2566 GI/2017
(2263)
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)
—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn}kjk naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 ¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e la- 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi/kkjk
¼8½ }kjk iznRr 'kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, loksZPp U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYyh@mPp U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYyh esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl
LFkkiuk ¼lhchvkbZ½ }kjk laLFkkfir dks;yk CykWd vkoaVu ekeyksa rFkk muls lac) ,oa izklafxd vU; ekeyksa esa vihyksa@iqujh{k.kksa
esa dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks dh vksj ls mifLFkr gksus ds fy, Jh vkj-lh- phek] ofj"B vf/koDrk vkSj lqJh rjUuqe phek] vf/koDrk
dks fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd fu;qDr djrh gSA
[Qk- la- 225@44@2014&,-oh-Mh-&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
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,19अप्रैल,2017
—राष्ट्रीयआवासबैंकअधिधियम,1987(1987कासं.53)कीिारा6(2)केसाथपठितिारा6
केखण्ड(घ)कीउपिारा(i)केअिुसरणमेंभारतीयठरज़ववबैंकश्रीजीएमराव केस्थािपरएतदद्वाराडॉ.राजीवकुमार,
धिदेशक, केंद्रीयधिदेशक बोडव, भारतीयठरज़ववबैंककोराष्ट्रीयआवासबैंककेधिदेशकमंडलमेंबैंककेिाधमतीधिदेशकके
रूपमेंिाधमतकरताहै।
[सं.बैंधवधव.एपीपीटीएिएचबी. 12462 /08.21.006/2016-17]
सुदशविसेि,कायवपालकधिदेशक
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
धवदेशमंत्रालय
(सी.पी.वी.प्रभाग)
िईददल्ली,30माचव,2017
का.आ. 1029.—राजिधयकऔरकोंसुलीयअधिकारी(शपथएवंफीस)केअधिधियम,1948कीिारा2केखंड
(क)केअिुसरणमेंवैिाधिकआदेश।
एतद्द्वारा,केन्दद्रसरकारभारतकेप्रिािकोंसलावास,मेलबिवमेंश्रीधवियआिंद,सहायकअिुभागअधिकारीऔरश्रीमधत
तवलीिकौर,धिजीसहायककोददिांक30माचव,2017सेसहायककोंसलुरअधिकारीकेतौरपरकोंसुलरसेवाओंके
धिववहिकेधलएप्राधिकृतकरतीहै।
[सं.टी.4330/01/2017]
प्रकाश चन्दद,धिदेशक(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, Assistant
II
(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)
िईददल्ली24माचव,2017
का.आ. 1030-.—राजिधयकऔरकोंसुलीयअधिकारी(शपथएवंफीस)केअधिधियम,1948कीिारा2केखंड
(क)केअिुसरणमेंवैिाधिकआदेश।
एतद्द्वारा,केन्दद्रसरकारभारतकेप्रिािकोंसलावास,टोरोंटोमेंश्रीमंजीतससंहकोहली,सहायकअिुभागअधिकारीको
ददिांक24माचव,2017सेसहायककोंसुलरअधिकारीकेतौरपरकोंसुलरसेवाओंकेधिववहिकेधलएप्राधिकृतकरतीहै।
[सं.टी.4330/01/2016]
प्रकाशचन्दद,धिदेशक(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)
शहरीधवकासमंत्रालय
िईददल्ली,17अप्रैल,2017
का.आ. 1031.—केन्दद्रीयसरकारएतदद्वाराशहरीधवकासमंत्रालयकेप्रशासधिकधियंणािीिददल्ली
मेट्रोरेलकॉरपोरेशिधलधमटेडतथाएिबीसीसी(इंधडया)धलधमटेडकेधिम्िधलधखतकायावलय,धजसके80%से
अधिक अधिकाठरयों और कमवचाठरयोंिे सहंदीकाकायवसािक ज्ञाि प्राप्त कर धलया है, कोराजभाषा (संघ के
शासकीयप्रयोजिोंकेधलएप्रयोग)धियम1976(यथासंशोधित1987)केधियम10केउपधियम(4)केअंतगवत
अधिसूधचतकरतीहैं:-
1. वठरष्ि उपमहाप्रबंिक,िजफगढ़धडपो,ददल्लीमेट्रोरेलकॉरपोरेशि,िजफगढ़,ददल्ली-110043
2. कायवकारीधिदेशक(इंजीधियररंग),आरबीजीिोएडाकायावलय,एिबीसीसी(इंधडया)धल.,िोएडा,उत्तर
प्रदेश
[फा.सं.ई-11017/5/2013-धहन्ददी]
िमेन्दद्र, संयुक्तसधचव
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.
2266
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
स्वास््यऔरपठरवारकल्याणमंत्रालय
(स्वास््यऔरपठरवारकल्याणधवभाग)
िईददल्ली,25मई,2017
का.आ. 1032.—भारतीयआयुर्ववज्ञािपठरषदअधिधियम,1956(1956का102)कीिारा11कीउपिारा
(2)द्वाराप्रदत्तशधियोंकाप्रयोगकरतेहुए,केन्दद्रसरकार,भारतीयआयुर्ववज्ञािपठरषदसेपरामशवकरकेउक्तअधिधियम
कीप्रथमअिुसूचीमें,धिम्िधलधखत,औरसंशोििकरतीहै,अथावत:-
उक्तप्रथमअिुसूचीमें‘मान्दयताप्राप्तआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै]शीषवककेअिीि
डा. एिटीआर स्वास््य धवज्ञाि धवश्वधव्ालय, धवजयवाडा, आन्दर प्रदेश’’ के सामिे अंधतम प्रधवधि के पश्चात और
‘पंजीकरण केधलएसंधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै]सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्िधलधखत
अंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा,अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
‘’डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि(साइकीटठट्र)
एमडी(साइकीटठट्र)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
जीएसएल मेधडकल
कॉलेज एंड जिरल अस्पताल,
लक्ष्मीपुरम, राजमुंद्री, आंर प्रदेश, में प्रधशधित दकए गए
छात्रों के संबंि में फरवरी, 2013 को या बाद में
डॉ.एिटीआर स्वास््य धवज्ञाि धवश्वधव्ालय, धवजयवाडा,
आंरप्रदेशद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
िोट:1. स्िातकोत्तरपायक्रम मकोदीगईटसीमान्दयताअधिकतम5वषवकेधलएहोगीऔरउसकेबादइसकािवीकरण
करवािाहोगा।
2. मान्दयताके‘िवीकरण’कीप्रदरम यावहीहोगीजोमान्दयताप्रदािकरिेकेधलएलागूहोतीहै।
3. अपेधितमान्दयताकासमयसेिवीकरणकरवािेमेंधवफलरहिेपर,पठरणामस्वरूप,धिरपवादरूपसेसंबंधित
स्िातकोत्तरपायक्रम ममेंप्रवेशबंदहोजाएगा।
[फा.सं.यू-12012/10/2016-एमई-I]
अधमतधबश्वास,अवरसधचव
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:-
II
(ii)
2267
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Psychiatry)”
MD (Psychiatry)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by Dr.
NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh in
respect of students admitted at GSL Medical College & General Hospital,
Lakshmipuram, Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh on or after 2013)
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.
िईददल्ली,1धसतम्बर,2016
का.आ. 1033.—भारतीयआयुर्ववज्ञािपठरषदअधिधियम,1956(1956का102)कीिारा11कीउपिारा
(2)द्वाराप्रदत्तशधियोंकाप्रयोगकरतेहुए,केन्दद्रसरकार,भारतीयआयुर्ववज्ञािपठरषदसेपरामशवकरकेउक्तअधिधियम
कीप्रथमअिुसूचीमें,धिम्िधलधखत,औरसंशोििकरतीहै,अथावत:-
उक्तप्रथमअिुसूचीमें‘मान्दयताप्राप्तआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’शीषवककेअिीि[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागया
है]‘’मंगलूरधवश्वधव्ालय’’केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔर‘पंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसकेआगे
कालम(3)कहागयाहै]सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्िधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगाअथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि(जिरलमेधडधसि)’’
एमडी (जिरलमेधडधसि)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
फॉदर मुल्लर इंस्टीट्यूट फफ मेधडकल एज्युकेशि एंड
ठरसचव,मंगलूरमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें
1992 में मंगलूर धवश्वधव्ालय और किावटक सरकार
द्वारायथास्वीकृतप्रदत्तहोगी।
“मास्टरफफसजवरी(जिरलसजवरी)’’
एमडी (जिरलसजवरी)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
फॉदर मुल्लर इंस्टीट्यूट फफ मेधडकल एज्युकेशि एंड
ठरसचव,मंगलूरमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें
1992 में मंगलूर धवश्वधव्ालय और किावटक सरकार
द्वारायथास्वीकृतप्रदत्तहोगी।
2268
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि(फब्स्टस्ट्रेठटक्सवगॉयिीकॉलोजी)’’
एमडी (फब्स्टस्ट्रेठटक्सवगॉयिीकॉलोजी)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
फॉदर मुल्लर इंस्टीट्यूट फफ मेधडकल एज्युकेशि एंड
ठरसचव,मंगलूरमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें
1992 में मंगलूर धवश्वधव्ालय और किावटक सरकार
द्वारायथास्वीकृतप्रदत्तहोगी।
“मास्टरफफसजवरी(फथोपीधडक्स)’’
एमएस (फथोपीधडक्स)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
फॉदर मुल्लर इंस्टीट्यूट फफ मेधडकल एज्युकेशि एंड
ठरसचव,मंगलूरमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें
1992 में मंगलूर धवश्वधव्ालय और किावटक सरकार
द्वारायथास्वीकृतप्रदत्तहोगी।
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि(पीधडयॉठट्रक्स)’’
एमडी (पीधडयॉठट्रक्स)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
फॉदर मुल्लर इंस्टीट्यूट फफ मेधडकल एज्युकेशि एंड
ठरसचव,मंगलूरमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें
1992 में मंगलूर धवश्वधव्ालय और किावटक सरकार
द्वारायथास्वीकृतप्रदत्तहोगी।
“डॉक्टरफफसजवरी(साइदकएटरी)’’
एमडी (साइदकएटरी)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
फॉदर मुल्लर इंस्टीट्यूट फफ मेधडकल एज्युकेशि एंड
ठरसचव,मंगलूरमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें
1992 में मंगलूर धवश्वधव्ालय और किावटक सरकार
द्वारायथास्वीकृतप्रदत्तहोगी।
“डॉक्टरफफसजवरी(एिेधस्थयॉलोजी)’’
एमडी (एिेधस्थयॉलोजी)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
फॉदर मुल्लर इंस्टीट्यूट फफ मेधडकल एज्युकेशि एंड
ठरसचव,मंगलूरमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें
1992 में मंगलूर धवश्वधव्ालय और किावटक सरकार
द्वारायथास्वीकृतप्रदत्तहोगी।
“धडप्लोमाइिगॉयधिकॉलोजीवफब्स्टस्टेठट्रक्स’’
डीजीओ
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
फॉदर मुल्लर इंस्टीट्यूट फफ मेधडकल एज्युकेशि एंड
ठरसचव,मंगलूरमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें
1992 में मंगलूर धवश्वधव्ालय और किावटक सरकार
द्वारायथास्वीकृतप्रदत्तहोगी।
II
(ii)
2269
“धडप्लोमाइिफथोपीधडक्स’’
डीओथो
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
फॉदर मुल्लर इंस्टीट्यूट फफ मेधडकल एज्युकेशि एंड
ठरसचव,मंगलूरमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें
1992 में मंगलूर धवश्वधव्ालय और किावटक सरकार
द्वारायथास्वीकृतप्रदत्तहोगी।
“धडप्लोमाइिचाइल्डहैल्थ’’
डीसीएच
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
फॉदर मुल्लर इंस्टीट्यूट फफ मेधडकल एज्युकेशि एंड
ठरसचव,मंगलूरमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें
1992 में मंगलूर धवश्वधव्ालय और किावटक सरकार
द्वारायथास्वीकृतप्रदत्तहोगी।
“धडप्लोमाइिएिीस्थीधसया’’
डीए
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
फॉदर मुल्लर इंस्टीट्यूट फफ मेधडकल एज्युकेशि एंड
ठरसचव,मंगलूरमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें
1992 में मंगलूर धवश्वधव्ालय और किावटक सरकार
द्वारायथास्वीकृतप्रदत्तहोगी।
“धडप्लोमाइिसाइकलोधजकलमेधडधसि’’
डीपीएम
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
फॉदर मुल्लर इंस्टीट्यूट फफ मेधडकल एज्युकेशि एंड
ठरसचव,मंगलूरमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें
1992 में मंगलूर धवश्वधव्ालय और किावटक सरकार
द्वारायथास्वीकृतप्रदत्तहोगी।
िोट:1. एमबीबीएसधडग्रीप्रदािकरिेकेधलएअिोस्िातककोसवकोदीगईटसीमान्दयताअधिकतम5वषवकेधलए
होगीऔरउसकेबादइसकािवीकरणकरवािाहोगा।
2. मान्दयताके‘िवीकरण’कीप्रदरम यावहीहोगीजोमान्दयताप्रदािकरिेकेधलएलागूहोतीहै।
3. उपठरकधथत उप खंड (क) में यथा-अपेधित मान्दयता का समय से िवीकरण करवािे में धवफल रहिे पर,
पठरणामस्वरूप,धिरपवादरूपसे,उक्तसंस्थाि/मेधडकलकॉलेजमेंसंबंधितएसबीबीएसअिोस्िातककोसवमें
प्रवेशबंदहोजाएगा।
[सं.यू-12012/742/2015-एमई-I]
डी.वी.के.राव,अवरसधचव
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:-
2270
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)”
“MD (General Medicine)”
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Mangalore University in respect of students
admitted in Father Muller Institute of Medical Education and
Research, Mangalore as sanctioned by Mangalore University
and Government of Karnataka in 1992.
“Master of Surgery (General Surgery)”
MD (General Surgery)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Mangalore University in respect of students being
trained at Father Muller Institute of Medical Education and
Research, Mangalore as sanctioned by Mangalore University
and Government of Karnataka in 1992.
“Doctor of Medicine (Obstetrics & Gynecology)”
MD (Obstetrics & Gynecology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Mangalore University in respect of students being
trained at Father Muller Institute of Medical Education and
Research, Mangalore as sanctioned by Mangalore University
and Government of Karnataka in 1992.
“Master of Surgery (Orthopedics)”
MS (Orthopedics)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Mangalore University in respect of students being
trained at Father Muller Institute of Medical Education and
Research, Mangalore as sanctioned by Mangalore University
and Government of Karnataka in 1992.
“Doctor of Medicine(Paediatrics)”
MD (Paediatrics)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Mangalore University in respect of students being
trained at Father Muller Institute of Medical Education and
Research, Mangalore as sanctioned by Mangalore University
and Government of Karnataka in 1992.
“Doctor of Medicine (Psychiatry)”
MD (Psychiatry)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Mangalore University in respect of students being
trained at Father Muller Institute of Medical Education and
Research, Mangalore as sanctioned by Mangalore University
and Government of Karnataka in 1992.
“Doctor of Medicine(Anaesthesiology)”
MD (Anaesthesiology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Mangalore University in respect of students being
trained at Father Muller Institute of Medical Education and
Research, Mangalore as sanctioned by Mangalore University
and Government of Karnataka in 1992.
“Diploma in Gynaecology and Obstretics”
DGO
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Mangalore University in respect of students being
trained at Father Muller Institute of Medical Education and
Research, Mangalore as sanctioned by Mangalore University
and Government of Karnataka in 1992.
II
(ii)
2271
“Diploma in Orthopedics”
D. Ortho
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Mangalore University in respect of students being
trained at Father Muller Institute of Medical Education and
Research, Mangalore as sanctioned by Mangalore University
and Government of Karnataka in 1992.
“Diploma in Child Health’
D.C.H.
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Mangalore University in respect of students being
trained at Father Muller Institute of Medical Education and
Research, Mangalore as sanctioned by Mangalore University
and Government of Karnataka in 1992.
“Diploma in Anaesthesia’
D.A.
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Mangalore University in respect of students being
trained at Father Muller Institute of Medical Education and
Research, Mangalore as sanctioned by Mangalore University
and Government of Karnataka in 1992.
“Diploma in Psychological Medicine”
D.P.M.
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Mangalore University in respect of students being
trained at Father Muller Institute of Medical Education and
Research, Mangalore as sanctioned by Mangalore University
and Government of Karnataka in 1992.
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.
िईददल्ली,8धसतम्बर,2016
का.आ.1034.—भारतीयआयुर्ववज्ञािपठरषदअधिधियम,1956 (1956का102)कीिारा11कीउपिारा(2)
द्वाराप्रदत्तशधक्तयोंकाप्रयोगकरतेहुएकेन्दद्रसरकार,भारतीयआयुर्ववज्ञािपठरषदसेपरामशवकरकेउिअधिधियमकी
प्रथमअिुसूचीमें,धिम्नधलधखत,औरसंशोििकरतीहै:
उिप्रथमअिुसूचीमें‘मान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’शीषवककेअिीि[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै]]
“बरकतउल्लाह धवश्वधव्ालय, भोपाल, मध्य प्रदेश” के सामिे अंधतम प्रधवधि के पश्चात और ‘पंजीकरण के धलए
संधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै] सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्नधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकया
जाएगाअथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
बेचलरफफमेधडधसिऔरबेचलरफफसजवरी
एम.बी.बी.एस.
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
धचरायु मेधडकल कॉलेज एंड अस्पताल, भोपाल में प्रधशधित
दकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमेंमाचव,2016कोयाबादमें150
एमबीबीएस छात्रों की वार्षवक प्रवेश िमता के साथ,,
बरकतउल्लाहधवश्वधव्ालय,भोपाल,मध्यप्रदेशद्वाराप्रदत्त
होगी।
2272
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ख)
उिप्रथमअिुसूचीमें‘मान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’शीषवककेअिीि[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै]
“तधमलिाडुडॉ. एम.जी.आर.मेधडकलधवश्वधव्ालय,चेन्नई”केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔर‘पंजीकरणकेधलए
संधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै] सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्नधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकया
जाएगा.अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
बेचलरफफमेधडधसिऔरबेचलरफफसजवरी
एम.बी.बी.एस.
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
ििलक्ष्मी श्रीधिवासि मेधडकल कॉलेज व अस्पताल,
पैरांबलूर,तधमलिाडुमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंि
मेंददसंबर,2016कोयाबादमें150एमबीबीएसछात्रों
कीवार्षवकप्रवेशिमताकेसाथ,डॉ.एम.जी.आर.मेधडकल
धवश्वधव्ालय,चेन्नईद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
ग)
उिप्रथमअिुसूचीमें‘मान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’शीषवककेअिीि[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै]
“राजीव गांिी स्वास््य धवज्ञाि धवश्वधव्ालय, बेंगलौर” के सामिे अंधतम प्रधवधि के पश्चात और ‘पंजीकरण के धलए
संधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै] सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्नधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकया
जाएगा.अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
बेचलरफफमेधडधसिऔरबेचलरफफसजवरी
एम.बी.बी.एस.
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
सिधगठर मेधडकल सांईधसस व अिुसंिाि केन्दद्र संस्थाि,
बेंगलूर में प्रधशधित दकए गए छात्रों के संबंि में ददसंबर,
2016 को या बाद में 150 एमबीबीएस छात्रों की वार्षवक
प्रवेश िमता के साथ, राजीव गांिी स्वास््य धवज्ञाि
धवश्वधव्ालय,बेंगलौरद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)
घ)
उिप्रथमअिुसूचीमें‘मान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’शीषवककेअिीि[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै]
“बाबा फरीद स्वास््य धवज्ञाि धवश्वधव्ालय, फरीदकोट” के सामिे अंधतम प्रधवधि के पश्चात और ‘पंजीकरण के धलए
संधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै] सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्नधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकया
जाएगा.अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
बेचलरफफमेधडधसिऔरबेचलरफफसजवरी
एम.बी.बी.एस.
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
पंजाबआयुर्ववज्ञािसंस्थाि,जालंिरपंजाबमेंप्रधशधितदकए
गए छात्रों के संबंि में ददसंबर, 2016 को या बाद में 150
एमबीबीएस छात्रों की वार्षवक प्रवेश िमता के साथ, बाबा
फरीद स्वास््य धवज्ञाि धवश्वधव्ालय, फरीदकोट द्वारा प्रदत्त
होगी।)
ङ)
उिप्रथमअिुसूचीमें‘मान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’शीषवककेअिीि[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै]
“तधमलिाडुडॉ.एम.जी.आर.मेधडकलधवश्वधव्ालय,चेन्नई”केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔर‘पंजीकरणकेधलए
संधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै] सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्नधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकया
जाएगा.अथावत्:-
II
(ii)
2273
(2)
(3)
बेचलरफफमेधडधसिऔरबेचलरफफसजवरी
एम.बी.बी.एस.
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयहमदा
मेधडकलकॉलेजवअस्पताल,तांडलम,चेन्नईमेंप्रधशधितदकए
गए छात्रों के संबंि में ददसंबर, 2016 को या बाद में 150
एमबीबीएस छात्रों की वार्षवक प्रवेश िमता के साथ,
डॉ.एम.जी.आर.मेधडकल धवश्वधव्ालय, चेन्नई द्वारा प्रदत्त
होगी।)
(च)
उिप्रथमअिुसूचीमें‘मान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’शीषवककेअिीि[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै]
“चौिरीचरणससंहधवश्वधव्ालय,मेरि”केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔर‘पंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’[धजसे
इसकेआगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै] सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्नधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा.अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
बेचलरफफमेधडधसिऔरबेचलरफफसजवरी
एम.बी.बी.एस.
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयहरमा
मेधडकलकॉलेज,अस्पताल,वठरसचवसेंटर,हापुड,गाधजयाबाद
मेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमेंददसंबर,2016कोया
बाद में 150 एमबीबीएस छात्रों की वार्षवक प्रवेश िमता के
साथ, चौिरी चरण ससंह धवश्वधव्ालय,मेरि द्वारा प्रदत्त
होगी।)
(छ)
उिप्रथमअिुसूचीमें‘मान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’शीषवककेअिीि[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै]
“डॉ.एि.टी.आर.स्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,धवजयवाडा”केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔर‘पंजीकरणकेधलए
संधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै] सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्नधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकया
जाएगा.अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
बेचलरफफमेधडधसिऔरबेचलरफफसजवरी
एम.बी.बी.एस.
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
फाधतमा आयुर्ववज्ञाि संस्थाि,कडप्पा, आंर प्रदेश मेंप्रधशधित
दकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमेंददसंबर,2016कोयाबादमें100
एमबीबीएस छात्रों की वार्षवक प्रवेश िमता के साथ,
डॉ.एि.टी.आर.स्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,धवजयवाडाद्वारा
प्रदत्तहोगी।)
(ज)
उिप्रथमअिुसूचीमें‘मान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’शीषवककेअिीि[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै]
“केरलस्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,तृश्शूर”केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔर‘पंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’
[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै] सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्नधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा.अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
बेचलरफफमेधडधसिऔरबेचलरफफसजवरी
एम.बी.बी.एस.
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
मालाबारमेधडकलकॉलेजएंडठरसचवसेन्दटर,कालीकट,केरलमें
प्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमेंददसंबर,2016कोया
बाद में 100 एमबीबीएस छात्रों की वार्षवक प्रवेश िमता के
साथ,केरलस्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,तृश्शूरद्वाराप्रदत्त
होगी।)
2274
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
िोट:1. उच्चतमन्दयायालयद्वाराअधिदेधशतभारतीयआयुवधवज्ञािपठरषदपरधिगरािीसधमधतद्वारा12अगस्त, 2016के
पत्रसं.ओसी/रेकोगिीशि(यूजी)प्रोपोज़ल्स/2016-17/42केधिदेशोंकापालिकरतेहुएयहअधिसूचिाजारीकी
जातीहै।सभीमामलोंमेंमेधडकलकॉलेजइसअधिसूचिाकेजारीहोिेके15ददिकेअन्ददरधिम्नधलधखतउपलब्स्टि
करवाएंगे:-
(i)
संबंधितन्दयास/धवश्वधव्ालय/सोसायटी/कम्पिीआददकेडीि/सप्रंधसपलऔरअध्यिकीओरसेशपथ
पत्रदकसभीकधमयोंकीपूर्तवकरदीगयीहैऔरस्वा.औरपठर.कल्या.मंत्रा.को22जूि,2016तक
प्रेधषतअिुपालिठरपोटवमेंइसकाउल्लेखदकयागया।
(ii)
भा.आयु.पठर.केपिमें2करोडरुपयेकीबैंकगारंटीजोएकवषवअथवाप्रथमिवीकरणमूल्यांकि
तक,इिमेंसेजोभीबादमेंहो,तककेधलएवैिहो।टसीबैंकगारंटीआवेदिकेसाथप्रस्तुतकीगई
धििावठरतफीसकेअलावाहोगी।
2.उच्चतमन्दयायालयद्वाराअधिदेधशतधिगरािीसधमधतिेअिुमोदिप्रदािकरतेसमयधिम्नधलधखतशतव
भीलगाईहै:-
(क) धिगरािीसधमधत30धसतंबर,2016केपश्चातकभीभीकॉलेजद्वाराप्रस्तुतअिुपालिठरपोटव
केसत्यापिकेधलएधिरीिणकेआदेशदेसकतीहै।
(ख) उपयुवि1कीशतव(i) व (ii)मेंचूकहोिेपरऔर30धसतंबरकेबाददकएजािेवाले
धिरीिणमेंअिुपालिअिूरापाएजािेकीधस्थधतमें,टसेकॉलेजको,2017-18सेप्रारम्भ
होिेवालेसत्रसे,2वषवकेधलएिएछात्रोंकोप्रवेशदेिेसेवंधचतकरददयाजाएगा।
3.
एमबीबीएसधडग्रीप्रदािकरिेकेधलएअिोस्नातककोसोंकेधलएदीगयीमान्दयताधिगरािी
सधमधतकेउपयुविधिर्दविधिदेशोंऔरशतोंकेअिीिहोगीऔरअधिकतम5वषोंकेधलएहोगीऔरइसके
बादइसकािवीकरणकरवािाहीहोगा।‘िवीकरण’कीप्रदरम यावहीहोगीजोमान्दयताप्रािकरिेकेधलए
लागूहोतीहै।
4.
