This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05 PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY WEEKLY

] — —

No. 17] NEW DELHI, APRIL 23—APRIL 29, 2017, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 3—VAISAKHA 9, 1939

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

II— — ii

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

—केन्द्र सरकार एतदद्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 (1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2) की धारा 24 की उपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए सर्वोच्च न्यायालय, नई दिल्ली/उच्च न्यायालय, नई दिल्ली में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना (सीबीआई) द्वारा संस्थापित कोयला ब्लॉक आवंटन मामलों तथा उनसे संबद्ध एवं प्रासंगिक अन्य मामलों में अपीलों/पुनरीक्षणों में केन्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो की ओर से उपस्थित होने के लिए श्री आर.सी. चीमा, वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता और सुश्री तरन्नुम चीमा, अधिवक्ता को विशेष लोक अभियोजक नियुक्त करती है।

[फा. सं. 225/44/2014-ए.वी.डी.-II] MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2017

S.O. 1027.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No.2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Rajinder Singh Cheema and

2566 GI/2017

(2263)2264 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for appearing on behalf of Central Bureau of Investigation before the High Court and Supreme Court of India in appeals/revisions or other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto in Coal Block Allocation cases instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI).

[F.No. 225/44/2014-AVD-II]

S.P.R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

मुम्बई, 19 अप्रैल, 2017

—राष्ट्रीय आवास बैंक अधिनियम, 1987 (1987 का सं.53) की धारा 6(2) के साथ पठित धारा 6 के खण्ड (घ) की उपधारा (i) के अनुसरण में भारतीय रिज़र्व बैंक श्री जी एम राव के स्थान पर एतदद्वारा डॉ. राजीव कु मार, निदेशक, कें द्रीय निदेशक बोर्ड, भारतीय रिज़र्व बैंक को राष्ट्रीय आवास बैंक के निदेशक मंडल में बैंक के नामिती निदेशक के रूप में नामित करता है।

[सं.बैंविवि.एपीपीटी एनएचबी. 12462 /08.21.006/2016-17]

सुदर्शन सेन, कार्यपालक निदेशक

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

Mumbai, the 19th April, 2017

S.O. 1028.—In pursuance of clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 read with Section 6(2) of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (No.53 of 1987), Reserve Bank of India hereby nominates Dr. Rajiv Kumar, Director, Central Board, Reserve Bank of India as the Bank's Nominee Director on the Board of Directors of the National Housing Bank vice Shri G M Rao.

[No. DBR.Appt.NHB. 12462 /08.21.006/2016-17]

SUDARSHAN SEN, Executive Director

विदेश मंत्रालय

(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 30 मार्च, 2017

का.आ. 1029.—राजनयिक और कोंसुलीय अधिकारी (शपथ एवं फीस) के अधिनियम, 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैधानिक आदेश।

एतद् द्वारा, के न्द्र सरकार भारत के प्रधान कोंसलावास, मेलबर्न में श्री विनय आनंद, सहायक अनुभाग अधिकारी और श्रीमति तवलीन कौर, निजी सहायक को दिनांक 30 मार्च, 2017 से सहायक कोंसलुर अधिकारी के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के निर्वहन के लिए प्राधिकृ त करती है।

[सं. टी. 4330/01/2017]

प्रकाश चन्द, निदेशक (कोंसुलर)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2017

S.O. 1029.—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 Vinay Anand, AssistantII (ii) 2265 Section Officer and Ms. Tavleen Kaur, PA as Assistant Consular Officers in Consulate General of India, Melbourne to perform the Consular services with effect from 30 March, 2017.

[No. T. 4330/01/2016]

PRAKASH CHAND , Director (Consular)

नई दिल्ली 24 मार्च, 2017

का.आ. 1030-.—राजनयिक और कोंसुलीय अधिकारी (शपथ एवं फीस) के अधिनियम, 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैधानिक आदेश।

एतद् द्वारा, के न्द्र सरकार भारत के प्रधान कोंसलावास, टोरोंटो में श्री मंजीत सिंह कोहली, सहायक अनुभाग अधिकारी को दिनांक 24 मार्च, 2017 से सहायक कोंसुलर अधिकारी के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के निर्वहन के लिए प्राधिकृ त करती है।

[सं. टी. 4330/01/2016]

प्रकाश चन्द, निदेशक (कोंसुलर)

New Delhi, the 24th March, 2017

S.O. 1030—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officer (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Manjeet Singh Kohli, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate General of India, Toronto to perform the Consular services with effect from 24 March, 2017.

[No. T. 4330/01/2016]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

शहरी विकास मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2017

का.आ. 1031.—के न्द्रीय सरकार एतदद्वारा शहरी विकास मंत्रालय के प्रशासनिक नियंणाधीन दिल्ली मेट्रो रेल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड तथा एनबीसीसी (इंडिया) लिमिटेड के निम्नलिखित कार्यालय, जिसके 80% से अधिक अधिकारियों और कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम 1976 (यथा संशोधित 1987) के नियम 10 के उपनियम(4) के अंतर्गत अधिसूचित करती हैं :-

1. वरिष्ठ उप महाप्रबंधक, नजफगढ़ डिपो, दिल्ली मेट्रो रेल कॉरपोरेशन, नजफगढ़, दिल्ली-110043

2. कार्यकारी निदेशक (इंजीनियरिंग), आरबीजी नोएडा कार्यालय, एनबीसीसी (इंडिया) लि., नोएडा, उत्तर प्रदेश

[फा. सं. ई-11017/5/2013-हिन्दी]

धर्मेन्द्र, संयुक्त सचिव MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2017

S.O. 1031.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of Official Language (Use for official purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify the following offices of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., and NBCC (India) Limited, under Ministry of Urban Development, where more than 80% of officers/employees have attained working knowledge of Hindi :

1. Sr. Dy Manager, Najfgarh Depot, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Najfgarh, Delhi-110043 2. Executive Director (Engg.), RBG Noida office, NBCC (India) Ltd., Noida, UP.

[F. No. E-11017/5/2013-Hindi]

DHARMENDRA, Jt. Secy.

स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय

(स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2017

का.आ. 1032.—भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102) की धारा 11 की उप धारा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, के न्द्र सरकार, भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद से परामर्श करके उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में, निम्नलिखित, और संशोधन करती है, अर्थात :-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन डा. एनटीआर स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, विजयवाड़ा, आन्ध्र प्रदेश'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा, अर्थात् : -

नोट : 1. स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम को दी गई ऐसी मान्यता अधिकतम 5 वर्ष के लिए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2. मान्यता के 'नवीकरण' की प्रक्रिया वही होगी जो मान्यता प्रदान करने के लिए लागू होती है।

3. अपेक्षित मान्यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने में विफल रहने पर, परिणाम स्वरूप, निरपवाद रूप से संबंधित स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम में प्रवेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[फा. सं. यू-12012/10/2016-एमई-I]

अमित बिश्वास, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2016

S.O. 1032.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956(102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said First Schedule against "Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh" under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)] after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration"[ hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

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

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

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

[F. No. U-12012/10/2016-ME-I ]

AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 1 सितम्बर, 2016

का.आ. 1033.—भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102) की धारा 11 की उप धारा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, के न्द्र सरकार, भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद से परामर्श करके उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में, निम्नलिखित, और संशोधन करती है, अर्थात :-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में 'मान्यताप्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' शीर्षक के अधीन [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] ''मंगलूर विश्वविद्यालय'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा अर्थात् :-

नोट : 1. एमबीबीएस डिग्री प्रदान करने के लिए अधोस्नातक कोर्स को दी गई ऐसी मान्यता अधिकतम 5 वर्ष के लिए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2. मान्यता के 'नवीकरण' की प्रक्रिया वही होगी जो मान्यता प्रदान करने के लिए लागू होती है।

3. उपरिकथित उप खंड (क) में यथा-अपेक्षित मान्यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने में विफल रहने पर, परिणामस्वरूप, निरपवाद रूप से, उक्त संस्थान/मेडिकल कॉलेज में संबंधित एसबीबीएस अधोस्नातक कोर्स में प्रवेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[सं. यू-12012/742/2015-एमई-I]

डी. वी. के . राव, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 1st September, 2016

S.O. 1033.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956(102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said First Schedule against "Mangalore University" under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)] after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration" [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

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

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

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

[No. U-12012/742/2015-ME-I]

D.V.K. RAO, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 8 सितम्बर, 2016

का.आ.1034.—भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद अधिनियम,1956 (1956 का 102) की धारा 11 की उप धारा(2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए के न्द्र सरकार, भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद से परामर्श करके उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में, निम्नलिखित, और संशोधन करती है:

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता'शीर्षक के अधीन [जिसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है]] "बरकतउल्लाह विश्वविद्यालय, भोपाल, मध्य प्रदेश" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया

ख) उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता'शीर्षक के अधीन [जिसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] "तमिलनाडु डॉ. एम.जी.आर.मेडिकल विश्वविद्यालय, चेन्नई" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया

ग) उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता'शीर्षक के अधीन[जिसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] "राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, बेंगलौर" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया

घ) उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता'शीर्षक के अधीन[जिसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] "बाबा फरीद स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, फरीदकोट" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया

ङ) उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता'शीर्षक के अधीन[जिसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] " तमिलनाडु डॉ.एम.जी.आर.मेडिकल विश्वविद्यालय, चेन्नई" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा. अर्थात्:-

(च) उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता'शीर्षक के अधीन[जिसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] "चौधरी चरण सिंह विश्वविद्यालय,मेरठ" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा. अर्थात्:-

(छ) उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता'शीर्षक के अधीन[जिसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] "डॉ.एन.टी.आर.स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, विजयवाड़ा" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा. अर्थात्:-

(ज) उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता'शीर्षक के अधीन[जिसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] "के रल स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, तृश्शूर " के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा. अर्थात्:-

नोट: 1. उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अधिदेशित भारतीय आयु र्विज्ञान परिषद पर निगरानी समिति द्वारा 12 अगस्त, 2016 के पत्र सं.ओसी/रेकोगनीशन(यूजी) प्रोपोज़ल्स/ 2016-17/42 के निदेशों का पालन करते हुए यह अधिसूचना जारी की जाती है। सभी मामलों में मेडिकल कॉलेज इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने के 15 दिन के अन्दर निम्नलिखित उपलब्ध करवाएंगे:-

(i) संबंधित न्यास/विश्वविद्यालय/सोसायटी/कम्पनी आदि के डीन/प्रिंसिपल और अध्यक्ष की ओर से शपथ पत्र कि सभी कमियों की पूर्ति कर दी गयी है और स्वा.और परि.कल्या.मंत्रा. को 22 जून, 2016 तक प्रेषित अनुपालन रिपोर्ट में इसका उल्लेख किया गया।

(ii) भा.आयु.परि.के पक्ष में 2 करोड़ रुपये की बैंक गारंटी जो एक वर्ष अथवा प्रथम नवीकरण मूल्यांकन तक, इनमें से जो भी बाद में हो, तक के लिए वैध हो। ऐसी बैंक गारंटी आवेदन के साथ प्रस्तुत की गई निर्धारित फीस के अलावा होगी ।

2. उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अधिदेशित निगरानी समिति ने अनुमोदन प्रदान करते समय निम्नलिखित शर्त भी लगाई है:-

(क) निगरानी समिति 30 सितंबर, 2016 के पश्चात कभी भी कॉलेज द्वारा प्रस्तुत अनुपालन रिपोर्ट के सत्यापन के लिए निरीक्षण के आदेश दे सकती है।

(ख) उपयु र्क्त 1 की शर्त (i) व (ii) में चूक होने पर और 30 सितंबर के बाद किए जाने वाले निरीक्षण में अनुपालन अधूरा पाए जाने की स्थिति में, ऐसे कॉलेज को, 2017-18 से प्रारम्भ होने वाले सत्र से, 2 वर्ष के लिए नए छात्रों को प्रवेश देने से वंचित कर दिया जाएगा।

3. एमबीबीएस डिग्री प्रदान करने के लिए अधोस्नातक कोर्सों के लिए दी गयी मान्यता निगरानी समिति के उपयु र्क्त निर्दिष्ट निर्देशों और शर्तों के अधीन होगी और अधिकतम 5 वर्षों के लिए होगी और इसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना ही होगा । ' नवीकरण' की प्रक्रिया वही होगी जो मान्यता प्राप्त करने के लिए लागू होती है।

4. मान्यता के 'नवीकरण' की प्रक्रिया वही होगी जो मान्यता प्रदान करने के लिए लागू होती है।

5. मान्यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने में विफल रहने पर, परिणामस्वरूप, निरपवाद रूप से, उक्त संस्थान/मेडिकल कॉलेज में संबंधित एमबीबीएस अधोस्नातक कोर्स में प्रवेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[फा. सं. यू-12012/33/2016-एमई-I]

डी. वी. के राव, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 8th September, 2016

S.O. 1034.—In exercise of the powerd conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956(102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act:

(a) In the said First Schedule after "Barkatullah University, Bhopal" and under the heading Recognized Medical Qualification' [Hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration" [Hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely;-II (ii) 2275

(b) In the said First Schedule after "Tamilnadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Chennai" and under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [Hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration" [Hereinafter referred to as colimn (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(c) In the said First Schedule after "Rajiv Gandhi University of Heath Sciences, Bangalore" and under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [Hereinafer referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registraton" [Hereinafer referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(d) In the said First schedule after "Baba Farid university of Health Sciences, Faridkot" and under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [Hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry realting thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration" [ Hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(e) In the said First schedule after "Tamilnadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Chennai" and under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [Hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry realting thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration" [ Hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(f) In the said First schedule after "Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Merrut" and under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [Hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry realting thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration" [ Hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(g) In the said First Schedule after "Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijaywada" and under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [Hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration" [Hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(h) In the said First Schedule after "Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur" and under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [Hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration" [Hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

Note: 1. This notification is issued complying with the direction if the Supreme Court Mandated Oversight Committee on MCI as communicated vide letter No. OC/Recognition (UG) Proposals/2016-17/42 dated 12th August, 2016. In all cases, Medical Colleges shall within 15 days of this Notification, Provide the following:-

(i) An affidavit from the Dean/Principal and Chairman of the Trust/University/Society/Company etc Concerned, affirming fulfillment of all deficiencies and statement made in the respective compliance report submitted to MHFW by 22 June, 2016,

(ii) A bank guarantee in the amount of Rs.2 crore in favour of MCI, which will be valid for 1 year or until the first renewal assessment, whichever is later. Such bank guarantee will be in addition to the prescribed fee submitted alongwith the application.

2. The Supreme Court Mandated Oversight Committee while granting approval has also stipulated as follows:-

(a) OC may direct inspection to verify the compliance submitted by the college and considered by OC, anytime after 30 September, 2016.

(b) In default of the conditions (i) and (ii) in 1 above and if the compliances are found incomplete in the inspection to be conducted after 30 September, 2016, such college will be debarred from fresh intake of students for 2 years commencing 2017-18.

3. The recognition so granted to undergraduate courses for award of MBBS degree shall be subject to directives and stipulations made by the oversight Committee indicated herein above and further subject to a maximum period of 5 years, upon which it shall have to be renewed.

4. The procedure for 'Renewal' of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.

5. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions to the concerned undergraduate Course.

[F. No.U-12012/33/2016-ME-I]

D.V.K. RAO, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 8 नवम्बर, 2016

का.आ. 1035.—भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102) की धारा 11 की उप धारा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, के न्द्र सरकार, भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद से परामर्श करके उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में, निम्नलिखित, और संशोधन करती है, अर्थात :-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन ''राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय बंगलूर से पूर्व प्रविष्टियों में ''येनेपोया स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, मंगलूर'' जोड़ा जाए और येनेपोया स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, मंगलूर के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित

नोट: 1. स्नातकोत्तर कोर्स को दी गई ऐसी मान्यता अधिकतम 5 वर्ष के लिए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2. मान्यता के 'नवीकरण' की प्रक्रिया वही होगी जो मान्यता प्रदान करने के लिए लागू होती है।

3. अपेक्षित मान्यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने में विफल रहने पर, परिणाम स्वरूप,निरपवाद रूप से, संबंधित स्नातकोत्तर कोर्स में प्रवेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[फा. सं. यू-12012/45/2016-एमई-I]

डी. वी. के . राव, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 8th November, 2016

S.O. 1035— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956(102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendment in the First Schedule to the said Act, due to change in name of affiliating University namely:-

In the said First Schedule before "Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore and entries thereto "Yenepoya University of Health Science, Mangalore" shall be added and against "Yenepoya University of Health Sciences, Mangalore" under the heading 'recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)] after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for registration' [ hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

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

2. The procedure to 'Renewal' of recognition shall be same as application for the award of recognition.

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

[F.No. U-12012/45/2016-ME-I]

D.V.K. RAO, Under Secy.

शुद्धि-पत्र

नई दिल्ली, 9 नवम्बर, 2016

का.आ. 1036.—इस विभाग अधिसूचना सं.यू.-12012/481/2015-एमई-(पी. II) दिनांक 14.08.2015 के अनुक्रम में भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102) की धारा 11 की उप धारा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, के न्द्र सरकार, भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद से परामर्श करके उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में, निम्नलिखित, और संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्:-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में –

(ड.) ''डॉ. एनटीआर स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, विजयवाड़ा, आंध्र प्रदेश'' के समक्ष 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' कालम (3) शीर्षक के अंतर्गत डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (पेडियॉटिरक्स) 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता होगी जब यह प्रतिमा इंस्ट्यिूट ऑफ मेडिकल सांइसेज, करीम नगर में 2014 की बजाए 2012 अथवा उसके पश्चात प्रशिक्षित किए गए छात्रों को डॉ. एनटीआर स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, विजयवाड़ा, आन्ध्र प्रदेश द्वारा प्रदत्त होगी।''

[फा. सं. यू-12012/481/2015-एमई-I]

डी.वी.के . राव, अवर सचिव

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 9th November, 2016

S.O. 1036.—In continuation to this Department's Notification No. U.-12012/481/2015-ME(P.II) dated 14.08.2015, and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely :-

In the said Schedule –

(e) against ''Dr NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh'' under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' (column 3), the Doctor of Medicine (Paediatrics) qualification shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by Dr NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh in respect of students being trained at Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences, karim Nagar on or after 2012 instead of 2014''.

[F. No. U-12012/481/2015-ME-I]

D.V.K. RAO, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 15 नवम्बर, 2016

का.आ. 1037.—भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102) की धारा 11 की उप धारा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, के न्द्र सरकार, भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद से परामर्श करके उस अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में, निम्नलिखित, और संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्:-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन ''दि तमिलनाडु डॉ. एम.जी.आर. मेडिकल विश्वविद्यालय, चेन्नई'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा अर्थात् :-

नोट : 1. स्नातकोत्तर कोर्स को दी गई ऐसी मान्यता अधिकतम 5 वर्ष के लिए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2. मान्यता के 'नवीकरण'की प्रक्रिया वही होगी जो मान्यता प्रदान करने के लिए लागू होती है।

3. उप खंड (क) में यथा-अपेक्षित मान्यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने में विफल रहने पर, परिणामस्वरूप, निरपवाद रूप से, संबंधित स्नातकोत्तर कोर्स में प्रवेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[फा.सं. यू-12012/218/2015-एमई-I]

डी. वी. के . राव, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 15th November, 2016

S.O. 1037.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956(102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said First Schedule against "The Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Chennai,Tamil Nadu" under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration'[hereinafter referred to as column(3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

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

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

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

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

D.V.K. RAO, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 15 नवम्बर, 2016

का.आ. 1038.—भारतीय आुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102) की धारा 11 की उपधारा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, के न्द्र सरकार, भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् से परामर्श करके उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में, निम्नलिखित, और संशोधन करती है, अर्थात् :-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में :-

(क) 'मान्यताप्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन ֯'डा. एनटीआर स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, विजयवाड़ा, आंध्र प्रदेश'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात् और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा, अर्थात्:-

नोट: 1. स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम को दी गई ऐसी मान्यता अधिकतम 5 वर्ष के लिए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2. मान्यता के 'नवीकरण' की प्रक्रिया वही होगी जो मान्यता प्रदान करने के लिए लागू होती है।

3. अपेक्षित मान्यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने में विफल रहने पर, परिणाम स्वरूप, निरपवाद रूप से संबंधित स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम में प्रवेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[फा. सं. यू-12012/471/2015-एमई-I]

डी.वी.के . राव, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 15th November, 2016

S.O. 1038.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956(102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said First Schedule against "Dr NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh" under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)] after the last entry and entry2282 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration" [ hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

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

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

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

[F. No. U-12012/471/2015-ME-I]

D.V.K. RAO, Under Secy.

शुद्धि-पत्र

नई दिल्ली, 25 नवम्बर, 2016

का.आ. 1039.—इस मंत्रालय की पूर्व अधिसूचना सं. यू.-12012/38/2011-एमई-(पी.II) दिनांक 09.06.2011 के अनुक्रम में, के न्द्र सरकार भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् से परामर्श करके , " पं. बी.डी.शर्मा स्नातकोत्तर इंस्टिट्यूट ऑफ मेडिकल सांइसिस, रोहतक हरियाणा" के समक्ष दर्शायी अर्हताओं में प्रवेश रोकने के कारण, उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में और संशोधन करती है अर्थात् 'मान्यताप्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हत' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम )2 (कहा गया है ] शीर्षक के अधीन [आगे कालम (2) के रूप में संदर्भित है] शीर्ष में अन्तिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और "पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्ति" [आगे कालम (3) के रूप में संदर्भित है] शीर्ष के अधीन निम्नलिखित अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा, अर्थात:-

[सं. यू-12012/14/2016-एमई-I]

डी.वी.के . राव, अवर सचिव

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 25th November, 2016

S.O. 1039.—In continuation of the Ministry's earlier notification No. U-12012/38/2011-ME(P.II) dated 09.06.2011, the Central Government, in consultation with the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, due to stoppage of admission by the college authorities in the qualifications mentioned against "Pt. B. D. Sharma Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak, Haryana" under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], against the following qualifications and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration" [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

Note: The college authorities have given undertaking that they are not admitting any students in the above mentioned courses from the academic session 2017-18.

[No. U-12012/14/2016-ME- I]

D.V.K. RAO, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 9 जनवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1040.—भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102) की धारा 11 की उप धारा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, के न्द्र सरकार, भारतीय आुर्विज्ञान परिषद् में परामर्श करके उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में, निम्नलिखित, और संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्:-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में :-

क) 'मान्यताप्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन ''डा. एनटीआर स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, विजयवाड़ा, आंध्र प्रदेश'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इनके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा, अर्थात् :-

ख) 'मान्यताप्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन ''हिमाचल प्रदेश विश्वविद्यालय, हिमाचल प्रदेश'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और 'पंजीकरणके लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा,

ग) 'मान्यताप्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन 'के रल स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, तृश्शूर' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्ट के पश्चात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्ट के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा,

घ) 'मान्यताप्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन ''राजीवगांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, बेंगलुरु'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और 'पंजीकरणके लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत::स्थापित किया जाएगा,

करवाना होगा।

2. मान्यता के 'नवीकरण' की प्रक्रिया वही होगी जो मान्यता प्रदान करने के लिए लागू होती है।

3. अपेक्षित मान्यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने में विफल रहने पर, परिणाम स्वरूप, निरपाद रूप से संबंधित स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम में प्रवेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[फा. सं. यू-12012/473/2015-एमई-I]

डी.वी.के . राव, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 9th January, 2017

S.O. 1040.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act.

