1494 GI/2017

(1739)

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- 13]

ubZ fnYyh] ekpZ 26—vizSy 1] 2017] 'kfuokj@pS=k 5—pS=k 11] 1939

No. 13]

NEW DELHI, MARCH 26—APRIL 1, 2017, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 5—CHAITRA 11, 1939

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

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

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

foÙk ea=kky;

(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 825--—राीय कृिष और ामीण िवकास बक अिधिनयम, 1981 क धारा 7 क उप-धारा (2) के साथ

पठत धारा 6 क उप-धारा (1) के खड (ग) ारा द शि य! का योग करते $ए, के'(ीय सरकार, एत)ारा, भारतीय

रजव, बक के परामश, से, .ी दीपांकर गु1ा के 2थान पर भारतीय रजव, बक के के'(ीय बोड, से डॉ. अशोक गुलाटी को उनक

िनयुि क अिधसूचना क तारीख से तीन वष, क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश! तक, जो भी पहले हो, राीय कृिष

और ामीण िवकास बक (नाबाड,) के िनदेशक मडल म< िनदेशक नािमत करती है।

[ फा.सं.7/2/2009-बीओ-I]

=ानोतोष राय, , , , अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 9th March, 2017

S.O. 825.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 read with sub-

section (2) of Section 7 of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981, the Central

Government, in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby nominates. Dr. Ashok Gulati from the Central

1740

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 1, 2017/CHAITRA 11, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Board of Reserve Bank of India as Director on the Board of Directors of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural

Development (NABARD) for a period of three years from the date of notification or until further orders, whichever is

earlier vice Shri Dipankar Gupta.

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

JNANATOSH ROY,Under Secy.

नई ?द@ली, 10 माच, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 826

826

826.—राीय कृिष और ामीण िवकास बक अिधिनयम, 1981 (1981 का 61) क धारा 7 क उप-धारा

(2) के साथ पठत धारा 6 क उप-धारा (1) के खड (ख) ारा द शि य! का योग करते $ए, के'(ीय सरकार,

एत)ारा, भारतीय रजव, बक के परामश, से, .ी अिनल कुमार बंसल (ज'म ितिथ: 22.05.1953) को उनक िनयुि क

अिधसूचना क तारीख से तीन वष, क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश! तक, जो भी पहले हो, राीय कृिष और ामीण

िवकास बक (नाबाड,) के िनदेशक मडल म< इस शत, के अKयधीन अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक नािमत करती है ?क

नाबाड, के बोड, म< काय,भार हण करने से पहले उ'ह< आईएफसीआई इंPा2QRचर डेवलपम<ट िल., स<ट बक होम फाइन<स

कंपनी िल. और अलं?कत ?फनसैक िलिमटेड के बोड, से Tयाग-पU देना होगा।

[फा.सं. 7/7/2015-बीओ-I]

=ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2017

S.O. 826.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 read with sub-section

(2) of Section 7 of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 (61 of 1981), the Central

Government, in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby nominates Shri Anil Kumar Bansal (DoB :

22.05.1953) as Part Time Non Official Director on the Board of Directors of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural

Development (NABARD), for a period of three years from the date of notification of his appointment or until further

orders, whichever is earlier, subject to the condition that he will resign from the Board of IFCI Infrastructure

Development Ltd, Cent Bank Home Finance Company Limited and Alankit Finsec Limited before joining the Board of

NABARD.

[F. No. 7/7/2015-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई ?द@ली, 11 माच, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 827

827

827.—भारतीय रजव, बक अिधिनयम, 1934, (1934 का 2) क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (1) ारा द

शि य! का योग करते $ए, के'(ीय सरकार, एत)ारा, .ी दाराज वी. सलगाओकर के 2थान पर .ी ?दलीप एस. सांघवी

को उनक िनयुि क अिधसूचना क तारीख से चार वष, क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश! तक, जो भी पहले हो,

भारतीय रजव, बक के पि\मी 2थानीय बोड, म< अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी सद2य के पद पर िनयु करती है।

[फा.सं. 1/7/2016-बीओ-I]

=ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2017

S.O. 827.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Reserve Bank of India Act,

1934 (2 of 1934), The Central Government hereby appoints Shri Dilip S. Shanghvi as part-time non official Member on

the Western Local Board of Reserve Bank of India, for a period of four years from the date of notification of his

appointment or until further orders, whichever is earlier vice Shri Dattaraj V. Salgaocar.

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

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 1] 2017@pS=k 11] 1939

1741

नई ?द@ली, 11 माच, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 828

828

828.—भारतीय रजव, बक अिधिनयम, 1934 क धारा 8 क उप-धारा (4) के साथ पठत उप-धारा 1 के

खंड (क) ारा द शि य! का योग करते $ए, के'(ीय सरकार, एत)ारा, .ी आर. गांधी के 2थान पर भारतीय रजव,

बक के काय,पालक िनदेशक .ी बी. पी. कानूनगो (ज'म ितिथ: 05.05.1959) को ?दनांक 03.04.2017 को या इसके प\ात

पदभार हण करने क तारीख से तीन वष, क अविध के िलए या अगले आदेश! तक, जो भी पहले हो, भारतीय रजव, बक

के िड^टी गवन,र के पद पर िनयु करती है।

[फा.सं. 1/1/2011-बीओ-I]

=ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2017

S.O. 828.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Sub-Section 1 read with Sub-Section (4) of

Section 8 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri B. P. Kanungo (DOB:

05.05.1959), Executive Director, Reserve Bank of India as Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India for a period of

three years from the date of his taking over charge of the post on or after i.e. 3.04.2017 or until further orders,

whichever is earlier vice Shri R. Gandhi.

[F. No. 1/1/2011-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई ?द@ली, 18 माच, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 829

829

829.—राीयकृत बक (बंध एवं कण, उपबंध) 2कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड (1), खंड 6

और खंड 8 के उप-खंड (1) के साथ पठत, बककारी कंपनी (उप_म! का अज,न एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 क

धारा 9 क उप-धारा (3) के खंड (क) ारा द शि य! का योग करते $ए, के'(ीय सरकार, एत)ारा, आईडीबीआई बक

िल. के बंध िनदेशक एवं मु`य काय,कारी अिधकारी .ी ?कशोर िपराजी खरात (ज'म ितिथ: 04.09.1958) को उनके

वत,मान काय,काल क शेष अविध अथवा अगले आदेश! तक, जो भी पहले हो, इंिडयन बक म< बंध िनदेशक एवं मु`य

काय,कारी अिधकारी िनयु करती है।

[फा.सं. 13/8(1) 2015-बीओ-I]

=ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 18th March, 2017

S.O. 829.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3, clause 6

and sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints Shri Kishor Piraji Kharat (DoB: 04.09.1958), MD&CEO, IDBI

Bank Ltd. as MD&CEO of Indian Bank for the remaining period of his current tenure, or until further orders,

whichever is earlier.

[F. No.13/8(1)2015-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

वािण य एवं उोग मंालय

(वािण य

(वािण य िवभाग)

िवभाग)

नई ?द@ली, 28 माच, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 830

830

830.—के'(ीय सरकार, िनया,त (गुणवा िनयंUण एवं िनरीbण) िनयम, 1964 के िनयम 12, के

उपिनयम (2) के साथ पठत, िनया,त (गुणवा िनयंUण एवं िनरीbण) अिधिनयम, 1963 (1963 का 22) क धारा 7 क

उपधारा (1) ारा द शि य! का योग करते $ए एत)ारा मैसस, सीसीआईसी इंिडया ाइवेट िलिमटेड, .ीजी हाउस,

^लॉट सं. 269, पहली तथा दूसरी मंिजल, सैRटर-1ए, गांधीधाम, कcछ, गुजरात – 370201 को इस अिधसूचना के काशन

1742

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 1, 2017/CHAITRA 11, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

क तारीख से तीन वष, क अविध के िलए भारत सरकार, वािणeय मंUालय क अिधसूचना सं. का.आ. 3975, तारीख

20 ?दसfबर, 1965 क अनुसूची म< िविनgद,h खिनज और अय2क समूह-I, अथा,त् लौह अय2क तथा बॉRसाइट के िनया,त से

पूव, िनkिलिखत शतl के अधीन कांडला पन, पोरबंदर पन, ओखा पन, बेदी पन, मांडवी पन तथा मु'(ा पन पर

उ खिनज! और अय2क! का िनरीbण करने के िलए एक अिभकरण के mप म< मा'यता देती है, अथा,त् :-

(i) यह ?क मैसस, सीसीआईसी इंिडया ाइवेट िलिमटेड, .ीजी हाउस, ^लॉट सं. 269, पहली तथा दूसरी मंिजल, सैRटर-

1ए, गांधीधाम, कcछ, गुजरात - 370201, खिनज और अय2क समूह- I िनया,त (िनरीbण) िनयम, 1965 के िनयम 4

के अधीन िविनgद,h िनरीbण करने के िलये िनया,त िनरीbण परषद् ारा नािमत अिधकारय! को पया,1 सुिवधाएं

देगी; और

(ii) यह ?क मैसस, सीसीआईसी इंिडया ाइवेट िलिमटेड, .ीजी हाउस, ^लॉट सं. 269, पहली तथा दूसरी मंिजल, सैRटर-

1ए, गांधीधाम, कcछ, गुजरात - 370201, इस अिधसूचना के अधीन अपने कायl के िनnपादन म< िनदेशक (िनरीbण

और गुणवा िनयंUण), िनया,त िनरीbण परषद ारा समय-समय पर िलिखत mप म< ?दए गए ऐसे िनदpश! से आबq

होगी।

[ फा.सं. के-डीओसी-16/14(6)/2017 - िनया,त िनरीbण ]

संतोष कुमार सारंगी, संयु सिचव

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 28th March, 2017

S.O. 830.—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 recognises M/s. CCIC India Pvt. Ltd., Shreeji House, Plot No.