मान्दयताके‘िवीकरण’कीप्रदरम यावहीहोगीजोमान्दयताप्रदािकरिेकेधलएलागूहोतीहै।
5.मान्दयताकासमयसेिवीकरणकरवािेमेंधवफलरहिेपर,पठरणामस्वरूप,धिरपवादरूपसे,उि
संस्थाि/मेधडकलकॉलेजमेंसंबंधितएमबीबीएसअिोस्नातककोसवमेंप्रवेशबंदहोजाएगा।
[फा.सं.यू-12012/33/2016-एमई-I]
डी.वी.केराव, अवरसधचव
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
(2)
(3)
Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery
M.B.B.S
(This shall be a recognized medical Qualification when
granted by Backatullah University, Bhopal in respect of
students being trained at Chirayu Medical college &
Hospital, Bhopal with annual intake of 150 MBBS students
on or after 2016.)
(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:-
(2)
(3)
Bachelor of Medical and
Bachelor of Surgery
M.B.B.S.
(This shall be recognized medical qualification when granted by
Tamilnadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Chennai in respect of
student being trained at Dhanalakshmi Sriniwasan Medical
College & Hospital, Perambalur, Tamilnadu with annual intake
of 150 MBBS students on or after 2016.)
(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:-
(2)
(3)
Bachelor of Madicine and Bachelor of Surgery
M.B.B.S.
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore in respect of students being trained at Sapthagiri
Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Center, Banglore
With annual intake of 150 MBBS students on or after
2016.)
(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:-
(2)
(3)
Bachelor of Madicine and Bachelor of Surgery
M.B.B.S.
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Faridkot in respect of students being trained at Panjab
Institute of Medical Sciences, Jalandhar, Punjab with
annual intake of 150 MBBS students on or after 2016.)
2276
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(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:-
(2)
(3)
Bachelor of Madicine and Bachelor of Surgery
M.B.B.S.
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by
Tamilnadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Chennai in respect of
students being trained at Madha Medical College and Hospital,
Thandlam, Chennai with annual intake of 150 MBBS students on or
after 2016.)
(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:-
(2)
(3)
Bachelor of Madicine and Bachelor of Surgery
M.B.B.S.
(This shall be recognized medical qualification when granted by
Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut in respect of students
being trained at Rama Medical College and Hospital & Research
Centre, Hapur, Ghaziabad with annual intake of 150 MBBS
students on or after 2016.)
(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:-
(2)
(3)
Bachelor of Madicine and Bachelor of Surgery
M.B.B.S.
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted
by Tamilnadu NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada
in respect of students being trained at Fathima Institute of
Medical Sciences, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh with annual intake
of 100 MBBS students on or after 2016.)
(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:-
(2)
(3)
Bachelor of Madicine and Bachelor of Surgery
M.B.B.S.
(This shall be recognized medical qualification when granted by
Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur in respect of students
being trained at Malabar Medical College & Research Centre,
Calicut, Kerala with annual intake of 150 MBBS students on or after
2016.).
II
(ii)
2277
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.
िईददल्ली,8िवम्बर,2016
का.आ. 1035.—भारतीयआयुर्ववज्ञािपठरषदअधिधियम,1956(1956का102)कीिारा11कीउपिारा(2)
द्वाराप्रदत्तशधियोंकाप्रयोगकरतेहुए,केन्दद्रसरकार,भारतीयआयुर्ववज्ञािपठरषदसेपरामशवकरकेउक्तअधिधियमकी
प्रथमअिुसूचीमें,धिम्िधलधखत,औरसंशोििकरतीहै,अथावत:-
उक्तप्रथमअिुसूचीमें‘मान्दयताप्राप्तआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै]शीषवकके
अिीि‘’राजीवगांिीस्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालयबंगलूरसेपूववप्रधवधियोंमें‘’येिेपोया स्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,
मंगलूर’’ जोडा जाए और येिेपोया स्वास््य धवज्ञाि धवश्वधव्ालय, मंगलूर के सामिे अंधतम प्रधवधि के पश्चात और
‘पंजीकरण केधलएसंधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै]सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्िधलधखत
अंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगाअथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि(पेधडयॉठट्रक्स)
एम.डी.(पेधडयॉठट्रक्स)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह येिेपोया
मेधडकल कॉलेज, मंगलूर में 2008 को अथवा उसके पश्चात येिेपोया
स्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,मंगलूरद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी)।
2278
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (टयुबरक्यूलोधससएंड
रेस्पीरेटरीधडधसधसज/पल्मोिरीमेधडधसि)”
एम.डी (टीबीएंडरेस्पीरेटरीधडधसधसज/पल्मोिरीमेधडधसि)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह येिेपोया
मेधडकल कॉलेज, मंगलूर में 2008 को अथवा उसके पश्चात येिेपोया
स्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,मंगलूरद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी)।
“डॉक्टर फफ मेधडधसि/मास्टर फफ सजवरी
(फपथालमॉलोजी)”
एम.डी/एम.एस( फपथालमॉलोजी)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह येिेपोया
मेधडकल कॉलेज, मंगलूर में 2008 को अथवा उसके पश्चात येिेपोया
स्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,मंगलूरद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी)।
“मास्टरफफसजवरी(ईएिटी)”
एम.एस (ईएिटी)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह येिेपोया
मेधडकल कॉलेज, मंगलूर में 2008 को अथवा उसके पश्चात येिेपोया
स्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,मंगलूरद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी)।
िोट:1.स्नातकोत्तरकोसवकोदीगईटसीमान्दयताअधिकतम5वषवकेधलएहोगीऔरउसकेबादइसकािवीकरणकरवािा होगा।
2.मान्दयताके‘िवीकरण’कीप्रदरम यावहीहोगीजोमान्दयताप्रदािकरिेकेधलएलागूहोतीहै।
3.अपेधितमान्दयताकासमयसेिवीकरणकरवािेमेंधवफलरहिेपर,पठरणामस्वरूप,धिरपवादरूपसे,संबंधित
स्नातकोत्तरकोसवमेंप्रवेशबंदहोजाएगा।
[फा.सं.यू-12012/45/2016-एमई-I]
डी.वी.के.राव,अवरसधचव
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:-
(2)
(3)
Doctor of Medicine (Paediatrics)
MD (Paediatrics)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by “Yenepoya University of Health Sciences,
Mangalore” in respect of students being trained at
Yenepoya Medical College, Mangalore on or after 2008).
“Doctor of Medicine (Tuberculosis & Respiratory
Diseases/Pulmonary Medicine)
MD (TB & Respiratory Diseases/Pulmonary Medicine)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by “Yenepoya University of Health Sciences,
Mangalore” in respect of students being trained at
Yenepoya Medical College, Mangalore on or after 2008).
Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery (Ophthalmology)
MD/MS (Opthalmology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
II
(ii)
2279
granted by “Yenepoya University of Health Sciences,
Mangalore” in respect of students being trained at
Yenepoya Medical College, Mangalore on or after 2008).
Master Of Surgery (ENT)
MS (ENT)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by “Yenepoya University of Health Sciences,
Mangalore” in respect of students being trained at
Yenepoya Medical College, Mangalore on or after 2008).
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.
शुधि-पत्र
िईददल्ली,9िवम्बर,2016
का.आ. 1036.—इस धवभाग अधिसूचिा सं.यू.-12012/481/2015-एमई-(पी. II) ददिांक 14.08.2015 के अिुरम म में
भारतीयआयुर्ववज्ञािपठरषदअधिधियम,1956(1956का102)कीिारा11कीउपिारा(2)द्वाराप्रदत्तशधियोंकाप्रयोगकरते
हुए,केि्द्रसरकार,भारतीयआयुर्ववज्ञािपठरषदसेपरामशवकरकेउक्तअधिधियमकीप्रथमअिुसूचीमें,धिम्िधलधखत,औरसंशोिि
करतीहै,अथावत्:-
उक्तप्रथमअिुसूचीमें–
(ड.)‘’डॉ.एिटीआरस्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,धवजयवाडा,आंरप्रदेश’’केसमि‘पंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’
कालम(3)शीषवककेअंतगवतडॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि(पेधडयॉठटरक्स)‘मान्दयताप्राप्तआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयहप्रधतमाइंधस्ट्यूट
फफमेधडकलसांइसेज,करीमिगरमें 2014 कीबजाए 2012 अथवाउसकेपश्चातप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकोडॉ.एिटीआर
स्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,धवजयवाडा,आन्दरप्रदेशद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।‘’
[फा.सं.यू-12012/481/2015-एमई-I]
डी.वी.के.राव,अवरसधचव
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.
2280
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
िईददल्ली,15िवम्बर,2016
का.आ. 1037.—भारतीयआयुर्ववज्ञािपठरषदअधिधियम,1956(1956का102)कीिारा11कीउपिारा
(2)द्वाराप्रदत्तशधियोंकाप्रयोगकरतेहुए,केन्दद्रसरकार,भारतीयआयुर्ववज्ञािपठरषदसेपरामशवकरकेउसअधिधियम
कीप्रथमअिुसूचीमें,धिम्िधलधखत,औरसंशोििकरतीहै,अथावत्:-
उक्तप्रथमअिुसूचीमें‘मान्दयताप्राप्तआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै]शीषवककेअिीि‘’दद
तधमलिाडुडॉ.एम.जी.आर.मेधडकलधवश्वधव्ालय,चेन्दिई’’केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔरपंजीकरणकेधलए
संधिधिकरण’ [धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै]सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्िधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकया
जाएगाअथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
“मास्टरफफसजवरी(अब्स्टस्टेठट्रक्सएंडगॉयिेकॉलोजी)
एम.एस (ओबीजी)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजब
यह धतरूिेलवेल्ली मेधडकल कॉलेज, धतरूिेलवेल्ली,
तधमलिाडु में प्रधशधित दकए गए छात्रों के बैच के
संबंि में 1996, 1997 और 1998 के दौराि दद
तधमलिाडुडॉ.एम.जी.आर.मेधडकलधवश्वधव्ालय,
चेन्नईद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)’’
िोट:1. स्िातकोत्तरकोसवकोदीगईटसीमान्दयताअधिकतम5वषवकेधलएहोगीऔरउसकेबादइसकािवीकरण
करवािाहोगा।
2. मान्दयताके‘िवीकरण’कीप्रदरम यावहीहोगीजोमान्दयताप्रदािकरिेकेधलएलागूहोतीहै।
3. उप खंड (क) में यथा-अपेधित मान्दयता का समय से िवीकरण करवािे में धवफल रहिे पर, पठरणामस्वरूप,
धिरपवादरूपसे,संबंधितस्िातकोत्तरकोसवमेंप्रवेशबंदहोजाएगा।
[फा.सं.यू-12012/218/2015-एमई-I]
डी.वी.के.राव,अवरसधचव
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:-
(2)
(3)
“Master of Surgery (Obstretics & Gynaecology)
MS (OBG)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by the Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu in respect of students trained at
Tirunelveli Medical College, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu for
the batches admitted during 1996,1997 and 1998.)’’
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.
II
(ii)
2281
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.
िईददल्ली,15िवम्बर,2016
का.आ. 1038.—भारतीयआुर्ववज्ञािपठरषद्अधिधियम,1956(1956का102)कीिारा11कीउपिारा(2)
द्वाराप्रदत्तशधियोंकाप्रयोगकरतेहुए,केन्दद्रसरकार,भारतीयआयुर्ववज्ञािपठरषद्सेपरामशवकरकेउक्तअधिधियमकी
प्रथमअिुसूचीमें,धिम्िधलधखत,औरसंशोििकरतीहै,अथावत्:-
उक्तप्रथमअिुसूचीमें:-
(क) ‘मान्दयताप्राप्तआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै]शीषवककेअिीि֯‘डा.एिटीआर
स्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,धवजयवाडा,आंरप्रदेश’’केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चात्और‘पंजीकरणके
धलए संधिप्तकरण’ [धजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रधवधि के संबंि में धिम्िधलधखत
अंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा,अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
“डॉक्टर फफ मेधडधसि (डमेटॉलोजी, वेिेरेलॉजी एंड
लेपरसी)
एमडी(डमेटॉलोजी,वेिेरेलॉजीएंडलेपरसी)
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
प्रधतमा इंधस्टट्यूट फफ मेधडकल सांइधसस करीम िगर, में
प्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2012कोयाबादमें
डॉ.एिटीआरस्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,धवजयवाडा,
आंरप्रदेशद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)’’
िोट:1. स्िातकोत्तरपायक्रम मकोदीगईटसीमान्दयताअधिकतम5वषवकेधलएहोगीऔरउसकेबादइसकािवीकरण
करवािाहोगा।
2. मान्दयताके‘िवीकरण’कीप्रदरम यावहीहोगीजोमान्दयताप्रदािकरिेकेधलएलागूहोतीहै।
3. अपेधितमान्दयताकासमयसेिवीकरणकरवािेमेंधवफलरहिेपर,पठरणामस्वरूप,धिरपवादरूपसेसंबंधित
स्िातकोत्तरपायक्रम ममेंप्रवेशबंदहोजाएगा।
[फा.सं.यू-12012/471/2015-एमई-I]
डी.वी.के.राव,अवरसधचव
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 entry
2282
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:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor
of
Medicine
(Dermatology,Venerology
&Leprosy)
MD(DVL)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Dr NTR University of Health Sciences,
Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh in respect of students being
trained at Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences ,Karim
Nagar on or after 2012)’’
Note: 1.
The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon
which it shall have to be renewed.
2.
The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award of recognition.
3.
Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions
to the concerned Postgraduate Course.
[F. No. U-12012/471/2015-ME-I]
D.V.K. RAO, Under Secy.
शुधि-पत्र
िईददल्ली,25िवम्बर,2016
का.आ. 1039.—इसमंत्रालयकीपूववअधिसूचिासं.यू.-12012/38/2011-एमई-(पी.II)ददिांक09.06.2011
केअिुरम ममें,केन्दद्रसरकारभारतीयआयुर्ववज्ञािपठरषद्सेपरामशवकरके,“पं.बी.डी.शमावस्नातकोत्तरइंधस्टट्यूटफफ
मेधडकल सांइधसस, रोहतक हठरयाणा” के समि दशावयी अहवताओं में प्रवेश रोकिे के कारण, उि अधिधियम की प्रथम
अिुसूचीमेंऔरसंशोििकरतीहैअथावत्‘मान्दयताप्राप्तआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवत’ [धजसेइसकेआगे कालम
)
2
(
कहागयाहै
]
शीषवककेअिीि[आगेकालम(2)केरूपमेंसंदर्भवतहै]शीषवमेंअधन्दतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔर“पंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधि”
[आगेकालम(3)केरूपमेंसंदर्भवतहै]शीषवकेअिीिधिम्िधलधखतअंतर्ववष्टदकयाजाएगा,अथावत:-
(2)
(3)
“धडप्लोमाइिचाईल्डहैल्थ”
डीसीएच
(यहकेवलअकादधमकवषव2016-17तकप्रवेशपाएछात्रों
के धलए बी.डी.शमाव स्नातकोत्तर इंधस्टट्यूट फफ मेधडकल
सांइधसस, रोहतक हठरयाणा द्वारा एक मान्दयता प्राि
आयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगी)
धडप्लोमाइिट्युवरकुलोधससएंडचेस्टधडधसधजज़
डी.टी.सी.डी
(यह केवल अकादधमक वषव 2016-17 तक प्रवेश पाए
छात्रों के धलए बी.डी.शमाव स्नातकोत्तर इंधस्टट्यूट फफ
मेधडकल सांइधसस, रोहतक हठरयाणा द्वारा प्रदत्त मान्दयता
प्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगी)
धडप्लोमाइिआफ्थलमोलॉजी
डी.ओ.
(यहकेवलअकादधमकवषव2016-17तकप्रवेशपाएछात्रों
के धलए बी.डी.शमाव स्नातकोत्तर इंधस्टट्यूट फफ मेधडकल
सांइधसस, रोहतक हठरयाणा द्वारा प्रदत्त मान्दयताप्राि
आयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगी)
II
(ii)
2283
धडप्लोमाइिआथोपीधडक्स
डी.ओथो.
(यहकेवलअकादधमकवषव2016-17तकप्रवेशपाएछात्रों
के धलए बी.डी.शमाव स्नातकोत्तर इंधस्टट्यूट फफ मेधडकल
सांइधसस, रोहतक हठरयाणा द्वारा प्रदत्त मान्दयताप्राि
आयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगी)
धडप्लोमाइिडमावटॉलोजी,वेिरेलॉजीएंडलेपरसी
डीवीएल
(यहकेवलअकादधमकवषव2016-17तकप्रवेशपाएछात्रों
के धलए बी.डी.शमाव स्नातकोत्तर इंधस्टट्यूट फफ मेधडकल
सांइधसस, रोहतक हठरयाणा द्वारा प्रदत्त मान्दयताप्राि
आयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगी)
धडप्लोमाइिसाइक्लोधजकलमेधडधसि
डीपीएम
(यहकेवलअकादधमकवषव2016-17तकप्रवेशपाएछात्रों
के धलए बी.डी.शमाव स्नातकोत्तर इंधस्टट्यूट फफ मेधडकल
सांइधसस, रोहतक हठरयाणा द्वारा प्रदत्त मान्दयताप्राि
आयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगी)
[सं.यू-12012/14/2016-एमई-I]
डी.वी.के.राव,अवरसधचव
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:-
(2)
(3)
“Diploma in Child Health
D.C.H.
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Pt.B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences,
Rohtak, Haryana in respect of students admitted upto the
academic session 2016-17 only.)
Diploma in Tuberculosis & Chest Diseases
D.T.C.D
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Pt.B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences,
Rohtak, Haryana in respect of students admitted upto the
academic session 2016-17 only.)
Diploma in Ophthalmology
D.O.
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Pt.B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences,
Rohtak, Haryana in respect of students admitted upto the
academic session 2016-17 only.)
Diploma in Orthopedics
D.Ortho
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Pt.B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences,
2284
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Rohtak, Haryana in respect of students admitted up to the
academic session 2016-17 only.)
Diploma in Dermatology,Venereology and Leprosy
DDVL
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Pt.B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences,
Rohtak, Haryana in respect of students admitted upto the
academic session 2016-17 only.)
Diploma in Psychological Medicine
DPM
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Pt.B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences,
Rohtak, Haryana in respect of students admitted upto the
academic session 2016-17 only.)’’
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.
िईददल्ली,9जिवरी,2017
का.आ. 1040.—भारतीयआयुर्ववज्ञािपठरषद्अधिधियम,1956(1956का102)कीिारा11कीउपिारा(2)
द्वाराप्रदत्तशधियोंकाप्रयोगकरतेहुए,केन्दद्रसरकार,भारतीयआुर्ववज्ञािपठरषद्मेंपरामशवकरकेउक्तअधिधियमकी
प्रथमअिुसूचीमें,धिम्िधलधखत,औरसंशोििकरतीहै,अथावत्:-
उक्तप्रथमअिुसूचीमें:-
क) ‘मान्दयताप्राप्त आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता’ [धजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहागया है] शीषवक केअिीि ‘‘डा. एिटीआर
स्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,धवजयवाडा,आंरप्रदेश’’केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔर‘पंजीकरणके
धलए संधिधिकरण’ [धजसे इिके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रधवधि के संबंि में धिम्िधलधखत
अंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा,अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (बॉयोकेधमस्ट्री)
एमडी(बॉयोकेधमस्ट्री)
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
कटूरीमेधडकलकॉलेज,गुंटूर,मेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंके
संबंि में फरवरी, 2015 को या बाद में ‘‘डॉ.एिटीआर
स्वास््य धवज्ञाि धवश्वधव्ालय, धवजयवाडा, आंर प्रदेश’’
द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
मास्टरफफसजवरी (फथोपीधडक्स)
एमएस (फथोपीधडक्स)
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
शांधतराममेधडकलकॉलेज,िंधडयाल,आंरप्रदेशमेंप्रधशधित
दकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमेंमई,2014कोअथवाबादमें
और जिवरी, 2015 को ‘‘डॉ.एिटीआर स्वास््य धवज्ञाि
धवश्वधव्ालय,धवजयवाडा,आंरप्रदेश’’द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि(रेधडयोडॉयग्नोधसस)
एमडी(रेधडयोडॉयग्नोधसस)
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
जीएसएलमेधडकलकॉलेजएंडजीएसएलजिरलअस्पताल,
लक्ष्मीपुरम,राजमुन्दद्रीमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंि
II
(ii)
2285
में मई, 2014 को या बाद में ‘‘डॉ. एिटीआर स्वास््य
धवज्ञाि धवश्वधव्ालय, धवजयवाडा, आंर प्रदेश’’ द्वारा
प्रदत्तहोगी।
धडप्लोमाइिरेधडयोडॉयग्नोधसस
डीएमआरडी
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
जीएसएलमेधडकलकॉलेजएंडजीएसएलजिरलअस्पताल,
लक्ष्मीपुरम,राजमुन्दद्रीमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंि
में मई, 2014 को या बाद में ‘‘डॉ. एिटीआर स्वास््य
धवज्ञाि धवश्वधव्ालय, धवजयवाडा, आंर प्रदेश’’ द्वारा
प्रदत्तहोगी।
ख) ‘मान्दयताप्राप्तआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै]शीषवककेअिीि‘’धहमाचलप्रदेश
धवश्वधव्ालय,धहमाचलप्रदेश’’केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔर‘पंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’ [धजसे
इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रधवधि के संबंि में धिम्िधलधखत अंत:स्थाधपत दकया जाएगा,
अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि/मास्टरफफसजवरी(आफ्थैल्मोलोजी) एमडी(आफ्थैल्मोलोजी)
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
राजेन्दद्र प्रसाद गविवमेंट मेधडकल कॉलेज, टांडा, धहमाचल
प्रदेशमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमेंजुलाई,2014
को या बाद ‘‘धहमाचल प्रदेश धवश्वधव्ालय, धहमाचल
प्रदेश’’द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
ग) ‘मान्दयताप्राप्त आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता’ [धजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहागया है] शीषवक केअिीि ‘केरल स्वास््य
धवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,तृश्शूर’केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवष्टकेपश्चातऔर‘पंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिरण’ [धजसे
इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रधवष्ट के संबंि में धिम्िधलधखत अंत:स्थाधपत दकया जाएगा,
अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि(जिरलमेधडधसि)
एमडी(जिरलमेधडधसि)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयहश्री
गोकुलम मेधडकल कॉलेज ट्रस्ट एंड ठरसचव फांउडेशि,
धत्रवेन्दद्रम,केरलमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमेंजूि,
2014कोयाबाद केरलस्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,
तृश्शूरद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
घ) ‘मान्दयताप्राप्त आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता’ [धजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीषवक के अिीि ‘‘राजीवगांिी
स्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,बेंगलुरु’’केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔर‘पंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’
[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै]सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्िधलधखतअंत::स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा,
अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि(रेधडयोडॉयग्नोधसस)
एमडी(रेधडयोडॉयग्नोधसस)
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
राजराजेश्वरी मेधडकल कॉलेज एंड अस्पताल, बेंगलुरु, में
प्रधशधित दकए गए छात्रों के संबंि में जूि, 2014 को या
बाद ‘‘राजीव गांिी स्वास््य धवज्ञाि धवश्वधव्ालय,
बेंगलुरु’’द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
2286
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि(दफधजयॉलोजी)
एमडी(दफधजयॉलोजी)
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
राजराजेश्वरी मेधडकल कॉलेज एंड अस्पताल, बेंगलुरु, में
प्रधशधित दकए गए छात्रों के संबंि में जूि, 2014 को या
बाद ‘‘राजीव गांिी स्वास््य धवज्ञाि धवश्वधव्ालय,
बेंगलुरु’’द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि(जिरलमेधडधसि)
एमडी(जिरलमेधडधसि)
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
राजराजेश्वरी मेधडकल कॉलेज एंड अस्पताल, बेंगलुरु, में
प्रधशधित दकए गए छात्रों के संबंि में जूि, 2014 को या
बाद ‘‘राजीव गांिी स्वास््य धवज्ञाि धवश्वधव्ालय,
बेंगलुरु’’द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
िोट:1.स्िातकोत्तरपायक्रम मकोदीगईटसीमान्दयताअधिकतम5वषवकेधलएहोगीऔरउसकेबादइसकािवीकरण
करवािाहोगा।
2. मान्दयताके‘िवीकरण’कीप्रदरम यावहीहोगीजोमान्दयताप्रदािकरिेकेधलएलागूहोतीहै।
3. अपेधितमान्दयताकासमयसेिवीकरणकरवािेमेंधवफलरहिेपर,पठरणामस्वरूप,धिरपादरूपसेसंबंधित
स्िातकोत्तरपायक्रम ममेंप्रवेशबंदहोजाएगा।
[फा.सं.यू-12012/473/2015-एमई-I]
डी.वी.के.राव,अवरसधचव
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:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Biochemistry)
MD (Biochemistry)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted
by
‘‘Dr.
NTR
University
of
Health
Sciences,Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh’’ in respect of
students being trained at Katuri Medical College, Guntur
on or after 2015.
Master of Surgery (Orthopedics)
MS (Orthopedics)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted
by
‘‘Dr.
NTR
University
of
Health
Sciences,Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh’’ in respect of
students being trained at Santhiram Medical College,
Nandyal, Andhra Pradesh on or after May 2014 and
January 2015.
II
(ii)
2287
Doctor of Medicine (Radio Diagnosis)
MD (Radio Diagnosis)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted
by
Dr.
NTR
University
of
Health
Sciences,Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh in respect of
students being trained at GSL Medical College & GSL
General Hospital , Lakshmipuram, Rajahmundry on or
after May 2014.
Diploma in Radio Diagonosis
DMRD
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted
by
Dr.
NTR
University
of
Health
Sciences,Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh in respect of
students being trained at GSL Medical College & GSL
General Hospital , Lakshmipuram, Rajahmundry on or
after May 2015.
(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:-
“Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery (Ophthalmology)
MD/MS (Ophthalmology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Himachal Pradesh University, Himachal
Pradesh in respect of students being trained at Dr.
Rajendar Prasad Government Medical College,Tanda,
Himachal Pradesh
on or after July 2014.