In the said First Schedule:-

a) against "Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences,Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh" and under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(b) against "Himachal Pradesh University, Himachal Pradesh" under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(c) against "Kerala University of Health Sciences,Thrissur,Kerala" under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(d) against "Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore" under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

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

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

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

[No.U-12012/473/2015-ME-I ]

D.V.K. RAO, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1041.—भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102) की धारा 11 की उप धारा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए के न्द्र सरकार, भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद से परामर्श करके उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में, निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है, अर्थात् :-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में

(क) 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' शीर्षक के अधीन [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] ''के रल स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय तृश्शूर, के रल'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा, अर्थात्:-

(ख) 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता'शीर्षक के अधीन [जिसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] "राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, बेंगलुरु" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संवंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा. अर्थात्:-

(ग) 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' शीर्षक के अधीन [जिसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] "दि तमिलनाडु डॉ.एम.जी.आर.मेडिकल कॉलेज विश्वविद्यालय, चेन्नई" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संवंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा. अर्थात्:-

(घ) 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' शीर्षक के अधीन [जिसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] "डॉ.एन.टी.आर.स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, विजयवाड़ा" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संवंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा. अर्थात्:-

(ङ) 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता'शीर्षक के अधीन[जिसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] "डॉ.बी.आर. आंबेडकर विश्वविद्यालय, आगरा" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संवंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा. अर्थात्:-

(च) 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता'शीर्षक के अधीन [जिसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] "अमृता विश्व विद्यापीठम विश्वविद्यालय, कोयंबत्तूर" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संवंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा.

अर्थात्:-

(छ) 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता'शीर्षक के अधीन[जिसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] "संतोष विश्वविद्यालय, गाजियाबाद" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संवंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा. अर्थात्:-

(ज) मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता'शीर्षक के अधीन[जिसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] "त्रिपुरा विश्वविद्यालय" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संवंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा. अर्थात्:-

(झ) 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता'शीर्षक के अधीन[जिसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] "भारतीय विद्यापीठ डीम्ड विश्वविद्यालय, पुणे" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संवंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा. अर्थात्:-

[फा. सं. यू-12012/01/2017-एमई-I (पार्ट-3)]

अमित बिश्वास, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2017

S.O. 1041.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule –

a) against "Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur" under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:- (2)

b) against "Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore" under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

c) against "The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical College University, Chennai" under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

d) against "Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada" under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

e) against "Dr. B R Ambedkar University, Agra" under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

f) against "Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham University, Coimbatore" under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

g) against "Santosh University, Ghaziabad" under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

h) against "Tripura University" under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

i) against "Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University, Pune" under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

[No.U-12012/01/2017-ME-I (Pt-3)] AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1042.—भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102) की धारा 11 की उप-धारा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, के न्द्र सरकार, भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् से परामर्श करके उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में, निम्नलिखित, और संशोधन करती है, अर्थात् :-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में :-

क) 'मान्यताप्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन ''डॉ. एनटीआर स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, विजयवाड़ा, आंध्र प्रदेश' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा, अर्थात् :-

ख) 'मान्यताप्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन ''राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, बेंगलुरू'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा, अर्थात्:-

ग) 'मान्यताप्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन 'के रल स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, तृश्शूर'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा, अर्थात्:-

घ) 'मान्यताप्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन ''दि तमिलनाडु स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, चेन्नई'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा, अर्थात्:-

ङ) 'मान्यताप्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन ''आर्यभट्ट नालिज विश्वविद्यालय, पटना'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा, अर्थात्:-

च) 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन ''दिल्ली विश्वविद्यालय, दिल्ली'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा, अर्थात्:-

छ) 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन ''चौ. चरण सिंह विश्वविद्यालय,'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा, अर्थात्:-

ज) 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन ''महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, नासिक, महाराष्ट्र'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा, अर्थात्:-

झ) 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन ''त्रिपुरा विश्वविद्यालय, अगरतला'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा, अर्थात्:-

ञ) 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन ''वीर नरमद दक्षिणी गुजरात विश्वविद्यालय'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा, अर्थात्:-

ट) 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन ''शारदा विश्वविद्यालय, ग्रेटर नोएडा'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा, अर्थात्:-

ठ) 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन ''कु मांयू विश्वविद्यालय, नैनीताल'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा, अर्थात्:-

ड) 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन ''भारती विद्यापीठ डीम्ड विश्वविद्यालय, पुणे'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित कियाजाएगा, अर्थात्:-

ढ) 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन ''तीर्थंकर महावीर, विश्वविद्यालय, मुरादाबाद'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित कियाजाएगा, अर्थात्:-

ण) 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन ''सविता विश्वविद्यालय (डीम्ड), चेन्नई'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित कियाजाएगा, अर्थात्:-

त) 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन ''एसआरएम विश्वविद्यालय, चेन्नई'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा, अर्थात्:-

थ) 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन ''गीतांजलि विश्वविद्यालय, उदयपुर'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा, अर्थात्:-

द) 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन ''एमजेपी रूहेलखंड विश्वविद्यालय, बरेली, उत्तर प्रदेश'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित कियाजाएगा, अर्थात्:-

ध) 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीर्षक के अधीन ''एनआईएमएस विश्वविद्यालय (डीम्ड विश्वविद्यालय), जयपुर'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित कियाजाएगा, अर्थात्:-

[फा. सं. यू-12012/01/2017-एमई-I (पार्ट-2)]

डी. वी. के . राव, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2017

S.O. 1042.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule -

(a) against "Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(b) against "Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(c) against "Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(d) against "The Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical College University, Chennai", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(e) against "Arya Bhatta Knowledge University, Patna ", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(f) against "Delhi University, Delhi", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(g) against "Ch. Charan Singh University", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(h) against "Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(i) against "Tripura University, Agartala", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(j) against "Veer Narmad South Gujarat University", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(k) against "Sharda University, Greater Noida", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(l) against "Kumaon University, Nainital", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(m) against "Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University, Pune", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(n) against "Teerthanker Mahaveer University, Moradabad", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(o) against "Saveetha University (Deemed), Chennai", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(p) against "SRM University, Chennai", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(q) against "Geetanjali University, Udaipur", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(r) against "MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, U.P.", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(s) against "NIMS University (Deemed University), Jaipur", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

[No. U-12012/01/2017-ME-I (Pt-2)]

D.V.K. RAO, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 28 मार्च, 2017

का.आ. 1043.—भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102) की धारा 11 की उप धारा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्तशक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए के न्द्र सरकार, भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् से परामर्श करके उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में, निम्नलिखित, और संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्:-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में 'मान्यताप्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' शीर्षक के अधीन [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] ''के रल स्वास्थ्य स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, तृश्शूर'' के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पश्चात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [जिसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा, अर्थात्:-

नोट: 1. अद्योस्नातक कोर्स को दी गई ऐसी मान्यता अधिकतम 5 वर्ष के लिए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2. मान्यता के 'नवीकरण' की प्रक्रिया वही होगा जो मान्यता प्रदान करने के लिए लागू होती है।

3. उपरिकथित उप खंड (क) में यथा-अपेक्षित मान्यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने में विफल रहने पर, परिणामस्वरूप, निरपवाद रूप से, उक्त संस्थान/मेडिकल कॉलेज में संबंधित एमबीबीएस अद्योस्नातक कोर्स में प्रवेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[फा. सं. यू-12012/79/2015-एमई-I (एफटीएस-137823)]

डी. वी. के . राव, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 28th March, 2017

S.O. 1043.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act.

In the said First Schedule after "Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur" and under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification' [Hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration'[hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

Note : 1. The recognition so granted to an undergraduate Course for award of MBBS degree shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon which it shall have to be renewed.

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

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

[F. No. U-12012/79/2015-ME-I (FTS.137823)]

D.V.K. RAO, Under Secy.

उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग)

(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो)

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1044.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

[सं. सीएमडी/13:11]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुखII (ii) 2319

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2017

S.O. 1044.— In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' and Head

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2017

का. आ. 1045.— भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

[सं. सीएमडी/13:11]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2017

S.O. 1045.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' and Head

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1046.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/3: 11]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2017

S.O. 1046.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' and Head

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1047.— भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम, 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भरतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं :

अनुसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13: 11]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, 9th February, 2017

S.O. 1047.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' and Head

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1048.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम, 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13: 11]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुखII (ii) 2329

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2017

S.O. 1048.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head2330 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1049.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम, 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13: 11]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2017

S.O. 1049.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1050.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13: 11]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2017

S.O. 1050.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head2336 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1051.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13: 11]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 9th Feburary, 2017

S.O. 1051.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1052.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13: 11]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 9th Feburary, 2017

S.O. 1052.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1053.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13: 11]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2017

S.O. 1053.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1054.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 11]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 9th February, 20-17

S.O. 1054.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head2348 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1055.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम, 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 11]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2017

S.O. 1055.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' and Head

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1056.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियमन 5 के उपविनियमन (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शाई गई तारीख से रद्द/स्थगित कर दिया गया है:—

अनुसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 13]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2017

S.O. 1056.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations, 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13 : 13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1057.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम, 1988 के विनियमन 5 के उपविनियमन (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शाई गई तारीख से रद्द/ स्थगित कर दिया गया है:—

अनुसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 13]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2017

S.O. 1057.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations, 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13 : 13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1058.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियमन 5 के उपविनियमन (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शाई गई तारीख से रद्द/ स्थगित कर दिया गया है:-

अनुसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 13]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2017

S.O. 1058.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13 : 13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1059.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियमन 5 के उपविनियमन (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शाई गई तारीख से रद्द/ स्थगित कर दिया गया है:-

अनुसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 13]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2017

S.O. 1059.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13 : 13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1060.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियमन 5 के उपविनियमन (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शाई गई तारीख से रद्द/ स्थगित कर दिया गया है:-

अनुसूची

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुखII (ii) 2355

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2017

S.O. 1060.— In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1061.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियमन 5 के उपविनियमन (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शाई गई तारीख से रद्द/ स्थगित कर दिया गया है:-

अनुसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 13]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2017

S.O. 1061.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13 : 13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1062.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियमन 5 के उपविनियमन (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शाई गई तारीख से रद्द/ स्थगित कर दिया गया है:-

अनुसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 13]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2017

S.O. 1062.— In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13 : 13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियमन 5 के उपविनियमन (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शाई गई तारीख से रद्द/ स्थगित कर दिया गया है:-

अनुसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 13]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2017

S.O. 1063.— In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13 : 13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1064.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियमन 5 के उपविनियमन (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शाई गई तारीख से रद्द/ स्थगित कर दिया गया है:-

अनुसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 13]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख2358 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2017

S.O. 1064.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13 : 13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1065.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियमन 5 के उपविनियमन (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शाई गई तारीख से रद्द/ स्थगित कर दिया गया है:-

अनुसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 13]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2017

S.O. 1065.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13 : 13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1066.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियमन 5 के उपविनियमन (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शाई गई तारीख से रद्द/ स्थगित कर दिया गया है:-

अनुसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 13]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2017

S.O. 1066.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13 : 13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1067.— भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियमन 5 के उपविनियमन (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शाई गई तारीख से रद्द/ स्थगित कर दिया गया है:-

अनुसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13 :13]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2017

S.O. 1067.— In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & HeadII (ii) 2361

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1068.— भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13 :11]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2017

S.O. 1068.— In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2017

का.आ. 1069.— भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:—

अनुसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13 :11]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुखII (ii) 2365 New Delhi,

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

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली,

का.आ.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियमन 5 के उपविनियमन (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शाई गई तारीख से रद्द/स्थगित कर दिया गया है:—

अनुसूची

[सं. सी एम डी/13:13]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख2368 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi,

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

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head

नई दिल्ली,

का.आ.— भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियमन 5 के उपविनियमन (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शाई गई तारीख से रद्द/ स्थगित कर दिया गया है:-

अनुसूची

[सं. सी एम डी 13:13]

टी. कलैवाणन, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi,

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

SCHEDULE

[No. CMD/13:13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head2370 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] —

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2017

S.O. 1072.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 327/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Tirunelveli and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03.04.2017.

[No. L-40011/34/2003-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Wednesday, the 22nd March, 2017

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 327/2004

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and their workman)

BETWEEN :

The Circle Secretary : 1st Party/Petitioner Union BSNL Employees Union No. 3/71, 4th Street, Raghava Nagar Madipakkam Chennai-600091

AND

The General Manager, Telecom : 2nd Party/Respondent BSNL, Department of Telecom Bye Pass Road Vannarpet Tirunelveli-627003

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union :        M/s. K.M. Ramesh,  Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondents      :        Sri P. Srinivasan,  Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-40011/34/2003-IR (DU) dated 05.03.2004 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the demand of the Union for regularization of 66 Line Workers (list enclosed) who worked under

BSNL, Tirunelveli is justified, if so the relief they are entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal numbered it as ID 327/2004 and issued notices to both sides. Both sides entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner is a Union registered under the Trade Unions Act. It has a substantial number of permanent workmen working in BSNL as its members. The workmen concerned in the ID are doing line work. They are working through the alleged contractor. Even though the contractors change often the employees continue to be the same. All the employees concerned in the dispute are Class-IV employees for whom sponsorship from Employment Exchange is not required. The contract system is only a camouflage. The overall control of the so-called contract labour remains with the telecom department. There are regular sanctioned posts for regularizing the employees concerned in the case. The concerned workmen are entitled to be made permanent on completion of 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months. The workmen are entitled to be absorbed in the establishment from the date of their joining the service.

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The Petitioner Union is not a representative Union of BSNL. Apart from that the Union was originally having membership of regular staff alone. The workmen concerned in the dispute are not members of the Petitioner Union. So the Union is not competent to represent them. The concerned workmen are not known to the Respondents. The petitioner has admitted that the concerned workmen are contract labourers. The work is supervised by the contractual agency. The Respondents pay bills to the concerned agency only. The petitioner has no locus-standi to espouse the cause of persons who are not employees of the Respondents. The contracts are not sham. The Contractors were given work according to the work requirement only. BSNL is not responsible for the labourers employed by the Contractors. A regular set of staff is available for carrying out regular nature of work in BSNL. The work done by the contract workers are not perennial in nature. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and WW2 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W7 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M13.

6. The point for consideration is:

Whether the concerned workmen are entitled to absorption as claimed?

The Point

7. The dispute is raised on behalf of 66 workmen whose names and other details are given in the annexure to the Schedule of reference. These 66 workmen on whose behalf the dispute is raised are said to be doing Line Work in Tirunelveli Division of the Respondent. It is stated that though the workmen are working through Contractors, the Contractors change often but the workmen continue to do the same work. The so-called contract system is said to be a sham one. The petitioner has stated that the concerned workmen are entitled to absorption in the service of the Respondent because the contract system under which they are working is a sham one. The petitioner has claimed permanency for the workmen under TNIE Act also on the basis that they have worked for more than 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months.

8. One of the concerned workman has been examined as WW1. He has stated in his affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination filed by him that he is giving evidence on behalf of all the concerned workmen. He has stated that all of them were doing the work of Lineman under the Department of Telecom and subsequently BSNL and they had been paying wages to them directly. WW1 has given the names of the officials who are said to have extracted work from the workmen.

9. Out of 7 documents marked on behalf of the petitioner, Ext.W4 is a replica of the annexure to the Schedule of reference, Ext.W5 is the Bye-Laws of the Petitioner Union and Ext.W6 is the resolution of the Union. Ext.W7 is the copy of some questions raised in the Parliament pertaining to contract workers. Only Ext.W1 to Ext.W3 pertains to the workmen concerned.

10. It is to be examined whether Ext.W1 to Ext.W3 establish the case of the concerned workman. Ext.W1 includes a certificate issued to WW1 by a Junior Telecom Officer stating that he was doing work on contract basis in the years 2000 and 2001 and January to July 2002. The certificate does not show on which date it was issued. There is another certificate issued to one S. Mohan, one of the concerned workman stating that he had taken many contract works from JTO, Vadakkankulam during the period from 10.02.2002 to 08.07.2002. Ext.W2 which refers to the joining report of Mohan on contract labour issued on 11.03.2000 also is there. Other than these no other documents in respect of this workman are available.

11. Ext.W3 is described as working particulars of certain months pertaining to 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. These are neither continuous nor specify in respect of whom. Apart from this, there is nothing to show that this is a document2372 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] that has generated from the Respondent establishment. It does not have the seal of the establishment or the signature of any official.

12. With the three documents discussed above it will not be possible to come to a conclusion that even those workmen named have been working for the establishment under the so-called contract system which is a sham one as is the case of the petitioner. This would not establish even the case that those workmen have worked for more than 480 days within 24 calendar months. So far as the other workmen are concerned, their names do not appear anywhere in the documents. There is no evidence as to when they have started to work for the establishment, for how much period they have worked or whether they are still working. There is total dearth of documents regarding them. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

In view of the discussion above, the reference is answered against the petitioner. An Award is passed accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 22nd March, 2017)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union : WW1, Sri S. Mani

WW2, Sri K. Srinivasan

For the 2nd Party/Respondents : MW1, Sri V. Anthonysamy

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex.No. Date Description

Ext.W1          -                   Certificate issued by BSNL
Ext.W2          11.03.2000          Joining Report
Ext.W3          -                   Working Particulars
Ext.W4          -                   2A petition annexure
Ext.W5          -                   Bye-laws of the Union
Ext.W6          30/31 Oct'2001      Resolution of the union
Ext.W7          21.03.2006          Lok  Sabha  Admitted  Provisional  Starred  Question  Dy.  No.  10145  for
                                    19.12.2005 by Shri Ganesh Singh  regarding regularization of contract Workers.

On the Management's side

Ext.No. Date Description

Ext.M1           24.12.1992          Copy of DOT,  New Delhi letter no. 29-18/91-SRT dated 24.12.1992 addressed
                                     to  CGMR,    Calcutta  Phones  and  Endorsement  No.  E.1/107/Blgs/92-93/3  dated
                                     TR-1 the 02.02.1993
Ext.M2           30.03.1985          Office  of  the  Director  General  Posts  &  Telegraphs  regarding  ban  order  for
                                     recruitment of casual labours.
Ext.M3           25.07.1989          Letter from Chief General Manager,  Telecommunications,  Tamil Nadu Circle,
                                     Madras-600002 regarding eligibility of casual labour to become office bearer of
                                     the Unions
Ext.M4           -                   Copy of Page 137 of Appendix 3 from P&T Manual Vol.III
Ext.M5           -                   Copy of Appendix No. 3 – Preservation of Records
Ext.M6           05.11.2001          Letter  from  BSNL  to  All  Chief  General  Managers  regarding  adoption  of  the
                                     existing Appointing Authorities  in respect of absorption of Group C and D staff
                                     in BSNL
Ext.M7           -                   Copy of  Appendix 13A at Page  426 of Financial  & Hand  Book of P&T Rules

which deals with Rlule-331

Ext.M8           -                   Copy of letter from CGM,  Telecom,  Chennai to all Subordinate Offices
Ext.M9           20.11.2004          Copy of the agreement entered into between BSNL and  Sri S. Chandrasekaran
                                     Proprietor of M/s.  Ganesh Constructions Contractor.
Ext.M10          27.03.2003          The  Contract  Labour  (Regulation  &  Abolition)  Act,    1970  and  Central  Rules,
                                     1971 made there under—Grant of Certificate Registration-reg.
Ext.M11          22.06.1995          Copy of the document of prescribed procedure to be followed by the Department
                                     in the appointment of Group "D" employees category.
Ext.M12          10/11.07.2002       Awarding of Tender for cable Joint work in zone-3 of Tirunelveli SSA-reg.
Ext.M13          28.04.2006          Model Bill for Labours.

—

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2017

S.O. 1073.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 314/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager, Telegraph, CTO, BSNL, Chennai and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03.04.2017.

[No. L-40011/16/2003-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Wednesday, the 22nd March, 2017

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 314/2004

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and their workman)

BETWEEN :

The BSNL Employees Union Represented by Sri K.M. Elangovan Plot No. 1, Balaji Nagar 89, Veppambattu. Thiruvallur-602024

: 1st Party/Petitioner Union

AND

The General Manager Telegraph, CTO, BSNL Chennai.

: 2nd Party/Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union                                          :  M/s. K.M. Ramesh,  Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondents                                               :  Sri P. Srinivasan,  Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-40011/16/2003-IR (DU) dated 25.02.2004 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the non-regularization of the services of Sri P. Ramamoorthy by the management of BSNL is legal and

justified and if so to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal numbered it as ID 314/2004 and issued notices to both sides. Both sides entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively. The petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter Statement.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner is a Registered Trade Union having substantial number of workmen as its members. The dispute is raised relating to non-regularization of service of P. Ramamoorthy. Ramamoorthy, the concerned workman had joined the Department of Telecom on 21.04.1990 at SSTT, Madras. He was employed as Class-IV employee and was discharging the work of Sweeper, taking messages and also doing the work of Sub-Staff. He was paid consolidated wages every month under the Head "Part-Time Payment". Wages of Ramamoorthy was revised by order dated 25.07.1994. Ramamoorthy had filed OA No. 176/99 before CAT, Madras seeking a direction for regularization. This was disposed on 03.05.2000 with a direction to the telecom to dispose the representation made by Ramamoorthy. Ramamoorthy had been working for not less than 6 hours a day and was getting part-time wages. His wages fluctuated depending upon the number of telegrams delivered by him. He was under the control of the Officers of Telecom and was supervised by them. Ramamoorthy had sent representation on 02.06.2000 requesting to regularize his services. This was rejected. The dispute was raised on 19.08.2000. On failure of conciliation the dispute was referred to this Tribunal. Ramamoorthy has completed continuous service of 480 days within a period of 24 calendar months and is to be deemed to have attained permanent status as per Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman) Act. During the conciliation proceedings the Respondent wanted to disengage the petitioner and give work to the Contractor. During the pendency of the dispute Ramamoorthy was asked to work through the Contractor. Without prejudice to his right for regularization, he is working on contract on consolidated salary of Rs. 1, 000/- per month. Prior to that he was getting approximately Rs. 1, 500/- per month. An Award may be passed holding that the action of BSNL in not regularizing the service of Ramamoorthy on completion of 480 days in 24 calendar months is not legal and justified and consequently directing the Respondent to regularize Ramamoorthy in service with all monetary benefits.

