This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ;एनद्ध 04/0007/2003—05 REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

प्राध्किार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक WEEKLY

सं. 6] नई दिल्ली, पफरवरी 5—पफरवरी 11, 2017, शनिवार/ माघ 16—माघ 22, 1938

No. 6] NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 5—FEBRUARY 11, 2017, SATURDAY/ MAGHA 16—MAGHA 22, 1938

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

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

भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड ;iiद्ध

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence

कामक लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्राालय

;कामक और प्रशिक्षण विभागद्ध

नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी, 2017

का.आ. 280.—केन्द्र सरकार, दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन अध्निियम, 1946 ;1946 का अध्निियम सं. 25द्ध की धरा 6 के साथ पठित धरा 5 की उप-धरा ;1द्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए हरियाणा राज्य सरकार, गृह विभाग, चंडीगढ़ के दिनांक 22.12.2016 के आदेश सं. 58/17/2016-1 VII द्वारा दी गई सहमति से एतद्‌द्वारा भारतीय दंड संहिता 1860 ;1860 का अध्निियम सं. 45द्ध की धराओं 409, 420, 120-बी भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अध्निियम, 1988 ;1988 का अध्निियम 49द्ध 13 ;1द्ध ;घद्ध के अंतर्गत दिनांक 05.05.2016 को राज्य सर्तकता ब्यूरो पंचकुला, जिला पंचकुला, हरियाणा में दर्ज की गई प्राथमिकी सं. 03 तथा उपर्युक्त अपराधें के संबंध् में अथवा उससे संबंध्ति प्रयासों, दुष्प्रेरणों तथा षडयंत्राों तथा अन्य कोई अपराध् अथवा उस व्यवहार अथवा उन तथ्यों से उत्पन्न होने वाले अपराधें का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन के सदस्यों की शक्तियों एवं क्षेत्रााध्किार का विस्तार संपूर्ण हरियाणा राज्य पर करती है।

[पफा. सं. 228/01/2017-एवीडी-II]

एस. पी. आर. त्रिापाठी, अवर सचिव

453 GI/2017

(605)606 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11, 2017/MAGHA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2017

S.O. 280.—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 Haryana, Home Department, Chandigarh vide Order No. 58/17/2016-1 VII dated 22.12.2016, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Haryana for investigation of FIR No. 03 dated 05.05.2016 under Sections 409, 420, 120-B of the Indian Panel Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988) registered at Police Station, State Vigilance Bureau Panchkula, District Panchkula, Haryana and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/01/2017-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

वित्त मंत्राालय

;राजस्व विभागद्ध

;हदी अनुभाग-2द्ध

नई दिल्ली, 1 पफरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 281.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ;संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोगद्ध नियमावली, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप-नियम ;4द्ध के अनुसरण में, राजस्व विभाग के केंद्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क एवं सीमाशुल्क बोर्ड के अध्ीन आने वाले केंद्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क एवं सीमाशुल्क आयुक्त कार्यालय, तिरुवनंतपुरम जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अध्कि कर्मचारियों ने हदी का कार्यसाध्क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को अधिसूचित करती है ।

[पफा. सं. ई-11017/1//2015-ए.डी. ;हिन्दी-2द्ध]

आनंद कुमार, उपनिदेशक ;राजभाषाद्ध

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

(HINDI SECTION-2)

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2017

S.O. 281.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Thiruvananthapuram under CBEC, D/o Revenue, where more than 80% of staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E-11017/1/2015-AD (Hindi-2)]

ANAND KUMAR, Dy. Director (OL)

विदेश मंत्राालय

;सी.पी.वी. प्रभागद्ध

नई दिल्ली, 20 जनवरी, 2017

का.आ. 282.—राजनयिक और कोंसुलीय अध्किारी ;शपथ एवं पफीसद्ध के अध्निियम, 1948 ;1948 का 41द्ध की धरा 2 के ख्ांड ;कद्ध के अनुसरण में वैधानिक आदेश ।

एतद्‌द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार भारत के दूतावास, अंतननरीवो में श्री बिनोद कुमार, सहायक अनुभाग अध्किारी को दिनांक 20 जनवरी, 2017 से सहायक कोंसुलर अध्किारी के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के निर्वहन के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[सं. टी-4330/01/2017] प्रकाश चन्द, उप सचिव ;कोंसुलरद्ध

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 20th January, 2017

S.O. 282.—Statutory Order in pursuance of 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 Binod Kumar, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Antananarivo to perform the Consular services with effect from 20th January, 2017.