(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:-
Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)
MD (General Medicine)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences,Thrissur
in respect of students being trained at Sri Gokulam
Medical
College
Trust
&
Research
Foundation,
Trivandrum, Kerala on or after June 2014.
(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:-
Doctor of Medicine (Radio Diagnosis)
MD (Radio Diagnosis)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore in respect of students being trained at
Rajarajeshwari Medical College & Hospital, Bangalore on
or after June 2014.
Doctor of Medicine (Physiology)
MD (Physiology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore in respect of students being trained at
Rajarajeshwari Medical College & Hospital, Bangalore on
or after June 2014.
2288
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)
MD (General Medicine)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore in respect of students being trained at
Rajarajeswari Medical College & Hospital,Bangalore on
or after June 2014.
Note: 1.
The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon which
it shall have to be renewed.
2. The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award of recognition.
3. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions
to the concerned Postgraduate Course.
[No.U-12012/473/2015-ME-I ]
D.V.K. RAO, Under Secy.
िईददल्ली,1फरवरी,2017
का.आ. 1041.—भारतीयआयुर्ववज्ञािपठरषदअधिधियम,1956(1956का102)कीिारा11कीउपिारा(2)
द्वाराप्रदत्तशधियोंकाप्रयोगकरतेहुएकेन्दद्रसरकार,भारतीयआयुर्ववज्ञािपठरषदसेपरामशवकरकेउक्तअधिधियमकी
प्रथमअिुसूचीमें,धिम्िधलधखतऔरसंशोििकरतीहै,अथावत्:-
उक्तप्रथमअिुसूचीमें
(क) ‘मान्दयताप्राप्तआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’शीषवककेअिीि[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै]‘’केरलस्वास््यधवज्ञाि
धवश्वधव्ालयतृश्शूर,केरल’’केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔर‘पंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसके
आगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै]सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्िधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा,अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
“धडप्लोमाबालस्वास््य (डीसीएच)”
डीसीएच
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
अमालाइंधस्टट्यूटफफमेधडकलसांइधसस,तृश्शूर,केरल
मेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2015कोया
बाद में, केरल स्वास््य धवज्ञाि धवश्वधव्ालय, तृश्शूर,
केरलद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)
“धडप्लोमा-डमेटॉलोजी,वेिरोलॉजीएंडलेपरोसी(डीडीवीएल)” डीडीवीएल
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
अमालाइंधस्टट्यूटफफमेधडकलसांइधसस,तृश्शूर,केरल
मेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2015कोया
बाद में, केरल स्वास््य धवज्ञाि धवश्वधव्ालय, तृश्शूर,
केरलद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि(फामावकॉलोजी)”
एम.डी(फामावकॉलोजी)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
गविवमेंट मेधडकल कॉलेज, कोट्टायम, केरल में प्रधशधित
दकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2014कोयाबादमें,केरल
स्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,तृश्शूर,केरलद्वाराप्रदत्त
होगी।)
II
(ii)
2289
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (माइरम ोरबॉयलोजी)”
एम.डी (माइरम ोरबॉयलोजी)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
गविवमेंट मेधडकल कॉलेज, कोट्टायम, केरल में प्रधशधित
दकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2013कोयाबादमें,केरल
स्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,केरलद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)
“मास्टरफफसजवरी (फफ्थॉलमॉलोजी)”
एम.एस (फफ्थॉलमॉलोजी)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
डॉ.सोमरवेलमेमोठरयलसीएसआईअस्पतालवमेधडकल
कॉलेज,कराकोणम,केरलमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंके
संबंि में 2015 को या बाद में, केरल स्वास््य धवज्ञाि
धवश्वधव्ालय,केरलद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि(पैथॉलोजी)”
एम.डी (पैथॉलोजी)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
डॉ.सोमरवेलमेमोठरयलसीएसआईअस्पतालवमेधडकल
कॉलेज,कराकोणम,केरलमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंके
संबंि में 2015 को या बाद में, केरल स्वास््य धवज्ञाि
धवश्वधव्ालय,तृश्शूर,केरलद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि/मास्टरफफसजवरी (अिैटमी)”
एम.डी/एम.एस (अिैटमी)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
गविवमेंट मेधडकल कॉलेज, तृश्शूर, केरल में प्रधशधित
दकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2014कोयाबादमें,केरल
स्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,तृश्शूर,केरलद्वाराप्रदत्त
होगी।)
“धडप्लोमा–साइकॉलोधजकलमेधडधसि (डीपीएम)”
डीपीएम
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
मलिकरा फथोडॉक्स सीरीयि चचव मेधडकल कॉलेज,
कोधलिचेरी,केरलमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंि
में 2015 को या बाद में, केरल स्वास््य धवज्ञाि
धवश्वधव्ालय,तृश्शूर,केरलद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)
“मास्टरफफसजवरी (जिरलसजवरी)”
एमएस (जिरलसजवरी)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
अकादमीफफमेधडकलसांइधसस,पठरयारम,केरलमें
प्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2015कोयाबाद
में,केरलस्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,तृश्शूर,केरल
द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (पेधडयॉठट्रक्स)”
एम.डी (पेधडयॉठट्रक्स)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
श्रीगोकुलममेधडकलकॉलेज,ट्रस्टएंडठरसचवफांउडेशि,
धत्रवेन्दद्रम,केरलमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें
2014 को या बाद में, केरल स्वास््य धवज्ञाि
धवश्वधव्ालय,तृश्शूर,केरलद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)
2290
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“मास्टरफफसजवरी (काि,िाकवगला)”
एम.एस (ईएिटी)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
जुबली धमशि मेधडकल कॉलेज एंड ठरसचव इंधस्टट्यूट,
तृश्शूर, केरल में प्रधशधित दकए गए छात्रों के संबंि में
2015 को या बाद में, केरल स्वास््य धवज्ञाि
धवश्वधव्ालय,तृश्शूर,केरलद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)
(ख) ‘मान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’शीषवककेअिीि[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै] “राजीवगांिीस्वास््य
धवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,बेंगलुरु”केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔर‘पंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसके
आगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै] सेसंवंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्नधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा.अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (एिेधस्थधसयॉलोजी)”
एम.डी (एिेधस्थधसयॉलोजी)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
एस.एस.इंधस्टट्यूट मेधडकल सांइधसस एंड ठरसचव सेंटर,
दाविधगठर, में प्रधशधित दकए गए छात्रों के संबंि में
2015 को या बाद में, राजीव गांिी स्वास््य धवज्ञाि
धवश्वधव्ालय,बेंगलुरुद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (रेधडयो-डॉयग्नोधसस/रेधडयॉलोजी)”
एम.डी (रेधडयो-डॉयग्नोधसस/रेधडयॉलोजी)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
अस्पताल अमीि मेधडकल कॉलेज, बीजापुर केरल में
प्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2013कोयाबाद
में,राजीवगांिीस्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,बेंगलुरु
द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (दफधजकलमेधडधसिवठरहेधब्स्टलटेशि)” एम.डी (दफधजकलमेधडधसिवठरहेधब्स्टलटेशि)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
सेंटजॉन्दसमेधडकलकॉलेज,बेंगलुरुमेंप्रधशधितदकएगए
छात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2014कोयाबादमें,राजीवगांिी
स्वास््य धवज्ञाि धवश्वधव्ालय, बेंगलुरु द्वारा प्रदत्त
होगी।)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (पैथॉलोजी)”
एम.डी (पैथॉलोजी)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
बेलगामइंधस्टट्यूटफफमेधडकलसांइधसस,बेलगाममें
प्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2014कोयाबाद
में,राजीवगांिीस्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,बेंगलुरु
द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)
II
(ii)
2291
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (फॉरेंधसकमेधडधसि)”
एम.डी (फॉरेंधसकमेधडधसि)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयह
डॉ.बी.आर.अंबेडकर मेधडकल कॉलेज, बेंगलुरू में
प्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2015कोयाबाद
में,राजीवगांिीस्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,बेंगलुरु
द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)
(ग) ‘मान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’शीषवककेअिीि[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै] “ददतधमलिाडु
डॉ.एम.जी.आर.मेधडकलकॉलेजधवश्वधव्ालय,चेन्नई”केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔर‘पंजीकरणकेधलए
संधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै] सेसंवंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्नधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपत
दकयाजाएगा.अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
“मास्टरफफसजवरी (ओबीजी)”
एम.एस (ओबीजी)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयहश्री
मुकंधबकाइंधस्टट्यूटफफमेधडकलसांइधसस,कुलशेखरिमें
प्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2015कोयाबादमें,
दद
तधमलिाडु
डॉ.एम.जी.आर.
मेधडकल
कॉलेज
धवश्वधव्ालय,चेन्नईद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)
“धडप्लोमाटयुबरक्यूलोधससएंडचेस्टधडधसधसज”
डीटीसीडी
(यह एक मान्दयता प्रािआयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह,
तंजावूर मेधडकल कॉलेज, तंजावूर में प्रधशधित दकए गए
छात्रों के संबंि में 2014 को या बाद में, दद तधमलिाडु
डॉ.एम.जी.आर. मेधडकल कॉलेज धवश्वधव्ालय, चेन्नई
द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि(कम्युधिटीमेधडधसि)”
एम.डी(कम्युधिटीमेधडधसि)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
दकलपोक मेधडकल कॉलेज, चेन्नई में प्रधशधित दकए गए
छात्रों के संबंि में 2016 को या बाद में, दद तधमलिाडु
डॉ.एम.जी.आर. मेधडकल कॉलेज धवश्वधव्ालय, चेन्नई
द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (फारेंधसकमेधडधसि)”
एम.डी (फारेंधसकमेधडधसि)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
दकलपोक मेधडकल कॉलेज, चेन्नई में प्रधशधित दकए गए
छात्रों के संबंि में 2016 को या बाद में, दद तधमलिाडु
डॉ.एम.जी.आर. मेधडकल कॉलेज धवश्वधव्ालय, चेन्नई
द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)
(घ) ‘मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता’ शीषवक के अिीि [धजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है]
“डॉ.एि.टी.आर.स्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,धवजयवाडा”केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔर‘पंजीकरणके
धलए संधिधिकरण’ [धजसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संवंधित प्रधवधि के संबंि में धिम्नधलधखत
अंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा.अथावत्:-
2292
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(2)
(3)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (टयुबरक्यूलोधससएंडरेस्पीरेटरी
धडधसधसज/पल्मोिरीमेधडधसि)”
एम.डी
(टयुबरक्यूलोधसस
एंड
रेस्पीरेटरी
धडधसधसज/पल्मोिरीमेधडधसि)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
मेधडधसटी इंधस्टट्यूट फफ मेधडकल सांइधसस घािपुर, में
प्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2015कोयाबादमें,
डॉ.एि.टी.आर.स्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,धवजयवाडा
द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)
“मास्टरफफसजवरी (काि,िाकवगला)”
एम.डी (ईएिटी)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
मेधडधसटी इंधस्टट्यूट फफ मेधडकल सांइधसस घािपुर, में
प्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2015कोयाबादमें,
डॉ.एि.टी.आर.स्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,धवजयवाडा
द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसिमास्टरफफसजवरी(अिैटमी)” एम.डी/एम.एस (अिैटमी)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
मेधडधसटी इंधस्टट्यूट फफ मेधडकल सांइधसस घािपुर, में
प्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2015कोयाबादमें,
डॉ.एि.टी.आर.स्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,धवजयवाडा
द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (कम्युधिटीमेधडधसि)”
एम.डी (कम्युधिटीमेधडधसि)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
मेधडधसटी इंधस्टट्यूट फफ मेधडकल सांइधसस घािपुर, में
प्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2014कोयाबादमें,
डॉ.एि.टी.आर.स्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,धवजयवाडा
द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)
“मास्टरफफसजवरी (ओबीजी)”
एम.एस (ओबीजी)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
जीएसएल मेधडकल कॉलेज एंड जीएसएल जिरल
अस्पताल,लक्ष्मीपुरममेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंि
में2015कोयाबादमें,डॉ.एि.टी.आर.स्वास््यधवज्ञाि
धवश्वधव्ालय,धवजयवाडाद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)
“धडप्लोमाइिगॉयिेकॉलोजीएंडफब्स्टसटेठट्रक्स”
डीजीओ
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
जीएसएल मेधडकल कॉलेज एंड जीएसएल जिरल
अस्पताल,लक्ष्मीपुरममेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंि
में2015कोयाबादमें,डॉ.एि.टी.आर.स्वास््यधवज्ञाि
धवश्वधव्ालय,धवजयवाडाद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)
II
(ii)
2293
(ङ) ‘मान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’शीषवककेअिीि[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै] “डॉ.बी.आर. आंबेडकर
धवश्वधव्ालय,आगरा”केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔर‘पंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसकेआगे
कालम(3)कहागयाहै] सेसंवंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्नधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा.अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (फामावकॉलोजी)”
एम.डी (फामावकॉलोजी)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
रामा मेधडकल कॉलेज व अस्पताल, कािपुर, में प्रधशधित
दकए गए छात्रों के संबंि में 2016 को या बाद में,
डॉ.बी.आर.आंबेडकर धवश्वधव्ालय, आगरा द्वारा प्रदत्त
होगी।)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसिमास्टरफफसजवरी(अिैटमी)” एम.डी/एम.एस (अिैटमी)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
रामा मेधडकल कॉलेज वअस्पताल, कािपुर,, में प्रधशधित
दकए गए छात्रों के संबंि में 2016 को या बाद में,
डॉ.बी.आर.आंबेडकर धवश्वधव्ालय, आगरा द्वारा प्रदत्त
होगी।)
(च) ‘मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता’शीषवक के अिीि [धजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] “अमृता धवश्व
धव्ापीिमधवश्वधव्ालय,कोयंबत्तूर”केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔर‘पंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’
[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै] सेसंवंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्नधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा.
अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
“धडप्लोमाइिदफधजकलमेधडधसिवठरहेधब्स्टलटेशि”
डीपीएमआर
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
अमृतास्कूलफफमेधडधसि,एम्स.कोची,केरलमेंप्रधशधित
दकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2014कोयाबादमें,अमृता
धवश्व धव्ापीिम धवश्वधव्ालय, कोयंबत्तूर द्वारा प्रदत्त
होगी।)
(छ) ‘मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता’शीषवक के अिीि[धजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] “संतोष
धवश्वधव्ालय,गाधजयाबाद”केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔर‘पंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसके
आगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै] सेसंवंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्नधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा.अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (फामावकॉलोजी)”
एम.डी (फामावकॉलोजी)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
संतोषमेधडकलकॉलेज,गाधजयाबाद,मेंप्रधशधितदकएगए
छात्रों के संबंि में 2011 को या बाद में, संतोष
धवश्वधव्ालय,गाधजयाबादद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)
2294
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(ज) मान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’शीषवककेअिीि[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै] “धत्रपुराधवश्वधव्ालय”
केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔर‘पंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै]
सेसंवंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्नधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा.अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
“मास्टरफफसजवरी (ओबीजी)”
एम.एस (ओबीजी)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
अगरतलागविवमेंटमेधडकलकॉलेजअगरतलामेंप्रधशधित
दकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2014कोयाबादमें,धत्रपुरा
धवश्वधव्ालयद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।)
(झ) ‘मान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’शीषवककेअिीि[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै] “भारतीयधव्ापीि
डीम्डधवश्वधव्ालय,पुणे”केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔर‘पंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसके
आगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै] सेसंवंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्नधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा.अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि(जिरलमेधडधसि)”
एम.डी(जिरलमेधडधसि)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
भारतीधव्ापीिमेधडकलकॉलेजएंडअस्पताल,सांगलीमें
प्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2014कोयाबादमें,
भारतीय धव्ापीि डीम्ड धवश्वधव्ालय, पुणे द्वारा प्रदत्त
होगी।)
[फा.सं.यू-12012/01/2017-एमई-I (पाटव-3)]
अधमतधबश्वास,अवरसधचव
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)
(3)
“Diploma in Child Health(DCH)”
DCH
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur
in respect of students being trained at Amala Institute of
Medical Sciences, Thrissur on or after 2015).
“Diploma in Dermatology Venereology” And Leprosy
(DDVL)
DDVL
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur
in respect of students being trained at Amala Institute of
Medical Sciences, Thrissur on or after 2015).
II
(ii)
2295
“Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)”
MD (Pharmacology)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur
in respect of students being trained at Government
Medical College, Kottayam on or after 2014).
“Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)”
MD (Microbiology)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur
in respect of students being trained at Government
Medical College, Kottayam on or after 2013).
“Master of Surgery (Ophthalmology)”
MS (Ophthalmology)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur
in respect of students being trained at Dr. Somervel
Memorial CSI Hospital & Medical College, Karakonam
on or after 2015).
“Doctor of Medicine (Pathology)”
MD (Pathology)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur
in respect of students being trained at Dr. Somervel
Memorial CSI Hospital & Medical College, Karakonam
on or after 2015).
“Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery (Anatomy)”
MD/MS (Anatomy)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur
in respect of students being trained at Government
Medical College, Thrissur on or after 2014).
‘‘Diploma in Psychological Medicine (DPM)’’
DPM
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur
in respect of students being trained at Malankara Orthodox
Syrian Church Medical College, Kolenchery on or after
2015).
Master of Surgery (General Surgery)”
MS (General Surgery)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur
in respect of students being trained at Academy of
Medical Sciences, Pariyaram on or after 2015).
“Doctor of Medicine (Paediatrics)”
MD (Paediatrics)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur
in respect of students being trained at Sri Gokulam
Medical
College
Trust
&
Research
Foundation,
Trivandrum on or after 2014).
Master of Surgery (Ear, Nose & Throat)”
MS (ENT)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur
in respect of students being trained at Jubilee Mission
Medical College & Research Institute, Thrissur on or after
2015).
2296
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Anesthesiology)”
MD (Anesthesiology)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore in respect of students being trained S S Institute
of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Davangere on or
after 2015).
“Doctor of Medicine (Radio-Diagnosis/ Radiology)”
MD (Radio-Diagnosis/Radiology)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore in respect of students being trained at Al-
Ameen Medical College, Bijapur on or after 2013).
“Doctor
of
Medicine
(Physical
Medicine
&
Rehabilitation)”
MD (Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore in respect of students being trained at St. Johns
Medical College, Bangalore on or after 2014).
“Doctor of Medicine (Pathology)”
MD (Pathology)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore in respect of students being trained at Belgaum
Institute of Medical Sciences, Belgaum on or after 2014).
Doctor of Medicine (Forensic Medicine)”
MD (Forensic Medicine)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore in respect of students being trained at Dr. BR
Ambedkar Medical College, Bangalore on or after 2015).
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:-
(2)
(3)
“Master of Surgery (OBG)”
MS (OBG)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical College
University, Chennai in respect of students being trained at
Sri
Mookambika
Institute
of
Medical
Sciences,
Kulasekharan on or after 2015).
“Diploma in Tuberculosis & Chest Diseases”
DTCD
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical College
University, Chennai in respect of students being trained at
Thanjavur Medical College, Thanjavur on or after 2014).
“Doctor of Medicine (Community Medicine)”
MD (Community Medicine)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical College
University, Chennai in respect of students being trained at
Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai on or after 2016).
II
(ii)
2297
“Doctor of Medicine (Forensic Medicine)”
MD (Forensic Medicine)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical College
University, Chennai in respect of students being trained at
Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai on or after 2016).
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:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Tuberculosis & Respiratory
Diseases/Pulmonary Medicine)
MS (Tuberculosis & Respiratory Diseases/Pulmonary
Medicine
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences,
Vijayawada in respect of students being trained at
Medicity Institute of Medical Sciences, Ghanpur on or
after 2015).
“Master of Surgery (Ear, Nose & Throat)
MS (ENT)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences,
Vijayawada in respect of students being trained at
Medicity Institute of Medical Sciences, Ghanpur on or
after 2015).
“Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery (Anatomy)
MD/MS (Anatomy)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences,
Vijayawada in respect of students being trained at
Medicity Institute of Medical Sciences, Ghanpur on or
after 2015).
“Doctor of Medicine (Community Medicine)
MD (Community Medicine)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences,
Vijayawada in respect of students being trained at
Medicity Institute of Medical Sciences, Ghanpur on or
after 2014).
“Master of Surgery (OBG)
MS (OBG)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences,
Vijayawada in respect of students being trained at GSL
Medical College & GSL General Hospital, Lakshmipuram
on or after 2015).
Diploma in Gynaecology and Obstetrics
DGO
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences,
Vijayawada in respect of students being trained at GSL
Medical College & GSL General Hospital, Lakshmipuram
on or after 2015).
2298
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)
MS (Pharmacology)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Dr. B R Ambedkar University, Agra in respect
of students being trained at Rama Medical College and
Hospital, Kanpur on or after 2016).
“Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery (Anatomy)
MD/MS (Anatomy)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Dr. B R Ambedkar University, Agra in respect
of students being trained at Rama Medical College and
Hospital, Kanpur on or after 2016).
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:-
(2)
(3)
“Diploma in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
DPMR
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham University,
Coimbatore in respect of students being trained at Amrita
School of Medicine, AIMS, Kochi on or after 2014).
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:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)
MD (Pharmacology)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Santosh University, Ghaziabad in respect of
students being trained at Santosh Medical College,
Ghaziabad on or after 2011).
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:-
(2)
(3)
“Master of Surgery (OBG)
MS (OBG)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Tripura University in respect of students being
trained at Agartala Government Medical College, Agartala
on or after 2014).
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:-
II
(ii)
2299
(20
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)
MD (General Medicine)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University, Pune
in respect of students being trained at Bharati Vidyapeeth
Medical College & Hospital, Sangli on or after 2014).
[No.U-12012/01/2017-ME-I (Pt-3)]
AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.
िईददल्ली,17फरवरी,2017
का.आ. 1042.—भारतीयआयुर्ववज्ञािपठरषद्अधिधियम,1956(1956का102)कीिारा11कीउप-िारा(2)
द्वाराप्रदत्तशधियोंकाप्रयोगकरतेहुए,केन्दद्रसरकार,भारतीयआयुर्ववज्ञािपठरषद्सेपरामशवकरकेउक्तअधिधियमकी
प्रथमअिुसूचीमें,धिम्िधलधखत,औरसंशोििकरतीहै,अथावत्:-
उक्तप्रथमअिुसूचीमें:-
क) ‘मान्दयताप्राप्त आयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’ [धजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहागया है] शीषवक केअिीि ‘‘डॉ. एिटीआर
स्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,धवजयवाडा,आंरप्रदेश’केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔर‘पंजीकरणके
धलए संधिधिकरण’ [धजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रधवधि के संबंि में धिम्िधलधखत
अंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा,अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
“धडप्लोमाइिफफ्थालमोलोजी”
डीएमआरडी
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयहआंर
मेधडकल कॉलेज, धवशाखापटिम, में प्रधशधित दकए गए
छात्रों के संबंि में 2015 को या बाद में डॉ.एिटीआर
स्वास््य धवज्ञाि धवश्वधव्ालय, धवजयवाडा, आंर प्रदेश
द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि(टीबीएंडरेस्पीरेटरीमेधडधसि)”
एमडी(टीबीएंडरेस्पीरेटरीमेधडधसि)
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
एमएिआरमेधडकलकॉलेज,सांगारेड्डीमेंप्रधशधितदकएगए
छात्रों के संबंि में 2015 को अथवा बाद में डॉ.एिटीआर
स्वास््य धवज्ञाि धवश्वधव्ालय, धवजयवाडा, आंर प्रदेश
द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (डीवीएल)”
एमडी(डीवीएल)
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
शांधतराम मेधडकल कॉलेज िंदयाल में प्रधशधित दकए गए
छात्रोंकेसंबंिमेंमई,2015कोयाबादमेंडॉ.एिटीआर
स्वास््य धवज्ञाि धवश्वधव्ालय, धवजयवाडा, आंर प्रदेश
द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (दफधजयॉलोजी)”
एमडी (दफधजयॉलोजी)
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
शादािइंधस्टट्यूटमेधडकलसांइधसस,हैदराबादमेंप्रधशधित
दकए गए छात्रों के संबंि में 2016 को या बाद में
डॉ.एिटीआर स्वास््य धवज्ञाि धवश्वधव्ालय, धवजयवाडा,
आंरप्रदेशद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
2300
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ख) ‘मान्दयताप्राप्त आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता’ [धजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहागया है] शीषवक केअिीि ‘’राजीव गांिी
स्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,बेंगलुरू’’केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔरपंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’
[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै]सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्िधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा,
अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि(डीवीएल)”
एमडी(डीवीएल)
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
एसडीएम मेधडकल सांइधसस एंड अस्पताल, िारवाड,
किावटकमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2014को
या बाद राजीव गांिी स्वास््य धवज्ञाि धवश्वधव्ालय,
बेंगलुरूद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
“धडप्लोमाइिडमेटॉलोजी,वेिेरॉलोजीएंडलेपरसी”
डीडीवीएल
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
एसडीएम मेधडकल सांइधसस एंड अस्पताल, िारवाड,
किावटकमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2014को
या बाद राजीव गांिी स्वास््य धवज्ञाि धवश्वधव्ालय,
बेंगलुरूद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि/मास्टरफफसजवरी(अिाटमी)”
एमडी/एमएस (अिाटमी)
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
आददचंचिाधगठर इंधस्टट्यूट फफ
मेधडकल
सांइधसस,
बालगंगािरिाथिगरमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंि
में 2015 को या बाद राजीव गांिी स्वास््य धवज्ञाि
धवश्वधव्ालय,बेंगलुरूद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (रेधडयोडॉयग्नोधसस)”
एमडी (रेधडयोडॉयग्नोधसस)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयहएस
एस इंधस्टट्यूट फफ मेधडकल सांइधसस एंड ठरसचव सेन्दटर,
दाविधगठरमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2015
को या बाद राजीव गांिी स्वास््य धवज्ञाि धवश्वधव्ालय,
बेंगलुरूद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (एंडोदरम िॉलोजी)”
डीएम(एंडोदरम िॉलोजी)
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
वैदेहीइंधस्टट्यूटफफमेधडकलसांइधससएंडठरसचवसेन्दटर,
बेंगलुरूमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2016को
या बाद राजीव गांिी स्वास््य धवज्ञाि धवश्वधव्ालय,
बेंगलुरूद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
“डॉक्टर फफ मेधडधसि (टयुबरक्यूलोधसस एंड रेस्पीरेटरी
धडधसधसज/पल्मोिरीमेधडधसि)”
एमडी
(टयुबरक्यूलोधसस
एंड
रेस्पीरेटरी
धडधसधसज/पल्मोिरीमेधडधसि)
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
राजाराजेश्वरीमेधडकलसांइधससएंडअस्पताल,बेंगलुरूमें
प्रधशधित दकए गए छात्रों के संबंि में 2016 को या बाद
राजीवगांिीस्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,बेंगलुरूद्वारा
प्रदत्तहोगी।
II
(ii)
2301
ग) ‘मान्दयताप्राप्त आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता’ [धजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीषवक के अिीि ‘केरल स्वास््य
धवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,तृश्शूर’’केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔरपंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’[धजसे
इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रधवधि के संबंि में धिम्िधलधखत अंत:स्थाधपत दकया जाएगा,
अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
“मास्टरफफसजवरी (फफ्थालमोलोजी)”
एमएस (फफ्थालमोलोजी”)
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
अकादमी फफ मेधडकल सांइधसस, पठरयारम, कन्नूर में
प्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2015कोयाबादमें
केरलस्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,तृश्शूरद्वाराप्रदत्त
होगी।
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (फामावकालोजी)”
एमडी(फामावकालोजी)
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
अकादमी फफ मेधडकल सांइधसस, पठरयारम, कन्नूर में
प्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2015कोयाबादमें
केरलस्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,तृश्शूरद्वाराप्रदत्त
होगी।
“धडप्लोमाइिफथोपीधडक्स”
डी.फथो.