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The petitioner has no locus-standi to espouse the cause of persons who are not employees of the Respondent. The subject matter of the claim does not relate to the service conditions of any of the employees of BSNL. So the claim is not maintainable. Apart from that Ramamoorthy is not a member of the Petitioner Union. Only Group C and D employees are eligible to become member of the Petitioner Union. On 24.03.1999 quotations were invited for awarding contract in respect of works including Sweeping, Cleaning, etc. The petitioner had challenged this by filing an OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal and this was dismissed as premature. The contract was awarded to one M/s. Arun Associates for a period of one year with effect from 01.09.2003. Ramamoorthy is working under the Contractor w.e.f. 01.09.2003. BSNL has no employer-employee relationship with Ramamoorthy. Ramamoorthy and another had filed OA 176/1999 before CAT seeking the relief of regularization. They were directed to make representation to the Respondent in this respect. The representation made by Ramamoorthy was rejected by the Respondent. He has not challenged this order. Instead he has approached the Petitioner Union to raise the demand for regularization. The dispute is not maintainable as it is barred by the principle of res-judicata. It is not open to the petitioner to approach this Tribunal. It is incorrect to state that Ramamoorthy was engaged at SSTT, Madras. Ramamoorthy was not employed as Group IV employee at all. The department used to engage coolie messengers to deliver telegrams when there is accumulation of telegrams for delivery. They are engaged as and when required only. Ramamoorthy had volunteered to work as coolie in the year 1990 and was engaged as and when required only. Ramamoorthy had competed for contracts at Chengalpet Telegraph Office on 07.06.1999 for sweeping, cleaning, etc. and was awarded contract for the period 1999, 2000. Only amount of contract was disbursed to him. A Contractor cannot be equated to a regular employee. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

5. The petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter Statement denying the contentions in the Counter Statement and reiterating the case in the Claim Statement.

6. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1, WW2 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W21 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M15.

7. The point for consideration is:

Whether Ramamoorthy, the concerned workman is entitled to regularization as claimed?

The Point

8. Petitioner Union has raised the dispute in respect of one Ramamoorthy who is said to have joined the Department of Telecom on 21.04.1999 at SSTT, Madras. He is said to have been working as a Class IV employee doing the work of Sweeper and also collecting the necessary forms, taking message by hand to the nearby Post Office and also doing the work of Sub-Staff. He is said to have been paid wages on consolidated basis. According to the petitioner, Ramamoorthy had worked in this manner till 2000 when he was forced to do work on contract basis during the pendency of the dispute. It is stated that he had started to work so without prejudice to his right for regularization.

9. Ramamoorthy, the concerned workman had been examined as WW1. In the Chief Affidavit filed by him he has stated that he had joined the Department of Telecom on 21.04.1990 at SSTT, Villupuram. In the rejoinder the petitioner has stated under what circumstances it is stated in the petition that he has joined SSTT, Chennai. In fact he had joined at Villupuram and was working at Chengalpet Telegraph Office till 1994. This office got merged with SSTT, Chennai and for this reason it is stated in the petition that he has joined at Chennai. In the Chief Affidavit filed Ramamoorthy had reiterated the case in the petition. He has stated that he was paid wages in a separate voucher and on some occasions by ACG-17. He has also stated that his appointment as Part-Time employee was on the basis of a written test and interview on 04.04.1990. He was selected and appointed on 21.04.1990.

10. That Ramamoorthy was working in the Department of Telecom is not denied by the Respondent. Denial would not have been possible also in view of the several documents including the orders of the Administrative Tribunal in the application filed by Ramamoorthy claiming regularization. What is stated in the Counter Statement is that Ramamoorthy was engaged as a Coolie Messenger and not as a Part-Time casual labour. It is the further case of the Respondent that subsequently Ramamoorthy had started to work on contract basis and there was no employer- employee relationship between him and the Respondent.

11. The petitioner has produced sufficient documents to prove that Ramamoorthy had been working for the Respondent from the year 1990 itself. Ext.W2 is the communication from the Assistant Superintendent asking Ramamoorthy to appear for an interview and written test on 04.04.1990, for the post of Part-Time employee. The subsequent documents would reveal that he was selected consequent to the test and interview. Ext.W3–Cash Book reveals payment to Ramamoorthy in April 1990. Though interview and written test was for recruitment as Part-Time employee, Ext.W3 refers to payment of coolie charges to Ramamoorthy in April 1990. Payments are seen made subsequently also. At Page-14 to Page-16 of Ext.W3 delivery charges are seen paid to him. Ext.W4, the communication by the Senior Superintendent of Villupuram Division would show that Ramamoorthy and others were working as Part-Time employees. This communication states that wage bill of Part-Time employees for the month of June 1994 countersigned by SSTT, Villupuram is returned. Ext.W5 is the particulars of payment to Part-Time employees including Ramamoorthy. Payments are seen made to him throughout 1994. Ex.W6 is a letter dated 10.07.1995 by the Junior Telecom Officer which states that two part-time employees are doing the work of delivery of telegrams. Ext.W7 contains the particulars of wages paid to Ramamoorthy from May 1994 to November 1998. This would show that he was working in the Department throughout during the period. The details of delivery of telegrams made by him on each date are found in this document. Ext.W8 contains receipts of wages paid to Ramamoorthy and another from July to October 1997 and of April and August 1998. Ext.W9 is a communication from Junior Telecom Officer on 22.08.1998 asking the Sub-Divisional Engineer to supply all the intended items to Ramamoorthy, "Part- Time Employee" of Central Telegraph Office. Ext.W10 is the Gate Pass allowing Ramamoorthy to take out certain materials. Ext.W11 is another letter to supply the intended items to Ramamoorthy. Ext.W14 is the copy of the letter by Ramamoorthy to the Senior Superintendent on 02.06.2000 seeking to regularize his services. He has stated in this that he had been continuously working in the Department of Telecom since 12.04.1990. Ext.W15 is the reply stating that his request cannot be considered for several reasons. Ext.W18 contains delivery dockets for the period from 24.08.2002 to 08.08.2004 showing that Ramamoorthy had been making delivery of telegrams during the period.

12. The documents referred to above make it very clear that Ramamoorthy has been working in the establishment. He was engaged on Part-time basis and was continuing in this manner throughout. Attempt has been by the Respondent to make out that Ramamoorthy had been working on contract basis only. Documents are also produced by the Respondent to substantiate this stand. It seems, after making Ramamoorthy work as a direct employee throughout from 1990 to 1999 the Department thought of getting the work of sweeping and such other works done on contract basis. Ext.M1, Ext.M3, Ext.M10 and Ext.M11 are said to be agreements entered into by Ramamoorthy for doing sweeping and cleaning work on contract basis. The dispute itself is raised on 19.08.2000. Ext.M10 and Ext.M11 are after this.

Even Ext.M1 and Ext.M3 are after the petitioner had approached the Administrative Tribunal seeking regularization and had subsequently given representation to the Department on the basis of the direction of the Tribunal. Even assuming that Ramamoorthy was working on contract basis subsequently the manner in which he was made to work is extraordinary. The contract is entered into not to get the work done by others but for himself to do the work. It could be seen that the man was made to work for a lesser amount than he was earning while he was working as a Part-Time employee. So in effect Ramamoorthy was working for the Department in the same manner though he was called a contract worker on the basis of the agreements he was made to enter into by the Department. It is a case where Ramamoorthy had worked for the Department for more than 10 years before he had to go through a process by which he was called a contract worker. Throughout he was doing work which was perennial in nature. The Department had been retaining him as a Part-Time worker and subsequently as a contract worker without making him permanent and extracting work for a lesser amount than to which he would have been entitled.

13. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in WORKMEN OF FOOD CORPORTION OF INDIA VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA reported in AIR 1985 SC 670 where it was held that a person who is under direct employment cannot be converted to a contract employee. It was a case where the Food Corporation had engaged several workmen directly but subsequently a Contractor was inducted and these workmen were brought under him. The dictum was laid down in this context. The petitioner had raised the dispute not long after the so-called contractual system was brought into effect. The Apex Court has stated in HUSSAINBHAI VS. ALATH FACTORY THOZHILALI UNION reported in AIR 1978 SC 1410 that the presence of intermediate Contractors with whom the workers have immediate or direct relationship excontractu is of no consequence when on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment will discern the naked truth, though draped in different perfect arrangement, that the real employer is the Management and not the immediate Contractor. In the present case, it is very much clear that the contract system if any under which the workman was working was only sham and nominal and he was really working under the Respondents itself.

14. MW1, the Senior Superintendent of Telegraph Traffic (Admn.) at CTO, Chennai has been examined on behalf of the Respondent. She has stated that Ext.M13 is the notification which would show that BSNL Employees Union is given recognition only to represent the matters of its own members. At the time when the dispute was raised the Petitioner union was not recognized, she has stated. Ext.M14 is produced to show that another union was the recognized union at the time. Thus according to the Respondent the Petitioner Union has no locus-standi to raise the dispute. WW2, an official of the Union has been examined to meet this case. Ext.W20 the bye-laws of the Union and Ext.W21 the resolution passed by the Union on 30th and 31st October, 2001 are marked through this witness. WW2 has stated that as per the bye-laws of the Union it is entitled to espouse the cause of BSNL employees in general. Apart from that it has decided to espouse the cause of all workmen who had not been regularized, by Ext.W21 resolution. So the contention that the Union is not competent to espouse the cause of he workmen will not hold good. The concerned workman had been working for the Respondent for several years. So he is entitled to be regularized in service as claimed by him. Accordingly an Award is passed as below:

Ramamoorthy, the concerned workman shall be deemed to have been regularized in the service of the Respondent in his then position from 19.08.2000 on which date the dispute was raised. He will be entitled to the arrears of pay due to him consequent to the regularization. If the amount is not paid within two months of the publication of the Award, it would carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the Award.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 22nd March, 2017)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union : WW1, Sri P. Ramamoorthy

WW2, Sri G. Mahendran

For the 2nd Party/Respondent : MW1, Sri Jayalakshmi

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex.No. Date Description

Ext.W1          13.10.1983         Office Memorandum on regularization of casual employees
Ext.W2          28.03.1990         Letter of respondent reg. Recruitment of part time employees
Ext.W3          1990-1994          Cash Book

Ext.W4          25.07.1994          Forwarding of part time employees wage bill
Ext.W5          1994                Particulars of wages of part time employees
Ext.W6          10.07.1995          Letter of JTO to Dy. Sr. Suptd. (TT)
Ext.W7          1994-98             Working particulars
Ext.W8          01.08.1997          Pay receipt
                To
                01.09.1998
Ext.W9          22.08.1998          Letter of JTO
Ext.W10         25.08.1998          Gate Pass
Ext.W11         12.10.1998          Letter of JTO
Ext.W12         28.01.1999          Cash making over to the petitioner
Ext.W13         04.07.1999          T.M Diary
Ext.W14         02.06.2000          Letter of the petitioner to the Management
Ext.W15         21.07.2000          Letter of the respondent to the petitioner
Ext.W16         29.09.2000          Letter of the respondent on regularization of casual Labour
Ext.W17         29.09.2000          Letter of the respondent on conversion of casual Labour
Ext.W18         24.08.2002          Delivery docket
                   To
                08.08.2004
Ext.W19         03.05.2000          Order in OA No. 176 of 1999
Ext.W20         -                   Bye-laws of the Union
Ext.W21         30/31 Oct'2001      Resolution of the union

On the Management's side

Ext.No. Date Description

Ext.M1          22.03.1999          Petitioner entered Agreement with the DOT for sweeping cleaning etc.
Ext.M2          05.04.1999          Order passed by the Hon;ble CAT Madras in O.A.336/1996
Ext.M3          27.03.2000          Petitioner entered Agreement with the DOT for Sweeping,  cleaning etc.
 Ext.M4         03.05.2000          Order passed by the Honble CAT Madras in O.A.176/1999
Ext.M5          03.05.2000          Letter from C.S.C.T.O to J.T.O reg.payment
Ext.M6          02.06.2000          Representation made by Sh.P.Ramamurthy to the SSTT(A) CTO Chennai-1
Ext.M7          21.07.2000          Reply given by the Department to Sh. P. Ramamoorthy
Ext.M8          25.08.2000          DOT circular with annexure
Ext.M9          April 2001          Letter from C.S. CTO Chennai- to JTO I/C Chengalpet regarding payment
Ext.M10         07.04.2001          Petitioner entered agreement with the DOT for sweeping cleaning etc.
Ext.M11         28.03.2002          Petitioner entered agreement with the DOT for sweeping cleaning etc.
Ext.M12         26.04.2002          Letter from C.S. CTO Chennai-1 to JTO I/C Chengalpet regarding payment
Ext.M13         04.10.2002          DOT notification regarding recognition of Union
Ext.M14         10.10.2002          DOT notification regarding recognition of Union
Ext.M15         06.01.2003          Order passed by the Hon'ble High of Andhra Pradesh in Review PMP/316/2002
                                    in WP.19832/2002

—

I New Delhi, the 17th April, 2017

S.O. 1074.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi (Ref. No. 141 of 2015) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. British Airways India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17.04.2017.

[No. L-11012/18/2015-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

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

DELHI

ID No. 141/2015

The President, British Airways Plc Employees Union (EAUU), Room No. 25, IGI Airport, Terminal II, New Delhi 110-037

…Workman

Versus

The Area Commercial Manager, M/s. British Airways India, C/o HL-2, 5th Floor, IGI Airport, Terminal III, New Delhi – 110 037

…Management

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No. L-11012/18/2015-IR(CM-I), dated 01.06.2015, referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of British Airways in paying bonus (Employees Reward Program) to the employees of the Company in India at a rate less than that paid to the employees of the Company in U.K. is legal and justified? To what relief are the workmen of the Company in India entitled to?"

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

3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the claimant union as well as the management. Neither the postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was served upon the claimant union. Despite service of the notice, claimant union opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on their behalf. Thus, it was clear that the claimant union was not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.

4. Since the claimant union neither put in their appearance nor did they lead any evidence so as to prove their cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal passed a 'No dispute/claim' award on 08.10.2015. However, on 27.10.2015, before publication of the award, an application was moved by the workman union under Section 17A(2)II (ii) 2379 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for recall of the award dated 08.10.2015 as non-appearance of the workmen through Federation of British Airways Employees Unions was due to miscommunication of the court notice and subsequent lack of co-ordination between the Unions across India as the dispute relates to all over India.

5. Notice of the application was sent to the respondent management, who filed reply thereto, wherein it was alleged that the workmen union has failed to give sufficient cause of non-appearance on the dates of hearing. Reason given in the application is not sufficient cause for recalling the above order. Reliance was placed upon the case of 'Parimal Vs. Veena Bharti', wherein it has been observed as under:

9. "Sufficient Cause" is an expression which has been used in large number of Statutes. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", in as much as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case and duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that party had not acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or the party cannot be alleged to have been "not acting diligently" or "remaining inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously.

10. In Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 993, this Court observed that every good cause is a sufficient cause and must offer an explanation for non-appearance. The only difference between a "good cause" and "sufficient cause" is that the requirement of a good cause is complied with on a lesser degree of proof than that of a "sufficient cause"

6. Further, the management also alleged that the workmen should have been vigilant as they had failed to appear on 14.08.2015 and 07.10.2015. Consequently, the court has rightly passed the award, which cannot be now set aside or recalled.

7. Arguments on the application were advanced by Shri B.K. Prasad, A/R for the claimant and Shri Ravi Mishra, A/R for the management.

8. Undisputedly, in the present case, award was passed on 08.10.2015. It is clear from perusal of the notification dated 26.10.2015 that the award was published by the Central Government on 26.10.2015. However, the application was filed on 15.10.2015, i.e. before the publication.

9. The vital question which required determination in the case in hand was as to whether there is sufficient cause to set aside/recall the order passed by this Tribunal. It was clear from the averments contained in the application that no specific reason has been assigned by the workmen herein as to why they were absent on the dates of hearing fixed by this Court. Workmen have simply stated that due to miscommunication they could not attend the hearing. However, this Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that strict principles of pleadings are not applicable in the proceedings before a Labour Court or Tribunal and the court is required to take a rational and logical view of the circumstances of the case. There is hardly any dispute with the proposition of law enunciated in the ruling mentioned above relied on behalf of the management. However, Hon'ble Apex Court in a number of causes have observed that the expression 'sufficient cause' as used in Section 5 of the Labour Act should receive a liberal interpretation and is not to be applied so strictly so as to defeat the legitimate claims of the parties on trivial grounds. Equally settled is the law that both the parties should be given fair opportunity to contest their claims on merits. Admittedly, in the case in hand, application for recall/setting aside of the award has been moved before publication of the award on 26.10.2015. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sangham Tape Company Vs. Hans Raj (2004 Suppl.1 AD SC 446) while considering question of setting aside of the award passed by the Tribunal almost under similar circumstances observed that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to set aside ex-parte award after lapse of period of 30 days. However, when application has been filed within a period of 30 days of publication of the award, situation would be different. In the said case, strong reliance has been placed in the case of Grindlays Bank vs Central Government Industrial Tribunal (1980 Supp. SCC 420) and JK Synthetics Ld. Vs. Collector of Central Excise (1996 (6) SCC 92). In Grindlays Bank, the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with provisions of Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Rule 22, wherein it is provided that Labour Courts or Tribunals shall follow such procedure as deemed fit. No doubt the language of Rule 22 of the of ID Act unequivocally makes jurisdiction of the Tribunal to render an ex-parte award if a party to the case does not attend the proceedings despite due notice. However, if there is sufficient cause for the absence of such a party, Tribunal is required to take an sympathetic and holistic view of the matter and power to set aside/recall such an ex-parte award is inherent in the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal can exercise all incidental and ancillary powers as it has powers of the civil court to pass appropriate orders to meet the ends of justice. In view of this and in the larger interest of justice, award dated 08.10.2015 was recalled and workman union was once again afforded opportunity to file their statement of claim. However, despite affording three opportunities, workman union failed to file its claim statement. Hence, this2380 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Tribunal is once again constrained to pass a 'No Dispute/Claim' award. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : November 24, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer —

I New Delhi, the 17th April, 2017

S.O. 1075.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi (Ref. No. 72 of 2013) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. India Airlines Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17.04.2017.

[No. L-20013/2/2017-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

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

DELHI

ID No. 72/2013

Shri Rajesh Kumar, S/o Shri Hari Chander, C/o Airport Employees Union (Regd.), BTR Bhawan, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi – 110 002

…Workman

Versus

i. M/s. Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services,

Horticulture Services, A – 6/IV, Naraina Vihar, Ring Road, New Delhi 110 028

ii. M/s. National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL),

Through Indian Airlines Ltd., Personnel Department, Northern Region, IGI Airport Terminal I, New Delhi – 110 037

…Management

AWARD

A contract labour filed an industrial dispute under sub-section (2) of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act), pleading therein that the initially he was employed as a mali by Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services with effect from 04.06.1998 for the work of National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL). His services were illegally and unjustifiably terminated orally with effect from 08.11.2010. The claimant worked continuously till the date of his termination and his last drawn wages was Rs. 5278.00. The claimant was given benefits of minimum wages, ESI and PF. No one months notice or pay in lieu thereof or retrenchment compensation, gratuity amount etc. was given to her. Demand notice dated 05/14.10.2011 was sent to Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services seeking reinstatement with full back wages. Management did not respond to the said notice. Thereafter, the claimant approached the Conciliation Officer for relief, but due to the adamant attitude of the management, matter could not be resolved. He claims reinstatement in service of his employer, the contractor, with continuity and full back wages.

2. Claim was resisted by Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services taking various preliminary objections, including on the grounds that they had never terminated services of the claimant at any point of time but in fact the claimant was absenting from duty with effect from 08.11.2010 unauthorizedly, claimant not responding to the notices sent to him, lack of jurisdiction by this Tribunal etc. Further, it has been averred that National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL) had awarded contract to Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services for planting trees and maintaining the green land. On merits, management has denied the material averments contained therein.

3. Reply was filed by National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL), who have also taken various preliminary objections, i.e. of the answering management not having any role in appointment or termination of the claimant herein, contract being awarded to Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services for maintenance of grass, plants, trees and shrubs etc through service contract. Management No. 2 has denied the material averments contained in the statement of claim.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor vide order dated 19.08.2013, framed the following issues:

(i) Whether claimant absented himself from his duties with effect from 08.11.2010 and failed to respond to the notice sent by M/s. Rainbow Landscape Horticulture Services? If yes, its effects.

(ii) Whether claimant is entitled to relief of reinstatement in the services of M/s. Rainbow Landscape Horticulture Services?

5. Vide order dated 17.07.2015, on the application of National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL), following additional issues were framed and the case was listed for evidence of the claimant:

(ii-a) Whether any demand notice was served on Defendant No. 2 before approaching this Tribunal?

(ii-b) Whether there is employer-employee relationship between the claimants and the management, as alleged?

6. In the meanwhile, parties stated that they intended to take steps for settlement. Good sense prevailed and the dispute was settled in the Lok Adalat between the parties amicably. In view of these facts that the parties had settled their dispute amicably, there remains no occasion to adjudicate the issues referred above.

7. Claimant made a statement to the effect that he was willing to accept Rs. 60, 000.00 from Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services towards full and final settlement of his claim for reinstatement in service, notice pay, retrenchment compensation, gratuity, other benefits, if any. Now, the claimant does not have any surviving dispute with any of the managements and the matter has been disposed of amicably between the parties. Statement of the claimant has been separately recorded. The receipt of full and final settlement, Ex.C-I, shall form integral part of the award. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated : March 20, 2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer —

I New Delhi, the 17th April, 2017

S.O. 1076.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi (Ref. No. 70 of 2013) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. India Airlines Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17.04.2017.

[No. L-20013/2/2017-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH , Section Officer2382 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

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

DELHI

ID No. 70/2013

Shri Naresh Kumar, S/o Shri Beg Raj, C/o Airport Employees Union (Regd.), BTR Bhawan, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi – 110 002

…Workman

Versus

i. M/s. Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services,

Horticulture Services, A – 6/IV, Naraina Vihar, Ring Road, New Delhi 110 028

ii. M/s. National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL),

Through Indian Airlines Ltd., Personnel Department, Northern Region, IGI Airport Terminal I, New Delhi – 110 037

…Management

AWARD

A contract labour filed an industrial dispute under sub-section (2) of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act), pleading therein that the initially he was employed as a mali by Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services with effect from 04.06.1998 for the work of National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL). His services were illegally and unjustifiably terminated orally with effect from 08.11.2010. The claimant worked continuously till the date of his termination and his last drawn wages was Rs. 5278.00. The claimant was given benefits of minimum wages, ESI and PF. No one months notice or pay in lieu thereof or retrenchment compensation, gratuity amount etc. was given to her. Demand notice dated 05/14.10.2011 was sent to Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services seeking reinstatement with full back wages. Management did not respond to the said notice. Thereafter, the claimant approached the Conciliation Officer for relief, but due to the adamant attitude of the management, matter could not be resolved. He claims reinstatement in service of his employer, the contractor, with continuity and full back wages

2. Claim was resisted by Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services taking various preliminary objections, including on the grounds that they had never terminated services of the claimant at any point of time but in fact the claimant was absenting from duty with effect from 08.11.2010 unauthorizedly, claimant not responding to the notices sent to him, lack of jurisdiction by this Tribunal etc. Further, it has been averred that National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL) had awarded contract to Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services for planting trees and maintaining the green land. On merits, management has denied the material averments contained therein.