[No. T-4330/01/2017] PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी, 2017

का.आ. 283.—राजनयिक और कोंसुलीय अध्किारी ;शपथ एवं पफीसद्ध के अध्निियम, 1948 ;1948 का 41द्ध की धरा 2 के ख्ांड ;कद्ध के अनुसरण में वैधानिक आदेश ।

एतद्‌द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार भारत के दूतावास, अबु धबी में श्री कमल किशोर, सहायक अनुभाग अध्किारी और श्री बिनोद कुमार प्रजापति, सहायक अनुभाग अध्किारी को दिनांक 17 जनवरी, 2017 से सहायक कोंसुलर अध्किारी के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के निर्वहन के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[सं. टी-4330/01/2015] प्रकाश चन्द, उप सचिव ;कोंसुलरद्ध

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2017

S.O. 283.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints (1) Shri Kamal Kishore, Assistant Section Officer and (2) Shri Binod Kumar Prajapati, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi to perform the Consular services with effect from 17th January, 2017.

[No. T-4330/01/2015] PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी, 2017

का.आ. 284.—राजनयिक और कोंसुलीय अध्किारी ;शपथ एवं पफीसद्ध के अध्निियम, 1948 ;1948 का 41द्ध की धरा 2 के ख्ांड ;कद्ध के अनुसरण में वैधानिक आदेश ।

एतद्‌द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार भारत के दूतावास, ट्‌यूनिस में श्री विनय कुमार यादव, सहायक अनुभाग अध्किारी को दिनांक 25 जनवरी, 2017 से सहायक कोंसुलर अध्किारी के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के निर्वहन के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[सं. टी-4330/01/2017] प्रकाश चन्द, उप सचिव ;कोंसुलरद्ध

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2017

S.O. 284.—Statutory Order in pursuance of 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 Vinay Kumar Yadav, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Tunis to perform the Consular services with effect from 25th January, 2017.

[No. T-4330/01/2017] PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)608 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11, 2017/MAGHA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

जल संसाध्न, नदी विकास और गंगा संरक्षण मंत्राालय

नई दिल्ली, 6 पफरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 285.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ;संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोगद्ध नियमावली, 1976 ;यथा संशोध्ति, 1987द्ध के नियम 10 के उप-नियम ;4द्ध के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय जल आयोग, नई दिल्ली के निम्नलिखित कार्यालय, जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अध्कि कर्मचारियों ने हदी का कार्यसाध्क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करती है :-

निचली गंगा बेसिन संगठन के अध्ीनस्थ कार्यालय :

1. निचली गंगा मंडल-2, केन्द्रीय जल आयोग, पटना

2. प्रबोध्न निदेशालय, केन्द्रीय जल आयोग, पटना

[सं. ई-11011/16//2015-हिन्दी]

के. एम. एम. अलिमाल्मिगोति, आथक सलाहकार एवं राजभाषा प्रभारी MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES, RIVER DEVELOPMENT AND GANGA REJUVENATION

New Delhi, the 6th February, 2017

S.O. 285.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies the following Offices of Central Water Commission, New Delhi, wherein more than 80% of staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :

Subordinate Office of Lower Ganga Basin Organisation :

1. Lower Ganga Division, Central Water Commission, Patna

2. Monitoring Directorate, Central Water Commission, Patna

[No. E-11011/16/2015- Hindi]

K. M. M. ALIMALMIGOTI, Economic Adviser & Official Language Incharge

नागर विमानन मंत्रालय नागर विमानन मंत्रालय नागर विमानन मंत्रालय नागर विमानन मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी, 2017

रेल मंत्रालयरेल मंत्रालयरेल मंत्रालयरेल मंत्रालय

((((रेलवे बोर्डरेलवे बोर्डरेलवे बोर्डरेलवे बोर्ड))))

नई दिल्ली, 2 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 287.—रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोर्ड), राजभाषा िनयम ¹⁹⁷⁶ (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) के िनयम ¹⁰ के उपिनयम(2) और (4) के अनुसरण में दक्षिण पूर्व रेल के मंडल रेल प्रबंधक कार्यालय/खड़गपुर, जहां 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक अधिकारियों/कर्मचारियों ने हिदी का कार्यसाधक Cान प्राप्त कर िलया है, को एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है ।