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
टी.डी.मेधडकल कॉलेज, आलपुझा में प्रधशधित दकए गए
छात्रों के संबंि में 2014 को या बाद में केरल स्वास््य
धवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,तृश्शूरद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि/मास्टरफफसजवरी(अिाटमी)”
एमडी/एमएस (अिाटमी)
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
टी.डी.मेधडकल कॉलेज, आलपुझा में प्रधशधित दकए गए
छात्रों के संबंि में 2016 को या बाद में केरल स्वास््य
धवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,तृश्शूरद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (समुदायधचदकत्सा)”
एमडी (समुदायधचदकत्सा)
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
गविवमेंट मेधडकल कॉलेज, तृश्शूर में प्रधशधित दकए गए
छात्रों के संबंि में 2015 को या बाद में केरल स्वास््य
धवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,तृश्शूरद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
“मास्टरफफसजवरी(जिरलसजवरी)”
एमएस (जिरलसजवरी)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयहश्री
जुबली धमशि मेधडकल कॉलेज ट्रस्ट एंड ठरसचव इंधस्टट्यूट,
धत्रवेन्दद्रम, केरल में प्रधशधित दकए गए छात्रों के संबंि में
2014कोयाबादमेंकेरलस्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,
तृश्शूरद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
“मास्टरफफसजवरी(फफ्थालमोलोजी)”
एमएस(फफ्थालमोलोजी)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयहश्री
गोकुलम मेधडकल कॉलेज ट्रस्ट एंड ठरसचव फांउडेशि,
2302
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
धत्रवेन्दद्रम, केरल में प्रधशधित दकए गए छात्रों के संबंि में
2015कोयाबादमेंकेरलस्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,
तृश्शूरद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (एधिधस्थसीया)”
एमडी (एधिधस्थसीया)
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
जुवलीधमशिमेधडकलकॉलेजएंडठरसचवइंधस्टट्यूट,केरलमें
प्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2015कोयाबादमें
केरलस्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,तृश्शूरद्वाराप्रदत्त
होगी।
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (पीधडयॉठट्रक्स)”
एमडी (पीधडयॉठट्रक्स)
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
पुष्पधगठर इंधस्टट्यूट फफ मेधडकल सांइधसस एंड ठरसचव
सेन्दटर,धतरुवला,केरलमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंि
में 2015 को या बाद में केरल स्वास््य धवज्ञाि
धवश्वधव्ालय,तृश्शूरद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
“धडप्लोमाइिचाइल्डहैल्थ”
डीसीएच
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
पुष्पधगठर इंधस्टट्यूट फफ मेधडकल सांइधसस एंड ठरसचव
सेन्दटर,धतरुवला,केरलमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंि
में 2015 को या बाद में केरल स्वास््य धवज्ञाि
धवश्वधव्ालय,तृश्शूरद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि/मास्टरफफसजवरी(अिाटमी)”
एमडी/एमएस (अिाटमी)
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
पुष्पधगठर इंधस्टट्यूट फफ मेधडकल सांइधसस एंड ठरसचव
सेन्दटर,धतरुवला,केरलमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंि
में 2015 को या बाद में केरल स्वास््य धवज्ञाि
धवश्वधव्ालय,तृश्शूरद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
घ) ‘मान्दयताप्राप्तआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै]शीषवककेअिीि‘’ददतधमलिाडु
स्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,चेन्दिई’’केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔरपंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’
[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै]सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्िधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा,
अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि(माइरम ोबॉयलोजी)”
एमडी (माइरम ोबॉयलोजी)
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
करपागा धविायक इंधस्टट्यूट फफ मेधडकल साइधसस
मदुरातांगममेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2016
कोयाबादमेंददतधमलिाडुडॉ.एमजीआरमेधडकालकॉलेज
धवश्वधव्ालय,चेन्नईद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
“मास्टरफफसजवरी(जिरलसजवरी)”
एमएस(जिरलसजवरी)
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
ईएसआई-पीजीआईएमएसआर, ईएसआई अस्पताल के के
िगर,चेन्नईमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2015
II
(ii)
2303
कोयाबादमेंददतधमलिाडुडॉ.एमजीआरमेधडकालकॉलेज
धवश्वधव्ालय,चेन्नईद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
ङ) ‘मान्दयताप्राप्तआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै]शीषवककेअिीि‘’आयवभट्टिाधलज
धवश्वधव्ालय,पटिा’’केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔरपंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसकेआगे
कालम(3)कहागयाहै]सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्िधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा,अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि(दफधजयॉलोजी)”
एमडी (दफधजयॉलोजी)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
िालंदामेधडकलकॉलेज,पटिामेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रों
के संबंि में 2014 को या बाद में आयव भट्ट िाधलज
धवश्वधव्ालय,पटिाद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
च) ‘मान्दयता प्राप्त आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता’ [धजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीषवक के अिीि ‘‘ददल्ली
धवश्वधव्ालय,ददल्ली’’केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔरपंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसकेआगे
कालम(3)कहागयाहै]सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्िधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा,अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
“मास्टरफफसजवरी (अब्स्टस्टेठट्रक्स/गाइिकालजी)”
एमएस (ओबीजी)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
आमीअस्पतालठरसचवएंडरेफ्रल,िईददल्ली मेंप्रधशधित
दकए गए छात्रों के संबंि में 2015 को या बाद में ददल्ली
धवश्वधव्ालय,ददल्लीद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
छ) ‘मान्दयताप्राप्तआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै]शीषवककेअिीि‘’चौ.चरणससंह
धवश्वधव्ालय,’’केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔरपंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम
(3)कहागयाहै]सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्िधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा,अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
“डाक्टरफफमेधडधसि (माइरम ोबायलोजी)”
एमडी (माइरम ोबायलोजी)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
सरस्वती इंधस्टट्यूट फफ मेधडकल सांइधसस,हापुड में
प्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2016कोयाबादमें
चौ.चरणससंहधवश्वधव्ालयद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
ज) ‘मान्दयताप्राप्तआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै]शीषवककेअिीि‘’महाराष्ट्रस्वास््य
धवज्ञाि धवश्वधव्ालय, िाधसक, महाराष्ट्र’’ के सामिे अंधतम प्रधवधि के पश्चात और पंजीकरण के धलए
संधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै]सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्िधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपत
दकयाजाएगा,अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
““मास्टरफफसजवरी (अब्स्टस्टेठट्रक्स/गाइिकालजी)”
एमएस (ओबीजी)
(यहएकमान्दयताप्रािआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवताहोगीजबयहकेजे
सोमैयामेधडकलकॉलेजएंडठरसचवसेन्दटर,मुंबईमेंप्रधशधित
2304
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
दकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2014कोयाबादमेंमहाराष्ट्र
स्वास््य धवज्ञाि धवश्वधव्ालय,िाधसक, महाराष्ट्र द्वारा
प्रदत्तहोगी।
झ) ‘मान्दयता प्राप्त आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता’ [धजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीषवक के अिीि ‘’धत्रपुरा
धवश्वधव्ालय,अगरतला’’केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔरपंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसके
आगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै]सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्िधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा,अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (जिरलमेधडधसि)”
एमडी (जिरलमेधडधसि)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
अगरतलागविवमेंट मेधडकल कॉलेजअगरतला में प्रधशधित
दकए गए छात्रों के संबंि में 2015 को या बाद में धत्रपुरा
धवश्वधव्ालय,अगरतलाद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
ञ) ‘मान्दयता प्राप्त आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता’ [धजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीषवक के अिीि ‘’वीर िरमद
दधिणीगुजरातधवश्वधव्ालय’’केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔरपंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’[धजसे
इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रधवधि के संबंि में धिम्िधलधखत अंत:स्थाधपत दकया जाएगा,
अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
“डॉक्टर फफ मेधडधसि (टयुबरक्यूलोधसस एंड रेस्पीरेटरी
धडधसधसज/पल्मोिरीमेधडधसि)”
एमडी
(टयुबरक्यूलोधसस एंड रेस्पीरेटरी धडधसधसज/
पल्मोिरीमेधडधसि)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
सूरतम्युधिधसधपलइंधस्टट्यूटफफमेधडकलएज्युकेशिएंड
ठरसचव,सूरतमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2015
कोयाबादमेंवीरिरमददधिणीगुजरातधवश्वधव्ालय
द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
ट) ‘मान्दयता प्राप्त आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता’ [धजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीषवक के अिीि ‘’शारदा
धवश्वधव्ालय,ग्रेटरिोएडा’’केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔरपंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसके
आगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै]सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्िधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा,अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (दफधजयॉलोजी)”
एमडी (दफधजयॉलोजी)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
स्कूल फफ मेधडकल सांइधसस एंड ठरसचव, ग्रेटर िोएडा में
प्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2016कोयाबादमें
शारदा धवश्वधव्ालय,ग्रेटरिोएडाद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
ि) ‘मान्दयता प्राप्त आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता’ [धजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीषवक के अिीि ‘’कुमांयू
धवश्वधव्ालय,िैिीताल’’केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔरपंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसके
आगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै]सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्िधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा,अथावत्:-
II
(ii)
2305
(2)
(3)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (फामावकॉलोजी)”
एमडी (फामावकॉलोजी)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
गविवमेंट मेधडकल कॉलेज(पूवव उत्तराखंड फॉरेस्ट अस्पताल
ट्रस्टमेधडकलकॉलेज)हल्दवािीमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रों
के संबंि में 2016 को या बाद में कुमांयु धवश्वधव्ालय,
िैिीतालद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
ड) ‘मान्दयताप्राप्तआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै]शीषवककेअिीि‘’भारतीधव्ापीि
डीम्डधवश्वधव्ालय,पुणे’’केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔरपंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसके
आगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै]सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्िधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा,अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
“मास्टरफफसजवरी(फथोपीधडक्स)”
एमडी (फथोपीधडक्स)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
भारतीधव्ापीिमेधडकलकॉलेजएंडअस्पताल,सांगलीमें
प्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2014कोयाबादमें
भारती धव्ापीि डीम्ड धवश्वधव्ालय, पुणे द्वारा प्रदत्त
होगी।
ढ) ‘मान्दयताप्राप्तआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै]शीषवककेअिीि‘’तीथंकरमहावीर,
धवश्वधव्ालय,मुरादाबाद’’केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔरपंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसके
आगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै]सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्िधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा,अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (कम्युधिटीमेधडधसि)”
एमडी (कम्युधिटीमेधडधसि)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
तीथवकर महावीर मेधडकल कॉलेज एंड ठरसचव सेन्दटर, ,
मुरादाबादमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2016
कोयाबादमेंतीथंकरमहावीर,धवश्वधव्ालय,मुरादाबाद
द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
ण) ‘मान्दयता प्राप्त आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता’ [धजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीषवक के अिीि ‘’सधवता
धवश्वधव्ालय(डीम्ड),चेन्दिई’’केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔरपंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’[धजसे
इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रधवधि के संबंि में धिम्िधलधखत अंत:स्थाधपत दकयाजाएगा,
अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (फामावकॉलोजी)”
एमडी (फामावकॉलोजी)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
सधवता मेधडकल कॉलेज एंड अस्पताल, कांचीपुरम,
तधमलिाडुमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2016
को या बाद में सधवता धवश्वधव्ालय (डीम्ड) चेन्नई द्वारा
प्रदत्तहोगी।
2306
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
त) ‘मान्दयता प्राप्त आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता’ [धजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीषवक के अिीि ‘’एसआरएम
धवश्वधव्ालय,चेि्िई’’केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔरपंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसकेआगे
कालम(3)कहागयाहै]सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्िधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा,अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (जिरलमेधडधसि)”
एमडी (जिरलमेधडधसि)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
एसआरएम मेधडकल कॉलेज अस्पताल एंड ठरसचव सेन्दटर,
कांचीपुरम,तधमलिाडुमेंप्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंि
में2015कोयाबाद मेंएसआरएमधवश्वधव्ालय,चेन्नई
द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
थ) ‘मान्दयता प्राप्त आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता’ [धजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीषवक के अिीि ‘’गीतांजधल
धवश्वधव्ालय,उदयपुर’’केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔरपंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसके
आगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै]सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्िधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा,अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (अिॉटमी)”
एमडी (अिॉटमी)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
गीतांजधल मेधडकल कॉलेज एंड अस्पताल, उदयपुर, में
प्रधशधितदकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2016कोयाबादमें
गीतांजधलधवश्वधव्ालय,उदयपुरद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
द) ‘मान्दयताप्राप्तआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै]शीषवककेअिीि‘’एमजेपीरूहेलखंड
धवश्वधव्ालय,बरेली,उत्तरप्रदेश’’केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधिकेपश्चातऔरपंजीकरणकेधलएसंधिधिकरण’[धजसे
इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रधवधि के संबंि में धिम्िधलधखत अंत:स्थाधपत दकयाजाएगा,
अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (साइदकएट्री)”
एमडी (साइदकएट्री)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
रूहेलखंडमेधडकलकॉलेजएंडअस्पताल,बरेलीमेंप्रधशधित
दकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2015कोयाबादमेंरूहेलखंड
धवश्वधव्ालय,बरेली,उत्तरप्रदेशद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (रेधडयो-डॉयग्नोधसस/रेधडयोलॉजी)”
एमडी (रेधडयो-डॉयग्नोधसस/रेधडयोलॉजी)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
रूहेलखंडमेधडकलकॉलेजएंडअस्पताल,बरेलीमेंप्रधशधित
दकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2015कोयाबादमेंरूहेलखंड
धवश्वधव्ालय,बरेली,उत्तरप्रदेशद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
“मास्टरफफसजवरी (अब्स्टस्टेठट्रक्स/गाइिकालजी)”
एमडी (ओबीजी)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
रूहेलखंडमेधडकलकॉलेजएंडअस्पताल,बरेलीमेंप्रधशधित
दकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2016कोयाबादमेंरूहेलखंड
धवश्वधव्ालय,बरेली,उत्तरप्रदेशद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
II
(ii)
2307
“मास्टरफफसजवरी (पैथॉलोजी)”
एमडी (पैथॉलोजी)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
रूहेलखंडमेधडकलकॉलेजएंडअस्पताल,बरेलीमेंप्रधशधित
दकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2015कोयाबादमेंरूहेलखंड
धवश्वधव्ालय,बरेली,उत्तरप्रदेशद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
“धडप्लोमाइिपैथॉलोजी”
डीसीपी
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
रूहेलखंडमेधडकलकॉलेजएंडअस्पताल,बरेलीमेंप्रधशधित
दकएगएछात्रोंकेसंबंिमें2015कोयाबादमेंरूहेलखंड
धवश्वधव्ालय,बरेली,उत्तरप्रदेशद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
ि) ‘मान्दयताप्राप्तआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै]शीषवककेअिीि‘’एिआईएमएस
धवश्वधव्ालय (डीम्ड धवश्वधव्ालय), जयपुर’’ के सामिे अंधतम प्रधवधि के पश्चात और पंजीकरण के धलए
संधिधिकरण’[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै]सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्िधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपत
दकयाजाएगा,अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि (अिीस्थीधसया)”
एमडी (अिीस्थीधसया)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
िेशिलइंधस्टट्यूटफफमेधडकलसाईंसएंडठरसचव,जयपुर
में प्रधशधित दकए गए छात्रों के संबंि में 2014 को या
एिआईएमएसधवश्वधव्ालय(डीम्डधवश्वधव्ालय),जयपुर
द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
“मास्टरफफसजवरी (ईएिटी)”
एमएस (ईएिटी)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
िेशिलइंधस्टट्यूटफफमेधडकलसाईंसएंडठरसचव,जयपुर
में प्रधशधित दकए गए छात्रों के संबंि में 2014 को या
एिआईएमएसधवश्वधव्ालय(डीम्डधवश्वधव्ालय),जयपुर
द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
“डॉक्टरफफमेधडधसि(पैथॉलोजी)”
एमडी (पैथॉलोजी)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
िेशिलइंधस्टट्यूटफफमेधडकलसाईंसएंडठरसचव,जयपुर
में प्रधशधित दकए गए छात्रों के संबंि में 2014 को या
एिआईएमएसधवश्वधव्ालय(डीम्डधवश्वधव्ालय),जयपुर
द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
“डॉक्टर
फफ
मेधडधसि/मास्टर
फफ
सजवरी
(फप्थालमोलोजी)”
एमडी/एमएस (फप्थालमोलोजी)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
िेशिलइंधस्टट्यूटफफमेधडकलसाईंसएंडठरसचव,जयपुर
में प्रधशधित दकए गए छात्रों के संबंि में 2014 को या
एिआईएमएसधवश्वधव्ालय(डीम्डधवश्वधव्ालय),जयपुर
द्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
“डॉक्टर
फफ
मेधडधसि(सोशल
एंड
धप्रवेंठटव
मेधडधसि/कम्युधिटीमेधडधसि)”
एमडी(सोशलएंडधप्रवेंठटवमेधडधसि/कम्युधिटीमेधडधसि)
(यह एक मान्दयता प्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
2308
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
िेशिलइंधस्टट्यूटफफमेधडकलसाईंसएंडठरसचव,जयपुर
में प्रधशधित दकए गए छात्रों के संबंि में 2015 को या
एिआईएमएस
धवश्वधव्ालय
(डीम्ड
धवश्वधव्ालय),
जयपुरद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
[फा.सं.यू-12012/01/2017-एमई-I(पाटव-2)]
डी.वी.के.राव,अवरसधचव
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:-
(2)
(3)
“Diploma in Ophthalmology”
DMRD
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences,
Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh in respect of students being
trained at Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam on or
after 2015).
“Doctor of Medicine (TB& Respiratory Medicine)
MD (TB & Respiratory Medicine)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences,
Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh in respect of students being
trained at MNR Medical College, Sangareddy on or after
2015).
“Doctor of Medicine (DVL)”
MD (DVL)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences,
Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh in respect of students being
trained at Santhiram Medical College, Nandyal on or after
2015).
“Doctor of medicine (Physiology)”
MD(Physiology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences,
Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh in respect of students being
trained at Shadan Institute of Medical Sciences,
Hyderabad on or after 2016).
(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:-
II
(ii)
2309
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (DVL)
MD (DVL)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore in respect of students being trained at SDM
College of Medical Sciences & Hospital, Dharwad,
Karnataka on or after 2014).
”Diploma in Dermatology Venerology & Leprosy”
DDVL
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore in respect of students being trained at SDM
College of Medical Sciences & Hospital, Dharwad,
Karnataka on or after 2014).
“Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery (Anatomy)”
MD/MS (Anatomy)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore in respect of students being trained at
Adichunchanagiri
Institute
of
Medical
Sciences,
Balagangadharanath Nagar on or after 2015).
“Doctor of Medicine (Radio Diagnosis)”
MD ( Radio Diagnosis)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore in respect of students being trained at S S
Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre,
Davangere on or after 2015).
“Doctor of Medicine (Endocrinology)
DM (Endocrinology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore in respect of students being trained at Vydehi
Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre,
Bangalore on or after 2016).
“Doctor of Medicine (Tuberculosis & Respiratory
Diseases / Pulmonary Medicine)
MD (Tuberculosis & Respiratory Diseases/ Respiratory
Diseases/ Pulmonary Medicine)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore in respect of students being trained at
Rajarajeswari Medical College & Hospital, Bangalore on
or after 2016).
(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:-
(2)
(3)
“Master of Surgery (Ophthalmology)”
MS (Ophthalmology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur
in respect of students being trained at Academy of
Medical Sciences, Pariyaram, Kannur on or after 2015).
2310
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)”
MD (Pharmacology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur
in respect of students being trained at M E S Medical
College, Perintalmanna Malappuram Distt. Kerala on or
after 2015).
“Diploma in Orthopaedics”
D. Ortho
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur
in respect of students being trained at T.D Medical
College, Alappuzha on or after 2014).
“Doctor of Medicine/ Master of Surgery (Anatomy)
MD/MS (Anatomy)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur
in respect of students being trained at T.D Medical
College, Alappuzha on or after 2016).
“Doctor of Medicine (Community Medicine)”
MD (Community Medicine)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur
in respect of students being trained at Government
Medical College, Thrissur on or after 2015).
“Master of Surgery(General Surgery)”
MS (General Surgery)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur
in respect of students being trained at Sri Gokulam
Medical
College
Trust
&
Research
Foundation,
Trivandrum, Kerala on or after 2014).
“Master of Surgery (Ophthalmology)’’
MS (Opthalmology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur
in respect of students being trained at Jubilee Mission
Medical College & Research Institute, Kerala on or after
2015).
“Doctor of Medicine (Anaesthesia)”
MD (Anaesthesia)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur
in respect of students being trained at Jubilee Mission
Medical College & Research Institute, Kerala on or after
2015).
“Doctor of Medicine (Paediatrics)”
MD (Paediatrics)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur
in respect of students being trained at Pushpagiri Institute
of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Tiruvalla,
Kerala on or after 2015).
“Diploma in Child Health”
DCH
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur
in respect of students being trained at Pushpagiri Institute
II
(ii)
2311
of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Tiruvalla,
Kerala on or after 2015).
“Doctor of Medicine/ Master of Surgery (Anatomy)’’
MD/MS (Anatomy)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur
in respect of students being trained at Pushpagiri Institute
of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Tiruvalla,
Kerala on or after 2015).
(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:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)”
MD (Microbiology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by The Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical College
University, Chennai in respect of students being trained at
Karpaga
Vinayaga
Institute
of
Medical
Sciences,
Maduranthagam on or after 2016).
“Master of Surgery(General Surgery)”
MS (General Surgery)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by The Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical College
University, Chennai in respect of students being trained at
ESI-PGIMSR, ESI Hospital, K.K Nagar, Chennai on or
after 2015).
(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:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of medicine (Physiology)”
MD (Physiology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification
when granted by Arya Bhatta Knowledge University,
Patna in respect of students being trained at Nalanda
Medical College, Patna on or after 2014).
(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:-
(2)
(3)
“Master of Surgery (Obstetrics & Gynaecology)”
MS (OBG)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Delhi University, Delhi in respect of students
being trained at Army Hospital Research & Referral, New
Delhi on or after 2015).
2312
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(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:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)”
MD (Microbiology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Ch. Charan Singh University in respect of
students being trained at Saraswati Institute of Medical
Sciences, Hapur on or after 2016).
(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:-
(2)
(3)
“Master of Surgery (Obstetrics & Gynaecology)”
MS (OBG)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences,
Nashik, Maharashtra in respect of students being trained at
KJ Somaiyya Medical College & Research Centre,
Mumbai on or after 2014).
(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:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)”
MD (General Medicine)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Tripura University, Agartala in respect of
students being trained at Agartala Govt. Medical College,
Agartala, Tripura on or 2015).
(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:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Tuberculosis & Respiratory
Diseases / Pulmonary Medicine”
MD (Tuberculosis & Respiratory Diseases / Pulmonary
Medicine)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Veer Narmad South Gujarat University in
respect of students being trained at Surat Municipal
Institute of Medical Education & Research, Surat on or
after 2015).
(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:-
II
(ii)
2313
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of medicine (Physiology)”
MD (Physiology)
This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Sharda University, Greater Noida in respect of
students being trained at School of Medical Sciences &
Research, Greater Noida on or after 2016).
(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:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of medicine (Pharmacology)”
MD (Pharmacology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Kumaon University, Nainital in respect of
students being trained at Govt. Medical College (Prev.
Uttarakhand Forest Hospital Trust Med.Col.), Haldwani
on or after 2016).
(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:-
(2)
(3)
“Master of Surgery (Orthopaedics)”
MS (Orthopaedics)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University, Pune
in respect of students being trained at Bharati Vidyapeeth
Medical College & Hospital, Sangli on or after 2014).
(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:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Community Medicine)”
MD (Community Medicine)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Teerthanker Mahaveer University, Moradabad
in respect of students being trained at Teerthanker
Mahaveer Medical College and Research Centre,
Moradabad on or after 2016).
(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:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of medicine (Pharmacology)”
MD (Pharmacology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Saveetha University (Deemed), Chennai in
2314
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
respect of students being trained at Saveetha Medical
College and Hospital, Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu on or
after 2016).
(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:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)”
MD (General Medicine)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by SRM University, Chennai in respect of
students being trained at SRM Medical College Hospital
& Research Centre, Kancheepuram on or after 2015).
(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:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Anatomy)”
MD (Anatomy)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Geetanjali University, Udaipur in respect of
students being trained at Geetanjali Medical College &
Hospital, Udaipur on or after 2016).