3. Reply was filed by National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL), who have also taken various preliminary objections, i.e. of the answering management not having any role in appointment or termination of the claimant herein, contract being awarded to Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services for maintenance of grass, plants, trees and shrubs etc through service contract. Management No. 2 has denied the material averments contained in the statement of claim.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor vide order dated 19.08.2013, framed the following issues:

(i) Whether claimant absented himself from his duties with effect from 08.11.2010 and failed to respond to the notice sent by M/s. Rainbow Landscape Horticulture Services? If yes, its effects.

(ii) Whether claimant is entitled to relief of reinstatement in the services of M/s. Rainbow Landscape Horticulture Services?

5. Vide order dated 17.07.2015, on the application of National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL), following additional issues were framed and the case was listed for evidence of the claimant:

(ii-a) Whether any demand notice was served on Defendant No. 2 before approaching this Tribunal?

(ii-b) Whether there is employer-employee relationship between the claimants and the management, as alleged?

6. In the meanwhile, parties stated that they intended to take steps for settlement. Good sense prevailed and the dispute was settled in the Lok Adalat between the parties amicably. In view of these facts that the parties had settled their dispute amicably, there remains no occasion to adjudicate the issues referred above.

7. Claimant made a statement to the effect that he was willing to accept Rs. 52, 000.00 from Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services towards full and final settlement of his claim for reinstatement in service, notice pay, retrenchment compensation, gratuity, other benefits, if any. Now, the claimant does not have any surviving dispute with any of the managements and the matter has been disposed of amicably between the parties. Statement of the claimant has been separately recorded. The receipt of full and final settlement, Ex.C-I, shall form integral part of the award. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated : March 20, 2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer —

I New Delhi, the 17th April, 2017

S.O. 1077.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi (Ref. No. 69 of 2013) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. India Airlines Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17.04.2017.

[No. L-20013/2/2017-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

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

DELHI

ID No. 69/2013

Shri Dinesh Choudhary, S/o Shri Sukhdev Choudhary, C/o Airport Employees Union (Regd.), BTR Bhawan, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi – 110 002

…Workman

Versus

i. M/s. Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services,

Horticulture Services, A – 6/IV, Naraina Vihar, Ring Road, New Delhi 110 028

ii. M/s. National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL),

Through Indian Airlines Ltd., Personnel Department, Northern Region, IGI Airport Terminal I, New Delhi – 110 037

…Management2384 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

A contract labour filed an industrial dispute under sub-section (2) of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act), pleading therein that the initially he was employed as a mali by Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services with effect from 09.05.1998 for the work of National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL). His services were illegally and unjustifiably terminated orally with effect from 08.11.2010. The claimant worked continuously till the date of his termination and his last drawn wages was Rs. 5278.00. The claimant was given benefits of minimum wages, ESI and PF. No one months notice or pay in lieu thereof or retrenchment compensation, gratuity amount etc. was given to her. Demand notice dated 05/14.10.2011 was sent to Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services seeking reinstatement with full back wages. Management did not respond to the said notice. Thereafter, the claimant approached the Conciliation Officer for relief, but due to the adamant attitude of the management, matter could not be resolved. He claims reinstatement in service of his employer, the contractor, with continuity and full back wages

2. Claim was resisted by Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services taking various preliminary objections, including on the grounds that they had never terminated services of the claimant at any point of time but in fact the claimant was absenting from duty with effect from 08.11.2010 unauthorizedly, claimant not responding to the notices sent to him, lack of jurisdiction by this Tribunal etc. Further, it has been averred that National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL) had awarded contract to Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services for planting trees and maintaining the green land. On merits, management has denied the material averments contained therein.

3. Reply was filed by National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL), who have also taken various preliminary objections, i.e. of the answering management not having any role in appointment or termination of the claimant herein, contract being awarded to Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services for maintenance of grass, plants, trees and shrubs etc through service contract. Management No. 2 has denied the material averments contained in the statement of claim.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor vide order dated 19.08.2013, framed the following issues:

(i) Whether claimant absented himself from his duties with effect from 08.11.2010 and failed to respond to the notice sent by M/s. Rainbow Landscape Horticulture Services? If yes, its effects.

(ii) Whether claimant is entitled to relief of reinstatement in the services of M/s. Rainbow Landscape Horticulture Services?

5. Vide order dated 17.07.2015, on the application of National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL), following additional issues were framed and the case was listed for evidence of the claimant:

(ii-a) Whether any demand notice was served on Defendant No. 2 before approaching this Tribunal?

(ii-b) Whether there is employer-employee relationship between the claimants and the management, as alleged?

6. In the meanwhile, parties stated that they intended to take steps for settlement. Good sense prevailed and the dispute was settled in the Lok Adalat between the parties amicably. In view of these facts that the parties had settled their dispute amicably, there remains no occasion to adjudicate the issues referred above.

7. Claimant made a statement to the effect that he was willing to accept Rs. 60, 000.00 from Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services towards full and final settlement of his claim for reinstatement in service, notice pay, retrenchment compensation, gratuity, other benefits, if any. Now, the claimant does not have any surviving dispute with any of the managements and the matter has been disposed of amicably between the parties. Statement of the claimant has been separately recorded. The receipt of full and final settlement, Ex.C-I, shall form integral part of the award. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated : March 20, 2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer —

I New Delhi, the 17th April, 2017

S.O. 1078.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi (Ref. No. 68 of 2013) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. India Airlines Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17.04.2017.

[No. L-20013/2/2017-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

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

DELHI

ID No. 68/2013

Shri Mange Ram, S/o Shri Beg Raj, C/o Airport Employees Union (Regd.), BTR Bhawan, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi – 110 002

…Workman

Versus

i. M/s. Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services,

Horticulture Services, A – 6/IV, Naraina Vihar, Ring Road, New Delhi 110 028

ii. M/s. National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL),

Through Indian Airlines Ltd., Personnel Department, Northern Region, IGI Airport Terminal I, New Delhi – 110 037

…Management

AWARD

A contract labour filed an industrial dispute under sub-section (2) of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act), pleading therein that the initially he was employed as a mali by Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services with effect from 01.09.1999 for the work of National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL). His services were illegally and unjustifiably terminated orally with effect from 08.11.2010. The claimant worked continuously till the date of his termination and his last drawn wages was Rs. 5278.00. The claimant was given benefits of minimum wages, ESI and PF. No one months notice or pay in lieu thereof or retrenchment compensation, gratuity amount etc. was given to her. Demand notice dated 05/14.10.2011 was sent to Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services seeking reinstatement with full back wages. Management did not respond to the said notice. Thereafter, the claimant approached the Conciliation Officer for relief, but due to the adamant attitude of the management, matter could not be resolved. He claims reinstatement in service of his employer, the contractor, with continuity and full back wages

2. Claim was resisted by Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services taking various preliminary objections, including on the grounds that they had never terminated services of the claimant at any point of time but in fact the claimant was absenting from duty with effect from 08.11.2010 unauthorizedly, claimant not responding to the notices sent to him, lack of jurisdiction by this Tribunal etc. Further, it has been averred that National Aviation Company of2386 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] India Ltd. (NACIL) had awarded contract to Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services for planting trees and maintaining the green land. On merits, management has denied the material averments contained therein.

3. Reply was filed by National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL), who have also taken various preliminary objections, i.e. of the answering management not having any role in appointment or termination of the claimant herein, contract being awarded to Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services for maintenance of grass, plants, trees and shrubs etc through service contract. Management No. 2 has denied the material averments contained in the statement of claim.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor vide order dated 19.08.2013, framed the following issues:

(i) Whether claimant absented himself from his duties with effect from 08.11.2010 and failed to respond to the notice sent by M/s. Rainbow Landscape Horticulture Services? If yes, its effects.

(ii) Whether claimant is entitled to relief of reinstatement in the services of M/s. Rainbow Landscape Horticulture Services?

5. Vide order dated 17.07.2015, on the application of National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL), following additional issues were framed and the case was listed for evidence of the claimant:

(ii-a) Whether any demand notice was served on Defendant No. 2 before approaching this Tribunal?

(ii-b) Whether there is employer-employee relationship between the claimants and the management, as alleged?

6. In the meanwhile, parties stated that they intended to take steps for settlement. Good sense prevailed and the dispute was settled in the Lok Adalat between the parties amicably. In view of these facts that the parties had settled their dispute amicably, there remains no occasion to adjudicate the issues referred above.

7. Claimant made a statement to the effect that he was willing to accept Rs. 58, 000.00 from Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services towards full and final settlement of his claim for reinstatement in service, notice pay, retrenchment compensation, gratuity, other benefits, if any. Now, the claimant does not have any surviving dispute with any of the managements and the matter has been disposed of amicably between the parties. Statement of the claimant has been separately recorded. The receipt of full and final settlement, Ex.C-I, shall form integral part of the award. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated : March 20, 2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer —

I New Delhi, the 17th April, 2017

S.O. 1079.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi (Ref. No. 71 of 2013) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. India Airlines Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17.04.2017.

[No. L-20013/2/2017-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH , Section OfficerII (ii) 2387

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. 71/2013

Shri Prabhash Kumar Choudhary, S/o Shri Surender Kumar, C/o Airport Employees Union (Regd.), BTR Bhawan, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi – 110 002

…Workman

Versus

i. M/s. Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services,

Horticulture Services, A – 6/IV, Naraina Vihar, Ring Road, New Delhi 110 028

ii. M/s. National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL),

Through Indian Airlines Ltd., Personnel Department, Northern Region, IGI Airport Terminal I, New Delhi – 110 037

…Management

AWARD

A contract labour filed an industrial dispute under sub-section (2) of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act), pleading therein that the initially he was employed as a mali by Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services with effect from 05.05.1998 for the work of National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL). His services were illegally and unjustifiably terminated orally with effect from 08.11.2010. The claimant worked continuously till the date of his termination and his last drawn wages was Rs. 5278.00. The claimant was given benefits of minimum wages, ESI and PF. No one months notice or pay in lieu thereof or retrenchment compensation, gratuity amount etc. was given to her. Demand notice dated 05/14.10.2011 was sent to Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services seeking reinstatement with full back wages. Management did not respond to the said notice. Thereafter, the claimant approached the Conciliation Officer for relief, but due to the adamant attitude of the management, matter could not be resolved. He claims reinstatement in service of his employer, the contractor, with continuity and full back wages

2. Claim was resisted by Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services taking various preliminary objections, including on the grounds that they had never terminated services of the claimant at any point of time but in fact the claimant was absenting from duty with effect from 08.11.2010 unauthorizedly, claimant not responding to the notices sent to him, lack of jurisdiction by this Tribunal etc. Further, it has been averred that National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL) had awarded contract to Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services for planting trees and maintaining the green land. On merits, management has denied the material averments contained therein.

3. Reply was filed by National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL), who have also taken various preliminary objections, i.e. of the answering management not having any role in appointment or termination of the claimant herein, contract being awarded to Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services for maintenance of grass, plants, trees and shrubs etc through service contract. Management No. 2 has denied the material averments contained in the statement of claim.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor vide order dated 19.08.2013, framed the following issues:

(i) Whether claimant absented himself from his duties with effect from 08.11.2010 and failed to respond to the notice sent by M/s. Rainbow Landscape Horticulture Services? If yes, its effects.

(ii) Whether claimant is entitled to relief of reinstatement in the services of M/s. Rainbow Landscape Horticulture Services?

5. Vide order dated 17.07.2015, on the application of National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (NACIL), following additional issues were framed and the case was listed for evidence of the claimant:

(ii-a) Whether any demand notice was served on Defendant No. 2 before approaching this Tribunal?

(ii-b) Whether there is employer-employee relationship between the claimants and the management, as alleged?

6. In the meanwhile, parties stated that they intended to take steps for settlement. Good sense prevailed and the dispute was settled in the Lok Adalat between the parties amicably. In view of these facts that the parties had settled their dispute amicably, there remains no occasion to adjudicate the issues referred above.

7. Claimant made a statement to the effect that he was willing to accept Rs. 60, 000.00 from Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services towards full and final settlement of his claim for reinstatement in service, notice pay, retrenchment compensation, gratuity, other benefits, if any. Now, the claimant does not have any surviving dispute with any of the managements and the matter has been disposed of amicably between the parties. Statement of the claimant has been separately recorded. The receipt of full and final settlement, Ex.C-I, shall form integral part of the award. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated : March 20, 2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer —

I New Delhi, the 17th April, 2017

S.O. 1080.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 03 of 2002) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17.04.2017.

[No. L-20012/385/2001-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 03 of 2002

Employer in relation to the management of Sirka Colliery of M/s. CCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman : None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 14/03/2017

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/385/2001-IR(C-I) dated 10/01/2001, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub–section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of CCL, Sirka Colliery, in refusing to pay wages to Shri S.D.

Singh , Foreman in Lieu of the refused leave is just and proper? If not, to what relief the concerned

workman entitled?

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.None appears on behalf of the Union. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer —

I New Delhi, the 17th April, 2017

S.O. 1081.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 19 of 1998) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17.04.2017.

[No. L-20012/645/1997-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 19 of 1998

Employer in relation to the management of Moonidih Project of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : None

For the Workman : None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 16/03/2017

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/645/1997-IR(C-I) dated 24/04/1998, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub–section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management in dismissing Shri Arjun Pandey, Miner/Loader of moonidih

Project is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer2390 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] —

I New Delhi, the 17th April, 2017

S.O. 1082.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 124 of 1995) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. TISCO Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17.04.2017.

[No. L-20012/411/1994-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 03 of 2002

Employer in relation to the management of M/s. TISCO Ltd.

AND

Their workmen

Present : Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman : None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 16/03/2017

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/411/1994-IR(C-I) dated 10/10/1995, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub–section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. TISCO Ltd., in denying employment to

Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad Rajak the grand-son of Shri Gurupado Dhobi is justified? If not, to what relief

Shri Rajak is entitled?

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates by the workman, none appears subsequently. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer —

I New Delhi, the 17th April, 2017

S.O. 1083.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 57 of 1995) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17.04.2017.

[No. L-20012/258/1994-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 57 of 1995

Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : None

For the Workman : None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 10/03/2017

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/258/1994-IR(C-I) dated 12/06/1995, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub–section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. BCCL, Kusunda Area No. VI in dismissing workman,

Shri Radhekant Singh , Tripman w.e.f. 05/10/1989 is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer —

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2017

S.O. 1084.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 325/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chief General Manager, BSNL, Chennai & others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03.04.2017.

[No. L-40011/52/2002-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Wednesday, the 22nd March, 2017

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 325/2004

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. And 2 Others and their workman)

BETWEEN :

: 1st Party/Petitioner Union The Circle Secretary BSNL Employees Union No. 3/71, 4th Street, Raghava Nagar Madipakkam Chennai-600091

AND

1. The Chief General Manager

: 2nd Party/1st Respondent BSNL, Tamilnadu Circle Anna Salai Chennai-600002

2. The Chairman & Managing Director

: 2nd Party/2nd Respondent BSNL, Sanchar Bhawan New Delhi-110001

3. The General Manager, Telecom

: 2nd Party/3rd Respondent BSNL K.K. District Nagercoil

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union                                          :  M/s. K.M. Ramesh,  Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondents                                               :  Sri P. Srinivasan,  Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-40011/52/2002-IR (DU) dated 05.03.2004 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the regularization of Sri C. Abinesh and 92 Other workmen (list enclosed) are justified, if so, the

relief they are entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal numbered it as ID 325/2004 and issued notices to both sides. Both sides entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner is a registered Trade Union having substantial number of permanent workmen working in BSNL as its members. The employees concerned in the dispute are doing line work. They were working under the control and supervision of the Respondents. The work done by the employees is perennial in nature. Sponsorship from Employment Exchange is not required for Class-IV employees. The concerned employees cannot be treated as contract employees. The so-called contract system is a sham one. Supervision and control over the concerned workmen were exercised by the officials of the Respondents and not the so-called Contractors. There are sanctioned posts for regularizing the employees concerned in this case. The Respondent establishment is one coming under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act. The concerned employees have completed more than 480 days in service and are to be made permanent. An award may be passed holding that the workmen are to entitled absorption in the service of the Respondents from the date of their joining service, alongwith continuity of service and attendant benefits.

4. The First Respondent has filed Counter Statement on behalf of other Respondents as well contending as below:

The petitioner has no locus-standi to espouse the cause of persons who are not employees of the Respondents. The petitioner is not a recognized union also. The Contractors have not been impleaded as parties. So the dispute is having the defect of non-joinder of parties also. The claim of the petitioner that the concerned workmen are doing the same work as done by regular employees, that the work is perennial in nature, that there is direct control and supervision by the Respondents, that the Contractors are Officers of the Respondents, etc. are denied as incorrect. The petitioner has admitted the workmen as contract labourers and at the same time deliberately described them as casual labourers. These are inconsistent pleas. It is denied that the concerned workmen are doing the line work. The allegation that the contract is sham is not correct. If the petitioner's claim that the workmen have worked for more than 480 days under the Contractor is true they are at liberty to claim permanency with the Contractor. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and WW2 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W6 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M12.

6. The point for consideration is:

Whether the concerned workmen are entitled to absorption as claimed?

The Point

7. The petitioner union has raised the dispute on behalf of 93 workmen whose names and other details are given in the annexure to the Schedule of reference. The annexure gives the name of the place where the workmen have worked, the date on which they have started to work, the nature of work, etc. According to the petitioner, though these workmen are working through alleged Contractor, the Contractor changes often and the workmen continue in the same work. It is stated that the so-called contract system is a sham one intended to extract work on cheaper wage from the workmen. The workmen were said to be doing work which is perennial in nature. There is also a claim that all the workmen have completed 480 days of work within a period of 24 calendar months and are entitled to the benefit of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act. Absorption of the workmen in the service of BSNL is claimed by the petitioner.

8. The petitioner has examined one of the workmen as WW1. This workman has given evidence on behalf of all the workmen named in the annexure to the Schedule of reference. WW2 is the Circle Treasurer of the Petitioner Union. His evidence is intended to prove that the Petitioner Union has locus-standi to raise the dispute. MW1, the Assistant General Manager has given evidence to substantiate the case of the Respondents that a contract system was in existence in the establishment and that there was ban on employing workmen directly.

9. WW1 has stated in his Proof Affidavit that all the workmen concerned in the case were employed in Nagercoil Telecom SSA and were working in different places under the SSA as Lineman. According to him, before the formation of BSNL, Department of Telecom was maintaining their register and was paying wages to them. They were getting wages fortnightly and sometimes monthly also. They are working not less than 8 hours a day. All of them have completed 480 days of continuous service in a period of 24 calendar months and should have been conferred with permanent status, WW1 has stated. The contract system through which they were working is said to be a sham one.

10. Out of 6 documents produced by the petitioner to substantiate the case, Ext.W2 is the annexure to the Schedule of reference, Ext.W4 is the bye-laws of the Petitioner Union and Ext.W5 is the resolution of the Union to take up the cause of the concerned workmen. Ext.W6 is the copy of certain questions before the Parliament regarding contract workmen. Thus, none of these are directly relevant in proving the case of any of the workmen concerned.

11. Ext.W1 and Ext.W3 are the only documents available in respect of any of the workmen concerned. Ext.W3 though described as salary particulars seems to be a certificate giving the names of certain employees including WW1 stating that they have worked from 1993 to 2004. But surprisingly the certificate does not state who has issued it. For2394 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] this very reason this is to be discarded. Ext.W1 is described as working particulars of WW1. It shows dates starting from July 1993. It is not a continuous one but shows different dates of different periods. However, one does not know if this is the document that has generated from the Office of the Respondents. It does not contain any seal of the establishment or any signature of the officials also. So this document also cannot be relied upon. Thus the evidence available in respect of WW1 is not sufficient to establish his case.

12. So far as the other workmen are concerned, there is total dearth of evidence. None of the workmen have come forward to give evidence. Documents are not available in respect of them also. Thus the petitioner has failed to establish the case set up by it.

In view of the above discussion the reference is answered against the petitioner. An Award is passed accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 22nd March, 2017)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union : WW1, Sri N.Manoharan

WW2, Sri K. Srinivasan

For the 2nd Party/Respondents : MW1, Sri L. George

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex.No. Date Description

Ext.W1          -                   Working particulars
Ext.W2          -                   Annexure in the 2(K) petition
Ext.W3          -                   Salary particulars
Ext.W4          -                   Bye-laws of the Union
Ext.W5          30/31 Oct'2001      Resolution of the union
Ext.W6          21.03.2006          Lok  Sabha  Admitted  Provisional  Starred  Question  Dy.  No.  10145  for
                                    19.12.2005 by Shri Ganesh Singh  regarding regularization of contract Workers.

On the Management's side

Ext.No. Date Description

Ext.M1           24.12.1992          Copy of DOT,  New Delhi letter no. 29-18/91-SRT dated 24.12.1992 addressed
                                     to  CGMR,    Calcutta  Phones  and  Endorsement  No.  E.1/107/Blgs/92-93/3  dated
                                     TR-1 the 02.02.1993
Ext.M2           30.03.1985          Office  of  the  Director  General  Posts  &  Telegraphs  regarding  ban  order  for
                                     recruitment of casual labours.
Ext.M3           25.07.1989          Letter from Chief General Manager,  Telecommunications,  Tamil Nadu Circle,
                                     Madras-600002 regarding eligibility of casual labour to become office bearer of
                                     the Unions
Ext.M4           -                   Copy of Page 137 of Appendix 3 from P&T Manual Vol.III
Ext.M5           -                   Copy of Appendix No. 3 – Preservation of Records
Ext.M6           05.11.2001          Letter  from  BSNL  to  All  Chief  General  Managers  regarding  adoption  of  the
                                     existing Appointing Authorities  in respect of absorption of Group C and D staff
                                     in BSNL
Ext.M7           -                   Copy of  Appendix 13A at Page  426 of Financial  & Hand  Book of P&T Rules

which deals with Rlule-331

Ext.M8          -                  Copy of letter from CGM,  Telecom,  Chennai to all Subordinate Offices
Ext.M9          13.10.2005         Tender for  HK & GS for NGC SDCA-Zone Awarding of Tender-reg

Ext.M10 30.12.2002 of Certificate of Registration Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,

1970 and Central Rules, 1971-Grant-reg

Ext.M11         22.06.1995          Copy of the document of prescribed procedure to be followed by the Department
                                    in the appointment of Group "D" employees category.
Ext.M12         19.11.2005          Award of Tender.

—

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2017

S.O. 1085.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 326/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Tirunelveli and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03.04.2017.

[No. L-40011/35/2003-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Wednesday, the 22nd March, 2017

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 326/2004

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and their workman)

BETWEEN :

The Circle Secretary : 1st Party/Petitioner Union BSNL Employees Union No. 3/71, 4th Street, Raghava Nagar Madipakkam Chennai-600091

AND

The General Manager, Telecom : 2nd Party/Respondent BSNL, Department of Telecom Bye Pass Road Vannarpet Tirunelveli-627003

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union :        M/s. K.M. Ramesh,  Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondents      :        Sri P. Srinivasan,  Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-40011/35/2003-IR (DU) dated 05.03.2004 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the demand of the Union for regularization of 60 Cable Joint Workers (list enclosed) who worked

under BSNL, Tirunelveli is justified, if so the relief they are entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal numbered it as ID 326/2004 and issued notices to both sides. Both sides entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner is a Union registered under the Trade Unions Act. It has a substantial number of permanent workmen working in BSNL as its members. The workmen concerned in the ID are doing cable work. They are working through the alleged contractor. Even though the contractors change often the employees continue to be the same. All the employees concerned in the dispute are Class-IV employees for whom sponsorship from Employment Exchange is not required. The contract system is only a camouflage. The overall control of the so-called contract labour remains with the telecom department. There are regular sanctioned posts for regularizing the employees concerned in the case. The concerned workmen are entitled to be made permanent on completion of 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months. The workmen are entitled to be absorbed in the establishment from the date of their joining the service.

