawal forms. When the punishing authority itself did not find any fault with the

report of the finger and handwriting expert, he was not right in relying on the statements of Sh. Jain and others to come

to the conclusion that it was the workman who withdrew the amount by filling the withdrawal forms.

Again there is nothing on the record that it was the workman who got transferred Rs.18,000/- on 03.10.1996 and

Rs.30,000/- on 28.11.1996 to her account by forging the signature of Sh. Lakhbir Singh and rather the investigating

officer found that it was her son who got transferred the said amount. If her son, who used to clean the bank premises in

the absence of the workman, did some fraud, the workman cannot be punished for the same.

Thus, it is neither proved that it was the workman, who got transferred Rs.18,000/- on 03.10.1996 and

Rs.30,000/- on 28.11.1996, nor it is proved that she withdrew amounts of Rs.10,000/- on 05.10.1996, Rs. 5,000/- on

07.10.1996, Rs.3,000/- on 28.10.1996 and Rs.15,000/- on 30.11.1996 and therefore, the disciplinary authority wrongly

disagreed with the report of the enquiry officer who had given detailed report for exonerating the workman; and the

order passed by the punishing authority for dismissing the workman from service is not sustainable in law.

In result, the reference is answered, holding that the action of the management of the respondent-bank in

terminating the services of the workman is not justified and she is deemed to be in service on the terms and conditions

on which she was working from the date of her dismissal i.e. 18.11.1998 and is entitled to all the wages. If she has

attained the age of superannuation in the meantime, then only arrears of wages be paid to her. The respondent-bank

shall pay the arrears of wages etc. within 3 months of the publication of the award failing which it shall pay interest @

6 % per annum on the awarded amount to the workman.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 37-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch,l,u,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

118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 05@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-12-2016 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@3@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2016

S.O. 37.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of BSNL and

their workman, received by the Central Government on 28.12.2016.

[No. L-41011/3/2004-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 12^th August, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 05/2013

The General Manager,

BSNL, Surendranagar Telecom District,

Telephone Exchange, Surendranagar

…First Party

V/s

The President,

Saurashtra Employees Union,

Umesh Commercial Complex, 213 & 214,

2^nd Floor, Near Chaudhar High School,

Rajkot – 360001

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri H.R. Raval

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/3/2004-IR (B-

I) dated 12.08.2004 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of

the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of BSNL, Surendranagar in terminating the services of Shri Brahmdev

Tiwari w.e.f. 30.09.1997 and again from 21.01.2000 after redeploying him w.e.f. 04.09.1998 although he has

worked for more than 240 days for many years is justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled

to?”

The reference dates back to 12.08.2004. Shri Harish R. Raval submitted his vakalatpatra Ext. 4 on behalf of the

first party on 03.11.2015. Notice was also issued by registered post Ext. 3 to the aforesaid second party, The

President,Saurashtra Employees Union, but same was received back as unserved, not being available on the aforesaid

address. It was received back on 20.05.2013. Since then the second party has not turned up. Thus it appears that the

second party is not willing to prosecute the case.

Thus the reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the case by the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

119

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 38-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 104@2007) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-12-2016 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@11@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2016

S.O. 38.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 104/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of

Western Railway and their workman, received by the Central Government on 28.12.2016.

[No. L-41011/11/2007-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 12^th August, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 104/2007

The Chief Works Manager (EW),

Western Railway, Engg. Workshop

Sabarmati, Ahmedabad

The Chief Engineer (Workshop),

Western Railway,

Head Quarter Office, Churchgate,

Mumbai – 400020

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

E/209, Sarvottam Nagar, Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party

None

For the Second Party

Shri R.S. Sisodia

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/11/2007-

IR (B-I) dated 12.10.2007 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Paschim Railway Karmachari Parisahd, Ahmedabad for promotion on roster point to

Shri Dinesh Kuntal to the post of Sr. Sectional Engineer which has been filled up by the management of

Engineering Workshop, Western Railway, Sabarmati by promoting Shri J.K. Parmar of General Category, is

legal and justified? If so, what directions are necessary in the matter?”

120

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The reference dates back to 12.10.2007. Shri H. B. Shah submitted the vakalatpatra Ext. 6 on behalf of the first

party on 16.02.2008. Second party was served by registered post on 04.09.2008 but he did not turn up then fresh notice

was issued to second party vide Ext. 7 to appear on 29.06.2011 but to no result. The second party representative Shri

R.S. Sisodia, the Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway KarmachariParishad has not pressed the reference.

Therefore the reference is dismissed as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 39-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 820@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-12-2016 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@98@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2016

S.O. 39.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 820/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of

Western Railway and their workman, received by the Central Government on 28.12.2016.

[No. L-41012/98/2003-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 12^th August, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 820/2004

The Assistant Electrical Engineer (Power)

Western Railway, Pratapnagar,

Baroda (Gujarat) – 390004

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Pratapnagar,

Baroda – 390004

…First Party

V/s

The Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

Shastri Pole, Kothi,

Baroda (Gujarat) – 390001

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri Rajesh Singh

For the Second Party

Shri R.S. Sisodia

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41012/98/2003-

IR (B-I) dated 19.09.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

121

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand raised by the Paschim Railway Karmachari Parisahd for non-grant of promotional prospect

benefit in favour of Jagdish D. Chauhan, Sr. Khalasi is legal, proper and justified? If so, what relief the concerned

workman Shri Jagdish D. Chauhan is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 19.09.2003. First party submitted the vakalatpatra Ext. 3 of his advocate on

06.02.2004 and Ext. 5 on 11.12.2015. The second party representative Shri R.S. Sisodia, the Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway KarmachariParishad has not pressed the reference.

Therefore the reference is dismissed as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 40-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tEew ,.M

d'ehj cSad ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 94@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

28-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@204@97&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2016

S.O. 40.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 94/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Jammu

& Kashmir Bank Ltd. and their workman, received by the Central Government on 28.12.2016.

[No. L-12012/204/97-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 11^th August, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 94/2004

The Manager,

Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd.,

KadiyaKuyi, Relief Road,

Ahmedabad – 380001

…First Party

V/s

Shri Ghulam Ahmed Umermiya Malik,

Navapura, Ramol, Near Hussain Chawk,

Ahmedabad – 380001

…Second Party

For the First Party

None

For the Second Party

Shri H.Z. Saiyed

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/204/97-

IR (B-I) dated 29.04.1998 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

122

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Jammu & Kashmir Bank in terminating the services of Malik Gulam

Ahmed Umermiya, Peon-cum-watchman vide order no. P&R/Estt./89-4544 dated 31.05.1989 is legal and

justified? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 29.04.1998. The second party has filed his statement of claim vide Ext. 4 wherein he

has stated that he had worked with the first party as a peon from 11.04.1988 to 3 years and his last monthly salary was

Rs.1800/- per month. He has further stated that he discharged his duty faithfully and diligently. The second party

further stated that he was made permanent with effect from 01.01.1989 and at that time also his monthly salary was

Rs.1800/-. He was being paid Rs.1800/- per month till 14.06.1989. After illegal termination he was taken back on the

job and paid Rs.450/- per month by this way he was being paid less Rs.1350/- per month. He has stated that first party

has not extended the benefits of various labour laws. He was allowed to enjoy holiday of Bakrid. He was not paid

bonus and not allowed to enjoy other leaves. He was terminated vide order dated 31^st May 1982 stating that he was not

possess educational qualifications and illegally terminated from the services. He was orally instructed to pass standard

8^th. He has stated that after passing standard 8^th, he approached first party on 01.06.1990. Accordingly he was allowed

to join duties but he was paid Rs.450/- per month as a temporary. He has further stated that when he was permanent he

was being paid Rs.1800/- per month and after that the first party has paid less Rs.1350/- per month, the second party

has demanded the difference of salary. The officers of the first party by keeping victimization upon him terminated his

services with effect from 01.05.1992 by oral order. He has further stated that at the time of termination, he was not

served any notice nor he was paid notice pay or the retrenchment compensation. He has further stated that at the time of

termination, no departmental enquiry was held. He further stated that the first party has also committed breach of

section 25 F of the ID Act. Hence the action of the first party to terminate the services of second party is required to be

quashed. He prayed for full back wages and reinstatement with continuity of services on his original post. The second

party workman along with the statement of claim submitted 19 documents Ext. 54 to 67.

The first party in his written statement Ext. 5 denied all the averments made in the statement of claim Ext. 4 with

some qualifications. In his additional statement, he has submitted that the second party was engaged temporarily as a

peon-cum-watchman/waterman on 11.04.1988 on month to month basis for a consolidated salary of Rs.300/- per

month. Every engagement order does not give rise any right to permanent employment in the bank. Every engagement

order was to be read in total isolation with the appointment dated 10.01.1989 and is not related to the said appointment

order in any manner whatsoever. Therefore, all these monthly engagement orders cannot be the subject matter of this

reference. In fact all the monthly engagement orders were followed by immediate termination orders. It is further

submitted that second party workman was appointed peon-cum-watchman vide order no. DGM/D/Per/89/202 dated

10.01.1989 subject to the condition that the second party workman would fulfil the required eligibility criteria

prescribed under rules i.e. middle standard (eighth pass) within six months till then he shall be treated as appointed

temporarily on probation but he failed to submit the certificate of passing eighth standard consequently the services

were terminated vide bank order no. PER/EST/89-4544 dated 31.05.1989. Therefore the second party workman is not

entitled and is the action taken, as referred in the schedule of the reference letter sent by the M/o Labour and

Employment, Government of India is legal and justified.

On the basis of the pleadings, following issues are to be addressed by this tribunal:

(i)

Whether action of the management of Jammu & Kashmir Bank in terminating the services of Malik Gulam

Ahmed Umermiya, Peon-cum-watchman vide order no. P&R/Estt./89-4544 dated 31.05.1989 is legal and

justified?

(ii)

If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?

FINDINGS

Issue No. 1: The burden to prove this issue was lying on second party workman in his statement of oath has reiterated

the facts/averments made in the statement of claim Ext. 4 which the first party refuted. The perusal of the documents

Ext. 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 & 45 which are also numbered as Ext. 53 to 64 make it clear that the

second party workman Malik Gulam Ahmed Umermiya was temporarily appointed from 10.05.1988 to 29.10.1988

from month to month basis with a salary of Rs.300/- per month followed by termination at the end of each month. The

documents Ext. 46 (65) makes it clear that the second party workman was appointed on 10.01.1989 as peon at the basis

of Rs.430/- per month in the pay scale of 430/10/450/14/492/16/540/20/680/25/730/30/790 by the first party bank with

a condition that he will submit the eligibility certificate of qualification of Eighth Standard pass within 6 months. The

appointment letter is annexed with the application of the second party workman for the said post and termination order

Ext. 67 dated 13.06.1989 on account of non-fulfilment of the eligibility qualification. The first party has also submitted

the copies of the rules.

Both the parties submitted their arguments in the light of their pleadings.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

123

This is a settled law that no appointment of any post shall be made against the service rules and every appointing

authority/establishment has the right to frame rules with respect to the appointment on the various posts. In the present

case the first party has framed rules prescribing the eligibility qualification for the post of peon and that is Eighth

Standard pass. It is true that despite having no eligible qualification the second party workman was appointed on the

post of peon but it was with a condition that he will submit the required qualification certificate within 6 months which

he failed to submit. Therefore I do not find any force in the argument in the second party workman. Thus this issue is

decided in negative and in favour of the first party.

Issue No. 2: As the issue no. 1 is decided against the second party workman, therefore he is not entitlement for any

relief.

Thus the award is decided accordingly and the action of the management of Jammu & Kashmir Bank in

terminating the services of Malik Gulam Ahmed Umermiya, Peon-cum-watchman vide order no. P&R/Estt./89-4544

dated 31.05.1989 is legal and justified.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 41-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u cSad

vkWiQ bafM;k 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;] dkuiqj (;w-ih-) ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 45@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-

12-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@102@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2016

S.O. 41.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Kanpur (U.P.) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Union

Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.12.2016.

[No. L-12011/102/2011-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, KANPUR.

Industrial Dispute No. 45 of 2012

Between :

The Secretary,

Union Bank of India Staff Association (UP),

C/o Unon Bank of India, Main Branch,

24/53, Birhana Road Branch,

Kanpur (U.P.)

And

The Assistant General Manager,

Union Bank of India,

Regional Office,

117/H-1/240 Pandu Nagar,

Kanpur -208005.

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, New Delhi vide notification No. L- 12011/102/2011-IR(B-II) dated 23/05/2012, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

124

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Whether the demand of the regularization of services of Shri Ram Shanker Pal as sub-staff at Union Bank of

India, Kaushalpuri Branch, Kanpur raised by the Secretary, Union Bank Staff Association (UP),Kanpur and further

termination his services w.e.f. 31.7.2010 by the management of Union Bank of India on receipt of notice of

Conciliation Officer, is just & legal? What relief the concerned workman is entitled to?

The case of applicant is that he was engaged as Sub-Staff as Cash Peon on the vacant post in the month of

January, 1995 by the orders of management of Union Bank of India at Kaushalpuri Branch, Kanpur. It is state that the

service conditions of the said workman are governed by the By-partite settlement.

That Sri Ram Shankar Pal has worked under the orders of the management of Union Bank of India from January

1995 to 31.07.2010 on the vacant post of sub-staff as cash peon till 9.p.m. Each day.

That the management in utter violation of the Bi-partite settlement has paid the workman on daily basis paid his

wages in the name of fictitious persons through vouchers and the workman was made to sign those vouchers.

That Sri Ram Shanker Pal had continuously worked from January 1995 to 31.07.2010 as sub-staff in the bank

hence he was entitled to get permanent in the job.

That as the Bank terminated the services of workman Sri Ram Shanker Pal making breach of section 25F of the

I.D.Act, 1947 the workman is entitled to re-instatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits.

The bank filed its written statement in which It is stated that applicant did not work continuously 240 day as

casual labor at Kaushalpuri Branch before 31.07.10 & his demand to pay benefits u/s 25 F of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 is not tenable & is liable to be rejected by the tribunal. The contents of Para 7 of the claim are bogus & not

admitted by the management of bank. It is clearly stated here that Sri Ram Shanker Pal was never employed by the

bank and there existed no relationship of employer-employee. He was free to work anywhere. Hence, provisions of Bi-

partite settlement are not attracted in this case.

It is made clear that appointed person can also be terminated as per procedures of the Bank but Sri Ram Shanker

Pal was never appointed by the bank.

10.