(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:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Psychiatry)”
MD (Psychiatry)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, U.P in
respect of students being trained at Rohilkhand Medical
College & Hospital, Barielly on or after 2015).
“Doctor of Medicine (Radio-Diagnosis/ Radiology)
MD (Radio-Diagnosis/Radiology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, U.P in
respect of students being trained at Rohilkhand Medical
College & Hospital, Barielly on or after 2016).
“Master of Surgery (Obstetrics & Gynaecology)”
MS (OBG)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, U.P in
respect of students being trained at Rohilkhand Medical
College & Hospital, Barielly on or after 2016).
“Doctor of Medicine (Pathology)
MD (Pathology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, U.P in
respect of students being trained at Rohilkhand Medical
College & Hospital, Barielly on or after 2015).
II
(ii)
2315
“Diploma in Clinical Pathology’’
DCP
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, U.P in
respect of students being trained at Rohilkhand Medical
College & Hospital, Barielly on or after 2015).
(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:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Anaesthesia)”
MD (Anaesthesia)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by NIMS University (Deemed University), Jaipur
in respect of students being trained at National Institute of
Medical Science & Research, Jaipur on or after 2014).
“Master of Surgery (ENT)”
MS (ENT)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by NIMS University (Deemed University), Jaipur
in respect of students being trained at National Institute of
Medical Science & Research, Jaipur on or after 2014).
“Doctor of Medicine (Pathology)”
MD (Pathology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by NIMS University (Deemed University), Jaipur
in respect of students being trained at National Institute of
Medical Science & Research, Jaipur on or after 2014).
“Doctor of Medicine/ Master of surgery (Ophthalmology)” MD/MS (Ophthalmology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by NIMS University (Deemed University), Jaipur
in respect of students being trained at National Institute of
Medical Science & Research, Jaipur on or after 2014).
“Doctor of Medicine (Social & Preventive Medicine /
Community Medicine)
MD (Social & Preventive Medicine / Community
Medicine)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by NIMS University (Deemed University), Jaipur
in respect of students being trained at National Institute of
Medical Science & Research, Jaipur on or after 2015).
[No. U-12012/01/2017-ME-I (Pt-2)]
D.V.K. RAO, Under Secy.
िईददल्ली,28माचव,2017
का.आ. 1043.—भारतीयआयुर्ववज्ञािपठरषद्अधिधियम,1956(1956का102)कीिारा11कीउपिारा
(2)द्वाराप्रदत्तशधियोंकाप्रयोगकरतेहुएकेन्दद्रसरकार,भारतीयआयुर्ववज्ञािपठरषद्सेपरामशवकरकेउक्तअधिधियमकी
प्रथमअिुसूचीमें,धिम्िधलधखत,औरसंशोििकरतीहै,अथावत्:-
2316
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
उक्तप्रथमअिुसूचीमें‘मान्दयताप्राप्तआयुर्ववज्ञािअहवता’शीषवककेअिीि[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(2)कहागयाहै]‘‘केरल
स्वास््यस्वास््यधवज्ञािधवश्वधव्ालय,तृश्शूर’’केसामिेअंधतमप्रधवधि केपश्चातऔर‘पंजीकरण केधलएसंधिधिकरण’
[धजसेइसकेआगेकालम(3)कहागयाहै]सेसंबंधितप्रधवधिकेसंबंिमेंधिम्िधलधखतअंत:स्थाधपतदकयाजाएगा,अथावत्:-
(2)
(3)
बेचलरफफमेधडधसिऔरबेचलरफफसजवरी
एम.बी.बी.एस.
(यह एक मान्दयताप्राि आयुर्ववज्ञाि अहवता होगी जब यह
मालाबार मेधडकल कॉलेज एंड ठरसचव सेंटर कालीकट,
कोल्लम, केरल में प्रधशधित दकए गए छात्रों के संबंि में
अप्रैल,2015कोयाबादमें150एमबीबीएसछात्रवार्षवक
प्रवेश
िमता
के
साथ,,
केरल
स्वास््य
धवज्ञाि
धवश्वधव्ालय,तृश्शूरद्वाराप्रदत्तहोगी।
िोट:1. अ्ोस्िातककोसवकोदीगईटसीमान्दयताअधिकतम5वषवकेधलएहोगीऔरउसकेबादइसकािवीकरण
करवािाहोगा।
2. मान्दयताके‘िवीकरण’कीप्रदरम यावहीहोगाजोमान्दयताप्रदािकरिेकेधलएलागूहोतीहै।
3. उपठरकधथत उप खंड (क) में यथा-अपेधित मान्दयता का समय से िवीकरण करवािे में धवफल रहिे पर,
पठरणामस्वरूप,धिरपवादरूपसे,उक्तसंस्थाि/मेधडकलकॉलेजमेंसंबंधित एमबीबीएसअ्ोस्िातककोसवमें
प्रवेशबंदहोजाएगा।
[फा.सं.यू-12012/79/2015-एमई-I(एफटीएस-137823)]
डी.वी.के.राव,अवरसधचव
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:-
(2)
(3)
“Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery”
M.B.B.S.
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur
in respect of students being trained at Malabar Medical
College & Research Centre, Calicut, Kerala with annual
intake of 150 MBBS students on or after April, 2015.)
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.
II
(ii)
2317
उपभोिामामले,खा्औरसाववजधिकधवतरणमंत्रालय
(उपभोिामामलेधवभाग)
(भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरो)
िईददल्ली,9फरवरी,2017
का.आ. 1044.—भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरो(प्रमाणि)धवधियम1988केधवधियम4केउपधियम(5)केअिुसरणमें
भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधजिलाइसेंसोंकेधववरणिीचेअिुसूचीमेंददएगएहैं,वेस्वीकृत
करददएगएहैं:-
अिुसूची
रम .
सं.
लाइसेंससं
स्वीकृतकरिे
कीधतधथ
वषव/ माह
लाइसेंसिारीकािामवपता भारतीयमािककाशीषव भा मा सं (भाग/
अिुभाग): वषव
1.
6500012090
20160201
मेससवसीटोपम्प्सकंपिी
सं.101-D, सुपर ग्रुप फफ
कंपिीस
कम्पाउन्दड,
धचन्नावेदमपट्टी,
कोयम्बत्तूर
– 641 049
कृधषएवंजलआपूर्तवके
धलएसाफऔरिंडेपािी
के धबजली के मोिोसेट
पम्प
IS 9079 : 2002
2.
6500012292
20160201
मेससवएसपीएक्वा
एसएफसं. 190/1, 191/2,
191/3, उप्पुतोट्टम,
मिापुरगााँव,
पल्लडम– 641 664
पैकेजबंद
पेय
जल
(पैकेजबंद धमिरल जल
केअलावा)
IS 14543 : 2004
3.
6500012191
20160202
मेससवआरआरएग्रोफाम्सव
2/751,
िाटुवि
तोट्टम,
तोट्टमपट्टीपोस्ट,
मिापुर,पल्लडम
– 641 664
पैकेजबंद
पेय
जल
(पैकेजबंद धमिरल जल
केअलावा)
IS 14543 : 2004
4.
6500012393
20160204
मेससव
श्री
कन्ददि
इंजीधियररंग
सं.6, 8वााँ सडक, िरिीिगर
एक्स्टेंशि,
गणपधतपुदुर,
गणपधत,
कोयम्बत्तूर– 641 006
गहरे
कुओं
के
धलए
धिम्मजिीयपम्पसेट
IS 14220 : 1994
5.
6500012494
20160208
मेससवमेकलाज्वेलसव
दुकाि सं. 11, पंचायत
कॉम्प्लेक्स,
चााँदी
एवं
चााँदी
धमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी–शुिताएवं
IS 2112 : 2014
2318
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
गााँिीपुतलेकेसामिे,
गूडलूर– 643 212
मुहरांकि
6.
6500012595
20160208
मेससवअरधवन्ददइंडस्ट्रीस
द. सं. 2, 4, एसएफसं. 41,
1B, 2B,
श्री ििम िगर, वी आई पी
गाडविकेसामिे,
मैलमपट्टी पोस्ट, िीलम्पूर,
सुलूर
(तालुक)
ब्स्टलॉक,
कोयम्बत्तूर– 641 062
पैकेजबंद
पेय
जल
(पैकेजबंद धमिरल जल
केअलावा)
IS 14543 : 2004
7.
6500012696
20160212
मेससवलौरापम्प्स
119-A, मुधियप्पि कोइल
तोट्टम,
गणपधत
पोस्ट,
कोयम्बत्तूर– 641 006
धिम्मजिीय पम्पसेट के
धलए मोटर
IS 9283 : 2013
8.
6500012797
20160222
मेससवमहादेवइंडस्ट्रीस
द. सं. 503A/366, इंददरा
गााँिीसडक,वी.के.रोड,
पीलामेडु,
कोयम्बत्तूर
-
641004.
साफ,िंडेपािीकेधलए
अपकेंद्रीय
पुिरुत्पादक
पम्प
IS 8472 : 1998
9.
6500012898
20160223
मेससवएधशयाइंजीधियररंग
एसएफसं. 328, कालापट्टी
रोड,पीलामेडु,
कोयम्बत्तूर– 641 048.
धिम्मजिीयपम्पसेट
IS 8034 : 2002
10. 6500012999
20160229
मेससव मेक वेइि सर्ववसस
प्राईवेटधलधमटेड
सं. 143/2A, अन्ना िगर
रोड,
िीलम्बूर, कोयम्बत्तूर –
641 062
सामान्दयउद्देश्योंकेधलए
बटरफ्लाईवाल्व
IS 13095: 1991
[सं.सीएमडी/13:11]
टी.कलैवाणि,वैज्ञाधिक‘एफ’एवंप्रमुख
II
(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
Sl.
No.
Licence No.
Grant
Date
Name and Address (Factory)
of the Party
Title of the Standard
IS No. Part/
Sec. Year
1.
6500012090
20160201
M/s. Ceto Pumps Company
No.101-D, Super Group Of
Companies
Compound,
Chinnavedampatty,
Coimbatore – 641 049
Electric Monoset Pumps for
Clear,
Cold
Water
for
Agricultural
and
Water
Supply Purposes
IS 9079 : 2002
2.
6500012292
20160201
M/s. SP Aqua
SF No. 190/1, 191/2, 191/3,
Uppu Thottam ,
Madhapur Village
Palladam – 641 664
Packaged Drinking Water
(other
than
Packaged
Natural Mineral Water)
IS 14543 : 2004
3.
6500012191
20160202
M/s. R R Agro Farms
2/751, Nattuvan Thottam,
Thottampatti Post, Madhapur,
Palladam – 641 664
Packaged Drinking Water
(other
than
Packaged
Natural Mineral Water)
IS 14543 : 2004
4.
6500012393
20160204
M/s. Sri Kandan Engineering
No.6, 8th Street, Dharani Nagar
Extension,
Ganapathyputhur, Ganapathy,
Coimbatore – 641 006
Openwell
Submersible
Pumpsets
IS 14220 : 1994
5.
6500012494
20160208
M/s. Mekala Jewelers
Shop
No.
11,
Panchayat
Complex,
Opp. To Gandhi Statue
Gudalur – 643 212
Silver and Silver Alloys,
Jewellery/
Artefacts
-
Fineness and Marking
IS 2112 : 2014
6.
6500012595
20160208
M/s. Aravindh Industries
D. No. 2, 4, SF No. 41, 1B, 2B,
Sree Dhanam Nagar, Opp VIP
Garden,
Mylampatti Post, Neelampur,
Sulur (Tk) Block,
Coimbatore – 641 062
Packaged Drinking Water
(other
than
Packaged
Natural Mineral Water)
IS 14543 : 2004
7.
6500012696
20160212
M/s. Laura Pumps
119-A,
Muniappan
Koil
Thottam,
Motors
for
Submersible
Pumpsets
IS 9283 : 2013
2320
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ganapathy(P.O.),
Coimbatore – 641 006
8.
6500012797
20160222
M/s. Mahadev Industries
D. No. 503A/366, Indira Gandhi
Street, V.K. Road, Peelamedu,
Coimbatore- 641004.
Centrifugal
Regenerative
Pumps for clear, cold water
IS 8472 : 1998
9.
6500012898
20160223
M/s. Asia Engineering
SF No. 328, Kalapatti Road,
Peelamedu,
Coimbatore – 641 048.
Submersible Pumpsets
IS 8034 : 2002
10.
6500012999
20160229
M/s. Mc Wane Services Private
Limited
No. 143/2A, Anna Nagar Road,
Neelambur,
Coimbatore – 641 062
Butterfly Valves for General
Purposes
IS 13095: 1991
[No. CMD/13:11]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ and Head
िईददल्ली,9फरवरी,2017
का.आ.1045.— भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरो(प्रमाणि)धवधियम1988केधवधियम4केउपधियम(5)केअिुसरणमें
भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधजिलाइसेंसोंकेधववरणिीचेअिुसूचीमेंददएगएहैं,वेस्वीकृत
करददएगएहैं:-
अिुसूची
रम .
सं.
लाइसेंससं
स्वीकृत करिे
कीधतधथवषव/
माह
लाइसेंसिारी का िाम व
पता
भारतीयमािककाशीषव
भा मा सं (भाग/
अिुभाग): वषव
1.
6500013092
20160304
मेससवकधविडोसव
सं. 35, जीडीमुख्यसडक,
गेठट्टचेयूर, गोबी तालुक -
638110
सामान्दय
प्रयोजिों
के
धलएप्लाईवुड
IS 303 : 1989
2.
6500013193
20160304
मेससवकधविडोसव
सं. 35, जीडीमुख्यसडक,
गेठट्टचेयूर, गोबी तालुक -
638110
लकडी के सपाट दरवाजे
केशटर
(िोसकोरप्रकार) – भाग
1 – प्लाईवुड सतहयुि
पल्ले
IS 2202 : Part 1 :
1999
3.
6500013597
20160329
मेससव डी.ए.आर. ज्वेलरी
प्राईवेटधलधमटेड
चााँदी
एवं
चााँदी
धमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी–शुिताएवं
IS 2112 : 2014
II
(ii)
2321
392,धबग बज़ारसडक,
कोयम्बत्तूर- 641001
मुहरांकि
4.
6500013496
20160329
मेससव डी.ए.आर. ज्वेलरी
प्राईवेटधलधमटेड
दुकाि सं.G9, ब्रूकफील्ड
एस्टेट,
डॉ.कृष्णास्वामीरोड,
कोयम्बत्तूर– 641 009
चााँदी
एवं
चााँदी
धमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी–शुिताएवं
मुहरांकि
IS 2112 : 2014
5.
6500013294
20160329
मेससवआर-गोल्डएक्स्चेंज
923-A, गणेशधबसल्डंग,
रम ॉसकटरोड,गााँिीपुरम,
कोयम्बत्तूर– 641 012
स्वणव
एवं
स्वणव
धमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी–शुिताएवं
मुहरांकि
IS 1417 : 1999
6.
6500013395
20160329
मेससवआर-गोल्डमाटव
924, गणेशधबसल्डंग,
रम ॉसकटरोड,गााँिीपुरम,
कोयम्बत्तूर– 641 012
स्वणव
एवं
स्वणव
धमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी–शुिताएवं
मुहरांकि
IS 1417 : 1999
7.
6500013698
20160329
द ठरवेरा पम्प्स इंधडया
प्राईवेटधलधमटेड
एस एफ सं. 184/1C,
कन्नमपालयमगााँव,
पल्लडम - 641402
कृधष एवं जल आपूर्तव के
धलएसाफऔरिंडेपािी
के धबजली के मोिोसेट
पम्प
IS 9079 : 2002
8.
6500013799
20160330
मेससव श्री अमुदम एक्वा
फाम्सव
एस
एफ
सं.
104/1,
कामराज
िगर,
मुठरयान्दडमपालयम,
अधविाधश
तालुक
एवं
ब्स्टलॉक,धतरुप्पुर-641655.
पैकेजबंद
पेय
जल
(पैकेजबंदधमिरलजलके
अलावा)
IS 14543 : 2004
9.
6500013803
20160331
मेससवएआरकेज्वेलसव
एमआरज्वेलकॉम्प्लेक्स,
138,करुप्पागौन्दडरसडक,
पहलामाला,
कोयम्बत्तूर-641001
स्वणव
एवं
स्वणव
धमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी–शुिताएवं
मुहरांकि
IS 1417 : 1999
2322
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10. 6500013904
20160331
मेससवएआरकेज्वेलसव
एमआरज्वेलकॉम्प्लेक्स,
138,करुप्पागौन्दडरसडक,
पहलामाला,
कोयम्बत्तूर-641001
चााँदी
एवं
चााँदी
धमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी–शुिताएवं
मुहरांकि
IS 2112 : 2014
[सं.सीएमडी/13:11]
टी.कलैवाणि,वैज्ञाधिक‘एफ’एवंप्रमुख
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
Sl.
No.
Licence No.
Grant
Date
Name
and
Address
(Factory) of the Party
Title of the Standard
IS No. Part/
Sec. Year
1.
6500013092
20160304
M/s. Kavin Doors,
No. 35, G D Main Road,
Getticheyur
Gobi Tk - 638110
Plywood for General Purposes
IS 303 : 1989
2.
6500013193
20160304
M/s. Kavin Doors,
No. 35, G D Main Road,
Getticheyur,
Gobi Tk - 638110
Wooden Flush Door Shutters
(Solid Core Type): Part 1-
Plywood Face Panels
IS 2202 : Part
1 : 1999
3.
6500013597
20160329
M/s.
D.A.R
Jewellery
Private Limited
392, Big Bazaar Street,
Coimbatore - 641001
Silver
and
Silver
Alloys,
Jewellery/ Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 2112 : 2014
4.
6500013496
20160329
M/s.
D.A.R
Jewellery
Private Limited
Shop No.G9, Brookefield
Estate,
Dr. Krishnaswamy Road,
Coimbatore – 641 009
Silver
and
Silver
Alloys,
Jewellery/ Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 2112 : 2014
5.
6500013294
20160329
M/s. R-Gold Exchange
923-A, Ganesh Building,
Cross
Cut
Road,
Gandhipuram,
Coimbatore – 641 012
Gold
and
Gold
Alloys,
Jewellery/ Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 1417 : 1999
6.
6500013395
20160329
M/s. R-Gold Mart
924,
Ganesh
Building,
Cross
Cut
Road,
Gold
and
Gold
Alloys,
Jewellery/ Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 1417 : 1999
II
(ii)
2323
Gandhipuram,
Coimbatore -641012
7.
6500013698
20160329
The Riveraa Pumps India
Private Limited ,
SF
No.
184/1C,
Kannampalayam Village,
Palladam - 641402
Electric Monoset Pumps for
Clear,
Cold
Water
for
Agricultural and Water Supply
Purposes
IS 9079 : 2002
8.
6500013799
20160330
M/s. Sri Amudham Aqua
Farms
SF No 104/1, Kamaraj
Nagar,
Muriyandampalayam,
Avinashi Tk & Block,
Tirupur-641655.
Packaged
Drinking
Water
(other than Packaged Natural
Mineral Water)
IS
14543
:
2004
9.
6500013803
20160331
M/s. ARK Jewellers
M.R.Jewell Complex,
138,Karuppa
Gounder
Street,
1st Floor,
Coimbatore-641001
Gold
and
Gold
Alloys,
Jewellery/ Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 1417 : 1999
10.
6500013904
20160331
M/s. ARK Jewellers
M.R.Jewell Complex,
138,Karuppa
Gounder
Street,
1st Floor,
Coimbatore-641001
Silver
and
Silver
Alloys,
Jewellery/ Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 2112 : 2014
[No. CMD/13:11]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ and Head
िईददल्ली,9फरवरी,2017
का.आ.1046.—भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरो(प्रमाणि)धवधियम1988केधवधियम4केउपधियम(5)केअिुसरणमें
भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधजिलाइसेंसोंकेधववरणिीचेअिुसूचीमेंददएगएहैं,वेस्वीकृत
करददएगएहैं:-
अिुसूची
रम .
सं.
लाइसेंससं
स्वीकृतकरिे
कीधतधथ
वषव/ माह
लाइसेंसिारीकािामवपता
भारतीयमािककाशीषव
भामासं(भाग/
अिुभाग): वषव
1.
6500014094
20160408
मेससव
धप्रन्दस
गोल्ड
एण्ड
डायमन्द्स
इंधडया
प्राईवेट
धलधमटेड
"गायत्रीधबसल्डंग",
पुरािा सं. 220 A, िया सं.
149 A, डॉ राजेन्दद्रा प्रसाद
रोड, कोयम्बत्तूर- 641 012
स्वणव
एवं
स्वणव
धमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी–शुिताएवं
मुहरांकि
IS 1417 : 1999
2324
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
6500014195
20160408
दएल.पा.एम.इंडस्ट्रीस
80, िवा इंधडया रोड, के.
आर.पुरम,
कोयम्बत्तूर – 641 006
अपकेंद्रीयजेटपम्प
IS 12225 : 1997
3.
6500014296
20160421
मेससव पी एस जी होसल्डंग्स
इन्दक
44, पधश्चम सडक, करुक्कम
पालयम,
ऊन्दजलूरपोस्ट- 638152
पैकेजबंद
पेय
जल
(पैकेजबंद धमिरल जल
केअलावा)
IS 14543 : 2004
4.
6500014603
20160422
मेससवधप्रयावाटरसप्लाई
1/490 C, धप्रयाकॉम्प्लेक्स,
डाकखािेकेपास,िीलम्बूर,
कोयम्बत्तूर- 641 062
पैकेजबंद
पेय
जल
(पैकेजबंद धमिरल जल
केअलावा)
IS 14543 : 2004
5.
6500014599
20160422
मेससवएकेएएक्वाफाम्सव
127-E, धचन्दतामधणतोट्टम,
धचन्दतामधणपुदुरपोस्ट,
सुलूरब्स्टलॉक,
कोयम्बत्तूर - 641103
पैकेजबंद
पेय
जल
(पैकेजबंद धमिरल जल
केअलावा)
IS 14543 : 2004
6.
6500014397
20160422
मेससवएक्वाफॉसववाटरपम्प
63, धचन्दतामधणिगर,
आवारमपालयम,
कोयम्बत्तूर- 641006
साफ, िंडे पािी के धलए
अपकेंद्रीय
पुिरुत्पादक
पम्प
IS 8472 : 1998
7.
6500014498
20160422
मेससव
वीगा
इंजीधियररंग
कंपिी
6, शोभािगर2,
आवारमपालयम,
कोयम्बत्तूर- 641006
साफ, िंडे पािी के धलए
अपकेंद्रीय
पुिरुत्पादक
पम्प
IS 8472 : 1998
[सं.सीएमडी/3: 11]
टी.कलैवाणि, वैज्ञाधिक ‘एफ’ एवंप्रमुख
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
Sl.
No.
Licence No.
Grant
Date
Name and Address (Factory) of the
Party
Title of the
Standard
IS No. Part/
Sec. Year
1.
6500014094
20160408
M/s. Prince Gold And Diamonds India
Private Limited
"Gayathri Building",
Gold
and
Gold
Alloys,
Jewellery/
Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 1417 : 1999
II
(ii)
2325
Old No. 220 A, New No. 149 A,
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,, Coimbatore
641 012
2.
6500014195
20160408
The El. P. Em. Industries
80, Nava India Road,
K. R. Puram,
Coimbatore – 641 006
Centrifugal
Jet
Pump
IS 12225 : 1997
3.
6500014296
20160421
M/s. PSG Holdings Inc
44, West Street,
Karukkam Palayam,
Unjalur Post - 638152
Packaged Drinking
Water (other than
Packaged
Natural
Mineral Water)
IS 14543 : 2004
4.
6500014603
20160422
M/s. Priya Water Supply
1/490 C, Priya Complex,
Near Post Office , Neelambur,
Coimbatore - 641 062
Packaged Drinking
Water (other than
Packaged
Natural
Mineral Water)
IS 14543 : 2004
5.
6500014599
20160422
M/s. AKA Aqua Farms
127-E, Chinthamani Thottam,
Chinthamani Pudur Post, Sulur Block,
Coimbatore - 641103
Packaged Drinking
Water (other than
Packaged
Natural
Mineral Water)
IS 14543 : 2004
6.
6500014397
20160422
M/s. Aqua Force Water Pump
63, Chinthamani Nagar,
Avarampalayam,
Coimbatore - 641006
Centrifugal
Regenerative Pumps
for clear, cold water
IS 8472 : 1998
7.
6500014498
20160422
M/s. Vega Engineering Company
6, Shoba Nagar 2,
Avarampalayam,
Coimbatore - 641006
Centrifugal
Regenerative Pumps
for clear, cold water
IS 8472 : 1998
[No. CMD/13:11]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ and Head
िईददल्ली,9फरवरी,2017
का.आ.1047.—भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरो(प्रमाणि)धवधियम,1988केधवधियम4केउपधियम(5)केअिुसरणमें
भरतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधजिलाइसेंसोंकेधववरणिीचेअिुसूचीमेंददएगएहैं,वेस्वीकृत
करददएगएहैं:
अिुसूची
रम .
सं.
लाइसेंससं
स्वीकृतकरिे
कीधतधथ
वषव/ माह
लाइसेंसिारीकािामवपता
भारतीयमािकका
शीषव
भामासं(भाग/
अिुभाग): वषव
1. 6500014704
20160502 मेससवसीपीएसप्रॉम्प्टइंडस्ट्रीस
द. सं. 1/167-7, रंगा िगर,
गहरे कुओं के धलए
धिम्मजिीयपम्पसेट
IS 14220 : 1994
2326
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
िीलम्बूर
गााँव,
सुलूर
तालुक,
मुदधलपालयम,
अरसूर
पोस्ट,
कोयम्बत्तूर
-
641407
2. 6500014805
20160503
मेससवश्रीकृष्णाइंजीधियररंग
26A, ििलक्ष्मी िगर एक्स्टेंशि,
मसक्कालीपालयम, उधप्पधलपालयम
पोस्ट,कोयम्बत्तूर- 641 015
धिम्मजिीयपम्पसेट
IS 8034 : 2002
3. 6500014906
20160504
मेससव
गजािन्ददा
ज्वेलरी
माटव
इंधडयाप्राईवेटधलधमटेड
श्रीकुमरितंगामाधलगै,
555-557, ओप्पिाकारासडक,
कोयम्बत्तूर - 641001
चााँदी
एवं
चााँदी
धमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी–शुिता
एवंमुहरांकि
IS 2112 : 2014
4. 6500015096
20160505
मेससवश्रीकुमरितंगामाधलगै
(द के टी एम ज्वेलरी धलधमटेड का
यूधिट)
636, ओप्पिाकारासडक,
कोयम्बत्तूर- - 641001
चााँदी
एवं
चााँदी
धमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी–शुिता
एवंमुहरांकि
IS 2112 : 2014
5. 6500015197
20160519
मेससव स्पेइस टेक्स्टाइल्स प्रायवेट
धलधमटेड
180-180 A, श्री कुमरि तंगा
माधलगै,
9वााँ सडक, गााँिीपुरम,
कोयम्बत्तूर - 641012
चााँदी
एवं
चााँदी
धमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी–शुिता
एवंमुहरांकि
IS 2112 : 2014
6. 6500015298
20160523
मेससवधप्रन्दसगोल्डएण्डडायमन्द्स
इंधडयाप्राईवेटधलधमटेड
"गायत्रीधबसल्डंग",
पुरािा
सं.