[सं. हिदी 2015/रा.भा.-1/12/2]

MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

(Railway Board)

New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2017

S.O. 287.—Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in pursurance of Sub Rule(2) and (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language Rules, 1976 (use for the Official purposes of the Union) hereby, notify the Divisional Railway Manager's office , Kharagpur of South Eastern Railway, where 80% or more Officers/Employeess have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. Hindi 2015/O.L.-1/12/2] K. P. SATHYANANDAN, Director (OL)

उपभोक्ताउपभोक्ताउपभोक्ताउपभोक्ता मामले मामले मामले मामले, , , , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालयखाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालयखाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालयखाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

((((उपभोक्ताउपभोक्ताउपभोक्ताउपभोक्ता मामले िवभाग मामले िवभाग मामले िवभाग मामले िवभाग))))

((((भारतीय मानक ब्यूभारतीय मानक ब्यूभारतीय मानक ब्यूभारतीय मानक ब्यूरोरोरोरो))))

नई दिल्ली, 25 जनवरी, 2017

काकाकाका....आआआआ.... 288288288288....————भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम (4) के उपिविनयम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

[सं. सीएमडी/13:11]

सुनील कु मार, वैCानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख614 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11, 2017/MAGHA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 25th January, 2017

S.O. 288.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule :—

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:11]

SUNIL KUMAR, Scientist F & Head

नई दिल्ली, 25 जनवरी, 2017

काकाकाका....आआआआ.... 289289289289....————भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम (5) के उपिविनयम (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अिधसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद् /स्थगित कर दिया गया है :-

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

[सं. सीएमडी/13:13]

सुनील कु मार, वैCानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 25th January, 2017

S.O. 289.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:13]

SUNIL KUMAR, Scientist F & Head

नई दिल्ली, 25 जनवरी, 2017

काकाकाका....आआआआ.... 290290290290....————भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम (4) के उपिविनयम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

[सं. सीएमडी/13:11]

सुनील कु मार, वैCानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 25th January, 2017

S.O. 290.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule :—

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:11]

SUNIL KUMAR, Scientist F & Head

नई दिल्ली, 25 जनवरी, 2017

काकाकाका....आआआआ.... 291291291291....————भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम (5) के उपिविनयम (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद् /स्थगित कर दिया गया है :-

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

[सं. सीएमडी/13:13]

सुनील कु मार, वैCानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 25th January, 2017

S.O. 291.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

[No. CMD/13:13]

SUNIL KUMAR, Scientist F & Head626 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11, 2017/MAGHA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्राालय

नई दिल्ली, 5 जनवरी, 2017

का.आ. 292.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यूसीएल

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

अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 41/02द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03.01.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/118/2001-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]

राजेन्द्र सह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2017

S.O. 292.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/02) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Western Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.01.2017.

[No. L-22012/118/2001-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/41/02

Shri Laxman Deharia, S/o Shri Chhavi, Village Umegaon, Post Umegaon, Distt. Chhindwara

…Workman

Versus

General Manager, WCL, Kanhan Area, PO Dungaria, Distt. Chhindwara …Management

AWARD

Passed on this 28th day of September, 2016

1. As per letter dated 22-2-02 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- 22012/118/2001-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Nandan Mine No.1 of WCL, Kanhan Area, Distt. Chhindwara in terminating Shri Laxman Deharia S/o Chhabi w.e.f. 27-11-99 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at Page 2/1 to 2/3. Case of Ist party workman is that he was working as General Mazdoor in 2nd party from 20-4-91. During course of his employment, he met with accident while crossing Rail line. He suffered grievous injury. Secondly he was unable to do his work. He received treatment in Medical College Nagpur and Kanhan Area Hospital. After he recovered of his injuries, he was not taken on work. He was assured that because of injuries suffered by him, light work would be provided to him. On 20-6-95, he was declared fit after medical examination. However he was not taken back on work.

3. Ist party workman further contends that as per oral directions, he was not taken back on work is inductive. He had submitted applications to the Competent Authority and Court but he was not allowed back to work. He was not given any intimation about any enquiry conducted against him. Ist party workman prays that he may be reinstated with backwages since the date he was declared fit on 20-6-95.

4. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/9 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party contends that Ist party workman was working as General Mazdoor. He was habitual absentee. Workman remained unauthorisely absent without intimation or sanctioned leave. Ample opportunities were given to Ist party to improve but he did not show any interest in service. workman returned to duty according to his wishes. Workman considered concession shown to him as weakness of management and remained unauthorized absent frequently. During 1996 to 1999, attendance of workman was Nil. That chargesheet was issued to workman. Workman put his thumb impression in token of receiving chargesheet. Shri B.B.Mishra was appointed as Enquiry Officer, Shri Chakravorty as Presenting Officer. Enquiry was conducted on various dates, details given in para-5 of the Written Statement. Memo of enquiry were issued to workman. Workman had attended Enquiry Proceeding and requested adjournment.

5. Management's witness Shri Ratanpal was examined in enquiry. Ist party had denied to cross examine him. Ist party workman had stated in his statement that he is working in mine since 24-6-76, he was injured in mine on 20-4-91 having injury on his leg and back. Ist party workman was asked by Doctor for operation but he did not convey any date for operation and hence he was waiting for the same. Workman was not given any treatment neither he was declared fit. Management's Representative cross examined CSE. Accident slip, ordinary paper and discharge slip were produced by the CSE. Enquiry Officer in his report held the charges against workman were proved. Disciplinary Authority examined the report and agreed with the report of Enquiry Officer. The punishment of termination was imposed against him. 2nd party reiterates that 2nd party provides medical facility, LTC, LLTC and several other facilities to its employees. Workman could not be continued in service as he had become dead wood. 2nd party submits that the punishment imposed against workman is proper and legal. The reference be answered in it is favour.

6. As per order dated 29-11-13, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal.

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

REASONS

8. As per order dated 29-11-13, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal. The point whether charges of absence alleged against workman are proved or not needs to be decided from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Exhibit M-1 is charge sheet issued to workman pertaining to his unauthorized absence from 1-1-98 till date of issuing chargesheet 17-4-99 misconduct alleged under clause 26(30) of standing orders. As per record of Enquiry Proceeding at Page 12/9, the Ist party workman had denied charges against him. Management Representative narrated that attendance of Ist party during the year 1996 to 1998 was Nil. Management's Representative w2as not cross-examined. Even from pleadings of Ist party in statement of claim, it is clear that he had suffered injuries. Thereafter he had suffered injuries. Thereafter he is not allowed to work. The statement of management's witness Ratanpal at Page 12/13 shows that he was dealing with the payments of the employees. Workman had not worked for a single day during 1996 to 1997. The document produced by witness is marked Exhibit M-3. The statement of CSE/workman was recorded. He stated that he was working in the mine since 24-6-76. He suffered injury on 20-4-91 in his leg and back. He was receiving treatment in the hospital. He was not declared fit. Evidence in Enquiry Proceedings clearly shows that workman had not given intimation about his absence. Therefore charge of unauthorized absence alleged against workman is proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

9. Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No. charge of unauthorized absence against workman is established, question remains for consideration whether the punishment of termination imposed against workman is legal? Ist party workman in his statement before Enquiry Officer has stated that he was working in the mine from 24-6-76. He suffered accidental injuries on 20-4-91, he was not declared fit. Enquiry Officer did not consider his statement. Disciplinary Authority also did not consider the statement of Ist party workman. The charge alleged against workman pertains to unauthorized absence from 1-1-98 till charge sheet issued to him on 14-4-99 is proved.

10. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri R.C.Shrivastva submits that there was no charge of habitual absence against workman , therefore his previous absence could not be considered as proved misconduct. Document ME-2 produced in Enquiry Proceedings is discharge certificate dated 20-4-91. Workman was declared fit for duty from 31-5-91. Charge pertains to unauthorized absence from 1-1-98. Therefore the absence of Ist party workman prior to the period subject to charge cannot be said unauthorized absence. Exhibit AW-3 is discharge note. Ist party workman was admitted in hospital on 19-8-92 shows on X-ray Examination and line of treatment provided to the Ist party workman. Without considering said document, punishment of dismissal has been imposed against workman could not be justified. Considering the above document, punishment of termination imposed against workman is not legal. The length of service and injuries suffered by workman. Workmen received treatment in hospital. Document Exhibit W-1 workman had complained backache was also not considered. Exhibit W-2 Review report submitted by Medical Officer dated 23- 3-92 that workman was reported spinal canal stenosis. As per Exhibit W-3 on review, it was diagnosed as Early Lumber Canal Stenosis. Exhibit W-4 workman was provided treatment SWD – Tablet Brufan. Exhibit W-5 workman was advised treatment of Lumber Canal Stenosis. As per Exhibit W-6, workman was directed to attend hospital on 22- 7-95. In cross-examination of workman in para-18, he says on 20-4-91, he suffered injuries and taken to the hospital, he was referred to Medical Officer, he received treatment for 2 years. He suffered injury at his spine. In para-20, he says he was declared unfit in 1992. Considering all these evidence and documents, punishment of termination imposed against workman appears disproportionate.

11. Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri A.K.Shashi emphasized that charges of unauthorized absence are proved, punishment of dismissal is proper. Considering the documents Exhibit W-1 to W-5, punishment of dismissal of workman is disproportionate. As workman had not given intimation about his absence from duty, punishment of with- holding two increments with cumulative effect would be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

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

(1) The action of the management in terminating the services of workman is not legal.

(2) Punishment of termination of workman is modified to withholding two increments with cumulative effect.

(3) 2nd party is directed to reinstate workman with continuity of service with 50 % backwages.

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

नई दिल्ली, 1 पफरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 293.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स मुम्बई

इंटरनेशनल एअरपोर्ट प्रा. लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2, मुम्बई के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 2/16 ऑपफ 2016द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01.02.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-11012/04/2016-आईआर ;सीएम-Iद्ध]

एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2017

S.O. 293.—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. 2, Mumbai (Ref. No. 2/16 of 2017) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 01.02.2017.

[No. L-11012/04/2016-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/16 of 2016

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

1. MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.

2. M/S. SHREE SAI RENT A CAR PVT. LTD.

The Managing Director Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport 1st floor, Terminal 1-B, Santacruz (E) Mumbai 400 099.

M/s. Shree Sai Rent a Car Pvt. Ltd. A/4, Mahavir Nagar Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Factory Lane Borivali (West) Mumbai 400 092.

AND

THEIR WORKMAN

The Secretary Sarva Shramik Sangh 'Shramik' Royal Crest 31, Lokmanya Tilak Vasahat Road No.3 Dadar (E) Mumbai 400 014.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER No. (1)              :      Ms. Mitra Das,  Advocate.
FOR THE EMPLOYER No. (2)              :      Mr. Mahesh Shukla,  Advocate.
FOR THE WORKMEN                       :      Mr. Abhay Kulkarni,  Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 14th December, 2016.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-11012/04/2016-IR ( CM-I ), dated 15.03.2016 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 demand of the union to declare the workmen mentioned and enlisted in the Annexure –A to be

the workers of M/s. Mumbai International Airports Pvt. Ltd. (MIAL) with retrospective effect from the date of

completion of 240 days of service from the initial joining dates is legal, proper and justified ? If so, what relief

the workmen are entitled to? 2. Whether the demand of the union that the workmen mentioned in Annexure-A

be given the wages and other benefits of the corresponding regular employees of MIAL with regard to the skill

levels is proper and justified ? If so, what relief the workmen are entitled to? 3. Whether the demand of the

union to ensure the continuity of the employment of the workmen mentioned in Annexure-A in the same works

in case the contracts get changed and the new contractors are engaged pending realization of the above

demands is legal, proper and justified? If so, what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