It is stated that none of the parties have filed any documents and neither party adduce his evidence in support of

the claim. Therefore it is the case of no evidence and therefore the tribunal is of the view that none of the parties have

proved their case by adducing oral and documentary evidence. Therefore tribunal is having no option left but to decide

the reference against the applicant for want of evidence and proof.

11.

Accordingly reference answered against the applicant holding that the applicant is not entitled for any relief

pursuant to the present reference order.

12.

Reference is answered accordingly.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 42-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

bafM;k 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 15@11) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-12-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@65@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2016

S.O. 42.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/11) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.12.2016.

[No. L-12011/65/2010-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

125

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/15/11

General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan,

F-1, Tripti Vihar, Opp. Engineering College,

Ujjain (MP)

…Workman/Union

Versus

Managing Director,

Bank of India, Head Office, Star House,

Bandra Kurla(East),

Mumbai

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 11^th day of November, 2016

As per letter dated 25-2-2011 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-

12011/65/2010-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in disengaging Shri Lal Chand Chouhan from the

services of the Bank w.e.f. 12-7-08 is just, fair and legal? Whether the management has violated the Section 33(1)

of ID Act, 1947? What relief Shri Lal Chand Chouhan is entitled to and from which date?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party submitted statement of claim through

General secretary, daily Wage Bank Union. Case of Ist party workman is that he was working as peon on daily wages

in the Bank from 10-11-01. He was paid wages Rs.10 per day. Wages were increased to Rs.20,30,60 per day. He was

working 6 days in a week. On 20-9-06, he was deputed to Chipya branch. He was terminated without notice on 12-7-08

in violation of section 33 of ID Act. During the period 20-9-06 to 12-7-08, he was working under different Branch

Managers. He raised dispute before RLC bearing No. 20/08. After failure report, dispute has been referred by

Government. Ist party workman further submits that he worked more than 240 days during each of the year. He is

covered as employee under section 25 B of ID Act, he worked more than 7 years, his services are terminated in

violation of section 25-F of ID Act. He was not served with notice, pay in lieu of notice was not given to him.

Principles of last come first go was not followed. Termination of his service is in violation of Section 25 F,N of ID Act.

On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. Preliminary objection is raised that Managing

Director is not Appointing Authority. The reference against Managing Director is not tenable. That dispute is raised by

Union. Union has no locus as it has no functioning in the Bank. The employees of the Bank are not members of the

Union. Bank has rules and regulations for appointment of sub staff. Ist party workman was not appointed following

rules and regulations. Workman is not entitled for regularization of his services in the Bank. 2^nd party also contends

there is no employer employee relationship between parties. The reference is mechanically made without considering

the facts. That claimant has claimed re-employment in Bank. He is not workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act.

Workman wasnot sponsored through Employment exchange. He was not selected following recruitment rules. Sastry

Award, Desai Award, Bipartite settlements, circulars are applicable to the Bank.

Casual labours, badly labours engaged through local area as per availability for execution of casual nature of job.

Such casual labours are paid as per local rates. 2^nd party is also bound to follow reservation policy for SC ST OBC

while appointing candidates followed by interview. The payment of wages to the casual employees is made by Branch

Manager is reimbursed to him. That daily wager has no right to hold any post. Ist party workman was not continuously

working. He had not completed 240 days continuous working during any of the year. In R/43/10, workman has not

pleaded he was engaged from 10-11-01 to 19-9-06 in Baroda Malwa branch. 2^nd party denies that workman is

terminated in violation of Section 33 of ID Act. Violation of Section 25-F,G,H,N is also denied. On such contentions,

2^nd party prays for rejection of claim.

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:-

126

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(i)

Whether the management has violated the Section

33(1) of ID Act, 1947?

In Negative

(ii)

Whether the action of the management of Bank of

India in disengaging Shri Lal Chand Chouhan from

the services of the Bank w.e.f. 12-7-08 is just, fair

and legal?

In Negative

(iii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

As per final order.

REASONS

Point No.1- the term of reference pertains to whether 2^nd party has violated Section 33 of ID Act. Statement of

claim submitted by workman is absolutely silent how management violated Section 33 of ID Act.

Section 33 provides- During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a

Board or of any proceeding before an arbitrator or a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an

industrial dispute, no employer shall- (a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter to the prejudice of the

workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the

commencement of such proceeding.

In affidavit of his evidence, workman has not stated anything about pendency of any reference or conciliation

proceeding was pending at the time of termination of his service before Conciliation Officer or before this Tribunal.

Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

Point No.2- Ist party workman filed affidavit of his evidence that during 10-11-01 to 9-9-06, he was working at

Bolod Malwa branch during 20-9-06 to 12-7-08, he was working at Chipya branch. In his cross, Ist party workman

says that he raised dispute before ALC, Bhopal on 5-7-08 for regularisation of his service and payment of wages. Shri

Ram Nagwanshi was his representative. Personally he not participated in the conciliation proceeding. On 20-9-06, Shri

S.N.Malhotra Branch Manager had directed him to join Chipya branch. In 2001, his name was not sponsored through

Employment Exchange, post was not advertised. Earlier he was working in the Bank, Branch Manager Ajmera engaged

him in 2001. Ist party in his further cross says increased the wages at Rs.20,30,50,60 were paid to him for working

days. His signatures were not taken on payment voucher.

Management filed affidavit of witness Shri D.K.Poddar supporting contentions in Written Statement denying that

workman was continuously working from 10-11-01 to 19-9-06. Management’s witness in his cross says during 2001 to

2006, he was not working in Balod Malwa branch. He claims ignorance about the Branch Manager working in said

branch during above said period. That he was working as Branch Manager in Chipya branch during 9-7-06 to Sept.07.

That he visited Chipya branch to see the record. Any proceeding was not followed before engaging workman,

permission of Controlling Authority was not taken for his engagement. Daily wage employees were paid wages by

Branch Manager amount was reimbursement to him. Management’s witness admitted documents Exhibit W-2/1 to 13.

W-3 to 6 workman was not given termination notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to workman.

Learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri A.K.Shashi produced the certified copies of evidence of Ist party workman in

R/75/12. In his cross, Ist party workman had deposed that he was engaged by Branch Manager Ajmera in Balod Malwa

branch. He was engaged by Shri Poddar in Chipya branch, order in writing was not given to him, his name was not

sponsored. Said reference was raised for bonus. Learned counsel for management further argued that Ist party workman

appointed by different authority in Chipya branch cannot claim benefit of his working in Balod Malwa branch from

10-11-01 till 28-9-06.

10.

Shri A.K.Shashi submits that burden of proof lies on workman to prove completion of 240 days continuous

service. Shri Shashi relies on ratio held in case between

U.P.State Warehousing Corporation versus Presiding Officer and another reported in 2013-III-LLJ-213. His

Lordship of Allahabad High Court dealing with burden of proof held person who files a claim is required to prove his

case. Industrial Diospute raised by Union, burden of proof is upon Union and its workers to prove their claim before

Labour Court. Union did not prove that they were appointed or engaged directly be petitioners workers not proved that

they worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year.

Reliance is also placed in case between State of Rajasthan versus Sarjeet Singh and another reported in 2007-I-

LLJ. Their Lordship dealing with Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act held respondent was appointed as Driver by Gram

Panchayat pursuant to a joint scheme with the State of Rajasthan for supply of water initially for a period of 6 months

and extended till November 7,1997 when the scheme ended. He succeeded before the Labour and High Courts in

getting orders for his reinstatement with benefits. Hence the Hon’ble Court also refers to that respondent was appointed

for fixed period. It was case which attracted Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

127

The facts of present case are not comparable. There is no scheme that scheme was considered by their Lordship.

Ratio cannot be applied to case at hand.

11.

The documents produced by workman Exhibit W-2/1 to 13 shows payment made as miscellaneous charges 1980,

2160, 1768, 2220, 2620, 2500, 2620, 2720,2400, 2040, 2220, 2000, 1200 during the period 2-7-07 to 4-6-08. Even if

the wages are calculated @ Rs.100 or 120 per day, working days of Ist party appears more than 240 days. The

evidence of workman that he completed 240 days service preceding termination of his services from Chipya branch, he

was not paid retrenchment compensation, notice of termination was not issued to him. Therefore termination is illegal

for violation of Section 25-F. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.2 in Negative.

12.

Point No.3- In view of my finding in Point No.2 termination of services of workman is illegal, question remains

for consideration is whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. Shri A.K.Shashi for management

relied on ratio held in

State of UP and another versus Hind Mazdoor Sabha reported in 2011-LAB.I.C.4322. Their Lordship dealing

with reinstatement with backwages w.r.t. daily wager workman held recruitment of workman was not in accordance

with procedure prescribed by law held granting relief of reinstatement with backwages not proper.

In present case, workman was engaged on daily wages. Employment in Balod Malwa branch cannot be

considered. However Ist party workman worked more than 240 days at Chipya branch during 2006 to 2008,

considering the period of his working, compensation Rs.50,000 would be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding

in Point No.2.

13.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Bank of India in disengaging Shri Lal Chand Chouhan from the services

of the Bank w.e.f. 12-7-08 is not proper and legal.

(2)

2^nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.50,000 to the 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

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 43-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

bafM;k 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 75@12) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-12-2016 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@64@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2016

S.O. 43.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 75/12) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.12.2016.

[No. L-12011/64/2011-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/75/12

General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan,

F-1, Tripti Vihar, Opp. Engineering College,

Ujjain (MP)

…Workman/Union

128

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

Managing Director,

Bank of India, Head Office, Star House,

Bandra Kurla (East),

Mumbai

AWARD

Passed on this 11^th day of November 2016

As per letter dated 21-6-12 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-12011/64/2011-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether Shri Lal Chand Chauhan is entitled for payment of bonus for the period from 20-9-06 to 12-7-08? If

so, what relief he is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim. The case of

Ist party workman is that he was working with the 2^nd party since 20-6-06 in chipya branch on wages Rs.40 per day.

His services were orally terminated on 20-6-09. He was working as peon. Wages were increased to Rs.60,100 per day.

He was terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. Ist party workman claims bonus for

the period 20-9-06 to 12-7-08.

2^nd party management filed written Statement opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party submits that workman

claims bonus for the period 20-9-06 to 12-7-08. Union has no locus as the claimant is not member of the Union.

Employer employee relationship is denied. Therefore dispute is not tenable. 2^nd party reiterates that claimant is not

covered as workman under section 2(s) of ID Act. That workman was not appointed following selection process.

Workman was not included in muster roll. In definition of workman Apprentice had been included with object that

casual labours are not covered under section 2(s) of ID Act. That claimant was not employed in Bank on regular basis

against sanctioned post. He is not entitled for bonus. It is reiterated that Branch Manager for ensuring smooth customer

service is required to engage persons for casual nature of work. Regional Manager (Zonal Manager) is competent to

appoint sub staff during leave vacancy. All adverse contentions are denied by management. It is also reiterated that

services of casual labour starts with the day and ends on end of day. Payments to such casual labours given by Manager

on reimbursement basis. Reference is not tenable. Claimant is not entitled to bonus.

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 Shri Lal Chand Chauhan is entitled for

payment of bonus for the period from 20-9-06 to

12-7-08?

In Affirmative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

As per final order.

REASONS

The term of reference pertains to claim for bonus of workman for the period 20-9-06 to 12-7-08. Documents

produced by workman are admitted by management. Exhibit w-1 to 5 . workman filed affidavit of his evidence stating

that he was working at Baroda Malwa branch from 19-11-01 to 19-9-06, from 20-9-06 to 12-7-08, he was working at

chipya branch. In his cross examination, workman says Shri D.K.Ajmera engaged him at Balod branch, G.K.Poddar

Branch Manager engaged him at Chipya branch. Order in writing was not given to him. His name was not sponsored

through Employment Exchange, he was engaged on daily wages. Wages were paid in cash to him. Branch Manager

was withdrawing the amount for payment of wages. The vouchers were signed by Branch Manager. He has not

maintained record about his working days. The present reference pertains to claim for bonus. He denies that he is not

eligible for payment of bonus.

Management’s witness Shri Dilip Poddar in his affidavit of evidence denies employer employee relationship.

Claimant is not workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act. Bank is covered by statutory rules and regulations for

appointments. Management has to engage daily wagers as per exigencies. Engagement of Ist party workman during the

period 10-11-01 to 19-9-06, 20-9-06 to 12-7-08 has been denied. As claimant is not entitled for bonus, bonus was not

paid to him. Documents Exhibit M-1 to M-1/6 are admitted from evidence of management’s witness. During cross

examination, management’s witness admitted document Exhibit W-6 to 8, W-9/1 to 9/4. Document Exhibit W-1 is

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

129

extract of Section 8 of Payment of Bonus Act. Employee working for 30 days is eligible for payment of bonus. Exhibit

W-6 is application submitted to Branch Manager requesting payment of bonus for badly sepoys. Exhibit W-7 is letter

dated 15-9-10 by Sr. Manager (IR) for payment of bonus 8/33 % to employees working during August 05 to March 06,

April 06 to March 07 and 20 % bonus for the period April 07 to October 07, November 07 to March 08. Exhibit w-2 is

extract of Bank account. W-8 is letter dated 23-1-99 by chief Regional manager for payment of bonus to Prakash

Goswami for the year 96-97, 97-98. Exhibit W-9(1) is letter issued by Branch Manager informing that services of

Parmar were not required. Daily wage employees is engaged for cleaning work. Documents exhibit 9/2 shows payment

of wages to daily waers at rs.12 per day. Exhibit W-9/3 is certificate regarding Harimohan Parmar working on

deputation. Documents exhibit w-9/4 shows approval of payment of Rs.300 per month instead of Rs.120 for cleaning

work. Exhibit w-3 shows payment of rs.300 on 11-7-08 for 25 days. W-4 shows approval of payment of bonus rs.3500

even if the wages paid were Rs.10,000. As per documents W-5/1 to 9, amount under Head Miscellaneous charges were

paid Rs. 1900,1840, 1980, 2160, 2220, 2620, 2500, 2620, 2720, 2400, 2040, 2220, 2000 & 1200 from chipya branch.

Those documents corroborates evidence of workman that he worked more than 30 days in the Chipya branch. In view

of section 8 of Payment of Bonus Act, workman is entitled for payment of bonus. As per Exhibit w-7, workman is

entitled to payment of bonus 20 % from April 07 till 12-7-08. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in

Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Workman Shri Lal Chand Chauhan is entitled for bonus 8 % from 20-9-06 till March 07 and 20 % from

April 07 to 12-7-08.

(2)

2^nd party is directed to pay bonus as per above order to Ist party workman Shri Lal Chand Chauhan .