220
A,
िया
सं. 149 A,डॉराजेन्दद्राप्रसादरोड,
कोयम्बत्तूर- 641 012
चााँदी
एवं
चााँदी
धमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी–शुिता
एवंमुहरांकि
IS 2112 : 2014
[सं.सीएमडी/13: 11]
टी.कलैवाणि, वैज्ञाधिक ‘एफ’ एवंप्रमुख
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 :
II
(ii)
2327
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No.
Licence No.
Grant Date
Name and Address (Factory) of the
Party
Title of the
Standard
IS No. Part/
Sec. Year
1.
6500014704
20160502
M/s. C.P.S. Prompt Industries D.No.
1/167-7, Ranga Nagar Neelambur
Village,
Sulur
Taluk,
Mudhalipalayam,
Arasur
Post,
Coimbatore-641407
Openwell
Submersible
Pumpsets
IS 14220 : 1994
2.
6500014805
20160503
M/s. Sri Krishnaa Engineering 26A,
Dhanalakshmi
Nagar
Extn.,
Masakkalipalayam,
Uppilipalayam
Post, Coimbatore-641015
Submersible
Pumpsets
IS 8034 : 2002
3.
6500014906
20160504
M/s. Gajaananda Jewellery Mart
India Private Limited Sree Kumaran
Thangamaligai, 555-557, Oppanakara
Street, Coimbatore-641001
Silver And Silver
Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts-
Fineness
and
marking
IS 2112 : 2014
4.
6500015096
20160505
M/s. Sree Kumaran Thanga Maligai
(Unit of the KTM Jewellery Limited)
636, Oppanakara Street, Coimbatore-
641 001
Silver and Silver
Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts-
Fineness
and
Marking
IS 2112 : 2014
5.
6500015197
20160519
M/s. Space Textiles Pvt. Ltd. 180-180
A, Sree Kumaran Thanga maligai 9th
Street, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore-
641012
Silver and Silver
Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts
–
Fineness
and
marking
IS 2112 : 2014
6.
6500015298
20160523
M/s. Prince Gold and Diamonds India
Private
Limited
‘‘Gayathri
Building’’. New No. 149 A, Dr.
Rajendra Prasad Road, Coimbatore-
641012
Silver and Silver
Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts-
Fineness
and
Marking
IS 2112 : 2014
[No. CMD/13:11]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ and Head
िईददल्ली,9 फरवरी,2017
का.आ. 1048.—भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरो(प्रमाणि)धवधियम,1988केधवधियम4केउपधियम(5)केअिुसरणमें
भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधजिलाइसेंसोंकेधववरणिीचेअिुसूचीमेंददएगएहैं,वेस्वीकृत
करददएगएहैं:-
अिुसूची
रम .
सं.
लाइसेंससं
स्वीकृत
करिेकी
धतधथवषव/
माह
लाइसेंसिारीकािामवपता
भारतीयमािककाशीषव
भामासं
(भाग/ अिुभाग)
: वषव
1.
6500015399
20160602
मेससवकुमरिएक्वाइंडस्ट्री
321-E, मुल्लापरप्पु,46-पुदुर,
िादागौन्दडमपालयम
पोस्ट,
ईरोड - 638115
पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद
धमिरलजलकेअलावा)
IS 14543 : 2004
2328
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
6500015504
20160608
मेससवग्रीिटेकइंडस्ट्रीस
45, इलन्दगोिगर, शोभािगर
रोड,वारमपालयम,कोयम्बत्तूर
- 641006
धिम्मजिीयपम्पसेट
IS 8034 : 2002
3.
6500015403
20160608
मेससवश्रीसंगीताज्वेलरी
द.सं.55, मुतूररोड,
वेल्लाकोधवल- 638 111
स्वणव एवं स्वणव धमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी
–
शुिताएवंमुहरांकि
IS 1417 : 1999
4.
6500015605
20160608
मेससवश्रीसंगीताज्वेलरी
द.सं.55, मुतूररोड,
वेल्लाकोधवल- 638 111
चााँदी एवं चााँदी धमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी
–
शुिताएवंमुहरांकि
IS 2112 : 2014
5.
6500015706
20160608
मेससवश्रीसिधगरीपॉधलमसव
प्लॉट सं.
J19
&
J20,
धसपकोट,
पेरुन्ददुरै- 638052
बोर/
िलकूपों
के
धलए
अिम्यकृत पी वी सी जली
औरआवरकपाइप
IS 12818 : 2010
6.
6500015807
20160621
मेससवकुमरिज्वेलरी
246, जवाहरमुख्यसडक,पी.
पुधलयमपट्टी, सत्यामंगलम -
638459
स्वणव एवं स्वणव धमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी
–
शुिताएवंमुहरांकि
IS 1417 : 1999
7.
6500015908
20160622
मेससवकुमरिज्वेलरी
246, जवाहरमुख्यसडक,पी.
पुधलयमपट्टी,
सत्यामंगलम - 638459
चााँदी एवं चााँदी धमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी
–
शुिताएवंमुहरांकि
IS 2112 : 2014
8.
6500016098
20160624
मेससव गैलेक्सी इंजीधियररंग
कंपिी एस एफ सं. 316/1,
मुत्तुसामी िगर, गणेश ले औट
पूवव,
स्टेिमोर
कम्पाउन्दड,
गणपधत,
कोयम्बत्तूर- 641 006
धिम्मजिीयपम्पसेट
IS 8034 : 2002
9.
6500016199
20160630
मेससव
दकरलोस्कर
ब्रदसव
धलधमटड एस एफ 324/1,
मोपरेपालयम रोड, तट्टमपुदुर,
कधियूर
गााँव,
करुमत्तमपट्टी
पोस्ट,कोयम्बत्तूर- 641 659
साफ, िंडे पािी के धलए
अपकेंद्रीयपुिरुत्पादकपम्प
IS 8472 : 1998
[सं.सीएमडी/13: 11]
टी.कलैवाणि,वैज्ञाधिक ‘एफ’ एवंप्रमुख
II
(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
Sl.
No.
Licence No.
Grant
Date
Name and Address (Factory) of
the Party
Title of the Standard
IS No. Part/
Sec. Year
1.
6500015399
20160602
M/s. Kummaran Aqua Industry
321-E, Mullaparappu,
46-Pudur,
Nathagoundampalayam
Post,
Erode - 638115
Packaged
Drinking
Water
(other
than
Packaged
Natural
Mineral Water)
IS 14543 : 2004
2.
6500015504
20160608
M/s. Greentech Industries
45, Elango Nagar,
Shoba
Nagar
Road,
Avarampalayam,
Coimbatore - 641006
Submersible Pumpsets
IS 8034 : 2002
3.
6500015403
20160608
M/s. Sri Sangeetha Jewellery
D. No. 55, Muthur Road,
Vellakovil - 638 111
Gold And Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/ Artefacts
-
Fineness And Marking
IS 1417 : 1999
4.
6500015605
20160608
M/s.Sri Sangeetha Jewellery
D. No. 55, Muthur Road,
Vellakovil- 638 111
Silver And Silver Alloys,
Jewellery/ Artefacts
-
Fineness And Marking
IS 2112 : 2014
5.
6500015706
20160608
M/s. Sri Sapthagiri Polymers
Plot No J19 & J20, SIPCOT,
Perundurai - 638052
UPVC
Screen
and
Casing Pipes for bore/
tubewell
IS 12818 : 2010
6.
6500015807
20160621
M/s. Kumaran Jewellery
246, Jawahar Main Road,
P. Puliampatti,
Sathyamangalam - 638459
Gold And Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/ Artefacts
-
Fineness And Marking
IS 1417 : 1999
7.
6500015908
20160622
M/s. Kumaran Jewellery
246, Jawahar Main Road,
P. Puliampatti,
Sathyamangalam - 638459
Silver And Silver Alloys,
Jewellery/ Artefacts -
Fineness And Marking
IS 2112 : 2014
8.
6500016098
20160624
M/s. Galaxy Engineerinng Co.
SF No. 316/1, Muthusamy Nagar,
Ganesh Lay Out North, Stanmore
Compound,
Ganapathy, Coimbatore - 641 006
Submersible Pumpsets
IS 8034 : 2002
9.
6500016199
20160630
M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Limited,
SF 324/1, Moperipalayam Road,
Thattamputhur, Kanniyur Village
Karumathampatti Post,
Coimbatore - 641 659
Centrifugal Regenerative
Pumps for clear, cold
water
IS 8472 : 1998
[No. CMD/13:11]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
2330
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
िईददल्ली,9फरवरी,2017
का.आ.1049.—भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरो(प्रमाणि)धवधियम,1988केधवधियम4केउपधियम(5)केअिुसरणमें
भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधजिलाइसेंसोंकेधववरणिीचेअिुसूचीमेंददएगएहैं,वेस्वीकृत
करददएगएहैं:-
अिुसूची
रम .
सं.
लाइसेंससं
स्वीकृतकरिे
कीधतधथ
वषव/ माह
लाइसेंसिारीकािाम
वपता
भारतीयमािककाशीषव
भामासं(भाग/
अिुभाग): वषव
1.
6500016203
20160706
मेससव देकसिे पॉली
व्रेसप्पंगवायर
द.
सं.
12,
कोवै
इंडधस्ट्रयलपाकव,
कोधवलपालयमपोस्ट,
कोयम्बत्तूर
-
641
107
धिम्मजिमोटरोंकेवाइंसडंग
तार- भाग 4- अलग अलग
तारोंदकधवधशधि–अिुभाग
3-
पोलीयस्टर
और
पोलीप्रोपीलीि
सोधित
वाइंसडंगतार
IS 8783 (Part 4/
Sec 3): 1995
2.
6500016304
20160708
मेससव
अल्फाटेक
मैिुफेक्चेरसव
एस एफ सं. 51/4,
चेठट्टयाक्कापालयम
पोस्ट,
िेगमम
के
रास्ते,दकित्तुकडवु,
कोयम्बत्तूर - 642120
पॉटवलेन्दड
पॉज़्ज़ोलािा
धसमेंट- भाग 1- फ्लाईएश
धमलाहुआ
IS 1489 (Part 1) :
1991
3.
6500016506
20160718
मेससवस्वामीज्वेलसव
242, वासन्दतारोड,
िारापुरम- 638656
स्वणव एवं स्वणव धमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी
–
शुिताएवंमुहरांकि
IS 1417 : 1999
4.
6500016405
20160718
मेससव
वी-गाडव
इंडस्ट्रीसधलधमटड
एलक्ट्रो
मेकधिकल
वक्सव
2/113E,
कारयमपालयमरोड,
मैलमपट्टी
पोस्ट,
कोयम्बत्तूर- 641062
साफ, िंडे पािी के धलए
अपकेंद्रीयपुिरुत्पादकपम्प
IS 8472 : 1998
5.
6500016607
20160719
मेससव
गजािन्ददा
ज्वेलरी माटव इंधडया
प्राईवेटधलधमटेड
श्री
कुमरि
तंगा
माधलगै
स्वणव एवं स्वणव धमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी
–
शुिताएवंमुहरांकि
IS 1417 : 1999
II
(ii)
2331
दरवाजा
सं.
83,
पलिीमुख्यसडक,
उडुमलपेट- 642126
6.
6500016708
20160719
मेससव
गजािन्ददा
ज्वेलरी माटव इंधडया
प्राईवेटधलधमटेड
श्री
कुमरि
तंगा
माधलगै
दरवाजा सं.
335,
मुख्यसडक,
धसटी यूधियि बैंक के
पास,
भवािी- 638301
स्वणव एवं स्वणव धमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी
–
शुिताएवंमुहरांकि
IS 1417 : 1999
7.
6500016910
20160719
मेससव
गजािन्ददा
ज्वेलरी माटव इंधडया
प्राईवेटधलधमटेड
श्री
कुमरि
तंगा
माधलगै
दरवाजा
सं.
83,
पलिीमुख्यसडक,
उडुमलपेट- 642126
चााँदीएवंचााँदीधमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी
–
शुिताएवंमुहरांकि
IS 2112 : 2014
8.
6500016809
20160719
मेससव
गजािन्ददा
ज्वेलरी माटव इंधडया
प्राईवेटधलधमटेड
श्री
कुमरि
तंगा
माधलगै
दरवाजा सं.
335,
मुख्यसडक,
धसटी यूधियि बैंक के
पास,
भवािी- 638301
चााँदीएवंचााँदीधमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी
–
शुिताएवंमुहरांकि
IS 2112 : 2014
[सं.सीएमडी/13: 11]
टी.कलैवाणि,वैज्ञाधिक‘एफ’एवंप्रमुख
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:
2332
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No.
Licence No.
Grant
Date
Name and Address
(Factory) of the Party
Title of the Standard
IS No. Part/
Sec. Year
1.
6500016203
20160706
M/s.
Daksakthe
Poly
Wrapping Wire
D. No. 12, Covai Industrial
Park,
Kovil Palayam Post,
Coimbatore - 641 107
Winding
Wires
for
Submersible Motors – Part
4:
Specification
for
Individual Wires- Section
3:
Polyester
and
Polypropylene
Insulated
Wires
IS 8783 (Part 4/ Sec
3): 1995
2.
6500016304
20160708
M/s.
Alphatech
Manufacturers
SF
No.
51/4,
Chettiyakkapalayam Post,
Negamam
Via,
Kinathukadavu,
Coimbatore - 642120
Portland
Pozzolana
Cement-
Part 1 – Flyash Based
IS 1489 (Part 1) : 1991
3.
6500016506
20160718
M/s. Swamy Jewellers
242, Vasantha Road,
Dharapuram - 638656
Gold And Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/
Artefacts
-
Fineness And Marking
IS 1417 : 1999
4.
6500016405
20160718
M/s. V Guard Industries Ltd.
Electro Mechanical Works
2/113E, Karayam Palayam
Road,
Mylampatti Post,
Coimbatore - 641062
Centrifugal
Regenerative
Pumps for clear, cold water
IS 8472 : 1998
5.
6500016607
20160719
M/s. Gajaananda Jewellery
Mart India Private Limited
Sree
Kumaran
Thangamaligai,
Door No. 83, Palani Main
Road, Udumalpet - 642126
Gold And Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/
Artefacts
-
Fineness And Marking
IS 1417 : 1999
6.
6500016708
20160719
M/s. Gajaananda Jewellery
Mart India Private Limited
Sree
Kumaran
Thangamaligai,
Door No. 335, Main Road,
Near City Union Bank,
Bhavani - 638301
Gold And Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/
Artefacts
-
Fineness And Marking
IS 1417 : 1999
7.
6500016910
20160719
M/s. Gajaananda Jewellery
Mart India Private Limited
Sree
Kumaran
Thangamaligai,
Door No. 83, Palani Main
Road,
Udumalpet - 642126
Silver And Silver Alloys,
Jewellery/
Artefacts
-
Fineness And Marking
IS 2112 : 2014
II
(ii)
2333
8.
6500016809
20160719
M/s. Gajaananda Jewellery
Mart India Private Limited
Sree
Kumaran
Thangamaligai,
Door No. 335, Main Road,
Near City Union Bank,
Bhavani - 638301
Silver And Silver Alloys,
Jewellery/
Artefacts
-
Fineness And Marking
IS 2112 : 2014
[No. CMD/13:11]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
िईददल्ली,9फरवरी,2017
का.आ. 1050.—भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरो(प्रमाणि)धवधियम1988केधवधियम4केउपधियम(5)केअिुसरणमें
भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधजिलाइसेंसोंकेधववरणिीचेअिुसूचीमेंददएगएहैं,वेस्वीकृत
करददएगएहैं:-
अिुसूची
रम .
सं.
लाइसेंससं
स्वीकृतकरिे
कीधतधथवषव/
माह
लाइसेंसिारीकािामव
पता
भारतीयमािककाशीषव
भामासं(भाग/
अिुभाग): वषव
1.
6500017104
20160804
मेससव
श्री
अरुणाचला
इंडस्ट्रीस
2/2,
काटूर
सडक,
कालापट्टी,
कोयम्बत्तूर – 641 048
धिम्मजिीयपम्पसेट
IS 8034 : 2002
2.
6500017003
20160804
मेससव
श्री
अरुणाचला
इंडस्ट्रीस
2/2,
काटूर
सडक,
कालापट्टी,
कोयम्बत्तूर – 641 048
गहरे
कुओं
के
धलए
धिम्मजिीयपम्पसेट
IS 14220 : 1994
3.
6500017205
20160805
मेससवकृषटेक्स
एस एफ 255, िालुक्कल
तोट्टम,
राक्काची गाडवि के पीछे,
मधणयाकरम
पालयम,
गणपधत,कोयम्बत्तूर – 641
006
धिम्मजिीयपम्पसेट
IS 8034 : 2002
4.
6500017407
20160810 मेससव धिमवल पम्प्स प्राईवेट
धलधमटेड
साफ, िंडे पािी के धलए
अपकेंद्रीय
पुिरुत्पादक
पम्प
IS 8472 : 1998
2334
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
एसएफसं. 434, 6वााँ रम ॉस,
धवलन्दकुठरची
रोड,तन्नीर
पन्ददल के पास, पीलमेडु,
कोयम्बत्तूर– 641 004
5.
6500017306
20160810
मेससवहैड्रोमेक्सइंडस्ट्रीस
एस एफ सं. 372/2, जोती
िगर,5वााँ सडक,
कोयम्बत्तूर– 641 015
गहरे
कुओं
के
धलए
धिम्मजिीयपम्पसेट
IS 14220 : 1994
6.
6500017609
20160812
मेससवशरतज्वेलरी
1049, बीगबडारसडक,
कोयम्बत्तूर– 641 001
स्वणव
एवं
स्वणव
धमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी – शुिता एवं
मुहरांकि
IS 1417 : 1999
7.
6500017508
20160812
मेससवएक्वाएक्सेल
53 4B पी एि पालयम
रोड,
वरदाराजा
ले
औट
I,
गणपधत,
कोयम्बत्तूर– 641 006
ति एवं अति पेयजल
धवतरण व्यवस्था के धलए
क्लोठरिकृत
पॉलीधविाइल क्लोराइड
(सीपीवीसी)पाइप
IS 15778 : 2007
8.
6500017710
20160818
मेससवशरतज्वेलरी
1049, बीगबडारसडक,
कोयम्बत्तूर– 641 001
चााँदी
एवं
चााँदी
धमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी – शुिता एवं
मुहरांकि
IS 2112 : 2014
9.
6500017811
20160830
मेससवएसकेबीइंडस्ट्रीस
सं.
334/2,14A,
राजागोपाललेऔट,
इलन्दगो
िगर,
पी.एि.
पालयम ब्स्टलॉक, पीलमेडु,
कोयम्बत्तूर– 641 004
गहरे
कुओं
के
धलए
धिम्मजिीयपम्पसेट
IS 14220 : 1994
[सं.सीएमडी/13: 11]
टी.कलैवाणि, वैज्ञाधिक ‘एफ’ एवंप्रमुख
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:
II
(ii)
2335
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No.
Licence No.
Grant
Date
Name and Address (Factory) of
the Party
Title of the Standard
IS No. Part/
Sec. Year
1.
6500017104
20160804
M/s. Sree Arunachala Industries
2/2,Kattoor Street, Kalapatty
Coimbatore – 641 048
Submersible Pumpsets
IS 8034 : 2002
2.
6500017003
20160804
M/s. Sree Arunachala Industries
2/2,Kattoor Street,
Kalapatty
Coimbatore – 641 048
Openwell Submersible
Pumpsets
IS 14220 : 1994
3.
6500017205
20160805
M/s. Krishtex
SF 255, Naalukaal Thottam,
Behind Rakkachi Garden,
Maniyakaram Palayam, Ganapathy,
Coimbatore – 641 006
Submersible Pumpsets
IS 8034 : 2002
4.
6500017407
20160810
M/s. Nirmal Pumps Private Limited
SF No. 434, 6th Cross,
Vilankurichi Road,
Near Thanneerpandhal, Peelamedu,
Coimbatore – 641 004
Centrifugal
Regenerative
Pumps
for clear, cold water
IS 8472 : 1998
5.
6500017306
20160810
M/s. Hydromax Industries
SF No. 372/2, Jothi Nagar, 5th
Street
Coimbatore – 641 015
Openwell Submersible
Pumpsets
IS 14220 : 1994
6.
6500017609
20160812
M/s. Sarath Jewelry
1049, Big Bazaar Street,
Coimbatore – 641 001
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/ Artefacts -
Fineness and Marking
IS 1417 : 1999
7.
6500017508
20160812
M/s. Aqua Excel
53 4B P N Palayam Road,
Varatharaja Layout I, Ganapathy,
Coimbatore – 641 006
Chlorinated PVC Pipes
for Potable Hot and
Cold
Water
Distribution Supplies
IS 15778 : 2007
8.
6500017710
20160818
M/s. Sarath Jewelry
1049, Big Bazaar Street,
Coimbatore – 641 001
Silver
and
Silver
Alloys,
Jewellery/
Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 2112 : 2014
9.
6500017811
20160830
M/s. S. K. B Industries
No. 334/2,14A, Rajagopal Layout,
Elango Nagar, P.N.Palayam Block,
Peelamedu,
Coimbatore – 641 004
Openwell Submersible
Pumpsets
IS 14220 : 1994
[No. CMD/13:11]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
2336
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
िईददल्ली,9फरवरी,2017
का.आ. 1051.—भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरो(प्रमाणि)धवधियम1988केधवधियम4केउपधियम(5)केअिुसरणमें
भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधजिलाइसेंसोंकेधववरणिीचेअिुसूचीमेंददएगएहैं,वेस्वीकृत
करददएगएहैं:-
अिुसूची
रम .
सं.
लाइसेंससं
स्वीकृतकरिे
कीधतधथ
वषव/ माह
लाइसेंसिारीकािामव
पता
भारतीयमािककाशीषव
भामासं(भाग/
अिुभाग): वषव
1.
6500017912
20160906
मेससवमुहुतावज्वेल्सपैलेस
6/32, कामराजर सडक,
महासलंगापुरम,
पोल्लाची-642002
चााँदीएवंचााँदीधमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी
–
शुिताएवंमुहरांकि
IS 2112 : 2014
2.
6500018005
20160906
मेससवधगश्नुपम्प्स
मैलमपट्टी
रोड,
कारयमपालयम,
कोयम्बत्तूर-641062,
साफ, िंडे पािी के धलए
अपकेंद्रीयपुिरुत्पादकपम्प
IS 8472 : 1998
3.
6500018106
20160909
द सहंदुस्ताि इंजीधियररंग
इंडस्ट्रीस
359,
िन्दजुन्ददापुरमरोड,श्रीपती
िगर
के
पास,
को
यम्बत्तूर-641036
गहरे
कुओं
के
धलए
धिम्मजिीयपम्पसेट
IS 14220 : 1994
4.
6500018207
20160912
मेससव वाटरटेक (इंधडया)
प्रायवेटधलधमटडयूधिटII
पाडुवमपल्ली
गााँव,
वगारयमपालयम
पोस्ट,
सुलूर तालुक, कोयम्बत्तूर
-641659
सवातायि एवं वषाव जल
संग्रहणकेतंत्रसधहतभविों
केअंदरएवंबाहरकीधमट्टी
तथाअपधशिधिरावशितंत्र
के
धलए
अिम्यकृत
पॉलीधविाइल
क्लॉराइड
(पीवीसी-य)पाइप
IS 13592 : 2013
5.
6500018308
20160912
मेससव वाटरटेक (इंधडया)
प्रायवेटधलधमटडयूधिटII
पाडुवमपल्ली
गााँव,
वगारयमपालयम
पोस्ट,
सुलूर तालुक, कोयम्बत्तूर
-641659
इमारतोंकेभीतरएवंबाहर
संवाति और वषाव के पािी
के साथ मल एवं अपधशि
धवसजवि के धलए अिम्यकृत
पॉलीधविाइलक्लॉराइड(यू
पी वी सी) अन्दत: िेपण
संचदकतदफरटंग्स
IS 14735 : 1999
6.
6500018805
20160914
मेससव एमराल्ड ज्वेलरी
रीटेइलधलधमटड
सं. 24, ढालीरोड,
चााँदीएवंचााँदीधमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी
–
शुिताएवंमुहरांकि
IS 2112 : 2014
II
(ii)
2337
उडुमलपेट-641126
7.
6500018409
20160914
मेससव एमराल्ड ज्वेलरी
रीटेइलधलधमटड
34, बज़ारसडक,
पोल्लाची-642001
चााँदीएवंचााँदीधमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी
–
शुिताएवंमुहरांकि
IS 2112 : 2014
8.
6500018510
20160914
मेससव एमराल्ड ज्वेलरी
रीटेइलधलधमटड
85, आरकेवीरोड,
ईरोड -638001
चााँदीएवंचााँदीधमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी
–
शुिताएवंमुहरांकि
IS 2112 : 2014
9.
6500018611
20160914
मेससव एमराल्ड ज्वेलरी
रीटेइलधलधमटड
िया
सं.
284-287,
पुरािासं.9/91,
रम ॉसकटरोड,गााँिीपुरम,
कोयम्बत्तूर-641012
चााँदीएवंचााँदीधमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी
–
शुिताएवंमुहरांकि
IS 2112 : 2014
10.