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The Petitioner Union is not a representative Union of BSNL. Apart from that the Union was originally having membership of regular staff alone. The workmen concerned in the dispute are not members of the Petitioner Union. So the Union is not competent to represent them. The concerned workmen are not known to the Respondents. The petitioner has admitted that the concerned workmen are contract workmen. The work is supervised by the contractual agency. The Respondents pay bills to the concerned agency agency only. The petitioner has no locus-standi to espouse the cause of persons who are not employees of the Respondents. The Contractors were given work according to the work requirement only. BSNL is not responsible for the labourers employed by the Contractors. A regular set of staff is available for carrying out regular nature of work in BSNL. The work done by the contract workers are not perennial in nature. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and WW2 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W7 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M13.

6. The point for consideration is:

Whether the concerned workmen are entitled to absorption as claimed?

The Point

7. The petitioner has raised the dispute on behalf of 60 workmen whose names and other details are given in the annexure to the Schedule of reference. The 60 workmen are said to be doing Cable Work. It is stated that though they are allegedly under the Contractor, the Contractor changes often but they continue to do the work. It is further stated that the so-called contract system is a sham one and all of them are under the supervision and control of the Respondent itself. The petitioner has claimed regularization of the work in the Respondents establishment on this basis and also on the basis that they are entitled to be deemed permanent under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act and as they are said to have completed more than 480 days work within a period of 24 calendar months.

8. One of the workmen has been examined as WW1. He has given evidence on behalf of all the workmen concerned. According to WW1 they are getting wages directly from the Officers of BSNL. Even prior to the formation of BSNL they were paid directly by the Department of Telecom. They were supervised directly by the Officials of the Respondents also. They were paid weekly, fortnightly or monthly. WW1 has stated that all the workmen have completed 480 days of continuous service in a period of 24 calendar months and they should have been conferred with permanent status in the establishment. He has stated during his cross-examination that he was not issued with any Appointment Order. He is said to have joined the establishment as a Helper to cable joint work.

9. WW1 has not stated on which date all the workmen have started to work in the establishment. Regarding himself, he has stated during his cross-examination that he has joined the service on 01.04.1996. So far as the other workmen are concerned there is nothing except the different dates shown in the annexure to the Schedule of reference regarding the dates of their joining the establishment.

10. Apart from the fact that there is no acceptable oral evidence regarding the dispute, documents also are lacking. Out of Ext.W1 to Ext.W4 marked through WW1, Ext.W4 is only a replica of the annexure to the Schedule of reference. Ext.W1 is a certificate in respect of one Kalaperumal, one of the concerned workmen, issued by a Sub- Divisional Engineer to the effect that he has been doing very good job at Veeranallur Sub-Division in Cable JointingII (ii) 2397 and DP Direction Work. The certificate was issued in March 2003 but it does not say for which period the workman was working. Apart from this there is no other document regarding this workman.

11. Ext.W2 contains some requisition slips issued either in 2002 or 2003 to WW1. These will certainly show that he was working during the period. But these are of intermittent dates and very few in number. These would not establish even the case that WW1 had worked continuously for 480 days within 24 calendar months. There is nothing to show that he was working directly under the establishment from 1996 onwards. One does not also know if he is still working directly or under the Contractor.

12. Ext.W2 contains some requisition slips issued to one Sornam also. These are also of intermittent dates and very few in number and are insufficient to establish the case of the concerned workman.

13. Ext.W3 is described as working particulars. But there is nothing to show whether this is a document pertaining to the Respondent. It does not have any seal or signature of the establishment. It does not have the name of the workman except for a scroll of a signature. So far as the workman other than those named earlier are concerned, there are no documents at all. Thus the available documents are too insufficient to establish the case put forth on behalf of the concerned workmen.

In view of the discussion above, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered against the petitioner. An Award is passed accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 22nd March, 2017)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union    :    WW1,  Sri S. Murugan
                                           WW2,  Sri K. Srinivasan
For the 2nd Party/Respondents         :    MW1,  Sri V. Anthonysamy

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex.No. Date Description

Ext.W1          01.03.2003          Certificate issued by BSNL
Ext.W2          -                   Requisition/issue slip of BSNL
Ext.W3          -                   Working Particulars
Ext.W4          -                   2A petition annexure
Ext.W5          -                   Bye-laws of the Union
Ext.W6          30/31 Oct'2001      Resolution of the union
Ext.W7          21.03.2006          Lok  Sabha  Admitted  Provisional  Starred  Question  Dy.  No.  10145  for
                                    19.12.2005 by Shri Ganesh Singh  regarding regularization of contract Workers.

On the Management's side

Ext.No. Date Description

Ext.M1           24.12.1992          Copy of DOT,  New Delhi letter no. 29-18/91-SRT dated 24.12.1992 addressed
                                     to  CGMR,    Calcutta  Phones  and  Endorsement  No.  E.1/107/Blgs/92-93/3  dated
                                     TR-1 the 02.02.1993
Ext.M2           30.03.1985          Office  of  the  Director  General  Posts  &  Telegraphs  regarding  ban  order  for
                                     recruitment of casual labours.
Ext.M3           25.07.1989          Letter from Chief General Manager,  Telecommunications,  Tamil Nadu Circle,
                                     Madras-600002 regarding eligibility of casual labour to become office bearer of
                                     the Unions
Ext.M4           -                   Copy of Page 137 of Appendix 3 from P&T Manual Vol.III
Ext.M5           -                   Copy of Appendix No. 3 – Preservation of Records

Ext.M6           05.11.2001          Letter  from  BSNL  to  All  Chief  General  Managers  regarding  adoption  of  the
                                     existing Appointing Authorities  in respect of absorption of Group C and D staff
                                     in BSNL
Ext.M7           -                   Copy of  Appendix 13A at Page  426 of Financial  & Hand  Book of P&T Rules

which deals with Rlule-331

Ext.M8           -                   Copy of letter from CGM,  Telecom,  Chennai to all Subordinate Offices
Ext.M9           20.11.2004          Copy of the agreement entered into between BSNL and  Sri S. Chandrasekaran
                                     Proprietor of M/s. Ganesh Constructions Contractor.
Ext.M10          27.03.2003          The  Contract  Labour  )Regulation  &  Abolition)  Act,    1970  and  Central  Rules,
                                     1971 made there under-Grant of Certificate Registration-reg.
Ext.M11          22.06.1995          Copy of the document of prescribed procedure to be followed by the Department
                                     in the appointment of Group "D" employees category.
Ext.M12          10/11.07.2002       Awarding of Tender for cable Joint work in Zone-3 of Tirunelveli SSA-reg.
Ext.M13          28.04.2006          Model Bill for Labours.

—

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2017

S.O. 1086.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 318/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Trichy and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03.04.2017.

[No. L-40011/09/2003-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Wednesday, the 22nd March, 2017

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 318/2004

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and their workman)

BETWEEN :

The Circle Secretary : 1st Party/Petitioner Union BSNL Employees Union No. 3/71, 4th Street, Raghava Nagar Madipakkam Chennai-600091

AND

: 2nd Party/1st Respondent

1. The General Manager Telecom, BSNL TrichyII (ii) 2399 2. The Chairman & Managing Director : 2nd Party/2nd Respondent

BSNL, Sanchar Bhawan New Delhi-110001

3. The Chief General Manager : 2nd Party/3rd Respondent

BSNL Tamil Nadu Circle Anna Salai Chennai-600002

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union :       M/s. K.M. Ramesh,  Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondents      :       Sri D. Simon,  Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-40011/9/2003-IR (DU) dated 13.02.2004 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The Schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the claim of the union for absorption of contract labours (as per annexure) by the Management of

BSNL, Telecom Trichy is legal and justified and if so to what relief the workmen are entitled?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal numbered it as ID No. 318/2004 and issued notices to both sides. Both sides entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner is a Union registered under the Trade Unions Act and is having substantial number of permanent workmen working in BSNL as its members. The workmen concerned in the dispute, 38 in number were working in the Trichy Office of Telecom. They were doing office work. They were being supervised by the staff of the Respondents. Their control was mainly by the Officers of the Respondents. The workmen are working through the alleged Contractor. Even though the contract is changed the workers continue. They are carrying out the very same work carried out by the permanent employees of the telecom Department. Their work is perennial in nature. The persons put forth as Contractors are mostly the employees of the Respondents. The concerned workmen cannot be treated as contract labourers and have to be treated as part and parcel of the regular establishment. The work performed by the concerned workmen are essential and the so-called contract system is sham. The control of the workmen remains with the Telecom Department. There are regular sanctioned posts for regularizing the concerned workmen. The concerned workmen are to be made permanent as per the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act. The documents pertaining to the engagement of the workmen are with the Respondents. They are bound to produce these documents. Otherwise adverse inference may be drawn against them. The workmen concerned are entitled to be absorbed in the service of the Respondent from the date of their joining in the service with continuity of service with attendant benefits. An award may be passed accordingly.

4. The First Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The Petitioner Union is not a representative union of BSNL. The Union has no power to represent the staff or contract workmen. The contract labourers are not members of the Petitioner Union. For this reason also the Union is not competent to raise the dispute. The Telecom District Area has entered into house-keeping work contract with some agencies. The details of the contract labourers are not known to the Respondents. The work is not of primary nature. It is supervised by the contract agency. The Respondent is paying bills to the concerned agency only. The details of workmen given in the Claim Statement are false. The Contractors were given work according to work requirement only. BSNL is not responsible for the labourers employed by the Contractor. A regular set of staff is available for BSNL to carry out work which is regular in nature. Only works which are temporary or seasonal in nature are allotted to the Contractors. BSNL is entitled to engage Contractors for getting jobs done following the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. BSNL, Tiruchirapally has registered itself as Principal Employer under the said Act. It is incorrect to state that contract work is undertaken by the staff of the BSNL. It is incorrect to state that direct supervision and control of work was exercised by the department officials. The Respondents are not having documents in respect of the concerned workmen. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and WW2 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W31 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M13.

6. The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the non-absorption of the concerned workmen by the Management of BSNL Telecom, Trichy is legal and justified?

(ii) To what relief, if any the concerned workmen are entitled?

The Points

7. The petitioner has raised the dispute on behalf of 38 workmen whose names are given in the annexure to the Schedule of reference. It is the case of the petitioner that all these workmen have been doing office work in the Trichy Office of BSNL, that they are directly under the control of the Respondents, that the contract if any entered into by the Respondents for the work is a sham and nominal one, that their work is perennial in nature and they are entitled to be absorbed in the regular service of the establishment.

8. Thangaboomi who is in S.No. 11 in the annexure to the Schedule of reference is examined as WW1 on behalf of all the concerned workmen. Apart from this there is also the evidence of WW2, the Circle Treasurer of the Petitioner Union. However, his evidence is intended only to meet the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner Union has no locus-standi to raise the dispute.

9. WW1 has stated in the Proof Affidavit filed by him that all the 38 workers concerned in the case have completed 480 days of continuous service in a period of 24 calendar months and the Respondents should have conferred permanent status on them. It is further stated that though it is the case of the Respondents that the concerned workmen are contract workmen they were not appointed by any Contractors and they do not know who are the Contractors at all. It is further stated that if there is any Contractor it is for the Respondents to bring the said Contractor in the party array. WW1 has further stated that the contract if any is sham and nominal and the concerned workmen were always under the direct control of the Officers of BSNL.

10. Though 32 workmen are involved in the case documents pertaining to only some of them are produced by the petitioner. It is to be seen whether documents are sufficient enough to establish the case of the petitioner that all the workmen have been doing work of perennial in nature, that they were under the direct control of the Respondents, etc. The documents produced on behalf of each of the concerned workmen have to be examined.

11. The documents pertaining to WW1 himself can be examined first. Ext.W2 is a temporary identity card issued to WW1 Thangabhoomi on 30.04.1999 by the Divisional Engineer of Trichy Division and is valid up to 30.06.1999. There cannot be any doubt about the authenticity of this document. It is issued by the Divisional Engineer directly. Ext.W3 is a letter written by the Sub-Divisional Engineer on 24.02.2000 consequent to WW1 sustaining accident during work. It shows that the accident occurred while he was handling departmental packing cases. The letter requests the Medical Officer to give first aid to the workman. Ext.W4 is a request by the Junior Telecom Officer on 16.11.2001 to send WW1 with installation materials for Vadivel Nagar RSU Unit at Karur. The request contains the signature and also the official seal of the Officer. Ext.W5 is by the Accounts Officer, BSNL, Trichy to permit four workmen including WW1 to stay in the Accounts Section for setting right the vouchers on the night of 06.04.2004. This document is after the reference, but shows that the workman was continuing in the establishment even after the reference. Ext.W6 consists of several requests for forms in 2002 & 2003 by the Divisional Engineer, Trichy. The forms are seen received by WW1. Ext.W7 consists of IQ Register of BSNL, Trichy for the period from 01.04.2002 to December 2005. The name of WW1 appears on different dates in this document along with the names of other workmen. This document of course is not in a printed format. But examination of this document would reveal the authenticity of this. It could not have been a manipulated document. However, this document would show only that WW1 was in the establishment during the period from April 2002 to December 2005. In the annexure to the Schedule of reference the claim is that WW1 had joined the establishment on 17.01.1994. No documents are available to prove that he was there from 1994. However, Ext.W2 which is of the year 1999 shows that he was there at least from 1999. Apart from this is the fact that WW1 is seen engaged by the Respondents directly. His supervision seems to have been by the Officers of the Respondents and not by the alleged Contractor. The Respondents have not produced any document to show that WW1 or other workmen were working under Contractor. Apart from their statement in the Counter Statement and the evidence given by MW1 there is nothing available in this respect. MW1 had given evidence only on the basis of documents and had no direct knowledge regarding the engagement of any of the workmen concerned. One contract produced on behalf of the Respondents and proved is Ext.M9 of the year 1998. However, this contract is for dismantlement of lines and wires and is only intended to show that the Respondents have started the practice of contract system. However, the documents pertaining to WW1 already discussed would show that he was working directly under the control of the Respondents and not through any Contractor. So the alleged contract system is a sham one.

12. Another set of documents produced are in respect of M. Murugan who is S.No. 38 in the annexure to the Schedule of reference. Ext.W13 is a letter by the Senior Superintendent of Tiruchirapally Telegraph Office to the General Manager, Trichy on 09.05.1994 requesting to send the amount sanctioned as financial assistance to the officials of the Division. The request is to send the amount through Murugan and the signature of the workman is attested by the Senior Superintendent also. There are two more such requests given on different dates during 1997 and 1998 respectively to send amount through this workman. Ext.W14 consists of sanction letters by the Senior Superintendent for payment of coolie charges to Murugan during the period from June 1994 to October 2001. All these letters would show that Murugan was working there continuously during the entire period and that also directly under the Respondents and not through a Contractor. Ext.W15 is the copy of a representation given by Murugan seeking regularization in August 2002. By Ext.W16 this representation is forwarded by the Senior Superintendent to the General Manager. Ext.W17 of 2004 is a letter by the Assistant General Manager to the Divisional Engineer stating that the fax machine taken as loan are returned through Murugan. Ext.W17 consists of ACG-17 receipts by which payment was made to Murugan in the year 2003. These contain the signature of Murugan as the payee. Ext.W19 shows that Murugan was sent as Messenger in December 2004 for supply of India Telephone Cards. Ext.W20 is also to send post- paid cards through Murugan. This is in January 2005 and for the first time Murugan is referred to as a contract labour in this document. What is to be assumed from this is that after the dispute was raised the Respondents have started to refer to them as contract labour.

13. Ext.W21 is the document available in respect of Rajendran who is S.No. 8 in the annexure to the Schedule of reference. This document has recorded presence of Rajendran from 05.10.1998. Each page is for one month. These pages show the nature of work of Rajendran as Operating Lift from Ground Floor to Third Floor. The name of the Junior Telecom Officer who is supervising the work and also the name of the Controlling Authority are shown in the document. Even the mode of payment is shown. Rajendran seems to have been paid at the rate of Rs. 33/- per day. In several of the pages there is a signature of the JTO as well as that of the Sub-Divisional Engineer. The document continues up to 25.01.2006. Though this is the sole document produced on behalf of Rajendran, it is very much clear that this workman was throughout working in the department at least from 1998 and had been continuing even after the reference. Though the case of the Respondents is that all the workmen were working under the Contractor, the details given in Ext.W21 would show control of the workman by the officials of the Respondent. So also payment is seen made directly by the Department. It is also apparent that Rajendran was throughout doing the same kind of work in the same position. So the case of the Respondents that the concerned workman was under a Contractor could not be accepted. Apart from this is the fact that the work that was done by him is perennial in nature. He was not merely engaged as a seasonal employee or to execute some temporary work. The case in respect of this workman that the contract is sham and nominal is to be accepted.

14. Ext.W22 to Ext.W26 are produced to prove the case of Ramachandran, S.No. 35 in the Schedule of reference. Ext.W22 is a representation from Ramachandran to the Chief General Manager on 16.08.2002 stating that he was working as casual labour in the Electrical Sub-Division, Trichy from April 1992 to August 1995. He has stated in the letter that on the ground that he had entered service after 22.06.1888 his services were being utilized as contract labour subsequently. He is asking for regularization by the letter. the letter was forwarded by the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division to the Chief General Manager. Ext.W23 is a document showing service details of Ramachandran. This seems to have been prepared for calculating DA arrears which contains signature of the Assistant Engineer of Electrical Sub-Division. This shows that he was in the department from April 1990 and was there in August 1995 also. Ext.W24 (series) are the Duty Charts in respect of workmen including Rajendran. These include Duty Charts for several days starting from November 2001 and up to July 2002. Ext.W25 (series) are wage receipts of different periods starting from the month of January to March 2001. All these contain the endorsement by the Sub-Divisional Officer that he had passed payment of the amount,. Ext.W26 (series) are particulars showing the working days of Lift Operators including Rajendran for several months starting from March to December 2005. This contains the signature of Dub-Divisional Officer which shows that he was working continuously on all days even after the reference. Ext.W27 is a request by a Senior Accounts Officer to permit some workmen including Rajendran to stay in the Accounts Section for setting right the vouchers for the night of 30.04.2004. While referring to this document on discussing the case of Thangabhoomi it was pointed out that for the first time the workman had been referred to as Contractor Workers in this. However, the fact remains that the request is not to the so-called Contractor but to the Security Officer of BSNL. Thus it is very much clear from the document produced that Ramachandran was working in the Department at least from 1990 and he was called a contract labour after a dispute was raised. From the fact that all the documents referred to earlier were maintained by the department and the control was directly exercised by the officials of the Department it is clear that Ramachandran was directly working under the Department. But later an attempt was probably made to treat him as a contract labour. In spite of umpteen documents produced on behalf of the Ramachandran the Respondents have not produced any documents to show that Ramachandran was ever working as contract labour. The so-called contract put forth by the Respondents is to be treated as sham and not acted upon.

15. Ext.W8 and Ext.W10 to Ext.W12 are the documents produced in respect of Baskar, S.No. 12 in the annexure to the Schedule of reference. Ext.W8 is a temporary identity card issued in April 1999 by the Divisional Engineer of Trichy. This does not refer to him as a contract labour. Ext.W11 is the Attendance Register from 1st May to 31st July, 2002. Though this document is seen prepared in plain paper it contains the signature of the Sub-Divisional Engineer in each page. Ext.W12 are some ACG-17 receipts revealing payment of amount to Baskar. The receipts are of April and May 1998. Ext.W10 is a certificate by the Senior Telecom Officer of Trichy on 19.11.1996. In this he is referred to as contract casual labour. However, Ext.W12 (series) shows direct payment by the department to Baskar. So it is very much clear that payment was made directly by the department and reference to him as a contract labour in the certificate could not have been because he was working on contract basis through a Contractor. Presence of this workman in the department and his working there continuously at least from 1998 and his continuing the work even after reference is proved by the documents. The claim that he was a contract worker could not be true.

16. Some documents are produced in respect of one K. Karuppaiah. However, the name of this workman does not find a place in the Schedule of reference at all. No documents are available in respect of workmen other than those referred to earlier. The case on their behalf is not established.

17 There is a case for the respondents that there was ban on engaging casual workers directly after 30.03.1985 as revealed by Ext.M2 order issued by Government. According to the Respondents none of the concerned workman could have been engaged directly in view of this, after Ext.M2. However, the fact remains that even after 1985 persons were engaged and paid directly by the department. So what is to be assumed is that in spite of the ban casual labourers used to be engaged by the Respondents. These, as stated, are indicative of the fact that the contract if any was only sham and nominal and the workmen were under the direct control of the Respondents. The Respondents are those who must be in possession of the relevant documents regarding the so-called contracts. The workmen referred to above have provided sufficient evidence to show that they were directly employed by the Respondents. The burden then shifts on the Respondents to disprove the case that they were not working directly but only under the Contractor and there was no direct employer-employee relationship between them and the Respondents. The contract if any is to be treated as sham.

18. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in WORKMEN OF FOOD CORPORTION OF INDIA VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA reported in AIR 1985 SC 670 where it was held that a person who is under direct employment cannot be converted to a contract employee. It was a case where the Food Corporation had engaged several workmen directly but subsequently a Contractor was inducted and these workmen were brought under him. The dictum was laid down in this context. The petitioner had raised the dispute not long after the so-called contractual system was brought into effect. Apparently, the Respondents without notice to the concerned workmen had brought in a contract system. But they have not proved it properly. The Apex Court has stated in HUSSAINBHAI VS. ALATH FACTORY THOZHILALI UNION reported in AIR 1978 SC 1410 that the presence of intermediate Contractors with whom the workers have immediate or direct relationship excontractu is of no consequence when on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment will discern the naked truth, though draped in different perfect arrangement, that the real employer is the Management and not the immediate Contractor. In the present case, on removal of the veil it is very much clear that the contract system if any under which the workmen were working was only a sham and nominal one and they were really working under the Respondents itself.

19. There is a contention for the Respondents in the Counter Statement that the Union has no capacity to represent the contract workmen. MW1, the Divisional Engineer examined on behalf of the Respondents has stated during his evidence that the casual labourers could not have become members of the Union. Ext.M3 circular is produced to prove this. MW1 has also stated that the concerned workmen who are not even casual labourers cannot become members of the Union and for this reason the Union is not competent to represent them in this dispute also. The petitioner has examined WW2, the Treasurer of the Union to meet this contention. As seen from his evidence there were earlier 6 Unions among the workmen of the Respondents. However, these Unions got merged with the Petitioner Union. In the Working Committee Meeting of the Union it was decided to espouse the cause of the concerned workmen. The resolution of the Union is marked as Ext.W10. When such a resolution is taken the Petitioner Union is quite competent to raise the dispute on behalf of the concerned workmen. So the contention that the Union is not competent to espouse the cause of the workmen will not hold good. Those workmen who have proved their eligibility by establishing that they were working with the Respondent for a long time is entitled to relief.