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

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 44-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

bafM;k 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 101@12) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-12-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@77@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2016

S.O. 44.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 101/12) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.12.2016.

[No. L-12011/77/2011-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/101/12

General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karamchari Sangathan,

Central Office, F-1, Karambhoomi, Tripti Vihar,

Opp Engineering college,

Ujjain

…Workman/Union

Versus

130

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Managing Director,

Bank of India, Head Office,

Star House, Bandra Kurla(E),

Mumbai

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 10^th day of November 2016

As per letter dated 18-9-12 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-12011/77/2011-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the demand of the Union for payment of bonus for the period from 10-11-01 to 19-9-06 in respect of

Shri Lalchand Chauhan, Badli Sepoy is just and proper? If yes, what relief the workman concerned is entitled

to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

through General Secretary, Daily Wage Bank Employees Union. Case of workman is that he was engaged on daily

wages in Baroda Malwa branch of the 2^nd party Bank on wages Rs.10 per day. He was working in the branch as peon

for holding as per oral instructions. His wages were increased to Rs.20,30,60 per day. The wages were paid on the

basis of reimbursement to the Branch Manager. That since 10-11-01, he worked more than 240 days during each of the

year. He was also required to perform the duty of clerk. From 20-9-06, his services were transferred to Chipya branch.

He worked under Branch Manager D.K.Ajmeria, Jain, Dhyan Singh, Malhotra. His services were illegally terminated,

bonus was not paid to him. After he raised dispute before ALC, failure report was submitted and dispute has been

referred. Workman claims bonus under Section 8 of Payment of Bonus Act 1965 for the period 10-11-01 to 9-6-06.

2^nd party filed Written Statement on 10-9-13 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party submits that workman is not

member of the Union. Union has no locus. 2^nd party denied employer employee relationship. That Ist party is not

covered as workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act as he was not appointed following selection process. It is reiterated

that the definition of workman includes only persons who are taken on employment. Casual labours are not covered as

workman. That claimant has not disclosed anything with regard to his employment with management which is primary

requirement for rising the dispute. Claimant was not appointed against permanent sanctioned post therefore he cannot

claim bonus. That the appointment in Bank are covered by statutory rules, regulations. Persons seeking employment in

Bank has to go through the procedure prescribed for appointment. Only such employees are entitled for regular

employment. That Branch Manager in order to ensure smooth customer service are required to engage persons when

there is temporary increase in work. Branch Manager is not appointing authority of any staff. Regional Manager with

prior approval of Ministry of defence is competent to appoint sub staff. It is reiterated that Branch Manager engaged

casual labours when there is increase of work. No record of casual labours engaged by Branch Manager is maintained.

Payment to such casual labours are given by Branch Manager and they are reimbursed by the Bank. Claimant is not

covered under Section 25 B of ID Act, he is not covered as workman under retrenchment without notice or payment of

retrenchment compensation violating Section 25-F is denied. The dismissed employee of the Bank is not entitled to

represent the workman. Management of 2^nd party prays that claimant is not entitled to bonus.

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 Union for payment of

bonus for the period from 10-11-01 to 19-9-06 in

respect of Shri Lalchand Chauhan, Badli Sepoy is

just and proper?

In Negative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

The term of reference pertains to demand of the Union for bonus w.r.t. Lalchand Chouhan. Statement of claim is

filed. Ist party has produced zerox copies of several documents. However workman has not examined himself in the

case. Representative of Ist party given in writing not to give oral evidence by Ist party. Zerox copies of documents

produced by Ist party are not proved by any kind of evidence. As argued by learned counsel for management, Shri

A.K.Shashi this is case of no evidence, management has also not adduced any evidence. For absence of evidence of Ist

party, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

131

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The demand of the Union for payment of bonus for the period from 10-11-01 to 19-9-06 in respect of Shri

Lalchand Chauhan, Badli Sepoy is not legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 45-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nsuk 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 76@05) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-12-2016 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@55@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2016

S.O. 45.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 76/05) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Dena Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.12.2016.

[No. L-12012/55/2005-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/76/05

Shri Madan Mohan Dwivedi,

R/o Om Shivshakti STD, Azad Chowk,

Kasaridih, Durg (CG)

…Workman

Versus

Asstt. General Manager,

Dena Bank, Regional Office,

Rukmini Bhawan,

Near Jairam complex,

Raipur

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 10^th day of November 2016

As per letter dated 25-7-05 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-12012/55/2005-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management in relation of Dena Bank in dismissing Shri Madan Mohan Dwivedi,

Clerk, Ambagarh Chowki branch vide order No. DB/ROI/PER/1928/2001 dated 29-10-01 is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 3/1

to 3/5. Case of ist party workman is that he was appointed as clerk in Dena Bank Raipur. He was posted at Ambagarh

Chowki branch District Rajnandgaon from 1-8-77 to 5-4-00. He was discharging his duties sincerely to the best of his

ability. Vide order dated 25-3-00, he was suspended alleging fraud and irregularities committed by him. Bank referred

matter to CBI for investigation. FIR was registered by CBI against him and 3 others. CBI after completion of

investigation submitted challan before special SBI Court, Raipur. The case is pending. Chargesheet was issued to him

132

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

on 29-7-00. Copy of chargesheet was received by him on 30-11-00. He submitted application requesting documents but

he was not provided documents by the management. Ist party workman reiterates that despite of his repeated request,

the documents were not supplied to him. He was directed to appear in Enquiry Proceeding on 6-12-2000. Prior to his

appearance in Enquiry Proceedings on 6-12-2000, enquiry was conducted on various dates from 16-9-00 till 20-11-08

details given in Para-7. Workman reiterates that the documents requested by him were not supplied, his request to stay

Enquiry Proceedings during pending of criminal case was not rejected. He was directed to cross examine witnesses of

management without supplying documents. Enquiry Officer Shri M.D.Shadangi acted malafidely not allowing him

proper opportunity for his defence. Enquiry Officer with malafide motive rejected his all the request to adjourn the

enquiry. Enquiry was conducted exparte. He was not given proper opportunity for defence. Enquiry Officer violated

principles of natural justice. Order of dismissal against him is illegal. Appeal preferred by workman challenging order

of his dismissal, appeal was not decided within two months as per bipartite settlements. Appeal was rather decided after

3 years. Ist party workman allegedly discrimination. He was not given proper opportunity for his defence. On such

ground, workman prays to set aside order of his dismissal dated 29-10-01 and consequential benefits.

2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 14/1 to 14/5 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party reiterates that

workman was provided document during Enquiry Proceedings. Workman was provided opportunity for his defence.

Documents requested by him were supplied to workman. Ist party workman was given intimation of enquiry conducted

against him. Intentionally he avoided to participate in Enquiry Proceedings. Notices sent to him were received

undelivered from postal department. On 16-12-00, workman appeared before Enquiry Officer. Enquiry Officer was

always open for demanding relevant documents for defence by workman. Workman was provided documents giving

opportunity for his defence. Workman was not cooperating with Enquiry Officer. He was remaining absent for one or

other pretext. Violation of principles of natural justice had been denied. That punishment of dismissal was imposed on

the basis of conclusion and findings in Enquiry Proceedings. 2^nd party reiterates that punishment of dismissal imposed

against workman is legal. 2^nd party further submits if enquiry is found illegal, management be permitted to prove

misconduct. On such contentions, 2^nd party prays claim of Ist party workman deserves to be dismissed.

Ist party submitted rejoinder on 22-11-07 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

Management of 2^nd party also submitted rejoinder reiterating contentions in Written Statement.

As per order dated 17-12-15, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal and proper.

Considering pleadings on record and order on enquiry, the points which arise for my consideration and

determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(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 Affirmative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

Point No.1- As per order dated 17-12-15, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal. Management has

produced documents of enquiry proceedings at Exhibit M-1. The chargesheet dated 29-7-00 issued to workman pertains

to workman was involved in day to day cash transaction in the branch with motive to pocket and misappropriate the

money received from various customers by way of non entry of the name to the credit of their respective accounts,

indulged in fraudulent activities by way of entering various transactions in the customers pass books without

appropriating the money received against their accounts with the Bank. That after issuing tokens, he was supposed to

debit instruments to their respective accounts in the ledger after ensuring availability of adequate funds. Workman with

fraudulent motive debited numerous documents in corresponding ledger. Accounts did not contain adequate balance,

the details of Saving Bank Accounts and dates of deposits, amounts are given in the chargesheet. Workman was alleged

to have committed various fraudulent acts. In Enquiry Proceedings, evidence of MW-1 B.K.Prabhakar and MW-2

M.K.Jha is recorded exhaustively running into several pages and large number of documents ME-1 to ME-226 onwards

were produced in the Enquiry Proceedings. The scope of judicial review is limited. The evidence in Enquiry

Proceedings cannot be re-appreciated. However I may refer to certain evidence pertaining to the transactions and

activities carried by workman indicating involvement of workman in the fraudulent and irregular activities. MW-2

M.K.Jha in his evidence says that documents Exhibit 224 to 226 bears signature of Shri B.L.Maheshwari and initials of

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

133

CSE. Signatures on Exhibit 224 and 226 was not matching with signature of Shri B.L.Maheshwari. signature of Shri

Maheshwari was copied. Shri M.K.Jha in his further evidence says that he had found misappropriation of Rs. 3 Crore 7

lakhs in the Bank. At page 2 of his statement, there is reference that workman was supplied zerox copies of the

documents in 3 sets. MW-2 in his further evidence says he was working as Probationary Officer during 1994 to 1995

and again Dec-99 to Dec 2000 in the branch. His further evidence shows that payment under document Exhibit 213 was

received by CSE. Payment under Exhibit 214, 215 was received by Account holders. Exhibit 216 was passed by Shri

Babulal Maheshwari. That Exhibit 59 was scroll was written by Babulal, entries in Exhibit 60 was written by different

officials. In document ME-3 amount of Rs.232 and 2000 dated 25-3-96 – Rs. 25000 and 10,000 dated 20-1-97 were

written by CSE., MW-2 Jha has reiterated in his further evidence that entries in ME-3 are in handwriting of CSE. Shri

M.K.Jha in his further evidence has stated that he had gone through the records of branch for the period 1-9-96 till date.

24 documents were produced containing Sl.No. 198 to 221 were admitted in evidence at Exhibit ME-198 to 221. The

cash scrolls of various dates , the witnesses has replied that in Exhibit ME-5,6 there was no credit of Rs.20000. ME-

201 to 202 there was no credit of Rs.25000, 10,000. Witness has given repy w.r.t. entries in documents Exhibit ME-

3,4,15,16,18,20,21 to 24, ME-24,25,26 to 28. MW-1 has also given reply w.r.t. various documents ME-28,29,30,31,32

to 36. Enquiry Officer has considered the evidence while recording his findings . I have carefully gone through the

evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. The findings of Enquiry Officer cannot be said without evidence. The findings of

Enquiry Officer are not perverse. There is sufficient evidence to prove misconduct alleged against workman pertaining

to irregularities and fraudulent transactions. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 charges of misconduct alleged against workman are proved from

evidence in Enquiry Proceedings, question remains for decision whether punishment of dismissal imposed against

workman is legal and proper. The evidence of management’s witness Shri M.K.Jha is clear that he found

misappropriation of Rs. 3 Crore 17 Lakhs in the Bank. During Enquiry Proceedings, statements of witnesses of

management were recorded w.r.t. entries in various documents and availability of funds. The proved misconduct

alleged against workman is of serious nature.

10.

Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in case between

West Bokaro Colliery versus Ram Pravesh Singh reported in 2009-I-LLJ-220 SC. Their Lordship held that the

Industrial Tribunal setting aside dismissal of workman. Interference by Tribunal with findings in domestic enquiry not

warranted. Standard of proof in departmental proceedings is different from that in a criminal case.

Considering my finding on Point No.1 that charges/ misconduct alleged against workman and looking to the

gravity of misconduct proved, punishment of dismissal imposed against workman cannot be said disproportionate, no

interference is justified.

Shri A.K.Shashi also relied on ratio held in case between Regional Manager, UPSRTC Etawah and others versus

Hotilal and another reported in 2003(3)SCC-605. Their Lordship dealing with misconduct and penalty held scope of

judicial review is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The Court must give reasons for holding the

punishment to be not commensurate with the charges. A mere statement that the punishment was disproportionate

would not suffice not only the amount involved but the mental set up, the type of duty and similar relevant

circumstances have to be taken into consideration to decide the proportionality of the punishment. If the charged

employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning held the matter

should be dealt with iron hands and not leniently. Hence the termination of the services of a bus conductor for carrying

ticketless passengers in the SRTC bus upheld that such misconduct had caused to the state only a loss of Rs.16/-.

In present case, amount involved in the fraud is 3 crore 17 lakhs as per evidence of MW-2 M.K.Jha. No

interference is justified in the punishment of dismissal imposed against workman.

11.

Shri A.K.Shashi also relies on ratio held in case between Janatha Bazar versus Secretary, Sahakari reported in

AIR 2000-SC-3129. The detailed discussion of the ratio held in the case is not necessary in view of amount involved in

fraud in present case was Rs. 3 Crore 17 Lakhs. For the same reasons, I am not inclined to give detailed narration of

ratio held in case between P.Balan Nair versus Superintendent of post Officers, Thalassery reported in 2001

LAB.I.C.3201. I conclude that considering the large amount involved in the fraudulent act, misconduct proved against

workman punishment of dismissal against workman is proper and legal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point

No.2 in Affirmative.

12.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management in relation of Dena Bank in dismissing Shri Madan Mohan Dwivedi, Clerk,

Ambagarh Chowki branch vide order No. DB/ROI/PER/1928/2001 dated 29-10-01 is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

134

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 46-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZ,,y

,;jiksVZ l£ol fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 34@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 02-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20013@2@2017&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2017

S.O. 46.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Delhi (filed under Section 2-A in the matter of (I.D. No. 34 of 2012) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. IAL Airport Services Limited and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 02.01.2017.

[No. L-20013/2/2017-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section 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. 34/2012

Shri Anil Kumar Rathore & Others,

S/o Shri Ishwar Singh & Others

R/o House No.2, Type 3,

Delhi Police Colony,

Sector 19A, Dwarka,

New Delhi

…Applicants

Versus

The Chief Operating Officer,

IAL Airport Services Limited,

Safdarjung Airport,

New Delhi

…Management

AWARD

Brief facts giving rise to the present claim are that the claimants herein directly filed a petition under Section 2A

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) with the averments that the claimants were working with the

management from 24.05.2004 as Security Sub-Assistant and they were initially appointed for a period of 2 years with

fixed remuneration of Rs.5500.00 per month and after successful training their salary was Rs.6500.00 per month. Copy

of letters of appointment is Annexure P1 and particulars of the workmen are given in Annexure P2.