List of workmen

1. Shri Sanjiv S. Suryavanshi

2. Shri Rajendra B. Mane

3. Shri Daji Antu Patil

4. Shri Rajaram M. Patil

5. Shri Satish D. Jadhav

6. Shri Kishor R. Tavare

7. Shri Vijay Bhimrao Pol

8. Shri Suresh N. Pujari

9. Shri Rajesh G. Mayekar

10. Shri Imtiyaz Shaik

11. Shri Yasin Shaik

12. Shri Nazir A. Maniyar

13. Shri Ajit Anna Karade

14. Shri Sachin S. Katakdhond

15. Shri Dhananjay M. Pawar

16. Shri Sidharth B. Sasane

17. Shri Anil K. Badekar

18. Shri Santosh K. Shinde

19. Shri Ravan Babu Khune

20. Shri Mahesh U. Mote

21. Shri Abasaheb K. Shinde

22. Shri Dyanand M. Bansode

23. Shri Govindkumar R. Kanojiya

24. Shri Ganesh P. Bhor

25. Shri Pravin K. Shinde

26. Shri Raghnandan M. Ghalvankar

27. Shri Shashikant S. Deshmane

28. Shri Vishnu L. Giri

29. Shri Shrikant S. Masane

30. Shri Ratish S. Padlekar

31. Shri Anand A. Narvekar

32. Shri Salil C. Kambale

33. Shri Samar R. Saha

34. Shri Rajendra R. Warange

35. Shri Sopan N. Narale

36. Shri Ramchandra G. Yadav

37. Shri Basappa S. Mali

38. Shri Sanjay S. Khandare

39. --

40. Shri Shantaram C. Dhaybar

41. Shri Dinesh Kishor Jadhav

42. Shri Devid R. Lalzare

43. Shri Vishal R. Dhopte

44. Shri Diraj R. Chabriya

45. Shri Devendra S. Dhuri

46. Shri Manoj M. Salunke

47. Shri Satvendrasingh Manku

48. Shri Jonesbabu Balichakra

49. Shri Sohel A. Rashid

50. Shri Roshan Y. Salvi

51. Shri Ramesh Bakuni

2. After receipt of the reference notices were issued to both parties. Second party union filed their Statement of Claim at Ex-4 and Interim Relief Application (Ex-5). First party No.1 & 2 filed their reply on IR application and Orders were passed on IR application on 29.04.2016. Matter was fixed for filing of Written statement by Management No.2 Today both parties appeared before this Tribunal through their legal representatives. Second party Union filed application (Ex-23) for disposing of the Reference as settled along with copy of individual agreements. Second party Union also filed application (Ex-24) stating that Mr. David Lalzare at Sr. No.42 and Mr. A. Rashid at Sr. No.49 in the list annexed with the order of Reference have also settled their claim out of court and no claim is pending. Advocate for management No.1 & 2 endorsed their say below Ex-23. Orders were passed on Ex-23. Accordingly I pass the following order:

ORDER

Reference is disposed off in view of settlement Ex-23. Award be passed in terms of settlement Ex-23.

Date: 14.12.2016

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer/Judge

Ex-23

BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, AT MUMBAI

Ref.CGIT-2/ 16 of 2016

BETWEEN :

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

1. MUMBAI INTERNATION AIRPORT PVT. LTD.

2. M/S. SHREE SAI RENT A CAR PVT. LTD.

…FIRST PARTY

AND

THEIR WORKMEN …SECOND PARTY

MAY IT PLEASE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL:

The Union, Sarva Shramik Sangh, respectfully states and submits as under :

1. The Union has raised a dispute on behalf of the workmen employed by Shri Sai Rent a Car Pvt Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Shree Sai") who were working at Mumbai Airport. The Union, on their behalf, had amongst other relief sought permanency in the services of Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "MIAL") and further that their services should not be terminated by Shree Sai or otherwise. However, by efflux of time, as per their individual contracts of employment the services of the concerned workmen came to an end on 15.04.2016.

2. The Union states that the workmen, individually have settled their claims with their employer i.e. Shree Sai on their own free will and volition and are therefore no longer interested in continuing with the present dispute raised on their behalf by the Union.

3. The Union is placing on record the individual agreements of the concerned workmen hereto annexed and collectively marked as Annexure "A". The present application is also being signed by the concerned workmen.

4. It is therefore respectfully prayed that the reference should no longer be proceeded with the an award be passed in terms of the settlements.

Place : Mumbai

Date : 14/12/2016632 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11, 2017/MAGHA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Sd/-

Sd/-

For and on behalf of

For and on behalf of Shree Sai Rent a Car Pvt. Ltd.

Sarva Shramik Sangh

Name of the employees

नई दिल्ली, 1 पफरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 294.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स स्पाई जैट लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 158/2016द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01.02.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-11012/44/2015-आईआर ;सीएम-Iद्ध]

एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2017

S.O. 294.—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, New Delhi (Ref. No. 158 of 2016) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Spicejet Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 01.02.2017.