269, 1st & 2nd Floor, Sector-1A, Gandhidham, Kutch, Gujarat - 370201, as an agency for a period of three years from

the date of publication of this notification, for the inspection of Minerals and Ores Group-I, namely, Iron Ore and

Bauxite specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce

vide number S.O. 3975, dated the 20^thDecember, 1965, prior to export of said Minerals and Ores at Kandla Port,

Porbandar Port, Okha Port, Bedi Port, Mandvi Port and Mundra Port, subject to the following conditions, namely: -

(i)

that M/s. CCIC India Pvt. Ltd., Shreeji House, Plot No. 269, 1st & 2nd Floor, Sector-1A, Gandhidham, Kutch,

Gujarat - 370201, 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)

that M/s. CCIC India Pvt. Ltd., Shreeji House, Plot No. 269, 1st & 2nd Floor, Sector-1A, Gandhidham, Kutch,

Gujarat - 370201, 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. K-DoC-16/14(6)/2017 – Export Inspection]

SANTOSH KUMAR SARANGI, Jt. Secy.

नई ?द@ ली, 28 माच, 2017

का.आ. 831

831

831.—के'(ीय सरकार, िनया,त (गुणवा िनयंUण एवं िनरीbण) िनयम, 1964 के िनयम 12, के

उपिनयम (2) के साथ पठत, िनया,त (गुणवा िनयंUण एंव िनरीbण) अिधिनयम, 1963 (1963 का 22) क धारा 7 क

उपधारा (1) ारा द शि य! का योग करते $ए, मैसस, थैरा^युटRस केिमकल रसच, कॉपrरेशन, दूसरी तथा तीसरी

मंिज़ल, िशव औsोिगक bेU, के.वी. बालमुकुंद माग, बाइकुला माल िडपो के पास, tचंचपोकली (ई), मुंबई - 400012,

महारा, को इस अिधसूचना के राजपU म< काशन क तारीख से तीन वष, क अविध के िलए भारत सरकार के वािणeय

मंUालय क भारत राजपU भाग-II, खं ड-3, उप खं ड (ii) म< ?दनांक 20 ?दसfबर, 1965 क अिधसूचना सं. का.आ. 3975

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 1] 2017@pS=k 11] 1939

1743

क अनुसूची म< िविनgद,h खिनज और अय2क समूह-।, अथा,त् बॉRसाइट तथा लौह अय2क के िनया,त से पूव, िनkिलिखत शतl

के अधीन महारा के धरमतर पन, जयगढ़ पन और रेडी पन पर उ खिनज! और अय2क! का िनरीbण करने के िलए

एक अिभकरण के uप म< मा'यता देती है, अथा,त् :-

(i)

मैसस, थैरा^युटRस केिमकल रसच, कॉपrरेशन, दूसरी तथा तीसरी मंिज़ल, िशव औsोिगक bेU, के॰वी॰ बालमुकुंद

माग, बाइकुला माल िडपो के पास, tचंचपोकली (ई), मुंबई – 400012, महारा, खिनज और अय2क समूह-I का

िनया,त (िनरीbण) िनयम, 1965 के िनयम 4 के अधीन िविनgद,h िनरीbण का काया,'वयन करने के िलये उनके ारा

अपनाई गई िविध क जाँच करने के िलए िनया,त िनरीbण परषद् ारा नािमत अिधकारय! को पया,1 सुिवधाएं

देगी; और

(ii) मैसस, थैरा^युटRस केिमकल रसच, कॉपrरेशन, दूसरी तथा तीसरी मंिज़ल, िशव औsोिगक bेU, के.वी. बालमुकुंद माग,

बाइकुला माल िडपो के पास, tचंचपोकली (ई), मुंबई – 400012, महारा, इस अिधसूचना के अधीन अपने कायl के

िनnपादन म< िनदेशक (िनरीbण और गुणवा िनयंUण), िनया,त िनरीbण परषद ारा समय-समय पर िलिखत mप म<

?दए गए ऐसे िनदpश! से आबq होगी।

[ फा.सं. के-डीओसी/16/14(4)/2017 - िनया,त िनरीbण ]

संतोष कुमार सारंगी, संयु सिचव

New Delhi, the 28th March, 2017

S.O. 831.—In exercise of the powers conferred by 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 recognises M/s. Therapeutics Chemical Research Corporation, 2^ndand 3^rd

Floor, Shiv Industrial Estate, K.V. Balmukund Marg, Near Byculla Goods Depot, Chinchpokli (E), Mumbai – 400012,

Maharashtra, as an agency for a period of three years from the date of publication of this notification, for the inspection

of Minerals and Ores–Group-I, namely, Bauxite and Iron Ore as specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of

the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, section

3, sub-section (ii) vide S.O. 3975 dated the 20^thDecember, 1965, prior to export of said Minerals and Ores at Dharamtar

Port, Jaigarh Port and Redi Port Maharashtra, subject to the following conditions, namely: -

(i)

that M/s. Therapeutics Chemical Research Corporation, 2^ndand 3^rd Floor, Shiv Industrial Estate, K.V.

Balmukund Marg, Near Byculla Goods Depot, Chinchpokli (E), Mumbai – 400012, Maharashtra, 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)

that M/s. Therapeutics Chemical Research Corporation, 2^ndand 3^rd Floor, Shiv Industrial Estate, K.V.

Balmukund Marg, Near Byculla Goods Depot, Chinchpokli (E), Mumbai – 400012, Maharashtra, 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. K-DoC/16/14(4)/2017 – Export Inspection]

SANTOSH KUMAR SARANGI, Jt. Secy.

िवदेश मं ालय

(सी.पी.वी. भाग)

नई द ली, 22 माच, 2017

का.आ. 832

832

832.—राजनियक और क!सुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 14) क

धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म< वैधािनक आदेश ।

1744

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 1, 2017/CHAITRA 11, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

एत)ारा, क<( सरकार भारत के धान क!सलावास, दुबई म< .ी अिल' द कुमार सूरज, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी

और .ीमित िUशला, कुमारी, िनजी सहायक को ?दनांक 15 माच, 2017 से सहायक क!सुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर क!सुलर

सेवाw के िनव,हन के िलए ािधकृत करती है।

[सं. टी-4330/01/2017]

काश च'द, िनदेशक (क!सुलर)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2017

S.O. 832.—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 Alind Kumar Suraj,

Assistant Section Officer and Smt. Trishla Kumari, PA as Assistant Consular Officers in Consulate General of India,

Balio to perform the Consular services with effect from 15 March, 2017.

[No.T-4330/01/2017]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

नई ?द@ ली, 22 माच, 2017

का.आ. 833

833

833.—राजनियक और क!सुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 14) क

धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म< वैधािनक आदेश ।

एत)ारा, क<( सरकार भारत के धान क!सलावास, िशकागो म< .ी जे.पी. संतोष, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को

?दनांक 16 माच, 2017 से सहायक क!सुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर क!सुलर सेवाw के िनव,हन के िलए ािधकृत करती है।

[सं. टी-4330/01/2015]

काश च'द, िनदेशक (क!सुलर)

New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2017

S.O. 833.—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 J.P. Santosh, Assistant

Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate General of India, Chicago to perform the Consular services

with effect from 16 March, 2017.

[No.T-4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

म एवं रोजगार मंालय

नई ?द@ ली, 20 माच, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 834.

834.

834.—औsोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म< के' (ीय

सरकार िनदेशक, ऑल इंिडया इं2 टीyूट ऑफ मेिडकल साइंस, नई ?द@ ली एवं उनके कम,चारी के बंधतंU के संबंq

िनयोजक! और उनके कम,कार! के बीच अनुबंध म< िनgद,n ट औsोिगक िववाद म< के' (ीय सरकार औsोिगक अिधकरण एवं

.म ' यायालय सं. 1, ?द@ ली पंचाट (संदभ, सं` या 65/2015) को कािशत करती है, जो के' (ीय सरकारको 28/02/2017

को ा^ त $आ था।

[सं. एल-42012/201/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]

राजे' ( जोशी, उप िनदेशक

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 1] 2017@pS=k 11] 1939

1745

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 20^th March, 2017

S.O. 834.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (ID. Case No. 65/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director, All

India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

28/02/2017.

[No. L-42012/201/2014-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

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. 65/2015

Smt.Geeta Kumari,

1079-B, Pragati Apartment,

Ward No.1, Mehrouli,

New Delhi-110030

…Workman

Versus

The Director,

All India Institute of Medical Sciences,

Ansari Road,

New Delhi-110 029

…Management

AWARD

This is a reference received from Government of India under clause(d) of sub-section(I) and sub-section (2A)

of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute vide letter

No. L-42012/201/2014-IR(DU) dated 29.01.2015, the term of which are as under:-

“Should a lady employee be denied Maternity leave if she bears third child even after having undergone

Family Planning Operation in a Govt.’/Recognized hospital? and should such lady employee be deprived of

any or all facilities/Allowances for the third child which are admissible only up to and including second child

? If not, to what benefit/compensation/concession is such a lady entitled to from the hospital or the employer.

2. It is averred in the statement of claim that claimant is working on the post of a Sister Grade-II nurse in the All

India Institute of Medical Sciences(AIIMS) since 22^nd December,2006. She had two surviving children and it was

decided by her to adopt family planning measures. Accordingly, the claimant underwent a Tubectomy Operation on

11.03.2013. The operation was done at the claimant’s workplace itself i.e. AIIMS, by Dr. Vaishali Sharma, a Senior

Resident of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department of AIIMS.

After undergoing sterilization, claimant conceived another child after four months of the above operation. She

faced huge emotional and mental suffering and trauma as she had conceived against her wishes.

Thereafter, on 11/11/2013 she wrote a letter to the management to grant her maternity leave as she had no

intention of having a third child and permanent sterilization operation was conducted at the work place of the

management and as a matter of principle, she did not abort the fetus . The claimant was told by the respondent on

06.12.2013 that her request cannot be considered and was advised to submit another letter for reconsideration.