It is the case of the workmen that on 25.10.2008, union of the claimants represented to the President of India as

well as Prime Minister to look into their grievances regarding non-grant of medical facilities by the management,

including ESI etc. They were also not being given benefits of EPF though number of workmen deployed by the

management was more than 20. Thereafter, on 29.01.2009, management held a meeting with the union of workmen as

is clear from the minutes dated 29.01.2009 of the union. However, nothing was done by the management. Thereafter,

workmen wrote to the management regarding silent march from 01.06.2009 as a mark of peaceful protest. Workmen

also wrote to the Central Provident Fund Commissioner regarding their working conditions vide letter dated

19.05.2009. later on, vide letter dated 21.05.2009, management intimated the union of the workmen that decision on

the demands of the work is being taken and the workmen were warned not to wear black ribbon as it was tarnishing the

image of the management. Thereafter, on 24.05.2009, reminder was sent by the union to the management. Workmen

were never absent from duties even for one day and they were only wearing black badges during working hours as a

mark of peaceful protest. Management started issuing warnings to the various workmen as is clear from letters dated

29.05.2009. Finally, on 31.05.2009, 01.06.2009 and 05.06.2009 as a retaliatory measure, management services of the

workmen without notice in violation of the provisions of the Act. Order of termination is totally illegal and void. On

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

135

02.09.199, workmen were told not to report for duties as their services stood terminated. Workmen took up the matter

with the ALC, who issued letter for amicable settlement of the dispute. Conciliation proceedings failed as is clear

from Annexure P4. Since no decision was taken by the ALC within a period of statutory period of 45 days, as such,

claimants filed a direct claim with this Tribunal under sub-section 2 of Section 2A of the Act. Claimants challenged

the impugned orders of termination before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and High Court vide order dated

12.12.2011, held as under:

‘Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the

concerned Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Leave and liberty granted. In view of the pendency of this petition since 2009 it is expected that the Industrial

Adjudicator shall dispose of the proceeding to be filed before it, if any, as expeditiously as possible.

The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.’

It was against this background that workmen directly approached this Tribunal under provisions of sub-section 2

of Section 2A of the Act and filed the present claim.

Management demurred the case of the claimant by taking various preliminary objections, inter alia of

maintainability etc. There is reference to the proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner on 15.05.2009

regarding payment of additional benefits and remuneration, which were not being given to the workmen. It was during

currency of the said proceedings, employees stated that their services were terminated and the said conciliation also

failed, as is clear from failure report dated 19.10.2009. It is also alleged that the claim is not maintainable against the

management as it has closed its operations and activities with effect from 30.09.2010 by following due process of law.

Winding up process was completed on 25.03.2011. However, it is admitted that recruitment of the workman was done

on fixed term contract in the category of sub Assistants by IAL ASI. Since IAL ASI had not commenced operation,

persons so engaged on fixed term contract were deputed to Airline Allied Services, an allied company of Indian

Airlines Ltd. Payment of consolidated monthly remuneration of the Sub Assistants were made by the Airlines Allied

Services Ltd. Sub Assistants, workmen herein, were mainly deployed to carry out airport handling and security

activities for flights. Terms and conditions of services are fully mentioned in the letter of contract issued to each

workman. Remuneration and benefits were given to the claimants as per letter of contract. There is also reference to

threats given by the workman and issuance of office order dated 21.05.2009. Finally, vide letter dated 05.06.2009, it is

clear that workmen had voluntarily abandoned their respective duties. As such workmen were asked to surrender their

PIC and other properties to the management. Management has denied material averments contained in the statement of

claim. It is also denied that the workmen were receiving Rs.6500.00 per month as salary. There were employed on

fixed term of appointment for a period of 2 years on consolidated remuneration. Management had tried its level best to

redress the general grievances of the workmen. However, the workmen resorted to illegal strikes. It is specifically

denied that on 31.05.2009, 01.06.2009 and 05.06.2009, management terminated services of the workmen herein.

Against this factual background, this Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed the following

issues:

(i)

Whether the claimants were engaged as Sub-Assistants by the management?

(ii)

Whether the claimants rendered continuous service for more than 240 days in preceding 12 months of the

date when their services were terminated?

(iii) Whether termination of the services of the claimants amounts to retrenchment?

(iv) Whether the management failed to comply with provisions of Section 25(F), 25(G) and 25(H) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

(v)

Whether the activities of the management have been closed since 30.09.2010? If yes, its effects.

(vi) To what relief the claimants are entitled?

Claimants, in order to prove their case against the management examined Shri Sanjeev Kalkal as WW1, who

tendered in evidence his affidavit, Ex.WW1/A and documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/5. Management, in order to

rebut the case of the workmen, examined Shri Dharam Dass as MW1, whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A and documents

Ex.MW1/1 to Ex,MW1/72 were also tendered in evidence.

Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Rakesh Mudgal, authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf

of the claimant. Shri Ranjan Jha, authorized representative, raised submissions on behalf of the management.

Before I proceed to consider the comparative merits of the claim raised in the petition, it is pertinent to mention

that the learned A/R for the management has raised a legal question regarding maintainability of this petition before

this Tribunal. Both the authorized representatives of the respective parties agreed that the question of maintainability

136

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of the petition is purely legal in nature and the same can firstly be decided by this Tribunal and in case this Tribunal

holds that the petition is legally maintainable under Section 2A of the Act, only then there is need to give findings on

the issues on merits.

Shri Ranjan Jha, authorized representative appearing on behalf of the management, strongly urged that the

petition filed under Section 2A of the Act is not legally maintainable inasmuch as the same has been filed collectively

by the workmen and it is not by the union of the workmen herein who has approached this Tribunal for adjudication of

the claim of the workmen. In this regard, learned A/R for the claimant referred to the provisions of Section 2A of the

Act as well as other provisions of the Act so as to urge that only individual workman can file direct claim before an

Industrial Tribunal and in case there are other workmen, the industrial dispute can be adjudicated by the Industrial

Tribunal only when there is reference to such Tribunal either under Section 10 of the Act or when the case of such

individual workmen is covered by Section 2A of the Act. Since in the present case, in the contention of the learned

A/R for the management, neither there is reference under Section 10 of the Act nor individual workman has filed this

petition in terms of the provisions of Section 2A of the ID Act, As such, claim filed collectively by the workmen is not

legally maintainable. Learned A/R for the management also put strong reliance upon the following cases, as well as

certain other authorities, to which I would be referring in the subsequent paras, while drawing my conclusion:

Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (2016 Lab.IC 2716),

Lord Krishna Textile Mills/National Textile Corporation Ltd. vs. Ram Pal Singh (2015) LLR 77)

Rajendra Singh Vs. State Bank of India (2015) LLJ 630

P. Virudachalam & Ors vs The Management Of Lotus Mills & Anr (1998 (1) SCC 650).

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Anil (2007) SCC 610

10.

Per contra, Shri Rakesh Mudgal, authorized representative appearing on behalf of the workmen, urged that when

evidence has been adduced by the parties on merits, it is not proper at this belated stage to entertain objection of

maintainability of the claim petition by the management. In this regard, reliance was placed upon the case of

Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs. --- Haldyn Glass Works (220 (2) LLJ 273). It was urged that legal

technicalities or procedural formalities should not stand in the way of the poor workmen who has approached this court

on the direction of the Hon’ble High Court for redresssal of their grievance.

11.

At this Juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 2A of the Act, since it is relevant in the

context of the controversy involved in the present case and the same is as under:

“Section 2A : Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute.- Where any

employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches, or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman,

any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such

discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding

that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.

2. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10, any such workman as is specified in sub section (1)

may make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to

therein after the expiry of forty five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer

of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour

Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as it if were a dispute

referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act and all the

provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such jurisdiction as they apply in relation to an industrial

dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.

3. The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the

expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as

specified in sub- section (1).”

12.

It is clear from perusal of provisions of the above section that Parliament, in its wisdom, inserted this provision to

help individual workman to approach the Tribunal in case of an industrial dispute concerning discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or termination of such individual workman and this provision was inserted in the Act as it was noticed

that in some of the cases Trade Unions were not ventilating grievances of individual workman before appropriate

forums, i.e. Conciliation Officer etc. nor they were filing cases before the Industrial Tribunals on account of ulterior

consideration of being under the pressure of the management. This is really a salutary provision in as much as

protection has been given to individual workman to directly approach the Tribunal in case grievance of the workman

arises from discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of such workman by the management.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

137

13.

Admittedly, in the present case, all the workmen have directly filed claim under Section 2A of the Act, not

through their union. Though it is an industrial dispute, but the larger question before this Tribunal is whether the

workmen herein could have collectively filed the claim under Section 2A of the Act when they have not approached

their union regarding their wrongful dismissal or termination. Their case is not apparently covered by Section 2 A (2)

of the Act.

14.

It has been held in the case of Punjab Dairy Development Corporation (supra) by the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana that provisions of Section 2A of the Act is attracted only in case where individual workman has approached

the Tribunal when order of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination etc. has been passed by the management.

Provisions of Section 2(A) would not be applicable when collective dispute affecting large body of workmen, is being

filed directly by such workmen without the help of their respective union. In fact, such dispute is to be addressed

collectively by the use of machinery provided under the Act. Though in the present case mater was taken through the

union before the ALC regarding payment of wages, payment of medical benefits, ESI, PF etc. as is clear from the

record, i.e. minutes of conciliation dated 10.06.2009. However, in the said proceedings, there was reference to the

termination of services of 21 workmen who were forced to stop work by the management. Thus contention of the

management that there was no proper espousal as well as conciliation proceedings with respect to termination of the

workman herein is without any merit. Tribunal cannot adopt a pedantic approach so far as conciliation proceedings

before the ALC is concerned.

15.

As discussed above, though the workmen took the matter regarding non- payment of medical facilities and other

service conditions regarding payment of ESI, PF etc. by the management, however, during conduct of such proceedings

services of the workmen appear to have been done away with and it is on account of this reason there is reference to

termination of services of the workmen in the proceedings dated 10.06.2009 of the ALC.

16. Having said so, the residual question finally is whether the petition filed collectively and directly under section

2(A) of the Act by the claimants herein, not through their union is legally maintainable. While discussing provisions of

Section 2(A), it has been held, as is clear from the above judgments, that only case of individual workman is covered

by the said sub section.

17.

In the Punjab Dairy Development Corporation and ors. case (Supra) a similar contentions was raised on behalf of

the workman that though under section 2 (A) only the claim of individual workman can be agitated before the tribunal,

however, there is no embargo in the statute for the workman not to file joint petition or collective petition on behalf of

more than one workman. This contention was rejected out-rightly by the High Court in the following words :-

“ 9.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book and as well as case law

cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Management at bar and am of the view that the plea taken by the

management has substance, much less, force and is duly supported by a ratio decided called out by Andhra

Pradesh High Court in Bayer Bio Science Pvt. Ltd.’s case (Supra). The reading of Section 2(A) of the

Act is clear and unambiguous. There is no doubt that parliament in its wisdom while incorporating the

provisions meant with claim of individual workman by using expression ‘individual workman’ in Section 2-A

of the Act and also by adding non obstante clause in sub-section 2 of the Act with preface of ‘such workman’

as specified above.

(ii)

Keeping in view the aforementioned legal position of law, this Court is of the view that collective

claim petition field directly by the workmen before the Labour Court is not maintainable. The workman

would be within their rights to claim lodge/file in their individual capacity, if any cause of the action

survives.”

18. There is another judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Lord Krishna Textile Mills/National

Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs Rampal Singh and Ors. 2015 LLR747. Wherein, almost under the similar circumstances

the High Court dealt with the questions of the termination of service of several workmen by the management. It was

also the contention of the management that there was no espousal of such dispute by the union of the workman. The

High Court by holding as under :

“25.

It is pertinent to state here even at the cost of repetition that a Tribunal/Labour Court would get

jurisdiction to decide a dispute only when it is properly espoused under the provisions of the ID Act. In such a

case, any objections to non-espousal or improper espousal cannot be brushed aside lightly by the

Tribunal/Labour Court rather, must be heard and decided before hearing the parties on merits. Further, merely

because a party to a dispute had not objected to the terms of reference would not be sufficient enough a ground

not to entertain objections to proper espousal of a dispute. As I have already observed that the issue of

espousal goes to the root of the matter, hence objections, if any to espousal must be decided first before a

tribunal goes any further to decide on the merits of the dispute.”

138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

19.

There are also observation in the above judgment that an industrial dispute can be raised under section 2 (A) of

the Act only by individual workman and such an individual dispute would fall under the definition of the industrial

dispute as define in section 2 (A) of the Act. It is clear from the record that in the present case matter was taken

through the union before ALC regarding the payment of wages, Medical benefits and ESIPF etc. as is clear from the

minutes of conciliation dated 10-06-2009. Yet the matter regarding the termination of the services of the workman was

never espoused before the union of the workman. In fact, the services of the workman were terminated when

conciliation proceeding were in progress before ALC.

20.

Even if it is assumed that espousal of the case of workman is not necessary when the order of termination has

been passed against the individual workman, In as much as section 2 A of the Act gives liberty to the individual

workman to directly file the case before the tribunal/Court. But the position in the case on hand is different as

“collective petition” has been filed in respect of several workmen directly by such workman through their advocate or

A/R. Though this tribunal initially was of the view of that it is simply a procedural infirmity and non compliance of

the same should not be fatal to such proceeding involving several workmen. The tribunal was also of the view that act

is a social and beneficial legislation and legitimate claim of workmen can not be defeated on trivial ground. However,

having regard to the ratio of the law in Punjab Dairy Development Corporation case as well as Lord Krishna Textile

Mills/ National Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs Rampal Singh and Ors. Cases, (Supra) this tribunal is left with no

discretion in the face of emphatic pronouncement of the law in the said rulings. In Lord Krishna Textile Mills/

National Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs Rampal Singh and Ors. Case, the Hon’ble High Court went to the extent of

observing that an individual dispute not espoused by the union or a substantial number of workman is not an industrial

dispute. It was also observed that issue of espousal goes to root of the case and must be decided as preliminary issue

and industrial tribunal would get jurisdiction to decide dispute only when it is properly espoused. In the said case

worker had individually filed the petition and question of espousal was raised by the management when both the parties

have concluded the evidence. Thus, an individual dispute can become an industrial dispute only when the same falls

within the conditions contained in the said section.