[No. L-11012/44/2015-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. 158/2016

The General Secretary, Hindustan Engineering & General Mazdoor Union, D-2/24, Sultanpuri, New Delhi 110 086

…Workman

Versus

1. The Manager,

M/s Spicejet Limited, Domestic Interstate Airport,

Terminal No.1 D, Palam Airport,

New Delhi – 110 037634 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11, 2017/MAGHA 22, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2. The Partner,

M/s Sunshine Enterprises, 49, Ground Floor,

Sant Nagar, East of Kailash,

New Delhi 110 065 …Management

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No.L-11012/44/2015-IR(CM-I) dated 14.09.2016, referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

Whether termination of services of Shri Amit Kumar, S/o Shri Nand Lal by the management of M/s Sunshine Enterprises (Contractor)/Spicejet Ltd. (Principal employer) without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?

2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, the claimant union opted not to file their claim statement with the Tribunal.

3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the claimant union as well as the management. 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 union. Despite service of the notice, claimant union opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on their behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman union is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.

4. Since the claimant union has neither put in their appearance nor have they led any evidence so as to prove their 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 : January 11, 2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 पफरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 295.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एअर

इण्डिया लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार

औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 157/2016द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01.02.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-11012/06/2016-आईआर ;सीएम-Iद्ध]

एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2017

S.O. 295.—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, New Delhi (Ref. No. 157 of 2016) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Air India Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 01.02.2017.

[No. L-11012/06/2016-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. 157/2016

The President, Airport Employees Union (Regd.3750), BTR Bhawan, 13A, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi – 110 002 …Workman635 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 11, 2017/माघ 22, 1938

Versus

1. The General Manager(P),

Air India A-320, Jet Soap Engine Overhaul, IGI Airport, New Delhi 110 037

2. The Contract,

M/s Everest Enterprises, 152-D, Pocket III, Mayur Vihar Phase III, New Delhi – 110096 …Managements

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No.L-11012/06/2016-IR(CM-I) dated 02.09.2016, referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether termination of Shri Ram Sharan and 7 others (list in original application) by the management of Everest Enterprises/Air India Limited with effect from 05.02.2015 without complying with provisions of Industrial Disputes Act,. 1947 is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?"

2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the 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, the claimant union opted not to file their claim statement with the Tribunal.

3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the claimant union as well as the management. 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 union. Despite service of the notice, the claimant union opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on their behalf. Thus, it was clear that the claimant union was not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.

4. Since the claimant union neither put in their appearance nor did they lead any evidence so as to prove their 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 : January 19, 2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी, 2017

का.आ. 296.—कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अध्निियम, 1948 ;1948 का 34द्ध की धरा 1 की उप-धरा ;3द्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का

प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा 1 पफरवरी, 2017 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसे उक्त अध्निियम के अध्याय

IV ;धरा 44 व 45 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी हैद्ध तथा अध्याय V और VI [धरा 76 की उप-धरा ;1द्ध और धरा 77,

78, 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी हैं] के उपबंध मध्य प्रदेश राज्य के निम्नलिखित जिलों के जिला मुख्यालय के

नगरनिगम/नगरपालिका के राजस्व क्षेत्रा की सीमा में प्रवृत्त होंगे :

[सं. एस-38013/03/2017-एस.एस.-I]

अजय मलिक, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2017

S.O. 296.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st February, 2017 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter-IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the Municipal limit of the following District Headquarter in the State of Madhya Pradesh namely :—

[No. S-38013/03/2017-S.S.-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी, 2017

का.आ. 297.—कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अध्निियम, 1948 ;1948 का 34द्ध की धरा 1 की उप-धरा ;3द्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा 1 पफरवरी, 2017 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसे उक्त अध्निियम के अध्याय IV ;धरा 44 व 45 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी हैद्ध तथा अध्याय V और VI [धरा 76 की उप-धरा ;1द्ध और धरा 77, 78, 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है] के उपबंध ;गांवों जो पहले से ही सूचित कर दिया गया और लागू किया है को छोड़करद्ध केरल राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्राों में प्रवृत्त होंगे, अर्थात्‌ :—

[सं. एस-38013/04/2017-एस.एस.-I]

अजय मलिक, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2017

S.O. 297.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st February, 2017 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter-IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following District in the State of Kerala namely :—

[No. S-38013/04/2017-S.S.-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

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.