Accordingly, the claimant again submitted a letter of reconsideration on 17.12.2013, stating the reason of availing

maternity leave. The management rejected the request of the claimant on 19.12.2013. The management also vide letter

dated 24.02.2014, communicated to the claimant regarding repudiation of her Family Planning allowance of

Rs.450/- per month. It was also communicated that request for maternity leave has not been granted.

5. Due to the birth of the third child, the claimant had to exhaust her 42 days of accrued Earned Leave and had to

remain without –pay for a period of 4 months without any fault on her part. The claimant was entitled for encashment

of E.L at the time of leaving/superannuating from her services. The claimant also incurred financial liability in relation

to medical and health expenses and general well being during pregnancy and delivery of the child. The claimant felt

aggrieved by the denial of the aforesaid benefits, the claimant approached the Labour Commissioner, New Delhi and

1746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 1, 2017/CHAITRA 11, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

aired her grievances vide letter dated 22.04.2014. The Assistant Labour Commissioner © , New Delhi held conciliatory

meetings between the claimant and the respondent to resolve the impasse. However, no settlement could be arrived at,

as a result of which vide a letter dated 28.08.2014, filed a Failure of Conciliation Report . The matter was referred to

the appropriate government by way of the above reference for adjudication.

The management was put to notice and none appeared on behalf of the management on 27.03.2015,

17.04.2015 and 11.06.2015. Fresh notice was ordered to be issued to the management on 12.08.2015, despite receipt

of the notice, none appeared on behalf of the management as a result, management was proceeded Ex-parte vide a letter

dated 10.02.2016.

The claimant, Smt. Geeta Kumari, in support of her case examined her self WW1 and tendered her documents

Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/8 and closed her evidence. It is clear from the perusal of the affidavit Ex.WW1/A that the

claimant was working Sister Grade-II nurse with the management. Necessary Sterilisation Certificate,Ex. WW1/1

clearly shows that Dr. Vaishali Sharma had conducted Tubectomy operation on Geeta Kumari in AIIMS on

11/03/2013. Further, claimant has filed an application for Maternity leave vide a letter Ex. WW1/2. It is clearly

mentioned in this application that she has undergone Family Planning (permanent) operation on 11/03/2013 at AIIMS.

And she conceived a child after 4 months of the aforesaid operation. It was her third child against her wishes. She had

not taken any Maternity leave, when she gave birth other two children. Letter Ex.WW1/3 shows that on the advice of

the management, she further submitted another application for granting of Maternity Leave which was rejected by the

management vide Ex.WW1/4 by mentioning “as per leave rules, Maternity leave is admissible for less than two

surviving children”.

The birth of third child has really caused mental pain and suffering to the claimant. The management vide

letter Ex.WW1/5 , stopped the payment of Family Planning Allowance for Rs.450/-per month to the claimant.

The claimant has also tendered in evidence, salary certificate, Ex.WW1/6. The perusal of the above certificate

clearly shows that management has deducted amount of Rs.20,000/- after the delivery of the third child, from the salary

of the claimant, every month, which she was earlier getting.

10.

Lastly, the claimant had written to the Labour Commissioner vide letter Ex.WW1/7, mentioning her

grievances. Thereafter, the management appeared before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and stand of the

management was also clear from the letter Ex.WW1/8 that in view of quoted Rules and GI.I. Deptt of Posts, letter

No.14-2/88 Medical dated 28^th October, 1988 issued in consultation with Ministry of Family and Health Welfare vide

their UO No. 2311/3/88-Ply dated 14^th June, 1988, the claimant is not entitled for granting of Maternity Leave,

compensation facility of family planning etc.

11.

It was strongly urged on behalf of the claimant, that the birth of the third child has taken place against the

wishes of the claimant as she has undergone Tubectomy Operation on 11/03/2013 , as is clear from the certificate of

sterilization Ex.WW1/1.It is n either in doubt nor in dispute that sterilization operation was conducted by Dr. Vaishali

Sharma, a Senior Resident of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department of AIIMS and Also Dr.Vatsla Dadhwal have

conducted Tubectomy operation on Geeta Kumari in AIIMS on 11/03/13. The certificate Ex.WW1/1 also shows that

the operation was successfully conducted and also bears the signature of Geeta Kumari.

12.

There is considerable force , in the contention of the claimant, that deduction from the salary i.e. Rs. 20,000/-

after the delivery of the third child on account of payment of Family Planning Allowance which claimant was getting

earlier, is totally illegal and unjustified in as much as there is no fault of claimant for the third child which she has

delivered against her wish.

13.

Admittedly, there was no precaution to be taken by the claimant after the Tubectomy operation, despite all

this, the claimant has become pregnant , resulting in delivery of third child. She cannot be blamed in any manner for

delivery of third child. More over, this operation has admittedly taken place in the AIIMS and the sterilization

operation was conducted by Dr.Vaishali Sharma, a Senior Resident of the Obstetrics and Gynecologist. The

management has not taken rational and holistic view of the circumstances of the case as a result of which claimant has

suffered both physically and mentally. The stand of the management that in view of the letter No.ALC-II/45(02)/2014

dated 28.08.2014 Ex.WW1/8 referred to in Failure report that the claimant cannot be granted the benefits in view of

quoted Rules and G.I.I.Deptt of Posts, letter number 14-2/88 Medical dated 28^th October, 1988 issued in consultation

with Ministry of Family and Health Welfare vide their UO No.2311/3/88-Ply dated 14^th June, 1988, is totally wrong

and against the spirit of the said letter .Even the management has observed earlier that contention of claimant appears to

be rational. But existing norms do not support her case. This letter no where provides that the claimant would not be

entitled the earlier getting benefits on account of failure of Tubectomy operation after two surviving children and when

third child is born against the wish of woman who has already undergone such operation , there is no fault of the

claimant if she became pregnant after 4 months when tubectomy was performed by Senior i.e. Dr. Vailashi Sharma a

Senior Resident of the Obstetrics and Gynecologist of the management. Resultantly, the above letter would apply to a

case when delivery of the third child is in the ordinary course without any prior tubectomy having been conducted

upon an employee . The tribunal is of the considered opinion that such an employee cannot be denied maternity leave

and other benefits if she bears a third child in spite of family planning operation in a Government hospital which is of

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 1] 2017@pS=k 11] 1939

1747

International repute. Nor such a lady employee can be deprived of facility/allowances for giving birth to such third

involuntary child, which are otherwise admissible to her.

14. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion , it is held the action of the management in denying the maternity leave

on account of bearing of the third unwanted child after successful family planning operation is totally illegal and

unjustified. In view of this, it is further held that claimant cannot be deprived of any benefit including Family Planning

allowance, Education allowance etc as such claimant is held entitled to the recovery of all such benefits

withdrawn/denied to her on account of delivery of third unwanted child, which are admissible to a lady employee,

having only 2 children, with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of reference till its payment by the management.

An award is accordingly passed. Let it be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

22.02.2014

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई ?द@ ली, 20 माच, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 835.

835.

835.—औsोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म< के'(ीय सरकार मैसस,

नैशनल ऍीक@चर कोऑपरेटव माकp{टंग फेडरेशन ऑफ इंिडया िलिमटेड, नई ?द@ली एवं उनके कम,चारी के बंधतंU के

संबq िनयोजक! और उनके कम,कार! के बीच अनुबंध म< िनgद,h औsोिगक िववाद म< के'(ीय सरकार औsोिगक अिधकरण

एवं .म 'यायालय सं. 1 ?द@ली के पंचाट (संदभ, सं`या 108/2016) को कािशत करती है जो के'(ीय सरकार को

16/01/2017 को ा1 $आ था।

[सं. एल-42025/03/2017-आईआर (डीयू)]

राज<( जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 20^th March, 2017

S.O. 835.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (ID. Case No. 108/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunalcum

Labour Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

M/s. National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd., New Delhi and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 16/01/2017.

[No. L-42025/03/2017-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXUE

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. 108/2016

Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh,

Employee Code – 1339,

Senior Dispatch Rider,

F/o 117, Gali No.13, Saronini Park,

Shastri Nagar, New Delhi-110 031

…Workman

Versus

M/s. National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd.

Head Offce : Siddhartha Enclave,

Ashram Chowk, Ring Road,

New Delhi-110 014

…Management

1748

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 1, 2017/CHAITRA 11, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the

management), employed Shri Pradeep Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) as Grading Attendant.. The

management terminated services of the claimant, without giving one month notice or pay in lieu thereof and

retrenchment compensation. This irked the claimant, who raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer.

His claim was contested by the management, hence conciliation proceedings ended into a failure. Since 45 days expired

from the date of moving an application before the Conciliation Officer, Shri Pradeep Kumar opted to file his dispute

before the Tribunal using provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the

Act), without being referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government under section 10(1)(d) of the Act.

Claim statement was filed on behalf the claimant, wherein it is averred that he was appointed by the

management on 09.11.1992 as Grading Assistant. The claimant had unblemished service of record of 23 years and he

worked honestly and sincerely and not a single complaint/allegation was leveled against. Hence was promoted him to

the post of Senior Dispatch Rider on 12.10.2012 and his basic work involved filed work. During the course of his

duties, he met with an accident on 28.06.2014 resulting in severe head injury. The claimant was advised by the

Doctor to under regular check up and proper-uninterrupted medication for atleast two years. During this period, all of a

sudden, vide letter dated 18.12.2014, was directed to join at Indore branch of the management with immediate effect,

without assigning any reasons for his transfer. Despite several requests, management did not accede his request for

transfer, hence he was forced to report at Indore. The workman was suffering financial constraints as he was never

paid his full salary. Then, all of a sudden on 24.03.2015, the claimant received a termination letter, which was issued

by an incompetent authority. Hence, the termination order is illegal, void and non-est. No proper enquiry was

conducted by the Disciplinary Authority and the termination order was passed on the basis of purported letter of

admission of guilt of charges based on surmises and conjectures. The workman is unemployed from the date of his

termination. Finally, it is prayed that the impugned termination order dated 24.03.2015 be set aside and the claimant

be reinstated with full back wages.