20. Relief can be moulded on the basis of the period for which each workman have worked. Ramachandran, S.No. 35 in the annexure to the Schedule of reference have been working from the year 1990. Murugan, S.No. 38 have been working from 1994. Baskar, S.No. 12 have been working from 1996. So they are entitled to be regularized in the Respondent's service from the date when the dispute was raised. Rajendran, S.No. 8 had been working with the Respondent from 1998 and WW1, Thangabhoomi, S.No. 1 had been working with the Respondent from 1999. AsII (ii) 2403 could be seen they had started to work only two or three years before the dispute was raised. So their regularization can be from the date of the Award.

21. On the basis of the above discussion, an Award is passed as below:

Ramachandran, S.No. 35, Murugan, S.No. 38 and Baskar, S.No. 12 in the annexure to the Schedule of reference shall be deemed to have been regularized in the service of Respondents in their then position from the date on which the dispute was raised. They shall be eligible for backwages and other attendant benefits. In case of default in payment within two months of publication of the Award the amount will carry interest @6% per annum from the date of the Award. Rajendran, S.No. 8 and Thangabhoomi, S.No. 11 shall be regularized in the service of the Respondent with effect from the date of the Award. The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 22nd March, 2017)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : WW1, Sri T. Thangabhoomi

WW2, Sri K. Srinivasan

For the 2nd Party/Management : MW1, Sri A. JayaKumar

Documents marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex.No. Date Description

Ext.W1 December, 2004 Photocopies of Sunami Relief Camp conducted by BSNL at Velanganni,

Kameswaram, Thirupoondi and surrounding Areas

Ext.W2       30.04.1999                ID Card of Thangabhoomi DE,  D. Tax Ranganathan
Ext.W3       24.02.2000                Certificate issued for medical treatement
Ext.W4       16.11.2001                Store slip issued by Jessie Hanna,  JTO
Ext.W5       06.04.2004                Certificate issued by A/O,  Krishnamurthy
Ext.W6       05.10.2002                Requirement forms of D. Tax issued by SDE Power,  DE Tax,  JTO Power
Ext.W7       01.04.2001 to             IQ Register of BSNL Trichy
             31.12.2005
Ext.W8       20.04.1999                Identity Card of K. Baskar issued by Rangathan DE,  D. Tax Ranganathan
Ext.W9       04.06.1997 to             ACE 2,  K. Karuppaiah,  JTO
             03.03.1999
Ext.W10      19.11.1996                Working Certificate issued by JTO,  Newtech Installation to Baskar
Ext.W11      May 2002 to               Attendance Register signed by SDE,  EWSD II/D. Tax,  Trichy
             July 2002
Ext.W12      03.04.1998,  15.04.1998   K. Karuppaiah,  JTO,  EWSD II,  making payment to Baskar in ACG 17
             01.05.1998,  01.05.1998
Ext.W13      09.05.1994,  29.05.1997   Authorization letter issued by SSTT to M. Murugan
             & 03.06.1998
Ext.W14      01.06.1994 to             Payment receipt issued by SSTT to Murugan
             01.10.2001
Ext.W15      22.08.2002                Letter by M. Murugan seeking regularization to GM,  BSNL,  Trichy
Ext.W16      27.08.2002                Letter forwarded by SSTT to GM,  BSNL,  Trichy
Ext.W17      21.10.2004                Letter issued by AGM TT to M. Murugan

Ext.W18      Nov. & Dec. 2003          Payment made by ACG 17 to M. Murugan
             Oct.,  Nov.,  Dec. 2004
             and January 2005
Ext.W19      10.12.2004                Authorization letter to A/O Receipts issued by AGM TT.
Ext.W20      29.01.1995                Authorization letter issued by AGM TT to M. Murugan
Ext.W21      05.10.1998                Attendance Register of N.E. Rajendran,  Lift Operator
             to 13.09.2002,
             22.03.2004 to
             25.01.2006
Ext.W22      16.08.2002                Letter  from  S.  Ramachandran  to  CGM,     BSNL  Chennai  regarding
                                       regularization
Ext.W23      1990 to 1995              Service  particulars  of  S.  Ramachandran  Certified  by  Natarajan, AE

(Electrical), BSNL Trichy

Ext.W24      -                          Duty Chart for the week ending 03.11.2001 to 26.01.2002 & 09 09.02.2002
                                        to 20.07.2002
Ext.W25      -                          Wages Receipts for Jan. Feb. & Dec. 2000,  Jan.,  Feb. & March 2001
Ext.W26      -                          Certified copy attendance  for March,  April,  June,  July,   Sept.,  Nov.,  &
                                        December 2005
Ext.W27      -                          Permission letter to attend night duty work issued by Sr. AO (Cash)
Ext.W28      -                          Annexure to 2(k) Petition
Ext.W29      -                          Bye-Laws of the Union
Ext.W30      30/31 Oct.,  2001          Resolution of the Union
Ext.W31      21.03.2006                 Lok Sabha Starred Question Dy. No. 10145 by Sri Ganesh Singh  regarding
                                        regularization of contract workers

On the Management's side

Ex.No. Date Description

Ext.M1 24.12.1992 Copy of DoT, New Delhi letter no. 29-18/91-SRT dated 24.12.1992 addressed to CGMR, Calcutta Phones and Endorsement No. E.1/107/Blgs/92-93/3 dated TR-1 the 02.02.1993

Ext.M2 30.03.1985 Office of the Director General Posts & Telegraphs regarding bank order of

recruitment of casual labours

Ext.M3       25.07.1989                  Letter from Chief General Manager,  Telecom,  Tamil Nadu Circle,  Madras-
                                         600002 regarding eligibility of casual labour to become office bearer of the
                                         Unions
Ext.M4       -                           Copy of Page 137 of Appendix 3 from P&T Manual Vol.III
Ext.M5       -                           Copy of Appendix No. 3 – Preservation of Records
Ext.M6       05.11.2001                  Letter from BSNL to All Chief General Managers regarding adoption of the
                                         existing  Appointing  Authorities  in  respect  of  absorption  of  Group  C  and D
                                         Staff in BSNL
Ext.M7       -                           Copy  of  Appendix  13A  at  Page  426  of  Financial  &  Hand  Book  of  P&T

Rules which deals with Rule-331

Ext.M8       -                           Copy of letter from CGM,  Telecom,  Chennai to all Subordinate Offices
Ext.M9       -                           Copy  of  the  agreement  entered  into  between  BSNL  and  M/s.  Kalimar
                                         Constructions
Ext.M10      25.09.1996                  Copy  of  the  document  for  registering  BSNL  as  Principal  Employer  under
                                         CLRA Act.

Ext.M11       22.06.1995                 Copy  of  the  document  of  prescribed  procedure  to  be  followed  by  the
                                         Department in the appointment of Group "D" employees category
Ext.M12       30.08.2002                 Copy of the Model Bill prepared for the Contractor
Ext.M13       28.07.2004                 Copy  of  the  license  given  by  Contractor  M/s.  Tamil  Nadu  Ex-Servicemen
                                         Corporation for 2004 and M/s. First Man Security Service for the year 2002.

—

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2017

S.O. 1087.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 130/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Maadurai and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03.04.2017.

[No. L-40011/25/2003-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Wednesday, the 22nd March, 2017

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 130/2003

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and their workman)

BETWEEN :

The Circle Secretary : 1st Party/Petitioner Union BSNL Employees Union No. 3/71, 4th Street, Raghava Nagar Madipakkam Chennai-600091

AND

The General Manager, Telecom : 2nd Party/Respondent BSNL, No. 2 VP Rathinasamy Nadar Road Bibikulam Madurai-625002

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union :       M/s. K.M. Ramesh,  Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondents      :       Sri D. Simon,  Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-40011/25/2003-IR (DU), dated 31.07.2003 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the demand of the Union for regularization of 71 Cable Workers who worked under BSNL, Madurai

is justified? If so, to what relief they are entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal numbered it as ID 130/2003 and issued notices to both sides. Both sides entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner is a Registered Trade Union having substantial number of permanent workmen working in BSNL as its members. The dispute is raised on behalf of workmen working in the Office of BSNL, Madurai. They are doing Cable Work, etc. These workmen are working directly under the control and supervision of BSNL. They are doing the very same work carried out by the permanent employees of the Department. The work done by them is perennial in nature. The workmen cannot be treated as contract labour but have to be treated as part and parcel of the regular service of the Department. All the workmen concerned in the dispute are Class-IV employees for which sponsorship from Employment Exchange is not required. The work performed by them are essential. The so-called contract system is a sham one. The overall control of the workmen including administrative control remained with the Department. The alleged Contractors are regular staff of the Department. They engage the workers, supervise the work, take their attendance and claim and pay their wages. There are regular sanctioned posts for regularizing the workmen concerned in the case. The BSNL is an establishment as per Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act. The concerned workmen having completed 480 days of work in a period of 24 calendar months should be made permanent. An Award may be passed holding that the workmen are entitled to regular absorption in the service of the establishment from the date of their joining together with continuity of service and attendant benefits.

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The petitioner has no locus-standi to espouse the cause of persons who are not employees of BSNL. The petitioner is not a recognized union. The subject matter of the claim does not relate to the service conditions of any of the employees of BSNL. As such the claim is not maintainable. The Contractors have not been impleaded as parties. So the dispute is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is not correct to state that the concerned workmen are doing work of the same nature as done by regular employees, that the work is perennial in nature, that there is direct control and supervision by the Respondents, that the Contractors are the Officers of BSNL, etc. Though the petitioner has admitted that the workmen are contract labourers they are described as casual labourers doing the work of Class-IV employees. These are mutually inconsistent pleas. In the case of contract labourers there is no supervision or control by the principal employers. The petitioner having admitted that the concerned workmen are contract labourers, the question of their absorption or regularization do not arise. The Respondents have not been prevented from engaging contract labour. The Respondents do not know about the details of the concerned workmen. It is the Contractors who do the work and they only know about the details of their workmen. If the workmen have worked for more than 480 days they are to claim permanency with he Contractors and not with the Respondents. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

4. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence WW1 to WW5 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W20 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M12.

5. The points for consideration are :

"Whether the workmen concerned in the case are entitled to the relief of regularization in the Respondent establishment as claimed?"

The Point

6. The petitioner union has raised the dispute on behalf of 71 Cable Workers whose names and other details are given in the annexure to the Schedule of reference. These workmen are stated to be working under Madurai SSA. The year on which they have started to work and the unit in which they are working are also given in the annexure. According to the Petitioner Union these workmen have been continuously working for the Respondent establishment for a long time. Though they were made to work under a contract system, the contract is said to be a sham one. They are stated to be working directly under the control and supervision of the officials of the Respondent. According to the petitioner all the workmen have completed more than 480 days of work within a period of 24 calendar months and are entitled to the benefit of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act also.

7. WW1 to WW4, some of the workmen involved in the case have been examined by the petitioner. All of them have given evidence in tune with the case put forth in the Claim Statement. All of them have claimed absorption in the establishment. WW5 is an Office Bearer of the Petitioner Union who is examined to meet the case of the Respondent that the petitioner has no locus-standi to raise the dispute.

8. It is to be seen whether the documents produced justify the case of the petitioner. Ext.W1 contains payment receipts passed by the Junior Telecom Officers of the Respondent. In all these WW1 has signed below the column for Contractor. The case is that WW1 himself was doing the work. Whether this is true or not, it could be seen from the receipts that these are of intermittent dates which reveal that work was being done by WW1 not on all days continuously. The dispute itself was raised in 2002. If work was being done intermittently it would not have been possible for WW1 to complete 480 days of continuous work within 24 months. Ext.W2 is described as Log Book signed by certain Junior Technical Officers. However, only the name of the Supervisor is there but without any signature. These are all seen written in one stretch. Ext.W3 includes cable diagrams bearing the signature of a Junior Telecom Officer. However, the relationship of this document with any of the workmen concerned is not revealed. Ext.W5 contains the Identity Cards of three workmen who are described as contract labour. All of them are shown to have joined in 1998. Ext.W6 includes receipts containing the name of certain persons who have signed as Contractor. The document contains the description of work also. These are of late 1999 and of 2000. Ext.W6, another set of receipts contains the signature of WW2, Kanakaraj. These are from September 2000. These are also of intermittent dates and would not prove the case that more than 480 days was completed before the dispute was raised. Ext.W7 contains particulars of work and place in respect of several persons alongwith the signature of the Supervisor. These are from May 1997. However, these are also of intermittent dates revealing that there was no continuous employment. Ext.W8 is only the copy of the annexure to the Schedule of reference. Ext.W9 contains certain photographs out of which nothing could be made out, in the absence of any evidence. Ext.W10 are described as Cable Diagrams describing the fault. These are from December, 2001 to August 2000. But these would not reveal which workman is involved. Ext.W11 are the payment receipts starting from January 1999. It is not clear from these also whether the person who signed the receipt had been working continuously. The receipt shows that the payment is for work done on a particular date and not for continuous work. Ext.W12 contains work details with the name of name of Ramakrishnan, one of the worker. A few pages of this are of the end of 1998 and of 1999. However, these are not continuous except for a few days and it could not be made out from this if he was continuously employed throughout. Mostly these are the details pertaining to the year 2000 to 2003 which reveal work on intermittent days and not continuously. Then there is a fact that these have come into existence only sometime before the raising of the dispute and would not spell out continuous employment. Ext.W13 is described as the Operator Log Book of 2000 for certain days. These are somewhat continuous. However, on the basis of this it could not be stated that the concerned workman had been working for a long time, doing perennial nature of work as that of a regular workman. Ext.W14 is Identity Card issued to the same workman showing the date of joining as 20.11.1998. This is seen issued in February 1999. Thus even as per this document he had joined the establishment only at the end of 1998 and there is nothing to show that he was doing work continuously. Ext.W15 contains certain diagrams with the signature of the JTO, but does not reveal in respect of which workman. Ext.W16 are only photographs that do not convey anything. Ext.W17 is described as Store Slip, but this is of the year 2004. Thus a perusal of the documents would show that the case of those workmen who were examined themselves are not established. So far as the other workmen named in the annexure are concerned, no evidence is available at all. In the circumstance the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

In view of the above discussion the reference is answered against the petitioner. An Award is passed accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 22nd March, 2017)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union : WW1, Sri V.S. Abdul Rahim

WW2, Sri A. Kanagaraj WW3, Sri M. Ramakrishnan WW4, Sri P.V.Periyasamy WW5, Sri Srinivasan

For the 2nd Party/Respondents : MW1, Sri S. Selvaraj

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex.No. Date Description

Ext.W1 17.01.2000 Pay receipts signed by V. Balasumbramani, JTO, Bodi, issued to Abdul To Rahim

09.07.20002408 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Ext.W2 01.03.1999 A/C Log Book signed by Ravindran, JTO, and Balasubramani, JTO issued to to Abdul Rahim is filed as Ex.W.2 Cable Diagram

21.09.2003 and 04.11.2000 to 17.12.2000

Ext.W3 27.12.2004 Cable Diagram signed by AV. Ravindran, JTO and G.Venkatachalam, JTO, 11.07.2005 Bod

Ext.W4 - Annexure to the 2(K) petition

Ext.W5 02.02.1999 Name of the Employer and ID Cards

Ext.W6 (Part) - Pay receipt

& Series September Payment receipts issued by Balasubramanian,

to Ravindran, Venkatasalam, JTO, BSNL,

Dec. 2000 Bodinayakanur Jan.2001

to

April 2001, March, April, Nove.2002

and

Dec.2004

Ext.W7 (Part) - Working particulars & Series May to certified by S.Rajendran, N.S. Ramakrishnan, Dec.1997 P. Ramakrishnan, K. Murugan, S. Rajagopal, TM Jan. To Dec.98 Jan. To Sep.99 Jan. To Dec.2000 Jan. To Dec.2001 Jan. To Dec.2002 Jan. To Dec.2003

Ext.W8 - Annexure in the 2(K) petition

Ext.W9 17.11.2004 Photos taken during my marriage in which AV. Ravindran, JTO, Anthony Das, Pm. Rajagopal, TM, S. Ravindran, TTA, D.Murugan, SRTOP, Bodi participated and greeted me on the occasion

Ext.W10 01.12.2001 Cable Diagram describing fault To 31.08.2002

Ext.W11 31.01.1999 Payment receipts

To

05.08.2000

Ext.W12 20.11.1998 Work details

To

19.09.2003

Ext.W13 14.11.2000 A/C Operator Log Book

Ext.W14 02.02.1999 ID Card issued to M. Ramakrishnan by AV.Ravindran, JTO, Bodi

Ext.W15 2003 To 2004 L 14 Diagram

Ext.W16 Feb.2005 Photos taken during my Marriage attended by rishnamurthy, SDE, Chandramohan, TM, R.Muthu, TM, Marthandam, TM, Manuvel Paulraj, TTA, Satymoorthy, RM.

Ext.W17 15.05.2004 Store slip and Gate Pass issued by Mansur Hussan, JTO, Groups,

Chatrapatti and JTO, Outer, Ottanchathiram

17.05.2004

Ext.W18         -                       Bye-laws of the Union
Ext.W19          30/31 Oct'2001         Resolution of the union
Ext.W20          21.03.2006             Lok  Sabha  Admitted  Provisional  Starred  Question  Dy.  No.  10145  for
                                        19.12.2005  by  Shri  Ganesh  Singh  regarding  regularization  of  contract
                                        Workers.

On the Management's side

Ext.No. Date Description

Ext.M1 24.12.1992 Copy of DOT, New Delhi letter no. 29-18/91-SRT dated 24.12.1992 addressed to CGMR, Calcutta Phones and Endorsement No. E.1/107/Blgs/92-93/3 dated TR-1 the 02.02.1993.

Ext.M2 30.03.1985 Office of the Director General Posts & Telegraphs regarding ban order for

recruitment of casual labours.

Ext.M3 25.07.1989 Letter from Chief General Manager, Telecommunications, Tamil Nadu Circle, Madras-600002 regarding eligibility of casual labour to become office bearer of the Unions.

Ext.M4 - Copy of Page 137 of Appendix 3 from P&T Manual Vol.III.

Ext.M5 - Copy of Appendix No. 3 – Preservation of Records.

Ext.M6 05.11.2001 Letter from BSNL to All Chief General Managers regarding adoption of the existing Appointing Authorities in respect of absorption of Group C and D staff in BSNL.

Ext.M7 - Copy of Appendix 13A at Page 426 of Financial & Hand Book of P&T Rules which deals with Rlule-331.

Ext.M8 - Copy of letter from CGM, Telecom, Chennai to all Subordinate Offices Ext.M9 21.03.2005 Copy of the agreement entered into between BSNL and M/s. G.Devendran

S/o, K. Gurusamy, contractor.

Ext.M10 03.01.2002 Certificate of Registration Form-II.

Ext.M11 22.06.1995 Copy of the document of prescribed procedure to be followed by the

Department in the appointment of Group "D" employees category.

Ext.M12 28.04.2006 Model Bill for Labours.

—

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2017

S.O. 1088.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 131/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Madurai and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03.04.2017.

[No. L-40011/28/2003-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director2410 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 22nd March, 2017

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 131/2003

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and their workman)

BETWEEN :

The Circle Secretary : 1st Party/Petitioner Union BSNL Employees Union No. 3/71, 4th Street, Raghava Nagar Madipakkam Chennai-600091

AND

The General Manager, Telecom : 2nd Party/Respondent BSNL, No. 2, VP Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam Madurai-625002

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union :       M/s. K.M. Ramesh,  Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondents      :       Sri D. Simon,  Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-40011/28/2003-IR (DU) dated 31.07.2003 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the demand of the Union for regularization of 86 Line Work Contract Labourers who worked under

BSNL, Madurai is justified? If so, to what relief they are entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal numbered it as ID 131/2003 and issued notices to both sides. Both sides entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner is a Registered Trade Union having substantial number of permanent workmen working in BSNL as its members. The dispute is raised on behalf of workmen working in the Office of BSNL, Madurai. They are doing Line Work, Cable Work, etc. These workmen are working directly under the control and supervision of BSNL. They are doing the very same work carried out by the permanent employees of the Department. The work done by them is perennial in nature. The workmen cannot be treated as contract labour but have to be treated as part and parcel of the regular service of the Department. All the workmen concerned in the dispute are Class-IV employees for which sponsorship from Employment Exchange is not required. The work performed by them are essential. The so-called contract system is a sham one. The overall control of the workmen including administrative control remained with the Department. The alleged Contractors are regular staff of the Department. They engage the workers, supervise the work, take their attendance and claim and pay their wages. There are regular sanctioned posts for regularizing the workmen concerned in the case. The BSNL is an establishment as per Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act. The concerned workmen having completed 480 days of work in a period of 24 calendar months they should be made permanent. An Award may be passed holding that the workmen are entitled to regular absorption in the service of the establishment from the date of their joining, together with continuity of service and attendant benefits.

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The petitioner has no locus-standi to espouse the cause of persons who are not employees of BSNL. The petitioner is not a recognized union. The subject matter of the claim does not relate to the service conditions of any of the employees of BSNL. As such the claim is not maintainable. The Contractors have not been impleaded as parties. So the dispute is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is not correct to state that the concerned workmen are doing work of the same nature as done by regular employees, that the work is perennial in nature, that there is direct control and supervision by the Respondents, that the Contractors are the Officers of BSNL, etc. Though the petitioner has admitted that the workmen are contract labourers they are described as casual labourers doing the work of Class-IV employees. These are mutually inconsistent pleas. In the case of contract labourers there is no supervision or control by the principal employers. The petitioner having admitted that the concerned workmen are contract labourers, the question of their absorption or regularization do not arise. The Respondents have not been prevented from engaging contract labour. The Respondents do not know about the details of the concerned workmen. It is the Contractors who do the work and they only know about the details of their workmen. If the workmen have worked for more than 480 days they are to claim permanency with he Contractors and not with the Respondents. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

4. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence WW1 and WW2 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W9 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M12.

5. The points for consideration are :

"Whether the workmen concerned in the case are entitled to the relief of regularization in the Respondent establishment as claimed?"

The Point

6. The Petitioner Union has raised the dispute on behalf of 86 workmen whose names are given in the annexure to the Schedule of reference. The annexure gives the place of work and the year in which they have started to work also. It is stated that all the workmen were doing Line Work, Cable Work, etc. According to the petitioner though these workmen were working through a contract system it is only a sham one. Even though the Contractors changed, the workmen continued to do the same work. They were always doing work that were similar to the one carried out by the permanent employees of the Department. The so-called Contractors are said to be permanent employees of the establishment itself. The petitioner claims regularization of the workmen in BSNL on the basis that the contract system under which they are working is a sham one and also because they have completed 480 days of work within a period of 24 calendar months and being entitled to the benefit of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act.

7. One Sonaimuthu has been examined as WW1. Though 86 workmen are named in the annexure to the Schedule of reference what WW1 has stated in the affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination filed by him is that he is giving evidence on behalf of 71 workmen concerned in the case. However, he has not given the names of 71 workmen or the names of the excluded workmen. It is also not stated that any of the concerned workmen are excluded as they are not interested. WW1 has reiterated the case in the Claim Statement in his affidavit. He has given the names of officials who are said to have extracted work from the workmen. Documents said to be pertaining to the concerned workmen are marked through WW1.