21.

Yet, again in the case of Sh. Rajendra Singh case (supra) the Hon’ble High Court considered the ambit and scope

of section 2 (A) of the Act. vis-à-vis the provision of section 10 (4 A) inserted by Delhi Government. In this case, the

workman who was in the bank was removed after holding during enquiry and aggrieved workman filed petition before

the tribunal without complying with the provisions of Sub-section (2) of section 2(A) of the act. The tribunal rejected

the claim petition for not complying with the above provision and workman preferred writ petition against the order of

the tribunal. It was contended on the behalf of workman that requirement to approach the Conciliation machinery as

provided under sub section 2 of Section 2 A, was not mandatory as Section 10 (4A), notwithstanding provisions of

Section 2A provides that the workman could raise industrial dispute and approach the industrial tribunal without going

through the procedure for conciliation. This contention of the workman was rejected by the Hon’ble High Court by

holding as under:

17. The repugnancy between Section 2A and 10(4A) of the ID Act satisfies the said three conditions laid down

in 'Karunanidhi v. Union of India' (supra) and therefore applying the principles enumerated under Article

254 of the Constitution in the light of „Govt. of A.P. v. J.B. Educational Society‟ (supra), it is beyond any

reasonable uncertainty that Section 2A of the ID Act (introduced by Central Amendment Act 24 of 2010) shall

prevail over Section 10(4A) of the ID Act (introduced by State Amendment Act).

18. Further, Section 2A of the ID Act begins as, "(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10....."

which implies that this Section has an overriding effect not only over the provisions ofSection 10 of the ID

Act but also its State amendments. I am of the view that the Central Amendment Act, 2010 was passed while

keeping in perspective the amendments made to Section 10 and with the use of the aforementioned words it

seeks to achieve an overriding effect over the amendments made to Section 10 of the ID Act.

19. The expression "Notwithstanding" was interpreted by the Apex Court in „

Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao

v. Ashalata S. Guram' (1986) 4 SCC 447 wherein it was of the view that:

"67. A clause beginning with the expression "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in

some particular provision in the Act or in some particular Act or in any law for the time being in

force, or in any contract" is more often than not appended to a section in the beginning with a view to

give the enacting part of the section in case of conflict an overriding effect over the provision of the

Act or the contract mentioned in the non obstante clause. It is equivalent to saying that in spite of the

provision of the Act or any other Act mentioned in the non obstante clause or any contract or

document mentioned the enactment following it will have its full operation or that the provisions

embraced in the non obstante clause would not be an impediment for an operation of the enactment.

See in this connection the observations of this Court in South India Corpn. (P) Ltd. v. Secretary,

Board of Revenue, Trivandrum [AIR 1964 SC 207, 215 : (1964) 4 SCR 280]

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

139

68. It is well settled that the expression "notwithstanding" is in contradistinction to the phrase

"subject to", the latter conveying the idea of a provision yielding place to another provision or other

provisions to which it is made subject...."

20. Therefore, it is beyond any reasonable doubt that the Central Amendment Act inserting Section 2A has an

overriding effect over Section 10(4A) not only because the former is a Central Amendment that has been

given effect to from the year 15.09.2010 (i.e. 7 years from the date of Delhi State Amendment of 22.08.2003)

but also because of usage of the words „Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10‟ in the said

Section.

21. Thus, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award dated 23.04.2013, passed in ID No.52 of 2011

by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts Complex, Delhi.”

22. It is thus clear from the ratio of law discussed above that provisions of section 2 (A) are required to be followed

by the workman before directly filing a petition under section 2(A) of the Act. In the said case the individual workman

has not approached the conciliation officer in terms of provisions of sub section 2 of section 2(A) of the act. The

situation in the present case is worse as a collective claim petition has been filed by the several workmen in respect of

individual claims.

23.

Hon’ble apex Court under similar circumstances held as under:

”18. In P.Virudhachalam Lotus Mills (1998) 1 SCC 650, the Supreme Court observed that an individual

workman comes into the picture only in connection with a limited class of industrial disputes as indicated by

Section 2-A of the Act of 1947, dealing with discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of

service of an individual workman. Save and except the aforesaid class of disputes, which an individual

workman can raise, rest of the industrial disputes including disputes pertaining to illegal lock-out, lay-off and

lay-off compensation have to be filtered through the process of collective bargaining and they are disputes of

general nature or class disputes wherein an individual workman by himself has no say.

19. In Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Anil (2007) 1 SCC 610, the Supreme Court observed:

18. There is one more reason for coming to the above conclusion. There is a difference between an

individual dispute which is deemed to be an industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the said 1947 Act

on the one hand and an industrial dispute espoused by the union in terms of Section 2(l) of the said

1947 Act. An individual dispute which is deemed to be an industrial dispute under Section 2-A

concerns discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination whereas an industrial dispute under

Section 2(l) covers a wider field. It includes even the question of status. This aspect is very relevant

for the purposes of deciding this case. In Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana (1998) 2 LLJ 1217

(P&H) it has been held after considering various judgments of the Supreme Court that Section 2-A

contemplates nothing more than to declare an individual dispute to be an industrial dispute. It does

not amend the definition of industrial dispute set out in Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 [which is similar to Section 2(l) of the said 1947 Act]. Section 2-A does not cover every type of

dispute between an individual workman and his employer. Section 2-A enables the individual worker

to raise an industrial dispute, notwithstanding, that no other workman or union is a party to the

dispute. Section 2-A applies only to disputes relating to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or

termination of service of an individual workman. It does not cover other kinds of disputes such as

bonus, wages, leave facilities, etc.

24. I have also gone through the ratio of the law in the case of India Yamaha Motor Pvt Ltd. Vs Dharam Singh and

Ors.(2015) 2 Supreme Court Cases 108 relied upon on behalf of the workmen. It was an industrial dispute involving

113 workmen who were represented by only 5 workmen. Moreover, it was a case under U.P. industrial dispute Act and

controversy involved in the said case was different from the one under discussion. The question of the maintainability

of a petition under section 2 (A) of the Act was not at all under consideration. The Hob’ble apex Court in the said case

was concerned with interpretation of Rule 40 of U.P. industrial dispute rules, which correspond to section 36 of the ID

Act. In Para 22 of judgment Hon’ble apex Court held as under:

“While disposing of the present controversy, it is necessary for us to clarify that the instant conclusion has

been drawn by categorically arriving at the conclusion that section 6-I of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and

Rule 40 of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Rules, would be applicable, only in a situation where the workmen

choose to be represented through a third party before the Industrial Tribunal. The above provisions would be

inapplicable, when the workmen choose to present their own case by themselves. In the instant situation, none

of the above provisions would be invoked. Accordingly, it is also imperative for us to hold that the judgment

relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of

140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the present case, since the aforesaid judgment was on the interpretation and the applicability of Rule 40(I) (i)

25.

I have also gone through the ratio of the law in Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs. Haldyn Glass Works

(220 (2) LLJ 273) and management in the said case dismissed large number of workman, the appropriate government

referred the dispute to the industrial tribunal by clubbing the case of several workmen together in one reference. The

management had taken the objection in the reply that reference was not legally maintainable as it was a case of

individual dispute under section 2 (A) and not an industrial dispute under section 2(K) of the industrial Act. It was also

urged by the management that substantial number of workman are not on the side of the claimants union and claimants

union was unrecognized union. The Labour Court held that it is an “individual dispute” as such reference is not

maintainable there after a writ petition was filed by the workman union and the order of the Labour Court holding that

reference was not maintainable as it was not espoused by the substantial number of workman or recognized union was

set aside. The above ratio does not help the case of the workman herein for the simple reason that there is no reference

made by Appropriate Government under the Act. Moreover, the above case was under the provision of section 36 of

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. This tribunal is also of the

considered view that if a reference had been made under section 10 of ID Act by the Appropriate Government, the legal

position would have been different and case of several workman would have certainly been covered under section 10 of

the Act. In that eventuality the objection regarding maintainability would not arise.

26.

It is clear from the perusal of the above Para that question of filing collective/Joint petition under section 2 (A) of

the Act was not at all under consideration before the Hon’ble apex Court, as such ratio of this ruling is not of any help

to the workmen.

27.

As a result of the above discussion, it is held that joint claim petition / collective petition in aspect of several

workmen filed directly under section 2 (A) of the industrial dispute Act 1947 is not legally maintainable. However, it

is made clear that workman herein would be at liberty to file claim before this tribunal after following the due

procedure under the I.D. act, and the observations made above would not stand in the way of workman filing such

petitions. 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 : December 2, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 47-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,y

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 57@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-01-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@194@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2017

S.O. 47.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/12) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Western Coalfieds

Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.01.2017.

[No. L-22012/194/2011-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/57/12

Shri Bharat Singh,

General Secretary,

Sanuket Coyla Mazdoor Sangh (ATAC),

Eklehra, Chhindwara

…Workman/Union

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

141

Versus

Deputy Area Manager,

WCL, Shivpuri Sub Area,

Pench Area,

Chhindwara

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 18^th day of October 2016

As per letter dated 20-4-12 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-22012/194/2011-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager, WCL, Shivpuri Sub Area in not providing compassionate

appointment to Kumari Deepali Chourasia, dependent sister of Late Shri Deepak Chourasia is legal and proper?

If not, to what relief Ku. Deepali Chourasia is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party claimant submitted statement of claim

through General Secretary, SKMS Union. The case of Ist party claimant is that Deepak Chourasia was appointed on

1-6-92, he was given token No. 841. Father of Late Rajak Chourasia namely Chagan Chourasia was working in DP

No.2. he died on 25-1-09. His name was removed from muster roll as per 4^th NCWA, the dependents of deceased

employee were provided benefit of dependent employment under para 9.4.2. the father of Deepak Chourasia had died

earlier in time. That after death of Deepak, he left his unmarried sisters as his dependents. Late Deepak was appointed

in place of his father. Unmarried sister of Deepak had submitted applications for employment. Management shows

inability to provide employment to them. Late Deepak died unmarried. Entries are recorded in his service record. The

names of his sisters were recorded as his dependents. As per bipartite agreement, person residing with deceased

workman is treated as his dependent. It is reiterated that Ku. Deepali Chourasia was dependent of Late Deepak. Ist

party prays for appointment on compassionate ground.

2^nd party management filed Written Statement on 14-3-14 opposing claim of Ist party. 2^nd party submits that

deceased Deepak was appointed on 1-6-92. He was deployed at Vishnupuri underground Mine No.2 Shivpuri Sub

Area. He died on 25-2-09. The scheme for employment to dependents came into effect from 1-1-1979. The dependent

employment is provided for wife, husband, unmarried daughter, son legally adopted son. If no such direct dependent is

available for employment younger brother, widow daughter or son in law residing with deceased almost wholly

dependent on earnings of deceased workman. It is reiterated that dependent be considered for employment should be

physically fit and suitable for employment age not more than 35 years. Provisions of dependent employment were

carried further in NCWA-III, IV,V,VI. Clause 9.3.0,9.4.0, 9.5.0 of NCWA-VI, NCWA-IX revised scale was jointly

prepared. It is reiterated that unmarried sisters are not included for dependent employment. The scheme introduced as

per NCWA-VI also provided for payment of monetary benefits Rs.6000 from 1-5-08. In case of death either in

accident or due to other reasons or medical unfitness, if no employment has been offered, the male dependent of

concerned workman is of below 12 years of age was to be kept on live roster till attaining age of 18 years. If the

dependent is on live roster, female dependent would be paid monetary compensation. Gratuity ceiling is upto Rs.10

Lakhs. 2^nd party submits that unmarried sister are not included for dependent employment. Therefore the claim of Ist

party for compassionate appointment cannot be allowed.

Ist party filed rejoinder reiterating contentions in statement of claim. It is submitted that amount of gratuity was

paid to Ist party claimants as dependent of deceased workman.

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 Sub Area Manager,

WCL, Shivpuri Sub Area in not providing

compassionate appointment to Kumari Deepali

Chourasia, dependent sister of Late Shri Deepak

Chourasia is legal and proper?

In Affirmative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Claimant Deepali is not entitled to any relief.

142

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REASONS

The term of reference pertains to denial of dependent employment to Deepali Chourasia sister of deceased

workman Deepak. Affidavit of evidence is filed by Deepali Chourasia. In her affidavit, she has stated that Deepali was

appointed on -6-92 in Vishnupuri mine , token No. 841 was given to the deceased worker. Deepak died on 25-1-09, she

was residing with Deepak Chourasia. As such she was dependent on him. In her cross-examination, claimant Deepali

says Deepak was her brother, he was working during 1994 to 2009. Deepti is her sister, Deepak was elder to her. He

was not married. That she and her elder sister are not married. Their parents are not alive. They reside in their house

earlier they were residing in rented house of one Yadav, she is not doing any work. Her sister is doing work of stitching

blouse and falls and sarees earning Rs.1-2000 per month. They also own two shops- rent of Rs.2000 per month is

received from those shops. She had submitted application for employment her sister had not submitted application.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness Shri P.Subramani supporting contentions in Written Statement

filed by 2^nd party. It is submitted that unmarried daughters are not covered for dependent employment as per NCWA

VI. Management’s witness has proved Exhibit M-1. In his cross, management witness says amount of gratuity of

deceased was paid, payment of PF amount was pending he shown readiness to produce rules regarding compassionate

dependent employment. Copy is marked at Exhibit W-9.

Management has also produced copy of NCWA-II which is marked Exhibit M-2. Clause 10.4.2 of NCWA-II

deals with employment of one dependent of workman who dies while in service. the dependent for this purpose means

wife, husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependent is

available for employment younger brother, widow daughter or son in law residing with deceased almost wholly

dependent on earnings of deceased workman. Para 10.4.2 provides dependent be considered for employment should be

physically fit and suitable for employment age not more than 35 years. The unmarried sister is not covered as

dependent in NCWA-II.

Ist party has produced documents Exhibit W-1 copy of affidavit of Shri Deepak Kumar showing Deepti and

Deepali as his sisters dependent on him. Exhibit W-2 is copy of application submitted to WCL, Pench Area w.r.t.

dependents of Deepak and amount of Gratuity, Group Insurance, Exhibit W-3 is office order dated 31-3-01 after death

of Deepak Kumar on 25-1-09, his name was removed from roll. Exhibit W-4 is service register, details of Late Deepak

are recorded. Exhibit W-5 is copy of particulars of late Deepak – date of death is shown 1-7-71, his date of appointment

was June 1992 and unmarried. Exhibit W-6 is the part of Exhibit W-5 itself. Exhibit W-7 is copy of application

submitted by Deepti. Exhibit W-8 is joint photograph. All those documents cannot establish that the claimant Deepali is

entitled to dependent employment. As the provisions of NCWA-II discussed earlier are clear that unmarried sister is not

covered for dependent employment. Action of 2^nd party denying dependent employment cannot be said illegal. For

above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management denying dependent employment to Deepali Chourasia is legal.