Notice of the petition was sent to the management, calling upon them to file their written statement.

In the meanwhile, the claimant approached the court for withdrawal of his application as the parties have

amicably resolved the dispute and the claimant has been re-employed as Dispatch Rider, where he has joined duties on

23.12.2016. On his re-employment, claim of the claimant would stand satisfied. Statement of the claimant was

recorded separately, which shall form integral part of the award. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication.

January 11, 2017

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई ?द@ ली, 20 माच, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 836.

836.

836.—औsोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म< के'(ीय सरकार

िनदेशक, ऑल इंिडया इं2टीyूट ऑफ मेिडकल साइंस, नई ?द@ली एवं उनके कम,चारी के बंधतंU के संबq िनयोजक! और

उनके कम,कार! के बीच अनुबंध म< िनgद,h औsोिगक िववाद म< के'(ीय सरकार औsोिगक अिधकरण एवं .म 'यायालय सं.

1 ?द@ली के पंचाट (संदभ, सं`या 326/2011) को कािशत करती है, जो के'(ीय सरकार को 08/02/2017 को ा1 $आ

था।

[सं. एल-42012/65/2011-आईआर (डीयू)]

राज<( जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 20^th March, 2017

S.O. 836.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (ID. Case No. 326/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

Director, All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 08/02/2017.

[No. L-42012/65/2011- IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 1] 2017@pS=k 11] 1939

1749

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. 326/2011

Shri Vinod Kumar, Khalasi,

H.No. 834, VPO Bakner Thana Narela,

Delhi-110040

Versus

The Director,

All India Institute of Medical Sciences,

Ansari Road,

New Delhi 110 029

…Management

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No.L-42012/65/2011-IR(DU) dated 19.09.2011, referred the following

industrial dispute to this Tribunal 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, for adjudication, the terms of which are as under:-

“Whether the action of the management of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, in

terminating the services of Sh.Vinod Kumar Khalai (A/c), w.e.f. 01/11/2004, is legal and justified ? What

relief the workman is entitled to ? ’’

2. It is the case of the claimant that he was engaged by the management as a Khalasi A.C.(T.S) since 05.06.1995 to

30.10.2004. The Claimant was drawaing his salary @ Rs.5126/- p.m. The whole service period of his work was

satisfactory and there was no complaint against his work or conduct.

3. It is further alleged by the claimant that on 01/11/2004 the respondent/management orally terminated his services

without assigning any reason and serving any notice or Charge Sheet. Thus management had violated the provisions of

section 25F, 25G and 25 H of the Industrial Dispute Act . The management had retained the services of Junior

workman and also made recruitment of fresh candidate, but the workman was not provided the opportunity of

appointment in preference to the new entrance which is clear violation of section 25 (H) of the I.D.Act.

4. The matter was contested by the management who filed Written Statement wherein it is admitted that claimant

started working on daily wages with the Respondent in the year 1995 as Khalasi on Muster Roll (A/C) Engineering

Service Department. He was very casual and un-disciplined in his approach and had never joined his duty regularly so

as to work regularly for 240 days in a year. Therefore , he could not be given the status of Khalai(TS) by the

respondent, whereas the other co-workers were given the status as aforesaid on account of completing continuous

service of 240 days in a Calendar year, which is a condition precedent for giving the status of Khalasi(TS).

5. Against this factual background this tribunal vide order dated 02/05/2012 ,framed the following issues :-

(i) Whether on account of some mistake, the claimant was made excess payment by the management, amounting

to Rs. 32,386.00 ?

(ii) Whether the claimant abandoned his services, when the management started deduction of excess amount paid

to the claimant.?

(iii) As in terms of reference.

The Claimant in support of his claim examined himself as WW1 and tendered in Evidence various documents

Ex. WW1/3 to Ex.WW1/40. The management in order to rebut the case examined Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma,

Executive Engineer, AIIMS, ND

6. Issue No.1

It is clear from the pleadings of the parties that claimant was admittedly engaged as daily wager by the management

since June, 1995. This fact had duly admitted even by the management in the Written Statement. The Claimant has

further stated that he was in continuous service till November, 2004. It is the case of the management that the claimant

has not completed 240 days in a Calendar year as such he could not be confirmed as Khalasi (TS). It was also brought

to the notice of this tribunal that claimant was wrongly released the salary of Khalasi (TS). The intention of this

tribunal was also invited to Attendance Record Ex.WW1/3. This shows the name of the claimant ,Sh.Vinod Kumar at

Sl. No.21. There is an application Ex.WW1/4 addressed to the Executive Engineer by the claimant, Sh.Vinod Kumar

wherein he admitted that he has been made payment of salary in excess and he is willing to refund the excess amount in

instalements of Rs. 500/- p.m. This fact is further collaborated by letter Ex.WW1/5 which shows written contents of

claimant, Sh.Vinod Kumar has been obtained for recovery of amount of Rs. 32,386/- in instalments of Rs. 500/- each.

There is letter Ex.WW1/9 which shows that claimant was called for interview for the post of Khalasi on 10.11.2004.

There is another application Ex.WW1/12 of claimant addressed to Ex.Engineer, dated 25/05/05 wherein request is

1750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 1, 2017/CHAITRA 11, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

made by the claimant for recovery of Rs. 100/-p.m. for payment of excess amount of Rs. 32,386/-. There is also letter

dated 11/02/2001 Ex.WW1/13 which shows that claimant was instructed to deposit an amount of Rs. 32,386/- to the

Cashier, AIIMS within 15 days, failing which suitable action as deemed fit will be taken against him. There is another

Memorandum dated 05/03/2005,Ex.WW1/14 which shows that the claimant, Sh.Vinod Kumar was asked by Chief

Vigilance Officer as to whether he has deposited, the amount of Rs. 32,386/- which was over paid to him as pay and

allowances of Khalasi with Temporary Status.

7. Sh. Vinod Kumar, Claimant while appearing as WW1 had not mentioned about amount of Rs. 32,386/-nor

stated in his evidence regarding overpayment of Rs.32386/-. Thus, there is ample evidence in record to show that

management has made over payment to claimant, Sh.Vinod Kumar who has not paid back excess amount to the

management. Issue is decided accordingly.

8. Issue No. 2 & 3

Both these issues are interlinked as such being taken together for the purpose of discussion, though the

management has taken the plea of abandonment, the service of the management but has not led any specific evidence

on this issue. It is clear from the Para-7 of the Written Statement, filed by the management that management has taken

the plea that the Claimant left the service of the Respondent in the year 2004, even he had not refunded the amount of

Rs.32,386/- paid to him in excess of his entitlement by the AIIMS which was refunded by the claimant, Sh..Vinod

Kumar Sharma. The Ex.Engineer while appearing MW1 has no where specifically deposed regarding the abandonment

of job by the claimant. He has only stated that regarding the over payment of amount of Rs. 32,386/-to the claimant

and an undertaking vide Ex.WW1/4 to pay installments of Rs.500/-every month from his salary.

The claimant has clearly stated that he has never abandoned the job and work for more than 240 days in a

Calendar Year. Thus the plea of the management regarding abandonment of the job and work for less than 240 days

in a calendar year is not supported by any evidence on record.

10.

Even if it is assumed that workman has voluntarily left or abandoned the job in that eventually the

management was required to issue notice to the claimant. It is just possible that claimant was not willing to pay back

the amount of Rs.32,386/- in installments of Rs.500/- each every month . Yet it is required from the management to

issue notice , it was held in the case of Satbir Singh Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labourt, Panipat and

another, 2017 LLR 35, P.H and Kali Ram Vs Presiding Officer 2017 LLR 95 PH that plea of abandonment raised by

management is sustainable only if notice has been issued to the workman for reporting back to duty. In view of the

legal position discussed above that management has failed to prove the plea of abandonment of job.

11.

Now the main question before this tribunal that management has terminated the service of the claimant in

violation of the act, admittedly no notice in terms of provision of 25 F of the act was served upon the claimant. The

stand of the management is that claimant has not completed 240 days in a calendar year as such no notice was required

to be served upon him, particularly when claimant voluntarily left the job. It is clear from the statement of Sh. Vinod

Kumar, WW1 hat he worked continuously 240 days after he joined on 05/06/95. It is further clear that between 1995 to

2004, there is no evidence to suggest that any show cause notice regarding any kind of Disciplinary Action was issued

to the claimant. The claimant in his evidence has also tendered copy of the Attendance Sheet Ex. WW1/2 for the year

2003-2004 which shows he worked for 253 number of days. Since the record pertaining to attendance was admittedly

in possession of the management, in such situation, it was incumbent upon the management to have produce the same

as to prove the plea that claimant has not worked for 240 days in a calendar year. Having failed to do so it does not lie

in the mouth of the management, that the workman has not completed 240 days in a Calendar year. In view of the

discussion made above, it is held that termination of the service of the claimant is in violation of Section 25 F of the

act.

12. The Tribunal cannot ignore ignore an important fail that workman has not approached the Tribunal

immediately after 2004 when he was virtually disengaged. He served legal notice Ex.WW1/40 upon management only

in August, 2009 i.e. after 5 years of disengagement. No doubt claim or relief cannot be denied to a workman simply

on account of delay & latches as provisions of limitation are not attracted in attracted industrial proceedings as has been

help in the case of Ajit Singh Vs The sishind co-operative marketing society A/R 1999 SC 1351. However, this aspect

is relevant while considering relief to the workman. There is No specific evidence that claimant is out of employment

since 2004. Therefore, no back wage can be awarded to him

13. As a sequel to my above discussion , it is held that termination of the services of the claimant, is not legal nor

justified and the same is violation of provision of 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act. The claimant is liable to be

reinstated without payment of back wages and management is at liberty to make recovery of Rs.32,386/- from the

salary of the claimant. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : February 02, 2017

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 1] 2017@pS=k 11] 1939

1751

नई ?द@ ली, 20 माच, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 837.

837.