8. It is to be seen whether the documents produced justify the case of the petitioner. Ext.W1 are the pay receipts in respect of different persons. Most of them do not refer to the name of the worker. In any case these are few in number and it could not be made out from these whether the concerned workmen were working continuously for the Respondent. Ext.W2 is the particulars of work and place in respect of certain workmen. However, the names of some of these workmen are not found in the annexure at all. Ext.W3 is only the replica to the annexure to the Schedule of reference. Ext.W4 contains photographs from which nothing could be made out. Ext.W5 is said to work diary of WW1. WW1 has stated in his cross-examination that BSNL has not given him any direction to maintain such a work diary. One does not know if this diary is regarding work done by WW1. Though this contain signature of someone other than WW1, one does not know who has signed it or in what capacity. Ext.W6 is said to be Cable Joint Diagrams signed by some of the workmen. This also could not be relied upon for the reason that it could not be made out to which worker this refers to. Thus the documents produced are not sufficient to establish the case that the concerned workmen have been working continuously under the direction and supervision of the Respondent. Apart from this is the fact that the name of WW1 who has given evidence on behalf of the workmen concerned does not find a place in the annexure to the Schedule of reference at all. So what is to be made out is that this witness who has come forward to give evidence on behalf of the concerned workmen was not an aspirant for regularization at the time when the dispute was raised. The Union has not sought regularization on his behalf. So in any case his demand for regularization made during evidence could not be considered also.

In view of the above discussion the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The reference is answered against the petitioner. An Award is passed accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 22nd March, 2017)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union :     WW1,  Sri N. Sonaimuthu
                                         WW2,  Sri Srinivasan
For the 2nd Party/Respondent       :     MW1,  Sri S. Selvaraj

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex.No. Date Description

Ext.W1           -                      Pay receipts
Ext.W2           -                      Particulars of work and place
Ext.W3           -                      Annexure to the dispute raised under S.2(K) of the ID. Act.1947
Ext.W4           04.05.1999             Photographs  of  N.Sonaimuthu,    V.Malairaju  and  P.Thangapandian  are  all
                                        concerned  in  this  ID, who  working  in  K.K.Nagar  Exchange, Pillar  43,
                                        Sivagangai Road,  Gomathipuram.
Ext.W5           1996 to 2001           Work Dairy of N.Sonaimuthu
Ext.W6           02.08.2000             Cable  Joint  Diagram  signed  by  A.Vivekandan,    TM  and  Chandramohan,
                                        JTO
                     To
                 21.09.2000
                 16.10.2001
                     To
                 28.10.2000
Ext.W7           -                      Bye-laws of the Union
Ext.W8           30/31 Oct'2001         Resolution of the union
Ext.W9           21.03.2006             Lok  Sabha  Admitted  Provisional  Starred  Question  Dy.  No.  10145  for
                                        19.12.2005  by  Shri  Ganesh  Singh  regarding  regularization  of  contract
                                        Workers.

On the Management's side

Ext.No. Date Description

Ext.M1 24.12.1992 Copy of DOT, New Delhi letter no. 29-18/91-SRT dated 24.12.1992 addressed to CGMR, Calcutta Phones and Endorsement No. E.1/107/Blgs/92-93/3 dated TR-1 the 02.02.1993.

Ext.M2 30.03.1985 Office of the Director General Posts & Telegraphs regarding ban order for

recruitment of casual labours.

Ext.M3 25.07.1989 Letter from Chief General Manager, Telecommunications, Tamil Nadu Circle, Madras-600002 regarding eligibility of casual labour to become office bearer of the Unions.

Ext.M4 - Copy of Page 137 of Appendix 3 from P&T Manual Vol.III

Ext.M5 - Copy of Appendix No. 3 – Preservation of Records.

Ext.M6 05.11.2001 Letter from BSNL to All Chief General Managers regarding adoption of the existing Appointing Authorities in respect of absorption of Group C and D staff in BSNL.

Ext.M7           -                      Copy  of  Appendix  13A  at  Page  426  of  Financial  &  Hand  Book  of  P&T
                                        Rules  which deals with Rlule-331.
Ext.M8           -                      Copy of letter from CGM,  Telecom,  Chennai to all Subordinate Offices
Ext.M9           21.03.2005             Copy of the agreement entered into between BSNL and  M/s. G. Devendran
                                        S/o,  K. Gurusamy,  Contractor.
Ext.M10          03.01.2002             Certificate of Registration Form-II
Ext.M11          22.06.1995             Copy  of  the  document  of  prescribed  procedure  to  be  followed  by  the
                                        Department in the appointment of Group "D" employees category.
Ext.M12          28.04.2006             Model Bill for Labours.

—

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2017

S.O. 1089.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 107/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chief General Manager, BSNL, Chennai & others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03.04.2017.

[No. L-40011/05/2005-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Wednesday, the 22nd March, 2017

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 107/2005

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Two Others and their workman)

BETWEEN :

The Circle Secretary : 1st Party/Petitioner Union BSNL Employees Union, RK Srinivas Apptts. No. 21, Bharathiyar First Street Pazhavanthangal Chennai-600114

AND

1. The Chief General Manager : 2nd Party/1st Respondent

BSNL, Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai Chennai-600002

2. The General Manager, BSNL : 2nd Party/2nd Respondent

Market Committee Building, Tollgate Vellore2414 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3. The Chairman & Managing Director : 2nd Party/3rd Respondent

Statesman House New Delhi-110001

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union    :    M/s. K.M. Ramesh,  Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondents         :    Sri P. Srinivasan,  Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-40011/5/2005-IR (DU) dated 26.09.2005 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management of Telecom Department, BSNL, Chennai in non-

regularizing/absorbing the services of Sri J. Thulasiraman and 13 Others, contract labourers is legal and

justified and if not, to what relief the workmen/contract labourers are entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal numbered it as ID 107/2005 and issued notices to both sides. Both sides entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner is a registered Trade Union having substantial number of permanent workmen working in BSNL as its members. The workmen involved in the dispute are doing cable work. They are working through the alleged Contractor. Even though the Contractor change often the workmen continue to remain the same. The very same work carried out by the permanent employees are done by these workmen as well. The work done by them is perennial in nature. The alleged Contractors in most of the cases are one of the employees. The workmen concerned in the dispute are Class-IV employees for whom sponsorship of Employment Exchange is not required. The work performed by them are very essential. The contract system allegedly in existence is only a camouflage. BSNL is an establishment as per the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman) Act. The concerned workmen are to be made permanent on completion of 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months. There are regular sanctioned posts for regularizing the concerned workmen. An order may be passed holding that the concerned workmen are entitled to absorption in the service of the Respondents from the date of their joining service together with continuity of service and attendant benefits.

4. The First Respondent has filed Counter Statement on behalf of other Respondents as well, contending as below:

The petitioner has no locus-standi to espouse the cause of persons who are not employees of the Respondents. The petitioner is not a recognized union also. The Contractors have not been impleaded as parties. So the dispute is having the defect of non-joinder of parties also. The claim of the petitioner that the concerned workmen are doing the same work as done by regular employees, that the work is perennial in nature, that there is direct control and supervision by the Respondents, that the Contractors are Officers of the Respondents, etc. are denied as incorrect. The petitioner has admitted the workmen to be contract labourers and at the same time has deliberately described them as casual labourers. These are inconsistent pleas. It is denied that the concerned workmen are doing the work of cable jointing. The allegation that the contract is sham is not correct. There is no camouflage in the contract as alleged. If the petitioner's claim that the workmen have worked for more than 480 days under the Contractor is true they are at liberty to claim permanency with the Contractor. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W10. No documents were produced on the Respondent's side

6. The point for consideration is:

Whether the concerned workmen are entitled to absorption as claimed?

The Point

7. The dispute is raised on behalf of 14 workmen whose names are given in the appendix to the Schedule of reference. S.No. 6 to 14 in the appendix are said to have started to work with the Respondents in the year 2003 and the others in different years starting from 1988.

8. The petitioner has claimed in the Claim Statement that the concerned workmen have been working for the Respondents directly though they are allegedly working under the Contractors. It is further stated that the Contractors in most cases are only employees of the Respondents and the contract system employed by the Respondents is only aII (ii) 2415 camouflage. The petitioner has claimed absorption on the basis of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman) Act as well.

9. The petitioner has examined one of the concerned workman, S.No. 10 in the annexure to the Schedule of reference and also marked 10 documents to substantiate the case put forth by it. Though the annexure to the Schedule of reference has given the names of 14 workmen as those involved in the dispute, the witness examined as WW1 has referred to only 10 names as those involved in the dispute. He has stated that out of these 10 workmen, he is giving evidence only on behalf of only 8 as one is no longer interested in the case and another has already obtained an Award in another ID. During cross-examination the witness has stated that even though he is claiming absorption on behalf of 8 workmen including himself he has produced documents pertaining to himself and 2 others by name Jagadheesan and Jayakrishnan only. So the case put forth on behalf of other workmen other than these three could be found against even at the outset in the absence of any evidence other than the oral evidence given by WW1 in this respect.

10. The petitioner has not produced the application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner by which the dispute was raised. So the actual date on which the dispute was raised is not available. However it could be seen from the order of reference that the dispute was raised in the year 2004. All the documents produced on behalf of the petitioner other than Ext.W1 are of the periods subsequent to the period of reference. WW1 has stated in his Chief Affidavit that himself and the other workmen concerned were employed as Part-Time Delivery Messenger at Telegraphic Office, Vellore with effect from 2003. Though the case in the Claim Statement is that all the workmen were doing cable work there is no reference to this work in the Claim Statement. However, even in the appendix to the Schedule of reference the nature of employment of the workmen is shown as that of Telegraph Messenger. WW1 has stated that the other 7 workmen for whom also he is giving evidence have been orally terminated from service in the year 2014 when there was a strike. He himself is continuing in the Transmission Section of Optical Fibre Cable Section, Vellore. He has stated that all the workmen including himself were doing work which is perennial in nature. They were initially paid at the rate of Rs. 30/- per day and subsequently it was enhanced and now he is getting about Rs. 5, 000/- per month. He has stated that all the workmen including himself have completed more than 240 days of continuous service in a period of 24 calendar months preceding the date of termination and have completed 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months and as such are to be deemed to have attained permanent status.

11. The claim of the workmen being that they have entered service in the year 2003, there is no scope for the contention that they are retained as contract workers and continued as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen.

12. Reference was already made to the documents produced. Even in Ext.W1, the sole document which can be said to be one prior to the raising of the dispute, the workmen are described as on contract. In the subsequent documents, Ext.W2 and Ext.W3 also the description given is as contract Messengers. There is nothing to show that the three workmen have completed 480 days of service within 12 calendar months. Even if 10.01.2003 the date of joining given in the appendix to the Schedule of reference is accepted as the date on which the workmen have actually started to work and not as contract workmen but directly, it would not have been possible for them to complete 480 days of service before the date on which the dispute was raised. There is nothing to show that the workmen were under the control and supervision of the Respondents. On the other hand the description given in the documents would lead only to a conclusion that they were taken in as contract workers. So, even WW1 and the two other workmen named by him during cross-examination are not entitled to any relief. The reference has to be answered against the petitioner.

In view of the above discussion the reference is answered against the petitioner. An Award is passed accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 22nd March, 2017)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union :       WW1,  Sri. P. Anandan
For the 2nd Party/Respondents      :       MW1,  Sri. R. Munirathanam

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex.No. Date Description

Ext.W1          11.10.2003            Duty Chart of contract Messengers (Ex.W1)
Ext.W2          02.10.2004            Duty Chart of contract Messengers (Ex.W2)

Ext.W3          01.01.2005             Duty Chart of contract Messengers (Ex.W3)
Ext.W4          14.10.2005             Messengers Delivery Receipts to maintained by P. Anandan (Ex.W4)
                   to
                27.04.2006
Ext.W5          18.01.2006             Duty Chart of K.Jagadeesan for in door work (Ex.5)
Ext.W6          02.02.2006             Duty Chart of K.Jagadeesan for in door work (Ex.6)
Ext.W7          13.04.2006             Gate pass slip relating to K. Jagadeesan (Ex.w7)
Ext.W8          12.12.2006             Messengers Delivery Receipts maintained by R. Jayakrishnan (Ex.W8)
Ext.W9          07.06.2006             Messengers Delivery Receipts maintained by R. Jayakrishnan (Ex.W9)
Ext.W10         23.06.2006             Messengers Delivery Receipts maintained by R. Jayakrishnan (Ex.W10)

On the Management's side

Ext.No. Date Description

Nil —

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2017

S.O. 1090.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 108/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chief General Manager, BSNL, Chennai & others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03.04.2017.

[No. L-40011/06/2005-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Wednesday, the 22nd March, 2017

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 108/2005

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Two Others and their workman)

BETWEEN :

The Circle Secretary : 1st Party/Petitioner Union BSNL Employees Union, RK Srinivas Apptts. No. 21, Bharathiyar First Street Pazhavanthangal Chennai-600114

AND

1. The Chief General Manager : 2nd Party/1st Respondent

BSNL, Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai Chennai-600002

2. The General Manager, BSNL : 2nd Party/2nd Respondent

Market Committee Building, Tollgate Vellore

3. The Chairman & Managing Director : 2nd Party/3rd Respondent

Statesman House New Delhi-110001

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union    :    M/s. K.M. Ramesh,  Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondents         :    Sri P. Srinivasan,  Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-40011/6/2005-IR (DU) dated 26.09.2005 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the action of the management of Telecom Department, BSNL, Chennai in non-

regularizing/absorbing the services of Sri R. Raghothaman and 29 Others, contract labourers is legal and

justified and if not, to what relief the workmen/contract labourers are entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal numbered it as ID 108/2005 and issued notices to both sides. Both sides entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:

The Petitioner is a registered Trade Union having substantial number of permanent workmen working in BSNL as its members. The employees concerned in the dispute are doing Office Work under the Respondents. The employees are working through the alleged Contractor. Even though the Contractors changed often these employees continued to work for the Respondents. The nature of duties performed by the employees are the same as carried out by the permanent employees of the Telecom Department. The work done by them is perennial in nature. The alleged contractors in most of the cases are one of the employees of the Respondents. The concerned employees cannot be treated as contract labourer. The overall control of the employees was with the Telecom Department. The so-called contract labour system is only camouflage. There are sanctioned posts for regularizing the employees concerned in the case. The Respondent establishment is one that comes under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman) Act. All the employees have completed 480 days of service in a period of 24 calendar months. They are entitled to be made permanent. An Award may be passed holding that the workmen are entitled to absorption in the service of the Respondents from the date of their joining service, together with continuity of service and attendant benefits.

4. The Respondents have filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The petitioner is not concerned with the persons on whose behalf the dispute is raised. The BSNL Union is not expected to take up the cause of those who are not members of the Union nor are the employees of the Department of Telecom or BSNL. The BSNL is not precluded from engaging Contractors to get certain items of work done. The Respondents are not responsible for the workers engaged by the Contractors. The work is extracted through the Contractors on work contract basis. The contentions in the Claim Statement are denied. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W5. No documents were marked on the Respondent's side

6. The point for consideration is:

Whether the concerned workmen are entitled to absorption as claimed?

The Point

7. The Petitioner has raised the dispute on behalf of 30 workmen whose names and other details are given in the annexure to the Schedule of reference. According to the Petitioner Union all these workmen have been doing office2418 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] work in the Respondent establishment and still continue to work also. It is the case of the petitioner that though these workmen are termed as contract workers, the so-called contract system is only a camouflage. It is also there case that the Contractors are all employees of department itself and working under them cannot be termed as working as contract labours. It is also contended by the petitioner that all the workmen have completed 480 days of continuous service within 24 calendar months and they are entitled to be made permanent under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman) Act.

8. One of the workman named in the annexure to the Schedule of reference has been examined as WW1. Though 30 workmen including him are named in the annexure to the Schedule of reference, WW1 has named only 12 persons in the affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination filed by him. He has stated in the affidavit that he is giving evidence on behalf of himself and 11 others named in the affidavit only. He has stated that all of them have been employed in Telephone Bhawan, Vellore and doing Office Assistant work of up-keeping of files and moving files from one table to another and from one Section and another. They were also doing Messenger work of delivery of thapals and files from one office to another office, it is stated. WW1 has further stated in the affidavit that the contract system which according to the Respondents is in existence is only a make-believe arrangement and all of them were working directly under the Respondents and were getting directions from Sub-Divisional Engineer and other officials of the Respondents.

9. Though WW1 has named 12 persons including himself in the affidavit, documents are not at all produced in respect of 10 persons other than himself and one Kedarnath. During cross-examination WW1 has stated that the concerned workmen have joined the establishment in 2003. In the absence of direct evidence by these workmen no evidence is available to show when they have joined, whether they have been continuously working in the establishment, whether they are still continuing, etc. So the claim for absorption on behalf of these workmen could be rejected outright.

10. Ext.W1 to Ext.W3 are the documents produced on behalf of WW1. As seen from the annexure to the Schedule of reference, this workman has joined the establishment in April 1997. However, it could be seen from the admission during his cross-examination that he has joined in 2003 only so his case in the annexure to the Schedule of reference is a false one. So far as the documents on behalf of WW1 are concerned, Ext.W1 & Ext.W2 are said to be the Attendance Registers. These do not contain any seal of the establishment. One does not know who has signed these documents. Even assuming that these are genuine documents, these starts from August 2003 only. These would not show that WW1 was working in the establishment continuously for more than 480 days before the dispute was raised. The document is not continuous one but only for intermittent dates. Even if the entire days shown in the document are calculated it would not make 480 days. So far as Ext.W3 is concerned, this contains a series of Gate Passes in the name of WW1. All these are of the years 2012, 2014, etc. These are of no use in establishing the case of WW1 as these are of recent origin. So in any case there is no basis for the contention for making permanent on the basis of the Tamil Nadu Act for conferment of permanency. Even otherwise the petitioner would not be entitled to be made permanent on the basis of the enactment.

11. The case that the contract system under which WW1 is working is a sham one also could not be accepted. The dispute itself was raised in 2003. Other than the oral evidence, there is no evidence as to on what basis he had been working. So the case that the contract system if any is a sham one which is made a basis for absorption in the establishment also is without evidence.

12. Ext.W4 is the Attendance Register pertaining to Kedarnath. One does not know if this had actually come from Respondent establishment. It does not contain any seal of the office or anything to show that it originated from the Office of the Respondents. Even assuming that it is a genuine document, it is not sufficient to establish the case. The document starts from 21.08.1998. This shows dates up to 31.07.2002. However, there is no continuity for the document. One does not know if the person was continuously working in the establishment. The concerned person himself did not come forward to state his case. Ext.W5 contains a series of Issue and Receipt Slips bearing the signature of a person by name Kedarnath. These documents are in the letter head of BSNL. So these must be genuine ones. These certainly would show that the person by name Kedarnath had been in the establishment even in the year 2010. Subsequent slips are not seen produced. However, all these slips being of the period subsequent to the raising of the dispute, these do not serve the purpose of proving the case of the petitioner. So the case put forth on behalf of Kedarnath also could not be accepted. So the petitioner is not be entitled to any relief.

In view of the discussion above, the reference is answered the petitioner. An Award is passed accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 22nd March, 2017)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding OfficerII (ii) 2419

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union  :    WW1,  Sri. S. Stephen
For the 2nd Party/Respondents       :    MW11,  Sri. R. Munirathanam

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex.No. Date Description

Ext.W1          Aug. 2003           Attendance Register (S. Stephen) (Ex. W1)
Ext.W2          Sept. 2003          Attendance Register (S. Stephen) (Ex. W2)
Ext.W3          -                   Gate pass 8 Nos. of S. Stephen (W3 series)
Ext.W4          21.08.1998          Attendance Register (N.B Kedharnath)  (Ex. W4)
                    To
                31.07.2002
Ext.W5          -                   Stores issue and receipt slips 83 Nos. of N.B. Kedharnath (Ex.W5Series)

On the Management's side

Ext.No. Date Description

Nil —

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2017

S.O. 1091.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 109/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chief General Manager, BSNL, Chennai & others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03.04.2017.

[No. L-40011/07/2005-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 22nd March, 2017

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 109/2005

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Two Others and their workman)

BETWEEN :

The Circle Secretary : 1st Party/Petitioner Union BSNL Employees Union, RK Srinivas Apptts. No. 21, Bharathiyar First Street Pazhavanthangal Chennai-600114

AND

1. The Chief General Manager : 2nd Party/1st Respondent

BSNL, Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai Chennai-600002

2. The General Manager, BSNL : 2nd Party/2nd Respondent

Market Committee Building, Tollgate Vellore

3. The Chairman & Managing Director : 2nd Party/3rd Respondent

Statesman House New Delhi-110001

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union    :    M/s. K.M. Ramesh,  Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondents         :    Sri P. Srinivasan,  Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-40011/7/2005-IR (DU) dated 26.09.2005 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the action of the management of Telecom Department, BSNL, Chennai in non-

regularizing/absorbing the services of Sri A. Dass and 23 Others, contract labourers is legal and justified and

if not, to what relief the workmen/contract labourers are entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal numbered it as ID 109/2005 and issued notices to both sides. Both sides entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:

The Petitioner is a registered Trade Union having substantial number of permanent workmen working in BSNL as its members. The employees concerned in the dispute are doing Telegraph Work under the Respondents. The employees are working through the alleged Contractor. Even though the Contractors changed often these employees continued to work for the Respondents. The nature of duties performed by the employees are the same as carried out by the permanent employees of the Telecom Department. The work done by them is perennial in nature. The alleged contractors in most of the cases are one of the employees of the Respondents. The concerned employees cannot be treated as contract labourer. The overall control of the employees was with the Telecom Department. The so-called contract labour system is only camouflage. There are sanctioned posts for regularizing the employees concerned in the case. The Respondent establishment is one that comes under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman) Act. All the employees have completed 480 days of service in a period of 24 calendar months. They are entitled to be made permanent. An Award may be passed holding that the workmen are entitled to absorption in the service of the Respondents from the date of their joining service, together with continuity of service and attendant benefits.

4. The Respondent have filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The petitioner is not concerned with the persons on whose behalf the dispute is raised. The BSNL Union is not expected to take up the cause of those who are not members of the Union or are employees of the Department of Telecom or BSNL. The BSNL is not precluded from engaging Contractors to get certain items of work done. The Respondents are not responsible for the workers engaged by the Contractors. The work is extracted through the Contractors on work contract basis. The contentions in the Claim Statement are denied. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W5. No documents were marked on the Respondent's side

6. The point for consideration is:

Whether the concerned workmen are entitled to absorption as claimed?

The Point

7. The petitioner has raised the dispute on behalf of 24 workmen whose names and other details are given in the annexure to the Schedule of reference. The annexure describes 24 persons as those doing Cable Line Work in Vellore SSA. As seen from the annexure they have started to work in the establishment on different dates in the years between 1995 to 1999. It is the case of the petitioner that all these workmen were continuously working in the establishment and they have completed 480 days of work during 12 calendar months. It is the further case of the petitioner that though the workmen are said to be working under the Contractors, the so-called contract system is sham and is only a camouflage. According to the petitioner, the so-called Contractors are employees of the Respondents themselves.