(2)

Ku. Deepali Chourasia is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 48-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xzkeh.k cSad

vkWiQ vk;Zozr ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 31@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-

01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@35@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2017

S.O. 48.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Gramin Bank of

Aryavart and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.01.2017.

[No. L-12011/35/2015-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

143

ANNEXURE

IN THE LOK ADALAT / PRESENT BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 31 of 2015

Between :

The Member,

State Working Committee of U P Bank Workers Organization,

3/13, Mathura Nagar,

Aligarh.

And

The Chairman,

Gramin Bank of Aryavart,

A-2/46-, Vijay Khand,

Gomti Nagar,

Lucknow, 226010.

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide notification no. L-12011/35/2015-IR (B-1) dated 23.06.2015, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of Chairman, Gramin Bank of Aryavart, Lucknow, declining payment of

Bonus to the Safai Karamchari for the financial year 2012-13 and also declining payment of equal wages to equal work

to Safai Karmachari posted in various branches of the bak is just and legal? And if not, what relief the concerned

workmen are entitled to?

It is pertinent to point out here that there is no mention in the reference order as to on whose behalf the present

reference has been raised by the union and also it is not known the name of the workers.

After receipt of the present reference order from the Government of India, Mol, New Delhi, notices were issued

to the parties but neither the union nor the workers put their appearance in the case on the date fixed in the case nor

filed any claim statement in support of their claim.

Therefore, from the above it appears that neither the worker nor the union is interested in prosecuting their case,

therefore, in the circumstances of the case the tribunal is totally handicapped to answer the reference except holding

that the union is not entitled to any relief for want of pleadings and proof.

Reference is, therefore, answered accordingly against the union.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 49-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj eè;

jsyos ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 02@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-01-2017 dks

çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@55@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2017

S.O. 49.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of North Central

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.01.2017.

[No. L-41012/55/2011-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

144

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 02/2012

Between :

Sri Rameh Kumar Chaurasia,

son of Nand Lal Chaurasia,

c/o Sri Lalta Prasad Bajpai,

118/6, Shastri Nagar,

Kanpur

And

The Divisional Railway Manager,

North Central Railway,

Allahabad

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide notification no.L-41012/55/2011-IR(B-1) dated 02.01.12, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of North Central Railway, in terminating the services of Sri Ramesh

Kumar Chaurasia son of Sri Nand Lal Chaurasia w.e.f. 23.11.06 is legal & Justified? To what relief the workman is

entitled?

The case of the worker is that he was appointed on 24.09.94 as Senior Halwai in canteen GMC Juhi Yard. He

also stated that an application was moved by him for his appointment and o the basis of his application, he was

interviewed and medical was also done by the railway doctor. It is also stated that the canteen was the Railway

Employees and the earning of the canteen was deposited with office clerk ri Har Charan Singh. The worker stated that

he has worked from 24.09.94 to 23.11.06 continuously and his services were terminated without any orders in writing

in breach of section 25F of the Act. On 23.11.06, ADRM, Sri Ravindra Kumar Gupta siezed the canteen with the help

of RPF Inspector Sri R K Mishra and also terminated the service of the worker without any charge sheet and domestic

inquiry.

On the basis of above allegations the worker has prayed that he be directed to be reinstated in the service with

back wages etc.

The opposite party filed their reply vehemently denying all the allegations of the worker. It is alleged by the

opposite party tht the worker was never appointed by the management nor any application was invited from the worker

for the post of halwai and no he was interviewed at any point of time by the railway administration, hence there is no

question of inviting any application nor he was interviewed for any post by the railway administration. In fact the said

canteen was not run by the railway administration but, the said canteen was for the railway staff and run by the union.

As the worker was never appointed, therefore, question of making payment of wages to him through vouchers by the

office of Chief Area Manager or by the Area Operating Manager does not arise. There is certain procedure for

recruitment in the railway department and without following the same no person can be appointed . As the canteen was

run illegally hence the same was seized. The worker has filed the case against the railway without any sufficient cause,

hence the case of the worker is liable to be rejected.

The worker vide application no.18.04.2012 has filed 26 documents which are in the nature of photocopies.

Worker has not tried to summon the original of the documents from the management.

In the present case the opportunity to lead evidence by the management was closed vide order dated 22.05.2015.

Worker has examined himself as w.w.1 and has stated in his examination in chief that he was appointed by the

Area Operating Manager in the year 1994 and worked continuously till 2006 when he was removed from service. The

work which wa done by him was supervised by Haricharan Singh who was clerk. No notice or retrenchment

compensation was given to him. He received wages at the rate of Rs.500/- per month.

In his cross examination he stated that he department had never advertised the post, he was never given any

appointment letter, railway administration issues Pass and PTOs to its employee which benefit was never extended to

him. He goes on to state that he was used to be paid his wages after signing the register and the canteen was being run

by Sri Srivastava. He denied the suggestion that railway had not appointed him nor the canteen was of railway

department. He also expressed his ignorance to the effect whether not the dispute filed by him in Lucknow was

dismissed and filed papers are in the nature of photocopies.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

145

10.

I have heard the arguments of the parties at length and have carefully perused the whole records of the case.

11.

It may be pointed out here that the worker has filed photocopies of the documents and neither in his statement

nor in his evidence, he has whispered any thing about the geninness of the documents and nor has summoned the

original of these documents from the management. It is settled law that document in the shape of photocopy cannot be

read in evidence, therefore, the photocopy of the documents is of no help to the worker.

12.

In his pleadings the worker has stated that he was appointed on 24.09.94 and worked continuously till 22.01.06

and he was removed from service by the railway on 23.01.06, but he has not filed any appointment letter issued by the

opposite party appointing him as senior halwai. He has also not filed any salary slip, he has also not filed any

documents which may depict that he was interviewed and medically examined by the railway doctor before his

appointment.

13.

From certain documents filed by him it reveals that he was issued an identity card by the union of railway

employees showing him to be the member of the union. Certain documents have also been filed by the worker which

reveals that he was paid some amount of wages but from these documents it is not at all clear as by whom the amount

was paid to the worker.

14.

As such from the evidence of the worker as well as own documents of the worker like identity cards issued from

time to time by the union the worker cannot be deemed to be appointed by the opposite party or he was paid any salary

by the opposite party.

15.

From the above discussions, it is concluded that when there was no relationship of employer and employee

between the opposite party and the worker, provision of section 25F of the Act is not applicable in the case of the

worker.

16.

Worker has misrably failed to estblish that he was ever appointed by the opposite party by order in writing and

that he was paid salary at any point of time by the opposite party, therefore, having no relationship of employer and

employee between the railway and the worker, action of the railway under reference cannot be held to be illegal.

17.

Accordingly worker is not entitled for any relief and his claim is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 50-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 160@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-01-2017 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@19@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2017

S.O. 50.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 160/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.01.2017.

[No. L-41011/19/2013-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 30^th September, 2016

146

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Reference: (CGITA) No. 160/2013

The Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer,

Western Railway,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda (Gujarat)

The Divisional Railway Manager(Estt),

Western Railway,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

Shastri Pole Kothi,

Baroda (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party

None

For the Second Party

Shri R.S. Sisodiya

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/19/2013-

IR(B-I) dated 20.09.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Union, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Baroda to transfer Shri Dhiraj

Kumar M. Makwana, Diesel Shed, Khalasi from Vatva, Ahmedabad to Baroda Division is legal, proper and just?

If so, to what relief the workman Shri Dhiraj Kumar M. Makwana is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 20.09.2013.Both the parties were served with a registered notice dated 28.05.2014.

Neither of the parties responded to the notice by filing the statement of claim or written statement, as the case may be.

However, the second party represented by The Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Shri R.S.

Sisodiya by way of his written response expressed unwillingness to prosecute the case.

Thus the reference is disposed of as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 51-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1023@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-01-2017 dks

çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@102@95&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2017

S.O. 51.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1023/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.01.2017.

[No. L-41012/102/95-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

147

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 30^th September, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1023/2004

The Deputy Controller of Stores,

Western Railway, Nagdara,

Ajmer – 305001

…First Party

V/s

The Deputy Secretary,

Paschim Railway Kamdar Sangh,

78/9 C, National Highway,

Gandhidham (Kutch)

…Second Party

For the First Party

For the Second Party

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41012/102/95-

IR(B-I) dated 01.10.1995 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Western Railway Kamdar Sangh, Gandhidham against the Dy. Controller of Stores

(General), W.Rly., Ajmer, for ex-post facto sanction for retention of Railway quarter No. 165 D at Gandhidham

by Shri Harmender Singh during the period of transfer to Abu Road and re-transfer to Gandhidham and further

for refund of recovery of penal rent, just, valid and legal? If/so, to what benefits the workman is entitled for and

what directions are necessary in the matter?”

The reference dates back to 01.10.1995. In response to the notice issued by the tribunal, second party workman

submitted his statement of claim on 22.10.1997 along with the documents vide list Ext. 3. The first party also submitted

written statement Ext. 5 on 18.03.1998. Second party workman was also examined by the State Industrial Tribunal,

Rajkot on 17.09.1999. Since then the second party as well as the first party did not appear in the tribunal. On transfer of

the reference to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court, the tribunal issued fresh notice on 24.01.2011 to both the parties to

appear on 13.04.2011 but neither of the parties responded to the notice by putting their appearance. Thus it appears that

neither of the parties is willing to prosecute the case. The matter relates to retention of official quarter No. 165 D by the

workman even after transfer to Abu Road and back to Gandhidham leading to recovery of rent. The said matter might

have been resolved on the administrative side. Therefore, it does not appear justified to wait for the response of the

workman.

Thus the reference is disposed of as not pressed in the absence of evidence of second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 52-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 190@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-01-2017 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@87@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

148

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2017

S.O. 52.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 190/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.01.2017.

[No. L-41011/87/2013-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 30^th September, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 190/2013

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Ahmedabad Division,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary,

Western Railway Kamdar Sangh,

78/9-C, National Highway,

Gandhidham (Kutch)

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri H.B. Shah

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/87/2013-

IR(B-I) dated 30.10.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Sr. Section Engineer (Electrical), Western Railway, Gandhidham by imposition of

penalty of stoppage of annual increment to Shri Akshay Kumar Paikaray, Electric Fitter Gr. III is legal and

justified? To what relief Shri Akshay Kumar Paikaray is entitled?”

The reference dates back to 30.10.2013.In response to the notice dated 15.11.2013 issued by the tribunal by

registered post, neither of the parties submitted the statement of claim or written statement, as the case may be, despite

the fact that the acknowledgement of service was received, after a lapse of 3 years. The matter relates to imposition of

penalty of stoppage of annual increment. As the parties have not responded even after a lapse of 3 years, therefore, it

appears that neither of the parties appears to be willing to prosecute the case.

The reference is disposed of with a finding that the action of the Sr. Section Engineer (Electrical), Western

Railway, Gandhidham by imposition of penalty of stoppage of annual increment to Shri Akshay Kumar Paikaray,

Electric Fitter Gr. III is legal and justified.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 53-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

149

,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 192@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-01-2017 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@90@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2017

S.O. 53.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 192/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.01.2017.

[No. L-41011/90/2013-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 30^th September, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 192/2013

The Divisional Railway Manager (E),

Western Railway,

Divisional Division,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The President,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

Near Vishwakarma Temple,

Opp. Railway Colony,

Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party

None

For the Second Party

Shri R.S. Sisodiya

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/90/2013-

IR(B-I) dated 30.10.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Railway Administration i.e. DRM, Western Railway, Ahmedabad by issuing the

charge sheet and awarding punishment viz., S/Shri Baldev Shivlal, Yogendra and Goving without giving an

opportunity to defend these three workers is justified? To what relief these three workmen are entitled?”

The reference dates back to 30.10.2013. Both the parties were served with a registered notice dated 28.05.2014.

Neither of the parties responded to the notice by filing the statement of claim or written statement, as the case may be.

However, the second party represented by The Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad Shri R.S.

Sisodiya by way of his written response expressed unwillingness to prosecute the case.

Thus the reference is disposed of as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 54-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 193@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-01-2017 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@86@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2017

S.O. 54.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 193/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.01.2017.

[No. L-41011/86/2013-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 30^th September, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 193/2013

The Divisional Railway Manager(E),

Western Railway,

Divisional Office,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

E/209, Sarvotam Nagar, Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party

None

For the Second Party

Shri R. S. Sisodiya

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/86/2013-

IR(B-I) dated 30.10.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Divisional Railway Manager (E), Ahmedabad in not paying the pension and stopping

of passes to Smt. Saroja, wife of late Shri Mari Keshavan is justified? To what relief Smt. Saroja, Wife of late

Shri Mari Keshavan is entitled?”

The reference dates back to 30.10.2013.Both the parties were served with a registered notice dated 28.05.2014.

Neither of the parties responded to the notice by filing the statement of claim or written statement, as the case may be.

However, the second party represented by The Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Shri R.S.

Sisodiya by way of his written response expressed unwillingness to prosecute the case.

Thus the reference is disposed of as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

151

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 55-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 148@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-01-2017 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@83@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2017

S.O. 55.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 148/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.01.2017.

[No. L-41011/83/2012-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 23^rd September, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 148/2012

1. The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Pratapnagar,

Baroda (Gujarat)

2. The Chief Medical Suptd. Manager,

Western Railway, Pratapnagar,

Baroda (Gujarat)

3. The Chief Health Inspector,

Western Railway,

Anand (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway KarmachariParishad,

Shastri Pole, Kothi,

Baroda(Gujarat) – 390001

…Second Party

For the First Party

None

For the Second Party

Shri R.S. Sisodia

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/83/2012-IR

(B-I) dated 27.09.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect

of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Western Railway in not changing the category from Safaiwala to

Khalasi of Shri Vikram C. Baria is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”

152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The reference dates back to 27.09.2012. After service on both the parties, today on 23.09.2016, on behalf of the

second party Shri R.S. Sisodiya, President, Paschim Railway KarmachariParishad submitted that the union does not

want to prosecute the case. Hence the reference decided as not pressed.