6500018712
20160914
मेससव एमराल्ड ज्वेलरी
रीटेइलधलधमटड
231/1, धतरुवेंकटासामी
रोड(पूवव),
आऱ.
एस.
पुरम,
कोयम्बत्तूर - 641002
चााँदीएवंचााँदीधमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी
–
शुिताएवंमुहरांकि
IS 2112 : 2014
11.
6500019007
20160920
मेससवग्रीिटेकइंडस्ट्रीस
45, इलन्दगोिगर, शोभा
िगर
रोड,
आवारमपालयम,
कोयम्बत्तूर - 641006
गहरे
कुओं
के
धलए
धिम्मजिीयपम्पसेट
IS 14220 : 1994
12. 6500018906 20160920
मेससव एस आर एल वी
इंजीधियररंग37/11E1,
जयधसम्हापुरम,
केसी
स्कूल
के
पास,पी.एि.
पालयम,
कोयम्बत्तूर-
641037
साफ, िंडे पािी के धलए
अपकेन्दद्रीयपुिरुत्पादकपम्प
IS 8472 : 1998
13. 6500019108 20160921
मेमसवरिा होसस एसएफ
सं. 4/2, अन्दिूर रोड,
पोन्दिान्ददमपालयम,
द्रधवत
पेट्रोधलयम
गैस
(एलपीजी) के धलए रबड
होज़
IS 9573 : 2012
2338
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
कधणयूर,
सुलूर
तालुक,कायेम्बत्तूर-
641659
14. 6500019209 20160922
मेमसव
एम
जे
पी
एंटरप्रायसेस
प्रायवेट
धलधमटेड सं. 4/52-A,
एि.जी.आर.
सडक,
कालापट्टी, कोयम्बत्तूर -
641048
अपकेन्दद्रीयजेटपम्प
IS 12225 : 1997
15. 6500019310 20160923
मेमसव एस के एक्वा
285/2A1, पेरुमपाल्लम
बस
स्टोप
के
पास,
धचन्दिापालम
पोस्ट,
िेठरधन्दजपेटै,
ईरोड-
638311
पैकेजबंदपेयजल(पैकेजबंद
धमिरलजलकेअलावा)
IS 14543 : 2004
16. 6500019411 20160927
मेससव
हल्दी
हैटेक
इंजीधियररंग सं. 611/2,
द. सं. 10B, दीपा धमल
रोड, वेल्ला धविायगर
तोट्टम,
गोल्डधवन्दस,
कोयम्बत्तूर-641014
अपकेन्दद्रीयजेटपम्प
IS 12225 : 1997
[सं.सीएमडी/13: 11]
टी.कलैवाणि, वैज्ञाधिक ‘एफ’ एवंप्रमुख
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
Sl.
No.
Licence No.
Grant
Date
Name and Address
(Factory) of the Party
Title of the Standard
IS No. Part/
Sec. Year
1.
6500017912
20160906
M/s.
Muhurtha
Jewels
Palace
6/32, Kamarajar Street,
Mahalinga
Puram,
Pollachi-642002
Silver
and
Silver
Alloys,
Jewellery/ Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 2112 : 2014
2.
6500018005
20160906
M/s. Gishnu Pumps
Mylampatti
Road,
Karayampalayam
Coimbatore-641062,
Centrifugal Regenerative Pumps
for clear, cold water
IS 8472 : 1998
3.
6500018106
20160909 The
Hindusthan
Openwell Submersible Pumpsets
IS 14220 : 1994
II
(ii)
2339
Engineering Industries
359-Nanjundapuram Road,
Near Sripathy Nagar ,
Coimbatore-641036
4.
6500018207
20160912
M/s.
Watertec
(India)
Private Limited-Unit.II
Paduvampalli Village,
Vagarayampalayam Post,
Sulur
Taluk,
Coimbatore-641659
UPVC pipes for soil and waste
discharge
systems
inside
buildings including ventilation
and rainwater system
IS 13592 : 2013
5.
6500018308
20160912
M/s.
Watertec
(India)
Private Limited-Unit.II
Paduvampalli Village,
Vagarayampalayam Post,
Sulur
Taluk,
Coimbatore-641659
Unplasticized Polyvinyl Chloride
(UPVC)
Injection
Moulded
Fittings for Soil and Waste
Discharge System for Inside and
Outside
Buildings
Including
Ventilation
and
Rain
Water
System
IS 14735 : 1999
6.
6500018805
20160914
M/s. Emerald Jewellery
Retail Limited
No.
24,
Dhali
Road,
Udumalpet-641126
Silver
and
Silver
Alloys,
Jewellery/ Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 2112 : 2014
7.
6500018409
20160914
M/s. Emerald Jewellery
Retail Limited
34,
Bazaar
Street,,
Pollachi-642001
Silver
and
Silver
Alloys,
Jewellery/ Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 2112 : 2014
8.
6500018510
20160914
M/s. Emerald Jewellery
Retail Limted
85,
RKV
Road,
Erode -638001
Silver
and
Silver
Alloys,
Jewellery/ Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 2112 : 2014
9.
6500018611
20160914
M/s. Emerald Jewellery
Retail Ltd
New
No.
284-287,Old
No.9/91,
Cross
Cut
Road,
Gandhipuram,
Coimbatore-641012
Silver
and
Silver
Alloys,
Jewellery/ Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 2112 : 2014
10.
6500018712
20160914
M/s. Emerald Jewellery
Retail Ltd.
231/1, Thiruvenkatasamy
Road (East),
R.S.
Puram,
Coimbatore - 641002
Silver
and
Silver
Alloys,
Jewellery/ Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 2112 : 2014
11.
6500019007
20160920
M/s. Greentech Industries
45, Elango Nagar, Shoba
Nagar
Road,
Avarampalayam,
Coimbatore-641006
Openwell Submersible Pumpsets
IS 14220 : 1994
12.
6500018906
20160920
M/s. SRLV Engineering
37/11E1,
Jayasimha
Puram,
Centrifugal Regenerative Pumps
for clear, cold water
IS 8472 : 1998
2340
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Near
KCC
School,
P.N.Palayam,
Coimbatore -641037
13.
6500019108
20160921
M/s. Raksha Hoses
SF No.4/2, Annur Road,
Ponnandampalayam,
Kaniyur,
Sulur
Taluk,
Coimbatore-641659
Rubber
Hose
for
Liquefied
Petroleum Gas (LPG)
IS 9573 : 2012
14.
6500019209
20160922
M/s. M J P Enterprises
Private Limited
No.4/52-A, N.G.R. Street,
Kalapatti,
Coimbatore -641048
Centrifugal Jet Pumps
IS 12225 : 1997
15.
6500019310
20160923
M/s.
SK
Aquaa
285/2A1,
Near
Perumpallam Bus Stop,
Chinnapallam
Post,
Nerinjipettai,
Erode-638311
Packaged Drinking Water (other
than Packaged Natural Mineral
Water)
IS 14543 : 2004
16.
6500019411
20160927
M/s.
Haldi
Hitech
Engineering,
No.611/2,
D.No.10B,
Deepa Mill Road,
Vella Vinayagar Thottam,
Goldwins,
Coimbatore -641014
Centrifugal Jet Pumps
IS 12225 : 1997
[No. CMD/13:11]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
िईददल्ली,9फरवरी,2017
का.आ. 1052.—भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरो(प्रमाणि)धवधियम1988केधवधियम4केउपधियम(5)केअिुसरणमें
भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधजिलाइसेंसोंकेधववरणिीचेअिुसूचीमेंददएगएहैं,वेस्वीकृत
करददएगएहैं:-
अिुसूची
रम .
सं.
लाइसेंससं
स्वीकृतकरिे
कीधतधथवषव/
माह
लाइसेंसिारीकािामवपता
भारतीयमािकका
शीषव
भामासं(भाग/
अिुभाग): वषव
1. 6500019512
20161005
मेससवअन्नैइंजीधियररंगकंपिी
सं. 2, (पुरािासं. 6), 6वााँ सडक,
के.के.िगर,गणपधत,कोयम्बत्तूर
– 641 006
धिम्मजिीयपम्पसेट
IS 8034 : 2002
2. 6500019706
20161005
मेससवश्रीिायकीइंडस्ट्रीस
सं.506वााँ
सडक,
लक्ष्मीपुरम,
पीलमेडु,कोयम्बत्तूर– 641 004
गहरे कुओं के धलए
धिम्मजिीयपम्पसेट
IS 14220 : 1994
II
(ii)
2341
3. 6500019807
20161010
मेससव
कोधन्दफडेन्दस
पेट्रोधलयम
इंधडयाधलधमटडएसएफसं. 39,
40, अरसमपालयमगााँव,
पोल्लाची तालुक, कोयम्बत्तूर –
642 109
अल्प
दाब
एवं
दावणोयगैसोंकेधलए
5धलटरसेअधिकजल
िमता वाले वेधल्डत
अल्पकाबविइस्पातके
धससलंडर – उपयोग
दकए गए एल पी जी
धससलंडरों
के
पुििवीयि
एवं
धिरीिणकोअपेिाय
IS 13258 : 2014
4. 6500019908
20161019
मेससव महेन्दद्रा पम्प्स प्रायवेट
धलधमटडयूधिट-2
28, अम्मिकुलमरोड,पी.एि.
पालयम,कोयम्बत्तूर– 641 037
अपकेंद्रीयजेटपम्प
IS 12225 : 1997
5. 6500020089
20161025
मेससवएमकेएंटरप्रायसेस
177/ 2B1C, पेरुर से वेदापट्टी
रोड,वेदापट्टीगााँव,कोयम्बत्तूर–
641 010
पैकेजबंद
पेय
जल
(पैकेजबंदधमिरलजल
केअलावा)
IS 14543 : 2004
6. 6500020291
20161028
मेससव
स्टेन्दडडव
इंजीधियररंग
इंडस्ट्रीस
एसएफसं.88/86, इलन्दगोिगर,
के.आर.पुरम,आवारमपालयम,
कोयम्बत्तूर – 641 006
साफ, िंडे पािी के
धलए
अपकेंद्रीय
पुिरुत्पादकपम्प
IS 8472 : 1998
7. 6500020190
20161028
मेससव
स्टेन्दडडव
इंजीधियररंग
इंडस्ट्रीस
एसएफसं.88/86, इलन्दगोिगर,
के.आर.पुरम,आवारमपालयम,
कोयम्बत्तूर – 641 006
गहरे कुओं के धलए
धिम्मजिीयपम्पसेट
IS 14220 : 1994
[सं.सीएमडी/13: 11]
टी.कलैवाणि, वैज्ञाधिक ‘एफ’ एवंप्रमुख
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
Sl.
No.
Licence No.
Grant
Date
Name and Address (Factory)
of the Party
Title of the Standard
IS No. Part/
Sec. Year
1.
6500019512
20161005
M/s.
Annai
Engineering
Company
No. 2, (Old No. 6), 6th Street,
Submersible Pumpsets
IS 8034 : 2002
2342
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
K.K. Nagar, Ganapathy,
Coimbatore – 641 006
2.
6500019706
20161005
M/s. Sree Nayaki Industries
No.50, 6th Street,
Lakshmipuram, Peelamedu,
Coimbatore – 641 004
Openwell Submersible
Pumpsets
IS 14220 : 1994
3.
6500019807
20161010
M/s.
Confidence
Petroleum
India Limited
SF No 39, 40, Arasampalayam
Village,
Pollachi Taluk,
Coimbatore – 642 109
Welded Low Carbon Steel
Cylinders Exceeding 5 Litre
Water Capacity For Low
Pressure Liquefiable Gas -
Code Of Practice For
Inspection And
Reconditioning Of Used LPG
Cylinders
IS 13258 : 2014
4.
6500019908
20161019
M/s. Mahendra Pumps Private
Limited Unit-2
28, Amman Kulam Road,
P.N. Palayam,
Coimbatore – 641 037
Centrifugal Jet Pumps
IS 12225 : 1997
5.
6500020089
20161025
M/s. M K Enterprises
177/ 2B1C, Perur To Vedappatti
Road,
Vedapatti Village,
Coimbatore – 641 010
Packaged Drinking Water
(other than Packaged Natural
Mineral Water)
IS 14543 : 2004
6.
6500020291
20161028
M/s.
Standard
Engineering
Industries
SF No.88/86, Elango Nagar,
K R Puram, Avarampalayam,
Coimbatore – 641 006
Centrifugal Regenerative
Pumps for clear, cold water
IS 8472 : 1998
7.
6500020190
20161028
M/s.
Standard
Engineering
Industries
SF No.88/86, Elango Nagar,
K R Puram, Avarampalayam,
Coimbatore – 641 006
Openwell Submersible
Pumpsets
IS 14220 : 1994
[No. CMD/13:11]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
िईददल्ली, 9फरवरी,2017
का.आ.1053.—भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरो(प्रमाणि)धवधियम1988केधवधियम4केउपधियम(5)केअिुसरणमें
भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधजिलाइसेंसोंकेधववरणिीचेअिुसूचीमेंददएगएहैं,वेस्वीकृत
करददएगएहैं:-
II
(ii)
2343
अिुसूची
रम .
सं.
लाइसेंससं
स्वीकृतकरिे
कीधतधथवषव/
माह
लाइसेंसिारीकािामव
पता
भारतीयमािककाशीषव
भामासं(भाग/
अिुभाग): वषव
1. 6500020493
20161103
मेससव
मीको
पम्प्स
इंडस्ट्रीस
44-B, दधिण सडक सं.
2,
आवारमपालयम,
कोयम्बत्तूर– 641 006
साफ,िंडेपािीकेधलए
अपकेंद्रीयपुिरुत्पादक
पम्प
IS 8472 : 1998
2. 6500020392
20161103
मेससवप्रीधमयरपीवीसी
इंडस्ट्री
107 D, धत्रचीरोड,
पुधलस स्टेशि के सामिे,
पल्लडम,
धतरुप्पुर– 641 664
धव्ुतप्रधतष्ठापिके
धलएवाधहका–भाग3–
सख्तएवंसादाधव्ुत
अवरोिीवाधहका
IS 9537 (Part 3):
1983
3. 6500020594
20161124
मेससवश्रीरामइंजीधियसव
एस एफ सं. 445/2B,
वेल्ललोररोड,
ससंगन्नालूर, कोयम्बत्तूर -
641 005
गहरेकुओंकेधलए
धिम्मजिीयपम्पसेट
IS 14220 : 1994
4. 6500020998
20161125
मेससववीटीएमएक्वा
एस एफ सं.400/2, ररंग
रोड,
आर.एस.
पूवव,
कूलीपालयम,
वाधवपालयम
पोस्ट,
पेरुमिल्लीर,
धतरुप्पुर – 641 666
पैकेजबंद
पेय
जल
(पैकेजबंद धमिरल जल
केअलावा)
IS 14543 : 2004
5. 6500020695
20161125
मेससव
पुगल
वाटर
सप्लायसव
एस एफ सं. 600/3, द.
सं.193(4),
भारती
िगर,
अम्मापालयम,
अिुप्परपालयम
पोस्ट,
धतरुप्पुर– 641 652
पैकेजबंद
पेय
जल
(पैकेजबंद धमिरल जल
केअलावा)
IS 14543 : 2004
6. 6500020796
20161125
मेससव
मालवब्रो
इंजीधियररंगवक्सव
613, दीपा टेक्स्टाइल
रोड,गोल्डधवन्दस,
धिम्मजिीयपम्पसेट
IS 8034 : 2002
2344
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
धसधवलटरॉड्रोमपोस्ट,
कोयम्बत्तूर – 641 014
7. 6500020897
20161125
मेससव
मालवब्रो
इंजीधियररंगवक्सव
613, दीपा टेक्स्टाइल
रोड,गोल्डधवन्दस,
धसधवलटरॉड्रोमपोस्ट,
कोयम्बत्तूर – 641 014
गहरे
कुओं
के
धलए
धिम्मजिीयपम्पसेट
IS 14220 : 1994
[सं.सीएमडी/13: 11]
टी.कलैवाणि,वैज्ञाधिक ‘एफ’ एवंप्रमुख
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
Sl.
No.
Licence No.
Grant
Date
Name and Address (Factory)
of the Party
Title of the Standard
IS No. Part/
Sec. Year
1.
6500020493
20161103
M/s. Meco Pumps Industries
44-B, South Street No.2
Avarampalayam,
Coimbatore – 641 006
Centrifugal Regenerative
Pumps for clear, cold
water
IS 8472 : 1998
2.
6500020392
20161103
M/s. Premier PVC Industry
107 D, Trichy Road,
Opposite
Police
Station,
Palladam,
Tiruppur – 641 664
Conduits
for
electrical
installations: Part 3: Rigid
plain
conduits
of
insulating materials
IS 9537 (Part 3):
1983
3.
6500020594
20161124
M/s. Sreeram Engineers
SF No.445/2B, Vellalore Road,
Singanallur,
Coimbatore- 641 005
Openwell
Submersible
Pumpsets
IS 14220 : 1994
4.
6500020998
20161125
M/s. VTM Aqua
SF No.400/2, Ring Road,
R.S.North, Koolipalayam,
Vavipalayam
Post,
Perumanallur,
Tiruppur – 641 666
Packaged Drinking Water
(other
than
Packaged
Natural Mineral Water)
IS 14543 : 2004
5.
6500020695
20161125
M/s. Pugal Water Suppliers
SF No 600/3, D.No.193(4),
Bharathi Nagar, Ammapalayam,
Anuparpalayam Post,
Tiruppur – 641 652
Packaged Drinking Water
(other
than
Packaged
Natural Mineral Water)
IS 14543 : 2004
II
(ii)
2345
6.
6500020796
20161125
M/s.
Marlboro
Engineering
Works
613, Deepa Textile Road,
Goldwins,
Civil
Aerodrome
Post,
Coimbatore – 641 014
Submersible Pumpsets
IS 8034 : 2002
7.
6500020897
20161125
M/s.
Marlboro
Engineering
Works
613, Deepa Textile Road,
Goldwins,
Civil
Aerodrome
Post,
Coimbatore – 641 014
Openwell
Submersible
Pumpsets
IS 14220 : 1994
[No. CMD/13:11]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
िईददल्ली,9फरवरी,2017
का.आ.1054.—भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरो(प्रमाणि)धवधियम1988केधवधियम4केउपधियम(5)केअिुसरणमें
भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधजिलाइसेंसोंकेधववरणिीचेअिुसूचीमेंददएगएहैं,वेस्वीकृत
करददएगएहैं:-
अिुसूची
रम .
सं.
लाइसेंससं
स्वीकृतकरिे
कीधतधथवषव/
माह
लाइसेंसिारीकािामव
पता
भारतीयमािकका
शीषव
भामासं(भाग/ अिुभाग)
: वषव
1. 6500021192
20161201
मेससवधिमवलपम्प्सप्रायवेट
धलधमटड
एस एफ सं. 434, 6वााँ
रम ॉस,
धवलन्दकुठरची रोड, तन्नीर
पन्ददलकेपास,
कोयम्बत्तूर- 641004
साफऔरिंडेपािीके
धलए िैधतज अपकेंद्री
पम्प – भाग 1- कृधष
एवं जल आपूर्तव के
धलए
IS 6595 (Part 1):
2002
2. 6500021293
20161202
मेससवरीवाएक्वा
284/1, कामराजर सालै,
अत्ताणीपोस्ट,
भवािी तालुक, ईरोड -
638502
पैकेजबंद
पेय
जल
(पैकेजबंदधमिरलजल
केअलावा)
IS 14543 : 2004
3. 6500021394
20161215
मेससव
सहंदुस्ताि
हेवी
इलधक्ट्रकल्स
प्रायवेट
धलधमटड
66, आवारमपालयमरोड,
के.आर.पुरम,कोयम्बत्तूर-
641006
बाह्य रंग तल इम्मस्डव
धवतरण
ट्रान्दसफोमवर
तक 100 kVA, 11
kV: भाग 1- धबिा
मुहरप्रकारके
IS 1180 (Part 1):
2014
2346
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4. 6500021495
20161219
मेससव
आददधविायकर
वायसवप्रायवेटधलधमटड
1254, अधविाधश रोड,
पीलमेडु,
कोयम्बत्तूर- 641001
1100
वोल्ट
तक
कायवकारी वोल्टता के
धलएपीवीसीरोधित
केबल
IS 694 : 2010
5. 6500021596
20161221
मेससवधबल्डिस्टीलइंधडया
धलधमटड
एस एफ सं. 220/1,2,3,
धचन्नाकण्णूर,कणूर,चेयूर,
अधविाधशतालुक,
कोयम्बत्तूर - 641655
कंरम ीटप्रबलिकेधलए
उच्च
साम्यव
धवकधसत इस्पात छड
औरतार
IS 1786 : 2008
6. 6500021899
20161222
मेससव ट्रेन्दडी इंजीधियररंग
कंपिी
134, शापव िगर, धसट्रा
रोड,कालापट्टी,
कोयम्बत्तूर- 64104
साफ, िंडे पािी के
धलए
अपकेंद्रीय
पुिरुत्पादकपम्प
IS 8472 : 1998
7. 6500021798
20161222
मेससववाधहिीइंजीधियररंग
No. 36, रेणुकागाडवि,
करुपरायि
पालयम,
मैलमपट्टी
पोस्ट,
कोयम्बत्तूर- 641062
कृधष एवं जल आपूर्तव
केधलएसाफऔरिंडे
पािी के धबजली के
मोिोसेटपम्प
IS 9079 : 2002
8. 6500021697
20161222
मेससववाधहिीइंजीधियररंग
No. 36, रेणुकागाडवि,
करुपरायि
पालयम,
मैलमपट्टी
पोस्ट,
कोयम्बत्तूर- 641062
गहरे कुओं के धलए
धिम्मजिीयपम्पसेट
IS 14220 : 1994
[सं.सीएमडी/13 : 11]
टी.कलैवाणि, वैज्ञाधिक ‘एफ’ एवंप्रमुख
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
Sl.
No.
Licence No.
Grant
Date
Name and Address
(Factory) of the Party
Title of the Standard
IS No. Part/
Sec. Year
1.
6500021192
20161201
M/s.
Nirmal
Pumps
Private Limited
SF No. 434, 6TH Cross,
Vilankuruchi Road,
Centrifugal Pumps for clear,
cold
water-
Part
1-
Agricultural
and
Rural
Water Supply purpose
IS 6595 (Part 1): 2002
II
(ii)
2347
Near Thanneer Pandhal,
Coimbatore - 641004
2.
6500021293
20161202
M/s. Reva Aqua
284/1, Kamarajar Salai,
Athani Post, Bhavani Tk,
Erode - 638502
Packaged Drinking Water
(other
than
Packaged
Natural Mineral Water)
IS 14543 : 2004
3.
6500021394
20161215
M/s. Hindusthan Heavy
Electricals
Private
Limited
66,
Avarampalayam
Road,K R Puram,
Coimbatore - 641006
Outdoor type three-phase
distribution transformers up
to and including 100 kVA
11 kV:Part 1 Non-sealed
type
IS 1180 (Part 1): 2014
4.
6500021495
20161219
M/s. Athivinayakar Wires
Pvt.Ltd.
1254,
Avanashi
Road,
Peelamedu,
Coimbatore - 641001
PVC Insulated cables for
working voltages upto and
including 1100 V
IS 694 : 2010
5.
6500021596
20161221
M/s. Bildon Steel India
Limited
SF No. 220/1,2,3. Chinna
Kannur,
Kanur, Cheyur,Avinashi
Tk
Coimbatore - 641655
High Strength Deformed
Steel Bars and Wires for
concrete reinforcement
IS 1786 : 2008
6.
6500021899
20161222
M/s. Trendy Engineering
Company
134, Sharp Nagar, Sitra
Road,
Kalapatti,
Coimbatore - 64104
Centrifugal
Regenerative
Pumps for clear, cold water
IS 8472 : 1998
7.
6500021798
20161222
M/s. Vahinie Engineering
No. 36, Renuka Garden,
Karuparayan Palayam ,
Mylampatti Post,
Coimbatore - 641062
Electric Monoset Pumps for
clear,
cold
water
for
agricultural
and
water
supply purposes
IS 9079 : 2002
8.
6500021697
20161222
M/s. Vahinie Engineering
No. 36, Renuka Garden,
Karuparayan Palayam ,
Mylampatti Post,
Coimbatore - 641062
Openwell
Submersible
Pumpsets
IS 14220 : 1994
[No. CMD/13:11]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
2348
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
िईददल्ली,9फरवरी,2017
का.आ. 1055.—भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरो(प्रमाणि)धवधियम,1988केधवधियम4केउपधियम(5)केअिुसरणमें
भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधजिलाइसेंसोंकेधववरणिीचेअिुसूचीमेंददएगएहैं,वेस्वीकृत
करददएगएहैं:-
अिुसूची
रम .
सं.
लाइसेंससं
स्वीकृतकरिे
कीधतधथ
वषव/ माह
लाइसेंसिारीकािामव
पता
भारतीयमािकका
शीषव
भामासं(भाग/
अिुभाग): वषव
1.
6500021903
20170104
मेससव
एस
के
एस
एक्सेसरीसयूधिटII
शेड
सं.
5,
धसडको
इंडधस्ययल
एस्टेट,
मलुधमचमपट्टी,
कोयम्बत्तूर-641021
साफ,िंडेपािीकेधलए
अपकेंद्रीय पुिरुत्पादक
पम्प
IS 8472 : 1998
2.
6500022093
20170105
मेससव
धसधबराजा
िगै
माधलगै
252,
मुख्य
सडक,
कान्दगेयम-638701
स्वणव
एवं
स्वणव
धमश्रिातुएं, आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी – शुिता
एवंमुहरांकि
IS 1417 : 2016
3.
6500022598
20170123
मेससव
एस
पी
एस
ट्रान्दसफोमवसव
स.
सं.
192/2A,
192/2B1, 192/3B1,
एस एि एम वी कॉलेज
रोड,
मलुधमचमपट्टी,
कोयम्बत्तूर-641050
बाह्य रंग तल इम्मस्डव
धवतरण
ट्रान्दसफोमवर
तक 100 kVA, 11
kV: भाग 1- धबिा
मुहरप्रकारके
IS 1180 : Part 1 :
2014
4.