8. One of the concerned workman has been examined as WW1. He has filed Proof Affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination. Though there are 24 workmen including him in the annexure to the schedule of reference he has named only 10 of them in the Proof Affidavit. He has stated in the affidavit that the affidavit is on behalf of himself and the remaining 9 workers named in the affidavit and not in respect of other workmen name d in the Schedule of reference. He has stated that all the 10 workmen including himself are doing Cable Joining work at Vellore, Ranipet, SIPCOT, Ranipet, etc. He has stated that the contention of the Respondents that all of them are contract labourers is not correct. He has further sated that himself and others are getting salary from a Telecom Mechanic who is a permanent employee of the Department. This Mechanic used to give directions and instructions regarding the work. They were being supervised by the said official only. Earlier before BSNL came into existence they were working in the Department of Telecom and their work was supervised by the Junior Telecom Officer and Telecom Mechanics. According to him they were employed ever since 1999. He has given the names of the officials who are said to have extracted work from the concerned workmen also. During cross-examination WW1 has stated that does not know on which date the other 9 workmen have started to work with the Respondents.

9. Though WW1 has stated that he is giving evidence on behalf of himself and other 9 workmen, he has produced documents pertaining to two more workmen only, apart from himself. Ext.W4 is in respect of one Pasupathy who is named by WW1 in his affidavit. This contains work orders for the period from 10.01.2006 to 30.05.2007. Apparently, this pertains to the period after the dispute was raised. No documents are available to show that Pasupathy was working for the Respondents before the dispute was raised. The concerned workman has not come forward to give evidence to establish his case. So there is no evidence available to show that he worked for the establishment before the dispute was raised. So the claim in respect of Pasupathy is to be rejected.

10. Ext.W5 contains work orders in respect of Pitchandi who is also named by WW1 in his affidavit. However, the reason given for rejecting the case of Pasupathy exists in respect of this document also. The work orders are of the period from 08.08.2012 to 30.07.2014. There is nothing to show that this workman had been there in the establishment before the dispute was raised. Even assuming he was there, there is no evidence as to when he had started to work, what was the nature of work done by him, etc. So the claim in respect of this workman also has to be rejected.

11. So far as the other workmen named by WW1 are concerned, evidence is totally lacking. There is not even a piece of paper to show that they were in the establishment prior to the raising of the dispute or were there even after that.

12. Ext.W1 to Ext.W3 are said to be documents in respect of WW1 himself. Ext.W1 is said to be work sheet regarding the number of days worked by WW1. However, this will not serve any purpose as the name of the concerned person is not available in the document. There is a signature purported to be that of WW1 at the bottom of this document. This shows the number of days worked in the years 1999 to 2003. But it is written in plain paper and has no seal or anything else to identify it with the Respondents and cannot be relied upon. Ext.W2 is said to be a statement showing the work carried out by WW1 with his signature and countersigned by the Supervisor. It starts from 09.05.1999 and is available up to 01.05.2003. This too has no authenticity and cannot be relied upon as in the case of Ext.W1. Ext.W3 contains Material Requisition Slips which are genuine. However, these are mostly of the period after 2006 and are not relevant for the purpose of the dispute except to show that WW1 had been continuing to work for the Respondents even after the dispute was raised. Thus, the only documents available to show that WW1 was working for the Respondents before the dispute was raised are the Ext.W1 and Ext.W2 which cannot be relied upon. In Ext.W1 itself WW1 is referred to as contract labour. Even assuming that WW1 had worked for more than 480 days before the dispute was raised, this shows him to be under the Contractor in which case the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Act for permanency would not be available to him at all.

13. The contention that is advanced is that contract system under which the workmen were working is sham. However, material is not produced to justify this contention. The petitioner had raised the dispute in 2004. There is no evidence to show that WW1 was working for the establishment for years together and the Respondent establishment had been utilizing his work under the guise of contract system for a very long time continuously. So in any case his claim for absorption or regularization on the basis that the contract system through which he is working is a sham also could not be accepted. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

In view of the discussion above, the reference is answered against the petitioner. An Award is passed accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 22nd March, 2017)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union   :    WW1,  Sri. S. Manoharan
For the 2nd Party/Respondents        :    MW11,  Sri. R. Munirathanam

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex.No. Date Description

Ext.W1           -                Work sheet for number of days worked by S. Manoharan for the period years 1999
                                  to 2003
Ext.W2           -                Statement  showing  the  works  carried  on  S.  Manoharan  and  counter  signed  by  the

supervisor for the period 09.05.1999 to 31.05.2003

Ext.W3           -                Material Requisition slip dated 05.07.2003 and 09.07.2003
Ext.W4           -                Work order for the period 11.01.2006 to 30.05.2007 4in respect of A. Pasupathy
Ext.W5           -                Work order for the period 08.08.2012 to 30.07.2014in respect of K.Pitchandi

On the Management's side

Ext.No. Date Description

Nil —

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2017

S.O. 1092.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 320/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Trichy and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03.04.2017.

[No. L-40011/11/2003-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 22nd March, 2017

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 320/2004

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Two Others and their workman)II (ii) 2423

BETWEEN :

The Circle Secretary : 1st Party/Petitioner Union BSNL Employees Union No. 3/71, 4th Street, Raghava Nagar Madipakkam Chennai-600091

AND

1. The General Manager

: 2nd Party/1st Respondent

BSNL Trichy

2. The Chairman & Managing Director : 2nd Party/2nd Respondent

BSNL, Sanchar Bhawan New Delhi-110001

3. The Chief General Manager : 2nd Party/3rd Respondent

BSNL Tamil Nadu Circle Anna Salai Chennai-600002

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union :       M/s. K.M. Ramesh,  Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondents      :       Sri D. Simon,  Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-40011/24/2002-IR (DU) dated 07.01.2003 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the non-absorption of the casual employees as per Annexure as claimed by the BSNL Employees

Union is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal numbered it as ID 320/2004 and issued notices to both sides. Both sides entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner is a registered trade union. It has a substantial number of permanent workmen working in BSNL as its members. The workmen concerned in the dispute are working as Telegraph Messengers. They are working through alleged Contractor. Even though the contract is changed often, the employees continue to be the same. They are doing the very same work which is carried out by the permanent employees of the Respondent. The work done by the concerned workmen are integral part of the work of the department. The works performed by them are very essential. The so-called contract system is a sham one. In most of the case the Contractor does not possess any license as required under the CLRA Act. The overall control of the concerned workmen remained with the Respondent. In most case the alleged Contractors are regular staff of the Respondent. There are regular sanctioned post for regularizing the concerned workmen. The concerned workmen are entitled to be made permanent on completion of 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months. An order may be passed holding that the workmen are entitled to be absorbed in the service of the Respondent from the date of their joining the service with continuity of service and other attendant benefits.

4. The Respondents have filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The Petitioner Union is not a representative union of BSNL. It has no capacity to represent the staff of the Respondent or workmen on contract. The workmen for whom relief is claimed are not members of the Petitioner Union. The petitioner cannot represent those who are not its members. The Trichy Telecom District Area has entered into contract with some agencies. The Agency has the right to engage any person to complete the work. The work is supervised by the Agency. The Respondent is paying bills to the Agency only. Contract used to be awarded only for six months. The details of the workmen given in the Claim Statement are false. Departmental works are entrusted to approved Contractors and payments are made only to approved Contractors. Payment used to be made not on monthly basis but on the basis of quantum of work. BSNL has got regular set of staff for carrying out work which are regular in nature. Works which are temporary in nature are allotted to the Contractors as these are not perennial in nature. The claim that the concerned workmen are doing the same work as done by the regular employees and the work is perennial2424 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] in nature are not correct. The contract is entered into for a certain period and the same would expire on the due date. So the question of the work becoming perennial in nature does not arise. The Respondent is having registration certificate under CLRA Act and all the Contractors are having license under the Act also. Initially the department has been paying directly for contingency works. Contract Labour was paid on requirement basis and also pro-rate basis at the rate of Rs. 1.75 and Rs. 2.50 per telegram for effecting delivery. The above works were of contingent nature and not permanent. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and WW2 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W11 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M13.

6. The point for consideration is:

Whether the concerned workmen are entitled to absorption as claimed?

The Point

7. The schedule of reference has an annexure with names of 25 workmen. The Petitioner Union has raised the dispute on behalf of these workmen. The case of the Union is that all these workmen have been working as Telegraph Messengers, that even if they are working through Contractors the contracts are sham and nominal and they are entitled to be absorbed in the regular establishment. The annexure to the Schedule of reference has given the date of joining of each of the concerned workman also. As seen from the annexure they were working in different places under Trichy SSA.

8. WW1, Sakthivel, one of the concerned workmen is examined to prove the case. His evidence seems to be on behalf of all the workmen also. WW2 examined in the case is only the Treasurer of the Petitioner Union and his evidence is intended only to show that the Petitioner Union has the right to espouse the cause of the concerned workmen.

9. The case in the Claim Statement is that the concerned workmen are working through so-called Contractors who used to be employees of the Department mostly. What is stated in the affidavit is that all the 25 workmen were employed in Trichy Telecom SSA and were working in places like Trichy, Kulithalai, Srirangam, Theppakulam, etc. It is further stated that the Department of Telecom had been paying wages by issuing receipt. The wages used to be paid weekly, fortnightly or sometimes even on monthly basis. It is further stated in the affidavit that all the workmen have completed 480 days of continuous service in a period of 24 calendar months and the Respondents ought to have conferred permanent status on them. It is also stated that the so-called Contractors did not appoint them and they do not know who the Contractors are.

10. Though the evidence given by WW1 is said to be on behalf of all the concerned workmen, except the statement in his Proof Affidavit there is no other evidence available in respect of workmen other than Augustine, Balaji and Swaminathan. None of the documents produced on behalf of the petitioner refer to any of the workmen other than the above persons. None of those workmen have come forward to establish their case that they have been working in the establishment for a long time as casual employees or as contract labours and that the work done by them was perennial in nature, that the contract is sham and they are entitled to be regularized. There is no evidence at all to show that they have ever worked in the establishment. So the case of the 21 persons other than the four including WW1 already named could be rejected even at the outset.

11. Now it is to e seen what is the evidence available regarding the workmen by name Augustine, Balaji and Swaminathan. Ext.W4 is the bill for payment of wages to contract workers for the month of February 2000 for delivery of telegrams. Augustine is seen paid Rs. 25/- and Balaji Rs. 235/- for the month. Ext.W5 is another such bill for the month of March 2000. As per this also payment is seen made to Augustine and Balaji and also Swaminathan, another workman named in the Schedule of reference, alongwith WW1. Thus the documentary evidence available so far as Augustine and Balaji are concerned are payment for two consecutive months in the year 2000 and for Swaminathan payment for just one month. These documents are not at all sufficient to establish the case that these persons were working continuously with the Respondent to enable them to be absorbed in the service of the Respondent. So the case on behalf of these three workmen also are to be rejected.

12. The only workmen that now remains is WW1. It is to be seen what are the documentary evidence available in respect of this witness. In the Claim Statement the petitioner has stated that all the concerned workmen are working as Telegraph Messenger and they are under the control of alleged Contractor but mainly the Officers of the Respondent are controlling them. Payment is stated to have been made by the Respondent. The schedule of reference itself is whether the claim of the petitioner for absorption of "contract labour" is legal and justified.

13. The case in respect of WW1 and for that matter regarding all the concerned workmen is that initially they were working directly under the Respondents. The documents produced on the side of the petitioner would show that this is true in the case of Sakthivel who is examined as WW1. WW1 has stated that earlier direct payment was made by theII (ii) 2425 respondent by ACG-17. Ext.W1 (series) are two such documents showing such payment, one dated 29.01.1990 and the other dated 19.02.1990. The payee as per these documents is WW1. There is also Ext.W3 which gives the particulars of the rate of employment and the number of messages delivered by WW1. This gives details of the rate of employment from 01.12.1996 to 31.12.1986. The document contains the signature of Senior Telegraph Manager in the Telegraph Office. This would show that WW1 continued to be the direct employee of the Respondents even during 1996. Ext.W2 is a certificate issued by a Senior Telegraph Master-in-Charge stating that WW1 was working in the office from 10.01.1993. Of course, this certificate is not proved through the person who has issued the same. According to the Respondents, it is issued by a person who is not competent to do so. However, in so far as the genuineness of this document is not disputed this document bears some weight in establishing the case of WW1 that he was earlier directly employed by the Respondents.

14. The position seems to have changed during the year 2000. Ext.W4 and Ext.W5 are statements of February and March 2000 respectively giving details of the bill for payment of wages to "contract workers" of Central Telegraph Office, Thiruchirapally. Alongwith other names the name of WW1 also is found in this document. This would show that the Respondents have started to treat WW1 as contract worker by this time. Ext.W6 is the details showing the working days of WW1 certified by an Officer of Thiruchirapally. Of course, the name of WW1 is missing from this document probably because the copies are not properly taken However, the Respondents have not challenged the evidence of WW1 that this document pertains to him. This shows continuous engagement of WW1 during the year 2000-2001. Ext.W7 is the Attendance Register in respect of WW1 during the year 2000-2001. Ext.W7 is the Attendance Register respect of WW1 countersigned by the Sub-Divisional Engineer of Central Telegraph Office, Thiruchirapally. The date of engagement and duty time alongwith the signature of WW1 as well as the Officer-in- Charge are available in this. This is of the year 2004 and 2005. WW1 has stated during his cross-examination that he is still working under the Respondents. There is no contra evidence to this evidence also. Thus what is clear from the documents is that WW1 had been working for the Respondents at least from January 1990 and he is still working for them.

15. The case of the petitioner is that the alleged contract system is a sham one. WW1 has stated in his affidavit that most of the so-called Contractors are one or other regular employee of the Respondent itself. This is stated by the petitioner as a reason to come to the conclusion that the contract is a sham one. Though such a contention is raised by the petitioner the Respondents have not produced any contracts entered into by it with the so-called Contractors. The only one contract produced by the Respondents is Ext.M9 dated 13.02.1998. However, this is for erection and dismantlement of lines and wires of Trichy SSA. As seen from the documents produced on behalf of the petitioner WW1 was working as Telegraph Messenger during 1998 and also subsequently. There would not have been any difficulty for the Respondents to produce the relevant agreements, if any entered into with the so-called Contractor by which WW1 was also engaged. However, such agreements are not produced. So there is sufficient indication to show that even if WW1 is described as a contract labour there was no proper agreement regarding the same. MW1 has of course stated during his examination that department was not bound to retain files and documents after a particular period. Even if this case is accepted at least those documents immediately prior to the reference should have been available with the Respondents. They are not expected to destroy the documents even after the time limit, once the dispute was raised.

16. It is clear from the evidence of WW1 that he was being engaged throughout as a Telegraph Messenger. He was doing the same kind of work throughout after he was started to be engaged by the Respondents. The available documents would show that he was being engaged without any gap. No doubt, documents pertaining to the entire period are not there. But those documents which are produced are sufficient to show that the engagement must have been continuous in nature. Otherwise it is unlikely that WW1 is being engaged even now though under the so-called Contractor.

17. There is a case for the Respondents that there was ban on engaging casual workers directly after 30.03.1985 as revealed by Ext.M2 order issued by the Government. According to the Respondents WW1 could not have been engaged directly after Ext.M2. However, the fact remains that even in the year 1990 WW1 was being paid directly by the Department. So what is to be assumed is that in spite of the ban casual labourers used to be engaged by the Respondents. All these are indicative of the fact that the contract if any through which WW1 was engaged after the year 2000 was only sham and he was under the direct control of the Respondents. The Respondents are those who must be in possession of the relevant documents regarding the so-called contracts. When there is sufficient evidence on the side of WW1 to show that he was engaged directly initially the burden shifts on the Respondents to disprove the case and show that he was actually working under the Contractor and there was no control or supervision by them. In the absence of any proof the case of WW1 that the contract is sham has to be accepted.

18. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in WORKMEN OF FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA reported in AIR 1985 SC 670 where it was held that a person who is under direct employment cannot be converted to a contract employee. It was a case where the Food2426 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Corporation had engaged several workmen directly, but subsequently a Contractor was inducted and these workmen were brought under him. The dictum was laid down in this context. The petitioner had raised the dispute not long after the so-called contractual system was brought into effect. Apparently, the Respondents without notice to the concerned workmen had brought in a contract system which is a pretext. The Apex Court has stated in HUSSAINBHAI VS. ALATH FACTORY THOZHILALI UNION reported in AIR 1978 SC 1410 that the presence of intermediate Contractors with whom the workers have immediate or direct relationship excontractu is of no consequence when on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment will discern the naked truth, though draped in different perfect paper arrangement, that the real employer is the Management and not the immediate Contractor. In the present case, on removal of the veil it is very much clear that the contract system if any under which WW1 was working was only sham and nominal and he was really working under the Respondents itself.

19. There is a contention for the Respondents in the Counter Statement that the Union has no capacity to represent the contract workmen. MW1, the Divisional Engineer examined on behalf of the Respondents has stated during his evidence that the casual labourers could not have become members of the Union. Ext.M3 circular is produced to prove this. He has also stated that the concerned workmen who are not even casual labourers cannot become members of the Union and for this reason the Union is not o competent to represent them in this dispute also. The petitioner has examined WW2, the Treasurer of the Union to meet this contention. As seen from the evidence there was earlier 6 Unions among the workmen of the Respondents. However, these Unions got merged with the Petitioner Union. In the Working Committee Meeting of the Union it was decided to espouse the case of the concerned workmen. The resolution of the Union is marked as Ext.W10. When such a resolution is taken the Petitioner Union is quite competent to raise the dispute on behalf of the concerned workmen. So the contention that the Union is not competent to espouse the cause of the workmen will not hold good.

20. In view of my discussion above WW1 is entitled to the relief claimed. An Award is passed as below:

The reference is partly allowed.

WW1, Sakthivel shall be deemed to have been absorbed in the service of the Respondents in his then position with effect from the date on which the dispute was raised. He shall be entitled to wages of a regular employee from that date. Difference in the wages payable to him shall be paid within two months of the publication of the Award in the absence of which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the Award.

The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 22nd March, 2017)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union : WW1, Sri P. Sakthivel

WW2, Sri K. Srinivasan

For the 2nd Party/Respondents : MW1, Sri A. JayaKumar

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex.No. Date Description

Ext.W1       29.01.1990 and         Payment by ACG-17
             19.02.1990
Ext.W2       1995                   Service Certificate issued by STM-in-Charge,  JMC,  Trichy to Sakthivel
Ext.W3       01.01.1997             Payment receipt signed by Mohammad Ali,  STM,  JMC,  Trichy to Sakthivel
Ext.W4       29.03.2000             Payment receipt signed by Natarajan,  SDE,  CTO,  Trichy issued to Augustine,
                                    A.S. Balaji and Sakthivel
Ext.W5       March 2000             Payment receipt signed by Natarajan,  SDE,  CTO,  Trichy issued to Saminathan
Ext.W6       01.11.2000 to          Working days of Sakthivel certified by K. Mani,  SDE,  CTO,  Trichy
             30.06.2001
Ext.W7       01.11.2004 to          Attendance  Register  countersigned  by  J.  Devasahayam,    SDE,    O&M,    CTO
                                    Trichy

Ext.W8       -                       Annexure to 2 (k) petition
Ext.W9       -                       Bye-Laws of the Union
Ext.W10      30/31st Oct.,  2001     Resolution of the Union
Ext.W11      21.03.2006              Lok Sabha Admitted Provisional Started Question Dy. No.
Ext.W12      23.04.1996              Copy of Contract letter from circle Telephone Training Centre
Ext.W13      -                       Copies of Available Attendance Registers
Ext.W14      26.04.2002              Copy of Certificate issued to M. Ganesan
Ext.W15      -                       Copy of ID Card issued to M. Ganesan
Ext.W16      -                       Copy of Entry pass issued to M. Ganesan
Ext.W17      03.07.2007              Copy  of  letter  from  Vocational  Rehabilitation  Centre  for  Handicapped  to  the

Chief General Manager, BSNL, Circle Office, Chennai-2

Ext.W18 - Copy of ID Card issued to Smt. Deivanayaki

On the Management's side

Ext.No. Date Description

Ext.M1 22.01.1993 Copy of Chief General Manager, Telecom, T.N. Circle, Madras-2 letter No. SR/1-23/92 dated 22.01.1993 regarding eligibility of temporary mazdoors and DRMs for becoming members/office bearers of Staff Unions, Copy of DoT, New Delhi letter no. 29-18/91-SRT dated 24.12.1992 addressed to CGM, Calcutta Phones and endorsement No. E.1/107/Rlgs/92-93/3 dated TR-1 dated 02.02.1993

Ext.M2 30.03.1985 Office of the Director General Circular No. 270/6/84-STN, New Delhi to all heads of other administrative officers, telecom regarding engagement of casual labour

Ext.M3 25.07.1989 Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecom letter no. 10-43/89-SRT to The Chief General Manager, Telecommunications, Tamil Nadu Circle, Madras-2 regarding eligibility of casual labour to become office bearers of the Unions

Ext.M4 - Copy of Page 137 of Appendix 3 from P&T Manual Vol.III

Ext.M5 - Copy of Appendix No. 3 – Preservation of Records

Ext.M6 05.11.2001 Letter from BSNL to All Chief General Managers regarding adoption of the existing Appointing Authorities in respect of absorption of Group C and D staff in BSNL

Ext.M7 - Copy of Appendix 13A at Page 426 of Financial & Hand Book of P&T Rules

which deals with Rule-331

Ext.M8       -                       Copy of letter from CGM,  Telecom,  Chennai to all Subordinate Offices
Ext.M9       -                       Copy  of  the  agreement  entered  into  between  BSNL  and  M/s.  Kalimar
                                     Constructions.
Ext.M10      25.09.1996              Regn. No. R-II/8/95-D3 regarding copy of the document for registering BSNL as
                                     Principal Employer under CLRA Act.
Ext.M11      22.06.1995              Copy  of  the  Notification  No.  269-26/90-STN  of  prescribed  procedure  to  be
                                     followed  by  the  Department  in  the  appointment  of  Group  "D"  employees
                                     category.
Ext.M12      30.08.2002              Copy of the Model Bill prepared for the Contractor.
Ext.M13      22.07.2002              Copy  of  the  license  given  by  Contractor  M/s.  Tamil  Nadu  Ex-Servicemen
                                     Corporation for 2004 and M/s. First Man Security Service for the year 2002

—

I New Delhi, the 17th April, 2017

S.O. 1093.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 42 of 1992) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17.04.2017.

[No. L-20012/101/1991-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 42 of 1992

Employer in relation to the management of Koyla Bhawan of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers : Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman : Shri D. Mukherjee, Advocate

Industry : Coal

Dated 21/03/2017

AWARD

By order no. L- 20012 /101/1991 /IR (C-I) dated Nil, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-Section (1) and sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of Gramin Vikash Shramik Sangh for treating Shri Hemlal Mahto and 1750

others workers as employers of M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And payment to them wages at the

rate-fixed under National Coal wages Agreement is justified? If so, to what relief they are entitled?"

Annexure

List of workman

BARAKAR NADI KE LAYAKDIH BALU GHAT KHADAN/BALU SHARIMIK KI SUCHI M/S. BHARAT COCKING COAL LIMITED : THIKEDAR M/S. M. L. SHARMA