837.—औsोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म< के'(ीय सरकार

आयु , एमसीडी (पूव,), नई ?द@ली एवं उनके कम,चारी के बंधतंU के संबq िनयोजक! और उनके कम,कार! के बीच अनुबंध

म< िनgद,h औsोिगक िववाद म< के'(ीय सरकार औsोिगक अिधकरण एवं .म 'यायालय सं. 1, ?द@ली के पंचाट (संदभ, सं`या

74/2015) को कािशत करती है, जो के'(ीय सरकार को 14/12/2016 को ा1 $आ था।

[सं. एल-42011/143/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]

राज<( जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 20^th March, 2017

S.O. 837.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (ID. Case No. 74/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

Commissioner, MCD (East), New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

14/12/2016.

[No. L-42011/143/2014-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXUE

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.74/2015

Shri Inder Pal Singh, S/o Shri Khajan Singh, through

MCD General Mazdoor Union,

Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10,

Jam Nagar House,

New Delhi

…Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi(East),

Udyog Sadan, near Patparganj,

Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,

New Delhi 110 092

…Management

AWARD

Reference under Section 10 sub section (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) was

received from the Central Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment vide it orders No.L-42011/143/2014-

IR(DU) dated 05.02.2015 for adjudication of the industrial dispute with the following terms:

‘Whether Shri Inder Pal Singh S/o Shri Khajan Singh, is entitled to the status of Chaudhary with effect from

the date on which any order was passed wherein Shri Inder Pal Singh was given responsibility of looking after

the work of Chaudhary and all consequential benefits revised from time to time?’

Both the parties were put to notice and the workman Shri Inder Pal Singh filed his statement of claim, wherein

it is alleged that he has been allotted work of Chaudhary with effect from 01.03.1989 by the competent officers of

Horticulture Department of Civil Lines Zone where he performed his duty upto 18.06.2009. Thereafter he was

transferred to Rohini zone and on 01.07.2010, he was posted to Shahdara North Zone. However, he has been denied

pay scale of Chaudhary, revised from time to time. The workman has got payment of salary in the lower pay scale of

mali, i.e. Rs.750-940 instead of Rs.950-1500 revised from time to time and has been denied the scale of Chaudhary,

effect from 01.03.1989. Action of the management is alleged to be illegal & unjustified and amounts to unfair labour

practice.

It is also averred in para 7 of the statement of claim that Hon’ble High Court, Delhi, in the matter of Jai

Chand vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi (CW 6514/2001) has disapproved the non-payment of wages for those malis

who are working on the post of Chaudhary vide its judgement dated 02.05.2003. After the above judgement of the

1752

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 1, 2017/CHAITRA 11, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Hon’ble Court, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Horticulture Department) has also issued order No.

ADC(Hor.)/AO(Hort)/DA-VII/05/457 dated 04.03.2005 (Annexure B). There is also reference to the judgment of

Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Sultan Singh wherein also

plea of the MCD regarding non-payment of wages of Chaudhary to malis who are doing working of Chaudhary, was

turned down by the Hon’ble High Court in judgement dated 27.07.2011.

It is also averred that similar situated workmen who were performing duty of Chaudhary were granted pay

scale of Chaudhary from the date when they were asked to perform duty on the higher post and management has

challenged the order dated 27.07.2011 of the Labour Court in the matter of MCD vs Sultan Singh as well as before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by Special Leave to Appeal No.S20069/2011 and the plea by MCD has been

dismissed by both, before the High Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Workman, herein, is also similarly

situated and doing work of Chaudhary and as such, entitled to same benefits.

Management has demurred claim of the workman by taking preliminary objections, inter alia, present dispute

not being an industrial dispute as there is no espousal & no demand notice has been served upon the management,

claim being misconceived, claim being stale etc. In para 3 of the preliminary objection, it is admitted that the workman

herein was engaged on the post of mali on daily wage basis and was later on regularized on the same post of mali.

There is prescribed procedure for promotion to the post of Garden Chaudhary and there must be sanctioned/vacant post

of Garden Chaudhary to which the workman can lay claim when he has passed trade test conducted by the department.

Claimant has not passed the said trade test nor is he performing duties of Garden Chaudhary. No such office order has

been issued by the competent authority. It is further alleged that the workman herein is not entitled for any relief on

account of delay and laches and reliance is also put on judgements of the Apex Court in the case of ‘Nedungadi Bank

Limited Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty & ors’ (2002 (2) SC 4) and State Co-op Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam (2005)

5 SC 91). Management, on merits, have denied material averments and reiterated that the workman herein appeared in

the trade test conducted by Education Consultant India Limited on behalf of the management, in which the workman

had secured 140^th rank. It is, further submitted that only 50 employees were promoted to the post of Chaudhary, who

were having requisite qualification as well as secured rank upto 50. It is also denied that the workman herein was

performing duties of Chaudhary with effect from 01.03.1989. Accordingly, it is prayed that claim of the workman

herein is liable to be dismissed, being devoid of merits.

Against this factual background, the Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed the following

issues:

(i) Whether reference is not maintainable, as alleged in the preliminary objections?

(ii) As in terms of reference

Findings on Issue No.(i)

Admittedly, in the present case, reference has been made under Section 10 sub Section (2A) of the Act for

adjudication. It is now well settled position in law that when a reference has been made for adjudication to the Tribunal

or Labour Court, as the case may be, it is paramount duty of the court to decide the same on merits, irrespective of the

pleas taken by the management. The dispute in the case in hand cannot be said to be stale for the simple reason that

there is no previous adjudication of the matter between the parties from a competent court nor that there is inordinate

delay in approaching this Tribunal by the workman.

It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager (2014)

Lab.I.C. 4266 = (2014) 10 SCC 301 that a reference for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal can be made by the

appropriate Government at any time and provisions of Limitation Act does not apply. There are clear observations in

the above judgement that industrial dispute is to be decided by the Tribunal or Labour Court on merits, irrespective of

the pleadings on limits. Therefore, ratio of law in the case of ‘Nedungadi Bank Limited Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty &

ors’ (supra) and State Co-op Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam (supra) is not applicable to the case in hand as there

is no inordinate delay nor workman is guilty of delay and laches in approaching the court.

It is clear from the preliminary objections taken in the written statement by the management that the

management has raised objections that no demand notice has been served upon the management nor the MCD General

Mazdoor Union has any locus standi to raise the present dispute as the union is not a recognized union of the

management. To my mind, there is no requirement of law that a dispute can be raised only by a recognized union. In

this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Kripa

Shankar Jaiswal (AIR 1961 (2) SC Report 1) wherein also objection was taken on behalf of the management that the

union was not a registered under the Trade Union Act on the date of the settlement and said plea was rejected by

observing as under:

‘Held, that for a dispute to constitute an industrial dispute it is not a requisite condition that it should be

sponsored by a recognized union or that allthe workmen of an industrial establishment should be parties to it. A

settlement arrived at in course of conciliation proceedings falls within Section 18(3)(a) and (d) of the Industrial

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 1] 2017@pS=k 11] 1939

1753

Disputes Act and as such binds all the workmen though an unregistered union or only some of workmen may have

raised the dispute. The absence of notice under Section 11(2) by the Conciliation Officer does not affect the

jurisdiction of the conciliation officer and its only purpose is to apprise the establishment that the person who is

coming is the conciliation officer and not a stranger. Any contravention of Section 12(6) in not submitting the report

within 14 days may be a breach of duty on the part of the conciliation officer ; it does not affect the legality of the

proceedings which terminated as provided in Section 20(2) of the Act.

10.

Equally merit-less is the plea taken by the management that the present dispute is no sponsored or espoused by

substantial number of workmen. It is fairly settled position in law that even non-espousal of a case by the union would

not deprive the workman of the relief to which the workman is otherwise entitled under the law. Such view appears

to have been taken in the case of Nazrul Hassan Siddiqui vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial cum Labour Court Bombay

(1997) Lab.I.C. 1807. In the above cited case also contention was raised by the management that the dispute dies not

fall within the definition of ‘industrial dispute’ and the same has not been referred or supported by substantial section

of workmen. High Court rejected the plea of the management by placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (AIR 1960 SC 777), which it was observed as under:

‘We have already noticed that an industrial dispute can be raised by a group of workmen or by a union even though

neither of them represent the majority of the workmen concerned; in other words, the majority rule on which the

appellant’s construction of Section 19(6) is based is inapplicable in the matter of the reference under Section 10 of the

Act. Even a minority group of workmen can make a demand and thereby raise an industrial dispute which in a proper

case would be referred or adjudication under Section 20.’

11.

In view of the ratio of the judgement discussed above, it is clear that espousal of a dispute by the union is not

sine qua non for adjudication of such dispute in terms of Section 10 of the Act. Consequently, this issue is decided in

favour of the workman and against the management.

Findings on Issue No.(ii)

12.

Now, the main issue which requires determination in the case in hand is whether the workman herein is

entitled for grant of pay scale of Rs.950-1500 as revised from time to time alongwith consequential benefits. It is clear

from pleadings of the parties that initially the workman herein was appointed as mali on daily wage basis and later on

he was regularized on the same post of mali in the pay scale of Rs.750-940(pre-revised) alongwith usual allowances.

This fact has been admitted even by the management in para 3 of the preliminary objections.

13.

There is also ample evidence on record that the workman herein was performing duty as officiating

Chaudhary. It is clear from perusal of document dated 12.08.2004 (List of Chaudharys looking after Garden

Chaudhary in Horticulture Department) Ex.WW1/1 that name of the workman, Shri Inder Pal finds mention at serial

No.3 and working as Chaudhary since March 1989. Workman, in order to prove his case, has tendered in evidence his

affidavit Ex.WW1/A, wherein material averments contained in statement of claim has been reiterated. It is specifically

alleged in the affidavit that he was doing work of acting Chaudhary with effect from 01.03.1989. There are also

averments in his affidavit that one Shri Jai Chand has also been granted pay scale of Chaudhary by the management of

MCD and Sultan Singh and others vs. MCD, who were doing work of acting Chaudhary , vide judgement of the

Hon’ble High Court, i.e. in the case of MCD vs. Sultan Singh & others and necessary orders for implementation of the

said judgement were issued by MCD vide order dated 04.06.2013. There is no cross examination of the

workman/deponent that he has appeared as WW1 and has tendered in evidence a copy of his identity card, which is

Ex.WW1/2. It is evident from perusal of the Identity Card that against the column ‘Designation’, there is mention of

workmen Chaudhary, Horticulture.