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 56-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1127@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-01-2017 dks

çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@156@99&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2017

S.O. 56.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1127/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.01.2017.

[No. L-41012/156/99-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 23^rd September, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1127/2004

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Divisional Office,

Kothi Compound,

Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001

…First Party

V/s

The Secretary,

Railway Pensioner’s Association,

Ashirwad, 11, Bajrangwadi,

Jamnagar Road,

Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360006

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri Janak R. Pandya

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41012/156/99-

IR(B-I) dated 29.10.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

153

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Rajkot over denial of upgradation

promotion to Shri K. Vasudevan, Ex. ESM under C.S.I., Rajkot in Highly Silled –II w.e.f. 01.01.1984 is just,

valid and legal? If not to what benefit the workman is entitled for and what directions are necessary in the

matter?”

The reference dates back to 29.10.1999. The second party, Secretary, Railway Pensioner’s Association, submitted

the statement of claim Ext. 2 on 27.02.2000 along with no. of documents. The first party also submitted the written

statement Ext. 7 that too with no. of documents on 26.03.2000 but since then the second party has not been leading

evidence and has also been absent since 2010.Thus it appears that second party has not willing to prosecute the case.

Thus the reference is decided as not pressed and the the action of the Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway,

Rajkot over denial of upgradation promotion to Shri K. Vasudevan, Ex. ESM under C.S.I., Rajkot in Highly Silled –II

w.e.f. 01.01.1984 is just, valid and legal.

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 57-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 188@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-01-2017 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@85@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2017

S.O. 57.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 188/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.01.2017.

[No. L-41011/85/2013-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 30^th September, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 188/2013

The Divisional Railway Manager (E),

Western Railway, Divisional Office,

Rajkot, Gujarat

…First Party

V/s

The Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

‘Shiv Om’, 2/9, Junction Plot,

Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001

…Second Party

For the First Party

None

For the Second Party

Shri R.S. Sisodiya

154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/85/2013-IR

(B-I) dated 30.10.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect

of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the union for granting set pass, increment, benefits of 6^th Pay Commission, overtime and other

allowances to three employees S/Shri Dattaram, Jaggubai and Narender Singh Zala, CCCR- Surendernagar is justified?

To what relief these three employees are entitled?”

The reference dates back to 30.10.2013. Both the parties were served with a registered notice dated 28.05.2014.

Neither of the parties responded to the notice by filing the statement of claim or written statement, as the case may be.

However, the second party represented by The Divisional Secretary,Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Shri R.S.

Sisodiya by way of his written response expressed unwillingness to prosecute the case.

Thus the reference is disposed of as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 58-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 175@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-01-2017 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@72@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2017

S.O. 58.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 175/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.01.2017.

[No. L-41011/72/2013-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 30^th September, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 175/2013

The Divisional Railway Manager (E),

Western Railway, Divisional Office,

Kothi Compound,

Rajkot, Gujarat

…First Party

V/s

The President,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

28-B, Narayan Park,

Behind Chandkheda Railway Station,

Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

155

For the First Party

None

For the Second Party

Shri R.S. Sisodiya

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/72/2013-

IR(B-I) dated 30.09.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the DRM, Western Railway, Rajkot in not transferring Shri Murgesh Buch, Painter on

family and medical problem to Rajkot or Hapa is justified? If so, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 30.09.2013.Both the parties were served with a registered notice dated 28.05.2014.

Neither of the parties responded to the notice by filing the statement of claim or written statement, as the case may be.

However, the second party represented by The Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Shri R.S.

Sisodiya by way of his written response expressed unwillingness to prosecute the case.

Thus the reference is disposed of as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 59-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 174@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-01-2017 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@71@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2017

S.O. 59.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 174/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.01.2017.

[No. L-41011/71/2013-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 30^th September, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 174/2013

The Area Manager,

Western Railway,

Gandhidham,

Kutch (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary,

Western Railway Kamdar Sangh,

78/9-C, National Highway,

Gandhidham (Kutch)

…Second Party

156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the First Party

None

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/71/2013-

IR(B-I) dated 30.09.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Sr. Section Engineer (Electrical), Western Railway, Gandhidham by imposition of

penalty of stoppage of privilege passes to three employees’ viz., S/Shri Jaish Kumar, Khalasi and Shri Akshay

Kumar Paikaray, Fitteris legal and justified? If so, what relief these three employees are entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 30.09.2013. In response to the notice dated 18.10.2013 issued by the tribunal by

registered post, neither of the parties submitted the statement of claim or written statement, as the case may be, despite

the fact that the acknowledgement of service was received, after a lapse of 3 years. The matter relates to imposition of a

petty penalty of stoppage of privilege passes to some of the workman. As the parties have not responded even after a

lapse of 3 years, therefore, it appears that neither of the parties appears to be willing to prosecute the case.

Thus the reference is disposed of with a finding that the action of the Sr. Section Engineer (Electrical), Western

Railway, Gandhidham by imposition of penalty of stoppage of privilege passes to three employees’ viz., S/Shri Jaish

Kumar, Khalasi and Shri Akshay Kumar Paikaray, Fitter is legal and justified.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 60-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 167@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-01-2017 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@74@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2017

S.O. 60.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 167/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.01.2017.

[No. L-41011/74/2013-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 30^th September, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1672013

The Divisional Railway Manager (E),

Western Railway,

Divisional Office,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

157

The General Secretary,

Western Railway Kamdar Sangh,

78/9-C, National Highway,

Gandhidham (Kutch)

…Second Party

For the First Party

None

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/74/2013-

IR(B-I) dated 23.09.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Ahmedabad Division

by way of not forwarding the claim of Shri Rampal Mangalji, Retired Mate under PWI, Gandhidham regarding

his transfer and packing allowance for condoning the delay in payment after his retirement is justified? If so,

what relief Shri Rampal Mangalji, Retired Mate is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 23.09.2013.In response to the notice dated 03.10.2013 issued by the tribunal by

registered post, neither of the parties submitted the statement of claim or written statement, as the case may be, despite

the fact that the acknowledgement of service was received, after a lapse of 3 years. The matter relates to transfer and

packing allowance for condoning the delay in payment after his retirement. As the parties have not responded even

after a lapse of 3 years, therefore, it appears that neither of the parties appears to be willing to prosecute the case.

The reference is disposed of with a finding that the action of the Management of Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Ahmedabad Division by way of not forwarding the claim of Shri Rampal Mangalji, Retired Mate

under PWI, Gandhidham regarding his transfer and packing allowance for condoning the delay in payment after his

retirement is justified.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 61-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 114@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-01-2017 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@43@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2017

S.O. 61.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 114/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.01.2017.

[No. L-41011/43/2012-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 30^th September, 2016

158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Reference: (CGITA) No. 114/2012

The General Manager,

Western Railway,

Churchgate, Mumbai

The Chief Engineer (TMC),

Western Railway,

Churchgate, Mumbai

The Dy. Engineer (TMC),

Western Railway,

Valsad (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The President,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

28-B, Narayan Park,

Behind Chandkheda Railway Station,

Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party

None

For the Second Party

Shri Mukesh N. Pandit & R.S. Sisodiya, the President,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/43/2012-

IR(B-I) dated 30.07.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Union, Paschim Railway KarmachariParishad, Baroda to give the promotion to Shri

Rajendra Prasad, Shri N.C. Damor and Shri VirendrakumarAhirwar from the year 2005 and not to transfer them

to outside Valsad and give the benefits of ST quota to Shri N.C. Damor is legal and justified? To what relief the

workman is entitled?”

The reference dates back to 30.07.2012. Both the parties were served with a registered notice dated 10.12.2012.

In response to the notice, Shri Mukesh Pandit submitted his vakalatpatra Ext. 4 and statement of claim Ext. 5 on behalf

of the second party but first party did not respond. However, the second party represented by The Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Shri R.S. Sisodiya by way of his written response expressed unwillingness to

prosecute the case.

Thus the reference is disposed of as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 62-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 11@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-01-2017 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@117@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2017

S.O. 62.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

159

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.01.2017.

[No. L-41011/117/2010-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 30^th September, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 11/2012

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Bhavnagar Para,

Bhavnagar, Gujarat

…First Party

V/s

The President,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

28-B, Narayan Park,

Behind Chandkheda Railway Station,

Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party

None

For the Second Party

Shri R.S. Sisodiya

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/117/

2010-IR(B-I) dated 27.12.2011 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Union, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad for payment of salary of higher post

to Shri A.K. Pandya, Sr. Clerk, against which he has been transferred or reduction in the responsibilities assigned

to him and conducting of work study of all the clerks is legal and justified? To what relief the Union/Workman is

entitled?”

The reference dates back to 27.12.2011.Both the parties were served with a registered notice dated 26.03.2012.

Neither of the parties responded to the notice by filing the statement of claim or written statement, as the case may be.

However, the second party represented by The Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad Shri R.S.

Sisodiya by way of his written response expressed unwillingness to prosecute the case.

Thus the reference is disposed of as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 63-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 45@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-01-2017 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@26@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2017

S.O. 63.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.01.2017.

[No. L-41011/26/2014-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 23^rd September, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 45/2014

1. The Divisional Railway Manager(Estt.),

Western Railway, Pratapnagar,

Baroda (Gujarat) - 390004

2. The Asstt. Divisional Engineer(N)

Western Railway,

Nadiad (Gujarat)

3. The Sr. Divisional Engineer(N),

Western Railway,Pratapnagar,

Baroda (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The President,

Paschim Railway KarmachariParishad,

Shastri Pole, Kothi,

Baroda (Gujarat) – 390001

…Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri N.S. Vaghela

For the Second Party

: Shri R.S. Sisodia

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/26/2014-

IR(B-I) dated 03.04.2014 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the union, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad to cancel the transfer order of Shri

A.G. Palherkar and not to relieve him form Nadiad is legal, proper and just? To what relief the concerned

workman is entitled?”

The reference dates back to 03.04.2014. After service on both the parties, first party submitted the vakalatpatra

Ext. 6 on 23.09.2016 but today on 23.09.2016, on behalf of the second party Shri R.S. Sisodiya, President, Paschim

Railway Karmachari Parishad submitted that the union does not want to prosecute the case. Hence the reference

decided as not pressed.

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

161

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 64-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u cSad

vkWiQ bafM;k 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 125@05) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-01-2017

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@112@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2017

S.O. 64.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 125/05) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Union Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.01.2017.

[No. L-12012/112/2005-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/125/05

Shri Anil Kumar Sahu,

Ex.Cashier-cum-Clerk,

Budhawari Bazar, Near Sardar Building,

Chhindwara (MP)

…Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Union Bank of India,

Central Office, Union Bank Bhawan,

Vidhan Bhawan Marg,

Mumbai

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 24^th day of October 2016

As per letter dated 11-11-2005 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-

12012/112/2005-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India in dismissing Shri Anil Kumar Sahu, Ex-Cashier

cum Clerk from service is legal and justified? If not, relief is the workman concerned entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 2/1

to 2/10. Case of workman is that he was initially appointed as clerk on 21-3-03 at Parasia branch. Branch Manager had

requested him to submit all particulars of his saving for computation of income tax liability. He refused to submit the

particulars asked by Branch Manager. Branch Manager again arrogantly asked him to submit particulars of his savings.

It is alleged that workman had behaved arrogantly with Branch Manager, Head cashier using unparliamentarily and

abusive language against them. That workman threatened Manager of dire consequences if his salary was not paid. It is

also alleged that workman manhandled Sr. Manager and cashier. Workman called in Bank and informed Branch

Manager and staff of dire consequences. That as per management, it was not first instance of incident behavior of

workman. In the past, chargesheet was issued to workman on 26-2-99 for similar misconduct. Punishment of

withholding two increment with cumulative effect was imposed on workman. Ist party further submits that chargesheet

was issued to him on 23-7-02 pertaining to ritious disorderly indecent behavior in Bank premises, (2) doing any act

prejudicial to the interest of Bank, (3) remaining unauthorised absent. The minor misconduct alleged failing to show

proper courtesy to the officers of the Bank, committing nuisance in premises of Bank, remaining absent without

162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

intimation more than10 days. Enquiry was conducted against him appointing Enquiry Officer J.V.Joshi as per letter

dated 12-9-02. That Enquiry Officer submitted his findings holding that charges were proved against him, punishment

of dismissal was proposed. Notice was issued to him on 15-1-03. The dismissal order was issued on 21-1-03. Workman

raised dispute challenging the dismissal of his service. statement of claim also elaborated about the dispute raised

before Conciliation officer and after submitting FOC, the dispute has been referred by Government.

Ist party reiterates that the order of dismissal is passed without jurisdiction is illegal. That order of removal

should be passed by Appointing Authority. That General Manager (P) was appointing authority of workman. Order of

dismissal is passed by Assistant General Manager. The dismissal order is passed violating principles of natural justice.

Disciplinary Authority himself issued chargesheet and conducted enquiry. The punishment is also imposed by

Disciplinary Authority Shri J.V.Joshi is illegal. That Disciplinary Authority called as prosecutor rather than Judge.

That workman had submitted unconditional apology. It is treated as confessional statement. It cannot be treated as

admission. One apology is admitted by employee in assurance of his reply to the chargesheet on unconditional apology

tendered by workman, he should have been pardoned of minor punishment, they have been imposed. The punishment

of dismissal is disproportionate compared to the misconduct alleged. The order of dismissal is like a death sentence is

illegal. Ist party workman prays for his reinstatement.

2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/22 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party contends the reference

of dispute by Government is illegal. As the punishment of dismissal was imposed against workman for proved ritious,

disorderly behavior. Workman had used unparliamentarily and indecent in threatening management of dire

consequences. He was also unauthorisely absent for 30 days. Ist party workman voluntarily admitted charges against

him. He had given unconditional apology. Judicial review of punishment is imposed against workman is not

permissible. Bank is covered by Bipartite settlement. The employees are covered by clause 19 of the settlement dated

19-10-66. On 13-5-86, Ist party workman was initially appointed. His service record was not satisfactory. Chargesheet

was earlier issued to him. Punishment of with holding of two increments was imposed against workman. 2^nd party

further reiterates that workman was unauthorisely absent during the period 23-3-02 to 9-4-02 for 90 days. He was also

unauthorisely absent from 1-4-02 to 13-4-02. Workman had failed to provide particulars of his saving for computation

of income tax on request of Branch Manager. He threatened Bank Manager and cashier. The charges are admitted by

workman. Enquiry was conducted by Shri JV.Joshi, Enquiry Officer cum Disciplinary Authority. Shri

K.V.Subramjaniam was Presenting Officer. Enquiry was participated by workman. Defence Assistant of Ist party

workman had submitted that workman admitted charges, no defence witnesses were produced. It is reiterated that Shri

G.V.Joshi Personal Manager was appointed as Enquiry Officer by Disciplinary Authority as per Circular No. 4846

dated 24-4-02. Dismissal order was served on workman but he refused to give its acknowledgment. 2^nd party had

denied all adverse contentions of workman rather it is reiterated that workman had voluntarily admitted the charges

against him. Enquiry Officer found workman guilty of misconduct. Punishment of dismissal of workman cannot be said

arbitrary and illegal. The action of the management is proper and legal. 2^nd party prays for rejection of claim.