14.

There is no merit in the stand taken by the management in its reply, that the workman here is not entitled for

promotion to the post of Chaudhary inasmuch as he has not appear in the trade test conducted by the department. To

my mind, this plea is devoid of any merit inasmuch as similarly situated other workers who were performing duties of

Chaudhary, i.e. acting Chaudhary have been granted pay scale of Garden Chaudhary after judgement dated 27.07.2011

rendered by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of MCD vs. Sultan Singh as well as MCD vs. Mahipal(WP 5550 of

2010). Operating portion of the judgement in Sultan Singh (supra) of the Hon’ble Division Bench is as under:

“28.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances it is apparent that the claim of the respondents have always

been that they should be paid the difference in pay of Mali/Chowkidar and the Garden Chaudhary as they were made to

work on the post of Garden Chaudhary whereas the petitioner had first denied that they worked as Garden Chaudharies,

then took the plea that the Assistant Director (Horticulture) was not competent to ask the respondents to work as

Garden Chaudharies and that the respondents cannot be appointed to the post of Garden Chaudharies in accordance

with the recruitment rules. There is no doubt that respondents are not claiming appointment to the post of Garden

Chaudharies on account of having worked on ad-hoc basis on the post of Garden Chaudhary contrary to rules or that

some of them not having the requisite qualifications are entitled for relaxation.

29. In the entirety of facts and circumstances therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out any

such grounds which will impel this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to set aside

1754

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 1, 2017/CHAITRA 11, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the orders of the Tribunal dated 29th January, 2010 and 7th October, 2010 as no illegality or un- sustainability or

perversity in the orders of the Tribunal has been made out.

30. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.”

15.

It is further clear that SLP was also filed by MCD before the Hon’ble Apex Court vide IA No.2 WP for special

leave S20069/2011 MCD vs. Sultan Singh and others which was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated

09.04.2012. It is further clear that the Hon’ble High Court in Sultan Singh case strongly deprecated the stand taken by

the management that the workmen were not possessing requisite qualification or have not qualified the test etc. It was

clarified that since the workmen were discharging duties to the post of Garden Chaudhary, a such, workmen were

entitled for the salary of Garden Chaudhary and competent authority need not look into anything else except the fact

that the workman had worked as Garden Chaudhary. Therefore, stand taken by the management that the workman

herein could not qualify the test conducted by Education Consultant India Limited is without any merit and has no

relevance so far as question of grant of salary against the post of Garden Chaudhary is concerned.

16.

It is not out of place to mention here that even if the workman herein was not a party in Sultan Singh case

referred above, judgement of the Hon’ble High Court is binding on the management and management is required to

implement the same in letter and spirit and the same is judgement in rem, and all similarly situated workmen are

required to be accorded the benefit of the said judgement of the Hon’ble High Court, which have become final. There is

no question of even plea of delay and laches when management had not led any evidence to prove the same. The

Hon’ble High Court has decided an abstract proposition of law, i.e. a mali who is performing duty as officiating/acting

Chaudhary is entitled to the salary/wages of Chaudhary. Law is fairly settled that if a person is working on a higher

post, on adhoc or temporary basis, even such workman is entitled to salary/wages of higher post, unless rules or

regulations specifically provides otherwise. I find support to this view from Secretary vs. Lieutenant Governor Port

Blair (1998 Lab.I.C. 598), yet in another case, Hon’ble Apex Court while considering that question of grant of

benefits to similarly situated employees who were not party to the writ petition or lis in the case of State of Uttar

Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347 observed as under:

“The moot question which requires determination is as to whether in the given case, approach of the Tribunal

and the High Court was correct in extending the benefit of earlier judgment of the Tribunal, which had

attained finality as it was affirmed till the Supreme Court. The legal principles that can be culled from the

judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under:

(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically

situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to

discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be

applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to

time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would

be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be

treated differently.

(2) However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as

acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the

same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the

Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the

judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as

fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.

(3) However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was

judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the

Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit

thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision

touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularization and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union

of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the

said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the

judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get

the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from

either laches and delays or acquiescence.”

17.

In view of the discussions made herein above, it is held that the workman herein, Shri Inder Pal Singh is

entitled to the pay scale of Garden Chaudhary with effect from March 1989 and as a corollary, management is liable

pay the difference of wages of mali vis-a-vis Garden Chaudhary from the date when the workman herein was

performing duties and functions of Garden Chaudhary till date. An award is accordingly passed. Let this award be

sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : December 6, 2016

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 1] 2017@pS=k 11] 1939

1755

नई ?द@ ली, 20 माच, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 838

838

838.—औsोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म< के'(ीय सरकार आयु ,

एमसीडी, नई ?द@ली एवं उनके कम,चारी के बंधतंU के संबq िनयोजक! और उनके कम,कार! के बीच अनुबंध म< िनgद,h

औsोिगक िववाद म< के'(ीय सरकार औsोिगक अिधकरण एवं .म 'यायालय सं. 1, ?द@ली के पंचाट (संदभ, सं`या

193/2012) को कािशत करती है, जो के'(ीय सरकार को 08/01/2017 को ा1 $आ था।

[सं. एल-42025/03/2017-आईआर (डीयू)]

राज<( जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 20^th March, 2017

S.O. 838.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (ID. Case No. 193/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

Commissioner, MCD, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 08/01/2017.

[No. L-42025/03/2017- IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX,

SHAHDRA, DELHI- 32

ID No. 193/2012

Shri Jai Pal S/o Sh. Murli,

Delhi Municipal Karamchari Ekta Union,

780, Bali Maran, Chandni Chowk,

Delhi – 110006

…Workman

Vs.

The Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi,

Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,

Delhi – 110006

…Management

AWARD

In the present case a reference was received from government of India under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and

sub-section (2 A) of the Section 10 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the act) for the adjudication of

industrial dispute the term of which are as under:

“1. Whether Sh. Jai Pal S/o Murli is entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.260-400/- and the corresponding revised

pay-scales under the various pay-commission and the ACP Scheme and consequential benefits and if so

from which date and what directions are necessary in this respect?

2. To what pay-scale the workman is entitled as first up-gradation and second up-gradation under the ACP

scheme and from which date and whether the demand of the union for counting the daily wages service

while calculating the period under the ACP scheme is legal and justified and if so its effects?

3. Whether the said workman is also entitled to have its half of his muster-roll service counted for the

purpose of pensionary benefits?”

It is averred by the claimant that he was initially employed of MCD as a Mason on 15/04/1970 on regular

Muster-roll. The claimant continued in service without any break to the satisfaction of the management till 01/04/1978

on the minimum wages of skilled category. The service of claimant was regularized on the post of Mason as per

regularization policy of the management. The management erroneously later on provided to the claimant Pay-Scale of

Rs. 210-270(revised to Rs. 850-1150 in the 4^th pay commission and to Rs. 2650-4000 in the 5^th pay commission). The

pay scale of the posts of Carpenter, Painters, Masons was Rs. 260-400/-. It is alleged by the claimant that similar

Masons doing the same work were given the pay scale of Rs. 260-400/- and their pay scale was revised from time to

time. All the Carpenters, Painters and Masons in the Horticulture department and CSE department were given the pay-

scale of Rs. 260-400/-. It is the case of claimant that several co-workmen and his juniors raised industrial disputes and

got the pay scale of Rs. 260-400/- which was revised from time to time and 5^th pay commission awarded the pay scale

1756

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 1, 2017/CHAITRA 11, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of Rs. 3050-4590/-. The standing committee of the corporation in its resolution No. 682 dated 13.12.1973 had accepted

the recommendations of 3^rd Pay-commission and the MCD also issued an office order dated 01/04/1982 thereby

revising the pay-scales of the post of Carpenters, Masons, Painters, etc. to Rs. 260-400/- w.e.f. 01/01/1973. The MCD

also issued an office order No. VIII/(123)/ECIV/AC(EnGG.)/82/213/2052 dated 12/07/1982 thereby abrogating the

distinction of senior and junior posts and merging the said posts in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400/-. The only pay scale

of the posts of Painters, Masons and fitters and carpenters remained in existence which was Rs. 260-400/-.

The claimant has further alleged that action of the management is not granting the pay scale of Rs. 260-400/-

and corresponding pay scales under various pay commissions and ACP Scheme is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and

amounts to unfair labour practice. There was no difference in the nature of work, duty hours and responsibilities of the

workman concerned as well as other Masons who have been granted the pay-scales of Rs. 260-400/- by the MCD.

Therefore, the action of the management of the MCD in granting different pay-scales in different department and

within the same department for the same posts of Mason, Carpenters, Fitters, painters etc. doing the same duties and

there being no difference in the nature of work, was illegal and unjustified.

The claimant also approached the management for revision of the pay-scales and removed the above

anomalies so as to grant the similar pay-scales to Masons, Carpenters, etc.. The management had also adopted ACP

scheme in the year 2004. Lastly, a prayer has been made by the claimant to pay the pay-scale of Rs. 260-400/-(3^rd Pay-

commission) w.e.f. 01/04/1978 and corresponding revised pay-scales as well as two up-gradation with other benefits.

The management was put to notice, who had filed written statement to the statement of claim taking various

preliminary objections. It is denied that workman was working in skilled category. He was initially engaged as Mason

and later on regularized on the said post in the pay-scale of Rs. 210-270/- w.e.f. 01/04/1978. It is also denied that

Carpenters, Masons and Painters in Horticulture department and CSE department were given the pay-scale of Rs. 260-

400/-. It is also denied that several co-workers or juniors of the claimant have got the pay-scales of Rs. 260-400/- or

corresponding revised pay-scales. It is further submitted that claim of the workman for the revised pay scale is not

justified.

Against this background, this tribunal on the basis of the pleading of the parties vide order dated 13/09/2013,

framed the following issues:

(i)

Whether dispute has not acquired status of an industrial dispute for want of espousal by the union or

considerable number of workmen in the establishment of the management?

(ii)

Whether dispute has not acquired status of an industrial dispute for want of service of demand notice?

(iii)

Whether delay in raising the dispute frustrates the claim?

(iv)

As in terms of reference.

Thereafter, the case was listed for the evidence of the claimant who did not turn up nor filed his affidavit in

support of the averments made in the statement of claim. More than dozen opportunities have been granted for the

evidence of the claimant which shows that claimant is not interested in the adjudication of the case on merits. In such

circumstances, when there is no evidence adduced by the claimant to support and prove the averments made in the

statement of claim, this tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a no contest/no claim award and Let this award be

sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Date: 12/01/2017

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 24 माच, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 839

839

839—deZpkjh jkT; chek fuxe 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 vizSy] 2017 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&IV ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flokl tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&V vkSj VI ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi

/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78]79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k vle jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr

{ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~

jkT;

ftyk

fuEukafdr ds varxZr vkus okys lHkh {ks=

vle

y[kheiqj

mRrj y[kheiqj uxjikfydk cksMZ

vle

mnyxqMh

mnyxqM+h Vkmu dfeVh

vle

f'kolkxj

i f'kolkxj uxjikfydk cksMZ

ii uthjk uxjikfydk cksMZ

[la-,l&38013@02@2017&,l-,l-I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 1] 2017@pS=k 11] 1939

1757

New Delhi, the 24^th March, 2017

S.O. 839.—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 1^st April, 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 areas in the State of Assam namely: -

Sl. No.

STATE

DISTRICT

ALL THE AREAS FALLING UNDER

ASSAM

LAKHIMPUR

NORTH LAKHIMPUR MUNICIPAL BOARD

ASSAM

UDALGURI

UDALGURI TOWN COMMITTEE

ASSAM

SIVASAGAR

I. SIVASAGAR MUNICIPAL BOARD

II. NAZIRA MUNICIPAL BOARD

[No. S-38013/02/ 2017-S.S.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 27 माच, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 840.

840.

840.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

bZlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 46@2004) dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 17@03@2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- 22012/340/2003–vkbZ- vkj- (lh,e-II)]

jktsUnz flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 27^th March, 2017

S.O. 840.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s ECL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/03/2017

[No. L-22012/340/2003 - IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXUE

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

PRESENT : Sri PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 46 OF 2004

PARTIES : The management of Narsamuda Colliery of M/s. ECL

v/s

Sri Somnath Majhi

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management

: Sri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate

For the union (Workman) : Sri Rakesh Kumar, Union Representative

INDUSTRY: COAL

STATE : WEST BENGAL

Dated : 14.03.2017

1758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 1, 2017/CHAITRA 11, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter

No. L-22012/340/2003–IR(CM-II) dated 16.08.2004 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by

this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Narsamuda Colliery of ECL in dismissing Shri Somnath Majhi, U.

G. Loader under Narsamuda Colliery from services w.e.f. 6.9.2002 vide Order No. NSP/C-6/Dismissal/02/450

dated 6.9.2002 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled to? ”

1. Having received the Order No. L-22012/340/2003–IR(CM-II) dated 16.08.2004 of the above said reference

from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 46 of

2004 was registered on 26.08.2004. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the

registered post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written

statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said

order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal,

through their representative.

The workman Sri Somenath Majhi has stated in his written statement that he was Under Ground Loader at

Narsamuda Colliery under Sodepur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited as permanent workman of the company

having U.M. No. 131510. He was charge sheeted on 29.01.2002 for his absence w.e.f. 23.04.2001. He replied the

Chargesheet. During enquiry workman stated that he was sick and due to his sickness he could not attend his duty. He

filed treatment papers and certificates issued by S.D. Hospital. The charges of habitual absence are after thought of the

management. This can be verified form the Chargesheet. The management awarded him the highest and extreme

punishment of dismissal which is disproportionate to the nature of offence. Punishment should always be proportionate

to the nature of offence. The absence of workman was due to his illness which was beyond his control. Therefore

management should not take harsh decision of dismissal. Sri Somenath Majhi is a young man. He has no source of

income for maintaining his livelihood. Management can allow lesser punishment other than dismissal. He is single

bread-earner of his family. The workman prayed that Sri Somenath Majhi, Under Ground Loader should be reinstated

with full back wages with other consequential benefits.

The Narsamuda Colliery under Sodepur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, after service of notice and

after passing of many years did not file written statement.

Workman has filed the following documentary evidences :-

(i) Photocopy of the Chargesheet and Reply of the workman, (ii) Photocopy of the Enquiry Proceedings and

findings of the Enquiry officer, (iii) Photocopy of the Treatment Certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Hospital,

Asansol, (iv) Photocopy of the Treatment Papers of the Hospital, (v) Photocopy of the Dismissal Letter issued by the

Manager of Narsamuda Colliery under Sodepur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

Workman Sri Somnath Majhi has filed affidavit in his oral evidence. He has not cross-examined by the management.

The management of Narsamuda Colliery under Sodepur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed any

documentary or oral evidence.

I have heard the arguments of Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned union representative appearing on behalf of the

workman Sri Somnath Majhi and Sri P. K. Das, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the management of

Narsamuda Colliery under Sodepur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned union representative for the workman has argued that the workman was absence

for mere a period of 9 Months and 5 Days due to his sickness. He has been treated by S.D. Hospital. Punishment of

dismissal is quite disproportion to the so called misconduct. Sri P. K. Das, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the

management has argued that the punishment of dismissal of the workman from services of the company is legal and

justified. I have perused the record.

When a person has entered into the position of a servant he is duty bound to discharge his duty diligently and

faithfully. A workman owes a duty to his employer to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duty. If

workman by his own conducts prevents himself from performing his duty diligently and faithfully, the employer may

proceed disciplinary action against the erring workman. Before a workman can be said to be guilty of misconduct it has

to be proved and shown by fair domestic enquiry. Clause 26.29 of Certified Standing Order prescribes:-

“Absence from duty beyond 10 days without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or overstaying beyond sanctioned

leave without valid reason. ”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 1] 2017@pS=k 11] 1939

1759

If any workman absented himself unauthorizedly from duty for 10 days or more without sanction leave, he can be

punished after domestic enquiry. From perusal of record it is apparent that the Agent of Narsamuda Colliery under

Sodepur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has conducted domestic enquiry against the delinquent workman, Sri

Somnath Majhi before passing the order of punishment of dismissal.

The delinquent workman, Sri Somnath Majhi has not challenged the enquiry proceeding in his written

statement. Even he has not uttered a single word regarding prejudice or bias in connection with the enquiry. He has

participated in the enquiry proceeding. His signatures are present in the enquiry proceeding. Since the delinquent

workman Sri Somnath Majhi has not challenged the domestic enquiry or stated that the domestic enquiry is vitiated due

to non-compliance of principles of natural justice. Therefore enquiry proceeding and its report will be deemed to be un-

biased and un-vitiated.

So far as question of harsh or disproportionate punishment is concerned the delinquent workman Sri Somnath

Majhi has himself admitted in his explanation that “ I was absenting from my duty unauthorisedly…..No male member

in my family to look after me and send information in time regarding my sickness. ” From statement of delinquent

workman it is apparent that not only he has admitted the factum of unauthorized absence from duty, but also he did not

sent information to the Agent of Narsamuda Colliery under Sodepur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

10.

From perusal of the Enquiry Report it is clear that he has been absent 101 days in the year 1998, 79 days in the

year 1999 and 13 days in the year 2000. He has been habitual absentee.

11.

In view of the discussion above the action of the management of Narsamuda Colliery under Sodepur Area of

M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing Sri Somnath Majhi, U.G. Loader under Narsamuda Colliery under

Sodepur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited from services w.e.f. 06.09.2002 is legal and justified. The workman is

not entitled to any relief.

ORDER

Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 27 माच, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 841.

841.

841.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

bZlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 102@1999) dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 17@03@2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012/44/1999–vkbZ- vkj- (lh,e-II)]

jktsUnz flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 27^th March, 2017

S.O. 841.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 102/1999) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s ECL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/03/2017

[No. L-22012/44/1999 - IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXUE

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

PRESENT : Sri PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. 102 OF 1999

PARTIES : The management of Chinakuri Colliery of M/s. ECL

1760

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 1, 2017/CHAITRA 11, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

v/s

Sri Baijnath Singh & 7 Others

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management

: Sri P. K. Goswami, Learned Advocate

For the union (Workman) : Sri Sayantan Mukherjee, Learned Advocate

INDUSTRY: COAL

STATE : WEST BENGAL

Dated : 10.03.2017

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter

No. L-22012/44/99–IR(CM-II) dated 30.07.1999 / 03.08.1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for

adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Chinakuri Colliery of Sodepur Area of M/s. ECL in not paying the

wages in lieu of leave due to S/Sh. Baijnath Singh, Ajit Singh, Nazir Ahamad, M. Bagchi, Ram Nath Nonia,

Asrafi Das, Ram Samuj Harijan and Gouri Shankar Mistri at the time of their superannuation is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled? ”

1. Having received the Order NO. L-22012/44/99–IR(CM-II) dated 30.07.1999 / 03.08.1999 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No.

102 of 1999 was registered on 18.08.1999 / 20.09.2001. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices

through the registered post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file

their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In

pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared

in the Tribunal, through their representative.