As per order dated 4-9-15, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal and proper.

Considering pleadings on record and findings on enquiry, the points which arise for my consideration and

determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(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 Affirmative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

As per order dated 4-9-15, enquiry held against workman is found legal. Question remains for consideration is

whether charges alleged against workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Whether punishment of

dismissal imposed against workman is legal. Workman has produced documents Exhibit W-1 letter dated 23-7-02

calling his explanation, W-2 is order of appointment of Enquiry Officer. Shri J.V.Joshi was appointed as Enquiry

Officer. Exhibit W-3 is letter dated 3-1-03 calling explanation of Ist party workman w.r.t. chargesheet dated 23-7-02.

Exhibit W-4 is the order of dismissal of workman dated 21-1-03. Management has produced documents zerox copy of

Enquiry Proceedings. Exhibit M-1 is letter dated 27-8-02 workman tendering apology, Exhibit M-2 is appeal memo.

Zerox copies of Enquiry Proceedings are produced along with affidavit of witness of management Chanchal Kumar.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

163

His evidence remained unchallenged. In document Exhibit M-1, charges alleged against workman pertains to the

language used by workman “ Tum kya bigaad loge, kaat kar fek doonga” dated 25-2-99. 2 increments of Ist party

workmen were stopped as per document M-2 letter dated 10-10-00. Document marked by letter M-3 is letter dated

2-5-02 alleging unauthorized absence during period 1-4-02 to 13-4-02. Document M-4 appear letters written by Shri

R.Venkatmurthy addressed to General Manager, Regional Office. That Shri Anil Sahu i.e. CSE refused to submit

particulars of his savings for computing income tax and shouted he will come and stab him. Document Exhibit M-5 is

report dated 21-3-02. Workman had used abusive languages in the matter how his salary was not paid. He abused in the

name of mother and sister and threatened to kill him by shooting him by revolver. Document M-6 is letter sent by

employer Venkateshavarlu, Dilip, Pradeep, Rajesh, Ashok and Jageshwar Prasad dated 22-3-02 pertains to threats

given by workman. Annexure M-7 is letter dated 23-7-02 calling explanation of workman in the matter of

unparliamentary language and threats given to the Branch Manager and staff. It appears to be thechargesheet including

unaouthorised absence. Document M-11 appears copy of Enquiry Proceedings dated 9-12-12. The statement of

Presenting Officer was recorded. He had produced various documents ME-7 to ME-12. The Defence Assistant had not

taken any objection to those documents. Page 6 of the document shows that Defence Assistant did not examine any

defence witness as the CSE had admitted the charges. Document M-12 appears to be the report of Enquiry Officer

shows that CSE had admitted charges against him in presence of Defence Assistant were included in enquiry. The CSE

had admitted charges without any kind of force. Said document refers to admission of charges by workman by Enquiry

Proceeding dated 9-12-02 however proceeding M-11 shows that enquiry was conducted w.r.t. chargesheet dated

23-7-02. CSE Anil Sahu was suffering from fewer, he was unable to attend . the enquiry was fixed on 9-12-02. Enquiry

Proceeding dated 9-12-02 at Page 3/151 , CSE Anil Kumar was present and he confirmed proceeding dated 15-11-02.

Defence Assistant T.K.Bannerjee was permitted. Said proceedings shows CSE Anil Kumar admitted charges in

chargesheet dated 23-7-02 assuring not to repeat such conduct in future. Chargesheet dated 23-7-02 M-7 refers to CSE

refused to submit particulars of his saving for computation of income tax. He had used abusive and unparliamentary

information and threatened Manager of Dire consequences if his salary is not paid. As charges alleged against

workman are admitted by CSE in Enquiry Proceedings dated 9-12-02 Page 3,4. I record my finding in Point No.1 in

Affirmative.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 Ist party workman had admitted charges in proceeding dated

9-12-02, the charges are proved as admitted by CSE Anil Sahu needs no further evidence in view of Section 58 of

Evidence Act. Proved charges are of serious nature, threatening Branch Manager of dire consequences, refusing to

supply particulars of saving for computing income tax. In his notes of argument, counsel for Ist party emphasized that

punishment was not imposed by Appointing Authority i.e. Manager, the punishment is imposed by Asstt. General

Manager. Ist party has not produced circular or any document that Manager (P) was Appointing Authority of

workman or Assistant General Manager was not competent to impose punishment of dismissal. Therefore the

submissions on above point cannot be accepted. Punishment of dismissal imposed against workman cannot be said

disproportionate.

Counsel for both parties submitted written notes of arguments and referred to certain citations. However any of

the citations are not submitted for perusal. I have not been given advantage to go through the citation referred in notes

of argument submitted by counsel for workman. Considering the charges admitted by workman are of serious nature,

the punishment of dismissal against workman doesnot call for interference. For above reasons, I record my finding in

Point No.2 in Affirmative.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Union Bank of India in dismissing Shri Anil Kumar Sahu, Ex-Cashier

cum Clerk from service is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 65-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

bafM;k 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 97@98) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-01-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@25@1998&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2017

S.O. 65.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 97/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.01.2017.

[No. L-12012/25/1998-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/97/98

Shri Shivdas Kamlekar,

S/o Devram Kamlekar,

Near B.D.Tailor,

Khandwa

…Workman

Versus

Zonal Manager,

Bank of India,

Zonal Office,

Jail Road, Arera Hills,

Bhopal

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 24^th day of October, 2016

As per letter dated 11-6-98 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-

12012/25/98/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda in terminating the services of Shri Shivdas Kamlekar

w.e.f. 13-2-96 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 9 to

15. Case of Ist party workman is that he was appointed as peon against vacant post on January 1984 at Khandwa

branch. Chargesheet was issued to Ist party workman on 31-10-94 alleging false charges of misconduct. Without

following the provisions of Bipartite agreement, enquiry was initiated against him without issuing notice. He had not

given reply to the chargesheet. After initiating enquiry, workman was asked to give reply to the chargesheet. His

request to stay in enquiry till filing of reply to chargesheet was not considered. Enquiry was conducted in violation of

principles of natural justice. Enquiry Officer submitted exparte report. It is reiterated that he was not supplied

documents relating to the charges. Enquiry Officer acted with malafide. Enquiry Officer not recorded statements of

witnesses as per their say. Statement of witnesses were recorded in Enquiry Proceedings. Evidence of the witnesses

was not properly appreciated. Overlooking the evidence, workman was held guilty to the charges. Ist party further

contends that he was not allowed opportunity to cross examine management’s witnesses. Copies of Enquiry

Proceedings recording statements of witnesses were not supplied to him. Before imposing punishment, he was not

served showcause notice. His explanation submitted to Competent Authority was not taken into consideration while

imposing punishment. On such ground, workman submits Enquiry Proceedings is illegal. Order of punishment imposed

against him is illegal. On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 35 to 45 opposing claim of Ist party workman. 2^nd party submits that Ist

party was employed as peon from 2-1-84. Chargesheet was issued to him on 31-6-94. Charges alleged against

workman pertaining to theft of one packet envelope containing 100 notes of Rs. 10 denominations amounting to

Rs.1000 on 2-6-94. He had unauthorisely entered premises of Khandwa branch on 8-6-94 and 100 notes of Rs.10

denomination along with key chain, one comb and kerchief were recovered from his pocket by Mr. Hastak and

Madanlal. 2^nd party reiterates that chargesheet was issued to him. Shri S.K.Agrawal was appointed as Enquiry Officer,

N.S.Rao was appointed as Presenting Officer. Enquiry was conducted on various dates details given in Para 6 of

Written Statement. Statements of management’s witnesses were recorded. They were cross examined. The documents

were supplied to workman. List of witnesses was also supplied. Ist party workman had submitted documents in support

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 7] 2017@ikS"k 17] 1938

165

of his defence. Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding charges against workman were proved. Report of Enquiry

Officer was sent to workman along with notice. Considering evidence, Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of

dismissal against workman. Appeal preferred by workman was also rejected. 2^nd party reiterates that enquiry was

properly conducted, punishment of dismissal is proper and legal. Workman doesnot deserve any relief claimed by him.

Ist party submitted rejoinder on 22-6-04 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

Enquiry conducted against workman is held legal as per order dated 1-4-2015.

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 Affirmative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

As per order dated 1-4-15, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal, question remains for consideration

whether charges alleged against workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Chargesheet dated

31-10-94 issued to workman is produced at Exhibit M-11. Charges alleged against workman pertains to theft of

envelope of 100 notes of Rs. 10 denominations total amount Rs.1000 on 7-6-94. Notes were recovered from Ist party

on 8-6-94 from pocket of trouser of workman. Document Exhibit M-10 is statement given in writing by workman

contenting that his wife was ill, he had spent amount more than Rs.5000, he was not getting loan from relative or other

staff. On 7-6-94, while stitching envelopes, he had taken one envelopes of Rs.10 denominations and kept in his

pocket. He had taken said envelope to his home. He had realized his mistake and next day he had come to the Bank

intending to explain his act committed by him. He had produced envelope containing notes before Branch Manager

Shri Hastak. On direction of Branch Manager, he had given statement in writing. Exhibit M-12 in Enquiry Proceeding

Ist party workman had completed not guilty to charge on 9-12-94. The statements of management’s witnesses

Shambhu Sharan Accounts clerk clearly shows on 7-6-94, he started balancing work around 2.30 PM, cash of s.000

was found short. He checked cash denomination wise. One envelope of Rs.10 denomination containing 100 notes was

not found. He had given its information to the Branch Manager. He had taken Rs.1000 from Mr. Kalungo and

deposited in the cash. His earlier statement was recorded as per his says. In his further evidence, he says work of

stitching cash was done by peon Kamal. However as he was on leave, in his place, CSE had done work of stitching

cash. His further evidence shows that he had identified the envelope he had written in less 36 on said envelope. His

cross examination at length, his evidence on above point was not shattered. Witness re-affirmed that after counting the

packets, he was putting slip on it. He was putting his signature and then keeping the cash in drawer. In his cross-

examination, he reaffirmed that on 7-6-94, cash was with Shivdas Kamlekar i.e. CSE. On that day, search of person of

CSE was not taken in good faith. Mr. Kalungo had given check from his overdraft account. Witness Madanlal in his

evidence had confirmed that on 7-6-94, around 4 to 4.30 PM, cash of Rs.1000 was found short. They had searched for

it but cash envelope was not found. The CSE Shivdas had stitched the cash on that day. Evidence of both witnesses is

corroborated by Shri Hastak witness No.3 of the management. His evidence further shows that on 8-6-94, CSE

Shivdas had come to the office early in time and he had produced envelope of notes containing 100 notes of 10 Rs.

Denomination, chain, comb, handkerchief etc. on his say, workman had also given statement in writing. Evidence of

Mr. Hastak corroborates evidence of Shri Kamlekar and other witnesses. Statement of all of them were given in

writing on same day and produced at Exhibit M-12,13-A,B.,C,D.

During course of argument, learned counsel for Ist party workman Shri R.C.Shrivastava submits that the charge

of theft against workman is not proved. The notes are not produced, seizure memo is not shown therefore charges are

not established. On the above point, the Enquiry Proceedings at Page 7,8 needs to be considered. It finds reference that

genuiness of documents No. 1,3 & 4 were not disputed by Defence Representative. The envelope was not in sealed

cover. Envelope was not accompanying with seizure memo. Enquiry Officer had explained that he would verify the

articles opening the envelope. Letter written by Ist party workman was not having reference of seizure memo. After the

envelope was opened, 100 notes of Rs.10 denominations, kerchief, red comb, key chain having 3 keys, coin of 50-

paise were found in it. The number of notes on upper side was bearing writing in Hindi 1000 ( Note No. 60R347481).

The note underlines was bearing No. 69D752959, 00 notes of 10 Rs denomination were found. The defence

166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 7, 2017/PAUSA 17, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

representative was present while recording above proceeding. The identity of the notes discussed in the Enquiry

Proceeding is not disputed during course of enquiry. Statement given by workman he had produced the envelope of the

note shows that charges against workman are supported by sufficient evidence. The findings of Enquiry Officer are not

perverse. Re-appreciation of evidence is not justified. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in

affirmative.

Point No.2- in view of my finding in Point No.1 that charge of theft alleged against workman is proved, question

remains whether punishment of dismissal imposed against workman is disproportionate. Considering the proved

charges of theft of Rs.1000, workman himself producing envelope producing envelope of note on next day, punishment

of dismissal imposed against workman cannot be said disproportionate to proved misconduct.

10.

Learned counsel for management Shri A.K. Shashi during course of argument relies on ratio held in

Case between Union Bank of India versus Vishwa Mohan reported in 1998-I-LLJ-1217. Ratio held in the case

pertains to chargesheet related to serious misconduct. Respondent unable to demonstrate how prejudice was caused to

him due to non supply of inquiry report. In banking business absolute devotion, diligence and integrity need to be

preserved by every bank employee and in particular by bank officer. If this is not observed, confidence of depositors

would be impaired.

Reliance is also placed in case between Divisional Controller, NEKRTC versus H.Amaresh reported in

2006(6)SCC-187. Their Lordship dealing with quantum of propriety misappropriation of a small amount of SRTC

funds (Rs.360.95 in this case) by conductor held a grave act of misconduct which resulted in financial loss to RTC,

charges proved in domestic enquiry, the punishment of dismissal from service was awarded by Disciplinary Authority

and did not call for interference.

11.

Shri A.K.Shashi, Advocate for management also submitted copy of award in R/38/90 pursuing his argument.

Said award cannot be treated as binding president. However considering the evidence and charges proved against

workman of theft is of serious nature, punishment of dismissal imposed against workman doesnot call for interference.

For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.2 in Affirmative.

12.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Bank of Baroda in terminating the services of Shri Shivdas Kamlekar

w.e.f. 13-2-96 is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.

ALOK

KUMAR

Digitally signed by

ALOK KUMAR

Date: 2017.01.25

16:16:36 +05'30'