The workmen Sri Baijnath Singh, Sri Nazir Ahammad, Sri M. Bagchy, Sri Ram Nath Nunia, Sri Asrafi Das,

Sri Ram Samuj Harijan and Sri Gouri Shanker Mistri have alleged in their written statement that the workmen can

accumulate their Earned Leave up to 80 (Eighty) days as per National Coal Wage Agreement – V, Para 6.3. As per

provisions of Mines Act Section 51 (10), the superannuated workmen get their wages in lieu of their due leave. Any

implementation instruction or agreement can not supersede the Act or Law. Instruction No. 6.1 can not override the law

they are entitled for wages in lieu of their leave due to them. They have mentioned the days of each workmen in their

written statement. The workmen have prayed that the Tribunal may kindly pass Award regarding wages in lieu of

leave.

The Agent of Chinakuri Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has stated in his written statement that all

the persons were duly superannuated after attaining the age of superannuation and it was communicated to them well in

time. The management requested these workmen to avail their due leave as per provision of National Coal Wage

Agreement implementation instruction 6.1. The workmen should avail the due leave during their service period. The

ex-workmen did not avail their due leave. Now they can not claim encashment in lieu of their due leave in absence of

any specific provisions of Act. There is no ground to discard the implementation instruction No. 6.1. The demand of

the union for encashment of leave is entirely ultra-vires to the provision enshrined in the National Coal Wage

Agreement – V, though they are bound by the provisions of the agreement. The Agent of Chinakuri Colliery of M/s.

Eastern Coalfields Limited has prayed that action of management is legal and justified.

The workmen have filed the following documentary evidences :-

(i) Photocopy of the Superannuation Notice, (ii) Photocopy of the Mines Act, Section 52 (10), (iii) Photocopy

of the CIL Circular No. CIL/C-5B/JBCCI-V/I.I.No.16/96/663 dated 20.09.1996, (iv) Photocopy of the Letter of D. K.

Shrivastava, Personnel Manager (IR)

The workman Sri Ajit Singh has filed affidavit in his oral evidence. He has been cross-examined by the learned

advocate of the management.

The management of Chinakuri Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed any documentary or oral

evidence.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 1] 2017@pS=k 11] 1939

1761

Sri Sayantan Mukherjee, learned advocate on behalf of the workmen never appeared for the period of more

than 2 years even after service of notice. Therefore the Tribunal had no option but to reserve the reference for Order.

Sri P. K. Goswami, learned advocate is present on behalf of management of Chinakuri Colliery of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited.

I have heard Sri P. K. Goswami, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the management. Sri P. K. Goswami

has argued that as Instruction No. 6.1, the superannuated workmen are not entitled for wage in lieu of leave due to

them, because as per instruction of management they did not avail their due leave in their service period. I have perused

the record.

It is admitted fact that 8 (Eight) workmen namely : Sri Baijnath Singh, Sri Ajit Singh, Sri Nazir Ahmad, Sri

M. Bagchi, Sri Ram Nath Nunia, Sri Asrafi Dass, Sri Ram Samuj Harijan and Sri Gouri Shankar Mishra have

superannuated on their due dates. As per allegation of superannuated workmen the wages in lieu of due leave is still

unpaid to them by the management of Chinakuri Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The superannuated

workmen have claimed their entitlement for wages in lieu of due leave on basis of Mines Act. The Agent of Chinakuri

Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed the Instruction 6.1 of National Coal Wage Agreement.

The National Coal Wage Agreement – IV, Rule 6.3 authorizes workman for accumulation of earned leave /

annual leave with wages up to level of 70 (Seventy) days. Rule 6.1 of the National Coal Wage Agreement - IV

prescribes that annual leave with wages will be continued to be governed by the provisions of Mines Act. The Agent of

Chinakuri Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has also relied on the Instruction No. 6.1 of National Coal Wage

Agreement. Section 10 of Mines Act provides as under :-

“Where a person employed in a mine discharged or dismissed from service or quits his employment is superannuated

or dies while in service, he or his heirs or his nominee, as the case may be shall be entitled to wages in lieu of leave due

to him calculated at the rate specified in sub section (1). ”

Therefore as per Mines Act the superannuated workmen are entitled for wages in lieu of due leave due up to

maximum limit of 70 (Seventy) days. As per allegation of workmen in their written statement Sri Baijnath Singh has 8

days, Sri Ajit Singh has 54 days, Sri Nazir Ahamad has 20 days, Sri N. Bagchi has 12 days, Sri Ram Nath Nonia has 7

days, Sri Asrafi Das has 13 days, Sri Ram Samuj Harijan has 14 days, Sri Gouri Shanker Mistri has 23 days due leave

at the time of their superannuation. Therefore they are entitled for wages in lieu of due leave.

10.

The workmen have filed copies of letter issued by the Agent / Manager of Chinakuri Colliery of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited instructed the workmen to avail the leave before retirement. But the workmen opted for wages in

lieu of leave. It is settled law that Administrative Instruction / Order can not override the legal provisions. The

superannuated workmen are entitled for wages in lieu of leave as per Section 10 of Mines Act. The administrative

direction to utilize their leave before retirement can not override the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Public Service

Commission, Uttranchal and Jagdish Chandra Singh Bora and others, 2014 (141) FLR 966 has held that :-

“ It is settled proposition of law that executive orders can not supplant the rules framed under the proviso to Article

309 of the Constitution of India. ”

Therefore in view of law laid down by the apex court. The administrative direction to avail the earned leave before

retirement can not override the Mines Act. The workmen are entitled for wages in lieu of their due leave.

11.

In view of above discussion the action of management of Chinakuri Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited in not paying the wages in lieu of leave due to Sri Baijnath Singh, Sri Ajit Singh, Sri Nazir Ahmad, Sri M.

Bagchi, Sri Ram Nath Nunia, Sri Asrafi Dass, Sri Ram Samuj Harijan and Sri Gouri Shankar Mishra at the time of their

superannuation is illegal and unjustified. The workmen are entitled for wages in lieu of their due leave respectively.

ORDER

Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 30 माच, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 842.

842.

842.—deZpkjh jkT; chek fuxe 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 vizSy] 2017 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&IV ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flokl tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&V vkSj VI ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi

/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78]79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k tEew ,oa d'ehj jkT; ds

14 ftyksa ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%&

1762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 1, 2017/CHAITRA 11, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ø-la-

ftyk eq[;ky; ds uxj fuxe@uxjikfydk

ds jktLo {ks= dk uke

Ø-la- ftyk eq[;ky; ds uxj fuxe@ uxjikfydk ds

jktLo {ks= dk uke

MksMk

dqiokM+k

fd'rokM+

ckanhiksjk

iwWaN

xkanjcy

jtkSjh

dqyxke

jkecu

'kksfi;ka

vUurukx

ysg

ckjkeqyk

dkjfxy

[la-,l&38013@07@2017&,l-,l-I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30^th March, 2017

S.O. 842.—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 1^st April, 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 14 Districts in the State of Jammu and Kashmir

namely: -

Sl.

No.

Name of the Municipal limit of District Headquarter

Sl. No. Name of the Municipal limit of District

Headquarter

Doda

Kupwara

Kishtwar

Bandipora

Poonch

10.

Ganderbal

Rajouri

Kulgam

Ramban

12.

Shopian

Anantnag

13.

Leh

Baramulla

14.

Kargil

[No. S-38013/07/2017-S.S.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 30 माच, 2017

का.आ. 843.—deZpkjh jkT; chek fuxe 1948¼1948 dk 34½dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 vizSy] 2017 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&IV ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flokl tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&V vkSj VI ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi

/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78]79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k NRrhlx<+ jkT; ds 17

ftyksa ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%&

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 1] 2017@pS=k 11] 1939

1763

Ø-

la-

ftyk

fuEukafdr ds v/khu laiw.kZ {ks=

dksfj;k

uxj ikfydk {ks= cSdq.Biqj

lwjtiqj

uxj ikfydk {ks= lwjtiqj

cyjkeiqj

Ukxj ikfydk {ks= cyjkeiqj

ljxqtk

uxj fuxe {ks= vfEcdkiqj

t'kiqj

uxj ikfydk {ks= t'kiqj

eqaxsyh

uxj ikfydk {ks= eqaxsyh

dchj/kke ¼do/kkZ½

uxj ikfydk {ks= dchj/kke ¼do/kkZ½

csesrjk

uxj ikfydk {ks= csesrjk

egkleqan

uxj ikfydk {ks= egkleqan

ckyksn

uxj ikfydk {ks= ckyksn

dkadsj

uxj ikfydk {ks= dkadsj

dks.Mkxkao

uxj ikfydk {ks= dks.Mkxkao

Ukkjk;.kiqj

uxj ikfydk {ks= ukjk;.kiqj

cLrj

uxj fuxe {ks= txnyiqj

narsokM+k

uxj ikfydk {ks= narsokM+k

chtkiqj

uxj ikfydk {ks= chtkiqj

lqdek

uxj ikfydk {ks= lqdek

[la- ,l&38013@08@2017&,l-,l-I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30^th March, 2017

S.O. 843.—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 1^st April, 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 areas of following 17 districts in the State of Chhattisgarh namely: -

Sl. No. Name of the District

All the areas falling under

Koriya

Municipal limit of Baikunthpur

Surajpur,

Municipal limit of Surajpur

Balrampur

Municipal limit of Balrampur

Sarguja

Municipal Corporation limit of Ambikapur

1764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 1, 2017/CHAITRA 11, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Jashpur

Municipal limit of Jashpur

Mungeli

Municipal limit of Mungeli

Kabirdham(Kawardha)

Municipal limit of Kabirdham (Kawardha)

Bemetara

Municipal limit of Bemetara

Mahasamund

Municipal limit of Mahasamund

10.

Balod

Municipal limit of Balod

Kanker

Municipal limit of Kanker

12.

Kondagaon

Municipal limit of Kondagaon

13.

Narayanpur

Municipal limit of Narayanpur

14.

Bastar

Municipal Corporation limit of Jagdalpur

15.

Dantewada

Municipal limit of Dantewada

16.

Bijapur

Municipal limit of Bijapur

17.

Sukma

Municipal limit of Sukma

[No. S-38013/ 08 / 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.

ALOK KUMAR

Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR

Date: 2017.04.19 13:25:15 +05'30'