6500022699
20170123
मेससव श्री रंगासामी गौन्दडर
ज्वेलरी
281/173,
416/682,
मुख्य
सडक,
िधम्बयूर-638458
स्वणव
एवं
स्वणव
धमश्रिातुएं, आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी – शुिता
एवंमुहरांकि
IS 1417 : 2016
5.
6500022396
20170123
मेससव
दुगाव
ट्रान्दसफोमवसव
प्राईवेटधलधमटेड
70 A & B, एच ई एम
रोड,
के
आर
पुरम,
कोयम्बत्तूर-641006
बाह्य रंग तल इम्मस्डव
धवतरण
ट्रान्दसफोमवर
तक 100 kVA, 11
kV: भाग 1- धबिा
मुहरप्रकारके
IS 1180 : Part 1 :
2014
II
(ii)
2349
6.
6500022497
20170123
मेससवएलट्रोमेकइंडस्ट्रीस
68, एचईएमरोड,केआर
पुरम,
कोयम्बत्तूर- 641006
बाह्य रंग तल इम्मस्डव
धवतरण
ट्रान्दसफोमवर
तक 100 kVA, 11
kV: भाग 1- धबिा
मुहरप्रकारके
IS 1180 : Part 1 :
2014
7.
6500022194
20170123
मेससवसहंदुस्तािट्रान्दसफोमवसव
इंधडयाप्राईवेटधलधमटेड
72, एचईएमरोड,केआर
पुरम,
कोयम्बत्तूर- 641006
बाह्य रंग तल इम्मस्डव
धवतरण
ट्रान्दसफोमवर
तक 100 kVA, 11
kV: भाग 1- धबिा
मुहरप्रकारके
IS 1180 : Part 1 :
2014
8.
6500022295
20170123
मेससव
इंडधस्ट्रयल
हीटसव
एण्डट्रान्दसफोमवसव
69/1, एच ई एम रोड, के
आरपुरम,
कोयम्बत्तूर- 641006
बाह्य रंग तल इम्मस्डव
धवतरण
ट्रान्दसफोमवर
तक 100 kVA, 11
kV: भाग 1- धबिा
मुहरप्रकारके
IS 1180 : Part 1 :
2014
9.
6500022703
20170124
मेससवमहेन्दद्रापम्प्सप्राईवेट
धलधमटेडयूधिटII
28, अम्मिकुलमरोड,
कोयम्बत्तूर- 641037
गहरे कुओं के धलए
धिम्मजिीयपम्पसेट
IS 14220 : 1994
10. 6500022804
20170125
मेससवसुधभिापम्प्सइंडस्ट्री
6,
पेठरयार
िगर,
गोधवन्ददािायकि
पालयम,
कोयम्बत्तूर- 641110
साफ,िंडेपािीकेधलए
अपकेंद्रीय पुिरुत्पादक
पम्प
IS 8472 : 1998
11. 6500022905
20170127
मेससवधवधविइंडस्ट्रीस
69/2, एच ई एम रोड, के
आरपुरम,
कोयम्बत्तूर- 641006
बाह्य रंग तल इम्मस्डव
धवतरण
ट्रान्दसफोमवर
तक 100 kVA, 11
kV: भाग 1- धबिा
मुहरप्रकारके
IS 1180 : Part 1 :
2014
12. 6500023095
20170130
मेससव
एम्पटेक
पवर
ट्रान्दसफोमवसव
8/42, अधतपालयम रोड,
धचन्नावेदमपट्टी,
कोयम्बत्तूर-641049
बाह्य रंग तल इम्मस्डव
धवतरण
ट्रान्दसफोमवर
तक 100 kVA, 11
kV: भाग 1- धबिा
मुहरप्रकारके
IS 1180 : Part 1 :
2014
13. 6500023196
20170131
मेससव जपाि टेक्नोलोधजस
इन्दक
सं.
3/197,
धपल्लयार
साफ,िंडेपािीकेधलए
अपकेंद्रीय पुिरुत्पादक
पम्प
IS 8472 : 1998
2350
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
कोइल
सडक
पूवव,
वेंदकटापुरम,
कोयम्बत्तूर- 641062
14. 6500023297
20170131
मेससव एस पी मधण एण्ड
मोहिडयरीइंधडयाप्राईवेट
धलधमटेड
सं34 एवं 84, जीविन्दतम
सडक,
कोल्लमपालयम,
ईरोड- 638002
मलाईरधहत
दूि
पाऊडर – भाग 1 –
सामान्दयग्रेड
IS 13334 (Part 1 ):
2014
[सं.सीएमडी/13: 11]
टी.कलैवाणि,वैज्ञाधिक‘एफ’एवंप्रमुख
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
Sl.
No.
Licence No.
Grant
Date
Name and Address (Factory) of
the Party
Title of the Standard
IS No. Part/
Sec. Year
1.
6500021903
20170104
M/s. S.K.S Accessories Unit II
Shed No. 5, SIDCO Industrial
Estate,
Malumichampatti,
Coimbatore-641021
Centrifugal
Regenerative
Pumps
for
clear,
cold
water
IS 8472 : 1998
2.
6500022093
20170105
M/s. Sibiraja Nagai Maligai,
252,
Main
Road,
Kangeyam-638701
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/
Aertefacts-
Fineness and Marking
IS 1417 : 2016
3.
6500022598
20170123
M/s. SPS Transformers Private
Limited
S
No.
192/2A,
192/2B1,
192/3B1, SNMV College Road,
Malumichampatty,
Coimbatore-641050
Outdoor type three-phase
distribution
transformers
up to and including 100
kVA 11 kV:Part 1 Non-
sealed type
IS 1180 : Part 1 :
2014
4.
6500022699
20170123
M/s. Sri Rangasamy Gounder
Jewellery
281/173, 416/682, Main Road,,
Nambiyur-638458
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/
Artefacts
-
Fineness and Marking
IS 1417 : 2016
5.
6500022396
20170123
M/s. Durga Transformers Pvt.
Ltd.
70 A & B, H E M Road, K R
Puram, Coimbatore -641006
Outdoor type three-phase
distribution
transformers
up to and including 100
kVA 11 kV:Part 1 Non-
sealed type
IS 1180 : Part 1 :
2014
6.
6500022497
20170123
M/s. Electro Meck Industries
68, H E M Road,
K R Puram ,
Coimbatore-641006
Outdoor type three-phase
distribution
transformers
up to and including 100
kVA 11 kV:Part 1 Non-
sealed type
IS 1180 : Part 1 :
2014
II
(ii)
2351
7.
6500022194
20170123
M/s. Hindusthan Transformers
India Pvt.Ltd
72, H E M Road, K R Puram,
Coimbatore-641006
Outdoor type three-phase
distribution
transformers
up to and including 100
kVA 11 kV:Part 1 Non-
sealed type
IS 1180 : Part 1 :
2014
8.
6500022295
20170123
M/s.
Industrial
Heaters
And
Transformers
69/1, H E M Road, K R Puram,
Coimbatore-641006
Outdoor type three-phase
distribution
transformers
up to and including 100
kVA 11 kV:Part 1 Non-
sealed type
IS 1180 : Part 1 :
2014
9.
6500022703
20170124
M/s. Mahendra Pumps Private
Limited Unit-II
28,
Amman
Kulam
Road,
Coimbatore -641037
Openwell
Submersible
Pumpsets
IS 14220 : 1994
10.
6500022804
20170125
M/s. Subhiksha Pumps Industry
6,Periyar Nagar,
Govindanaicken
Palayam,
Coimbatore-641110
Centrifugal
Regenerative
Pumps
for
clear,
cold
water
IS 8472 : 1998
11.
6500022905
20170127
M/s.
Vivin
Industries
69/2,
H.E.M
Road,
K
R
Puram,
Coimbatore-641006
Outdoor type three-phase
distribution
transformers
up to and including 100
kVA 11 kV:Part 1 Non-
sealed type
IS 1180 : Part 1 :
2014
12.
6500023095
20170130
M/s.
Amptech
Power
Transformers
8/42 Athipalayam Road,
Chinnavedampatty,
Coimbatore-641049
Outdoor type three-phase
distribution
transformers
up to and including 100
kVA 11 kV:Part 1 Non-
sealed type
IS 1180 : Part 1 :
2014
13.
6500023196
20170131
M/s. Japan Technologies Inc
No. 3/197, Pillayar Koil Street
East,
Venkitapuram,
Coimbatore-641062
Centrifugal
Regenerative
Pumps
for
clear,
cold
water
IS 8472 : 1998
14.
6500023297
20170131
M/s. S P Mani And Mohan Dairy
India Private Limited
No 34 & 84, Jeevanantham
Street,
Kollampalayam,
Erode-638002
Skimmed Milk Powder –
Part 1 – Standard Grade
IS 13334 (Part 1 ):
2014
[No. CMD/13:11]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ and Head
िईददल्ली, 9फरवरी,2017
का.आ. 1056.—भारतीय मािक ब्स्टयूरो (प्रमाणि) धवधियम 1988 के धवधियमि 5 के उपधवधियमि (6) के
अिुसरणमेंभारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधिम्िधववरणवालेलाइसेंसोंकोउिकेआगेदशावईगई
तारीखसेरद्द/स्थधगतकरददयागयाहै:—
2352
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
अिुसूची
रम .
सं.
लाइसेंससं
सी
एम/
एल-
लाइसेंसिारीकािामवपता
स्थधगतदकएगए/रद्ददकएगएलाइसेंसके
अंतगवतवस्तु/ प्ररम मसम्बिभारतीयमािक
काशीषवक
रद्दहोिेकी
धतधथ
फरवरी2016-शून्दय
[सं.सीएमडी/13 : 13]
टी.कलैवाणि,वैज्ञाधिक‘एफ’एवंप्रमुख
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
Sl.
No.
Licence
No.
CM/L-
Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/ Process with relevant
Indian Standard covered by the
licence cancelled/ suspension
Date of
Cancellation
FEBRUARY 2016 – NIL
[No. CMD/13 : 13]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
िईददल्ली,9फरवरी,2017
का.आ. 1057.—भारतीय मािक ब्स्टयूरो (प्रमाणि) धवधियम, 1988 के धवधियमि 5 के उपधवधियमि (6) के
अिुसरणमेंभारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधिम्िधववरणवालेलाइसेंसोंकोउिकेआगेदशावईगई
तारीखसेरद्द/स्थधगतकरददयागयाहै:—
अिुसूची
रम .
सं.
लाइसेंससं
सी
एम/
एल-
लाइसेंसिारीकािामवपता
स्थधगतदकएगए/रद्ददकएगएलाइसेंसके
अंतगवतवस्तु/ प्ररम मसम्बिभारतीयमािक
काशीषवक
रद्दहोिेकी
धतधथ
माचव2016-शून्दय
[सं.सीएमडी/13: 13]
टी.कलैवाणि,वैज्ञाधिक‘एफ’एवंप्रमुख
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:
II
(ii)
2353
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No.
Licence
No.
CM/L-
Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/ Process with relevant
Indian Standard covered by the
licence cancelled/ suspension
Date of
Cancellation
MARCH 2016 – NIL
[No. CMD/13 : 13]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
िईददल्ली,9फरवरी,2017
का.आ. 1058.—भारतीय मािक ब्स्टयूरो (प्रमाणि) धवधियम 1988 के धवधियमि 5 के उपधवधियमि (6) के
अिुसरणमेंभारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधिम्िधववरणवालेलाइसेंसोंकोउिकेआगेदशावईगई
तारीखसेरद्द/स्थधगतकरददयागयाहै:-
अिुसूची
रम .
सं.
लाइसेंससं
सी
एम/
एल-
लाइसेंसिारीकािामवपता
स्थधगतदकएगए/रद्ददकएगएलाइसेंसके
अंतगवतवस्तु/ प्ररम मसम्बिभारतीयमािक
काशीषवक
रद्दहोिेकी
धतधथ
अप्रैल2016-शून्दय
[सं.सीएमडी/13 : 13]
टी.कलैवाणि,वैज्ञाधिक‘एफ’एवंप्रमुख
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
Sl.
No.
Licence
No.
CM/L-
Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/ Process with relevant
Indian Standard covered by the
licence cancelled/ suspension
Date of
Cancellation
APRIL 2016 – NIL
[No. CMD/13 : 13]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
िईददल्ली,9फरवरी,2017
का.आ. 1059.—भारतीय मािक ब्स्टयूरो (प्रमाणि) धवधियम 1988 के धवधियमि 5 के उपधवधियमि (6) के
अिुसरणमेंभारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधिम्िधववरणवालेलाइसेंसोंकोउिकेआगेदशावईगई
तारीखसेरद्द/स्थधगतकरददयागयाहै:-
2354
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
अिुसूची
रम .
सं.
लाइसेंससं
सी
एम/
एल-
लाइसेंसिारीकािामवपता
स्थधगतदकएगए/रद्ददकएगएलाइसेंसके
अंतगवतवस्तु/ प्ररम मसम्बिभारतीयमािक
काशीषवक
रद्दहोिेकी
धतधथ
मई2016-शून्दय
[सं.सीएमडी/13 : 13]
टी.कलैवाणि,वैज्ञाधिक‘एफ’एवंप्रमुख
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
Sl.
No.
Licence
No.
CM/L-
Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/ Process with relevant
Indian Standard covered by the
licence cancelled/ suspension
Date of
Cancellation
MAY 2016 – NIL
[No. CMD/13 : 13]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
िईददल्ली,9फरवरी,2017
का.आ. 1060.—भारतीय मािक ब्स्टयूरो (प्रमाणि) धवधियम 1988 के धवधियमि 5 के उपधवधियमि (6) के
अिुसरणमेंभारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधिम्नधववरणवालेलाइसेंसोंकोउिकेआगेदशावईगई
तारीखसेरद्द/स्थधगतकरददयागयाहै:-
अिुसूची
क्र.
सं.
लाइसेंससं
सीएम/एल- लाइसेंसिारीकािामवपता
स्थधगतदकएगए/रद्ददकएगएलाइसेंसके
अंतगवतवस्तु/ प्ररम मसम्बिभारतीयमािक
काशीषवक
रद्दहोिेकीधतधथ
1.
6500010692 मेससवआिन्ददएक्वाप्रोडक्ट
एस एफ सं 422/1, आिन्दद
वेय धब्रज के पीछे, भवािी
ब्स्टलॉक,तोट्टीपालटम,
भवािीतालुक,
ईरोड-638312
पैकेजबंदपेयजला(पैकेजबंद)(धमिरलजल
केअलावा)
आईएस 14543: 2004
29-06-2016
[सं.सीएमडी/13: 13]
टी.कलैवाणि,वैज्ञाधिक‘एफ’एवंप्रमुख
II
(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
Sl.
No.
Licence No.
CM/L-
Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/ Process with relevant
Indian Standard covered by the
licence cancelled/ suspension
Date of
Cancellation
1.
6500010692
M/s.
Anand
Aqua
Product
SF No 422/1, Anand Weigh Bridge
Backside, Bhavani Block, Thottipalayam,
Bhavani Taluk, Erode-638312
Packaged Drinking Water (other
than Packaged Natural Mineral
Water)
IS 14543: 2004
29-06-2016
[No. CMD/13 : 13]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
िईददल्ली,9फरवरी,2017
का.आ. 1061.—भारतीय मािक ब्स्टयूरो (प्रमाणि) धवधियम 1988 के धवधियमि 5 के उपधवधियमि (6) के
अिुसरणमेंभारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधिम्िधववरणवालेलाइसेंसोंकोउिकेआगेदशावईगई
तारीखसेरद्द/स्थधगतकरददयागयाहै:-
अिुसूची
रम .
सं.
लाइसेंससं
सी
एम/
एल-
लाइसेंसिारीकािामवपता
स्थधगतदकएगए/रद्ददकएगएलाइसेंसके
अंतगवतवस्तु/ प्ररम मसम्बिभारतीयमािक
काशीषवक
रद्दहोिेकी
धतधथ
जुलाई2016-शून्दय
[सं.सीएमडी/13 : 13]
टी.कलैवाणि,वैज्ञाधिक‘एफ’एवंप्रमुख
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
Sl.
No.
Licence
No.
CM/L-
Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/ Process with relevant
Indian Standard covered by the
licence cancelled/ suspension
Date of
Cancellation
JULY 2016 – NIL
[No. CMD/13 : 13]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
िईददल्ली,9फरवरी,2017
का.आ. 1062.—भारतीय मािक ब्स्टयूरो (प्रमाणि) धवधियम 1988 के धवधियमि 5 के उपधवधियमि (6) के
अिुसरणमेंभारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधिम्नधववरणवालेलाइसेंसोंकोउिकेआगेदशावईगई
तारीखसेरद्द/स्थधगतकरददयागयाहै:-
2356
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
अिुसूची
क्र.
सं.
लाइसेंससं
सीएम/
एल-
लाइसेंसिारीकािामवपता
स्थधगतदकएगए/रद्ददकएगए
लाइसेंसकेअंतगवतवस्तु/ प्ररम म
सम्बिभारतीयमािककाशीषवक
रद्दहोिेकीधतधथ
1.
6781488
मेससवहठरकृष्णाज्वेलरी
34, ईश्वरिकोइलसडक,
धतरुप्पुर-641604
स्वणव
एवं
स्वणव
धमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/ धशल्पकारी – शुिता एवं
मुहरांकि
आईएस 1417: 1999
19-08-2016
[सं.सीएमडी/13: 13]
टी.कलैवाणि,वैज्ञाधिक‘एफ’एवंप्रमुख
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
Sl.
No.
Licence
No.
CM/L-
Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/ Process with relevant
Indian Standard covered by the
licence cancelled/ suspension
Date of
Cancellation
1.
6781488
M/s. Harikrishna Jewellery
34, Easwaran Koil Street,
Tirupur -641604
Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/
Artefacts – Fineness and Marking
IS 1417: 1999
19-08-2016
[No. CMD/13 : 13]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
िईददल्ली,9फरवरी,2017
का.आ.—भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरो(प्रमाणि)धवधियम1988केधवधियमि5केउपधवधियमि(6)केअिुसरणमें
भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधिम्नधववरणवालेलाइसेंसोंकोउिकेआगेदशावईगईतारीखसे
रद्द/स्थधगतकरददयागयाहै:-
अिुसूची
क्र.
सं.
लाइसेंससं
सीएम/
एल-
लाइसेंसिारीकािामवपता
स्थधगतदकएगए/रद्ददकएगए
लाइसेंसकेअंतगवतवस्तु/ प्ररम मसम्बि
भारतीयमािककाशीषवक
रद्दहोिेकीधतधथ
1.
6118558
मेससवजेिइंडस्ट्रीस
यूधिटफफसीआरआईपम्प्सप्राईवेट
धलधमटेड
गहरेकुओंकेधलएधिम्मजिीयपम्पसेट
आईएस 14220: 1994
16-09-2016
II
(ii)
2357
122बी, अधत्तपालयमरोड,
धचन्नावेदमपट्टी,गणपधत,
कोयम्बत्तूर - 641049
[सं.सीएमडी/13: 13]
टी.कलैवाणि,वैज्ञाधिक‘एफ’एवंप्रमुख
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
Sl.
No.
Licence
No.
CM/L-
Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/ Process with relevant
Indian Standard covered by the
licence cancelled/ suspension
Date of
Cancellation
1.
6118558
M/s. Jan Industries
Unit of C.R.I. Pumps Private Limited
122B, Athipalayam Road,
Chinnavedampatti,
Ganapathy,
Coimbatore - 641049
Openwell Submersible Pumpsets
IS 14220: 1994
16-09-2016
[No. CMD/13 : 13]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
िईददल्ली, 9फरवरी,2017
का.आ. 1064.—भारतीय मािक ब्स्टयूरो (प्रमाणि) धवधियम 1988 के धवधियमि 5 के उपधवधियमि (6) के
अिुसरणमेंभारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधिम्िधववरणवालेलाइसेंसोंकोउिकेआगेदशावईगई
तारीखसेरद्द/स्थधगतकरददयागयाहै:-
अिुसूची
रम .
सं.
लाइसेंससं
सी
एम/
एल-
लाइसेंसिारीकािामवपता
स्थधगतदकएगए/रद्ददकएगएलाइसेंसके
अंतगवतवस्तु/ प्ररम मसम्बिभारतीयमािक
काशीषवक
रद्दहोिेकी
धतधथ
अक्तूबर2016-शून्दय
[सं.सीएमडी/13: 13]
टी.कलैवाणि,वैज्ञाधिक‘एफ’एवंप्रमुख
2358
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
Sl.
No.
Licence
No.
CM/L-
Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/ Process with relevant
Indian Standard covered by the
licence cancelled/ suspension
Date of
Cancellation
OCTOBER 2016 – NIL
[No. CMD/13 : 13]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
िईददल्ली, 9फरवरी,2017
का.आ. 1065.—भारतीय मािक ब्स्टयूरो (प्रमाणि) धवधियम 1988 के धवधियमि 5 के उपधवधियमि (6) के
अिुसरणमेंभारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधिम्िधववरणवालेलाइसेंसोंकोउिकेआगेदशावईगई
तारीखसेरद्द/स्थधगतकरददयागयाहै:-
अिुसूची
रम .
सं.
लाइसेंससं
सी
एम/
एल-
लाइसेंसिारीकािामवपता
स्थधगतदकएगए/रद्ददकएगएलाइसेंसके
अंतगवतवस्तु/ प्ररम मसम्बिभारतीयमािक
काशीषवक
रद्दहोिेकी
धतधथ
िवम्बर2016-शून्दय
[सं.सीएमडी/13: 13]
टी.कलैवाणि,वैज्ञाधिक‘एफ’एवंप्रमुख
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
Sl.
No.
Licence
No.
CM/L-
Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/ Process with relevant
Indian Standard covered by the
licence cancelled/ suspension
Date of
Cancellation
NOVEMBER 2016 – NIL
[No. CMD/13 : 13]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
िईददल्ली, 9फरवरी,2017
का.आ. 1066.—भारतीय मािक ब्स्टयूरो (प्रमाणि) धवधियम 1988 के धवधियमि 5 के उपधवधियमि (6) के
अिुसरणमेंभारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधिम्िधववरणवालेलाइसेंसोंकोउिकेआगेदशावईगई
तारीखसेरद्द/स्थधगतकरददयागयाहै:-
II
(ii)
2359
अिुसूची
रम .
सं.
लाइसेंससं
सी
एम/
एल-
लाइसेंसिारीकािामवपता
स्थधगतदकएगए/रद्ददकएगएलाइसेंसके
अंतगवतवस्तु/ प्ररम मसम्बिभारतीयमािक
काशीषवक
रद्दहोिेकी
धतधथ
ददसम्बर2016-शून्दय
[सं.सीएमडी/13: 13]
टी.कलैवाणि,वैज्ञाधिक‘एफ’एवंप्रमुख
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
Sl.
No.
Licence
No.
CM/L-
Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/ Process with relevant
Indian Standard covered by the
licence cancelled/ suspension
Date of
Cancellation
DECEMBER 2016 – NIL
[No. CMD/13 : 13]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
िईददल्ली,9फरवरी,2017
का.आ. 1067.— भारतीय मािक ब्स्टयूरो (प्रमाणि) धवधियम 1988 के धवधियमि 5 के उपधवधियमि (6) के
अिुसरणमेंभारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधिम्िधववरणवालेलाइसेंसोंकोउिकेआगेदशावईगई
तारीखसेरद्द/स्थधगतकरददयागयाहै:-
अिुसूची
रम .
सं.
लाइसेंससं
सीएम/
एल-
लाइसेंसिारीकािामवपता
स्थधगतदकएगए/रद्ददकएगएलाइसेंसके
अंतगवतवस्तु/ प्ररम मसम्बिभारतीयमािकका
शीषवक
रद्दहोिेकी
धतधथ
1.
4744472 मेससव
जयश्री
प्लाधस्टक्स
241-G,
पेरूर
सडक,
कुमारापालयम,
कोयम्बत्तूर -641026
पैकेजबंदधमिरलजलएवंपैकेजबंदपेयजलको
पैककरिेकेपात्र
IS 15410 : 2003
19/01/2017
2.
6806781
मेससव जैि इठरगेशि धसस्टम्स
धलधमटेड
एस एफ सं 248/2,3, 90,
एल्लयामुतूर
गााँव,
उडुमलपेट,
कोयम्बत्तूर(धजला)-642154
पेयजल आपूर्तव के धलए उच्च घित्व वाले
पॉलीएधथलीिपाइप्स
IS 4984 : 1995
19/01/2017
3.
6806882 मेससव जैि इठरगेशि धसस्टम्स
धलधमटेड
पेयजलआपूर्तव के धलए अप्लाधस्टकृत पी वी सी
पाइप्स
19/01/2017
2360
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
एस एफ सं 248/2,3, 90,
एल्लयामुतूर
गााँव,
उडुमलपेट,
कोयम्बत्तूर(धजला)-642154
IS 4985 : 2000
4.
6820270
मेससव जैि इठरगेशि धसस्टम्स
धलधमटेड एस एफ सं 248/2,3,
90, एल्लयामुतूरगााँव,उडुमलपेट,
कोयम्बत्तूर(धजला)-642154
ससंचाई उपस्कर – सस्प्रंक्लर पाइप – भाग 2 –
सहजसंयोजीपॉलीएधथलीिपाइपतथादफरटंग्स
IS 14151 (Part 2): 2008
19/01/2017
5.
6820371
मेससव जैि इठरगेशि धसस्टम्स
धलधमटड एस एफ सं 248/2,3,
90, एल्लयामुतूरगााँव,उडुमलपेट,
कोयम्बत्तूर(धजला)-642154
ससंचाई उपस्कर – सस्प्रंक्लर पाइप – भाग 1 –
पॉलीएधथलीिपाइप
IS 14151 : Part 1 : 1999
19/01/2017
[सं.सीएमडी/13:13]
टी.कलैवाणि,वैज्ञाधिक‘एफ’एवंप्रमुख
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
Sl.
No.
Licence
No.
CM/L-
Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/ Process with relevant Indian
Standard covered by the licence cancelled/
suspension
Date of
Cancellation
1.
4744472
M/s.
Jaishri
Plastics
241-G, Perur Road,
Kumarapalayam,
Coimbatore -641026
Containers For Packaging Of Natural Mineral
Water And Packaged Drinking Water
IS 15410 : 2003
19/01/2017
2.
6806781
M/s. Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd.
SF NO. 248/2,3, 90, Ellayamuthur
Village, Udumalpet,
Coimbatore (Dt)-642154
High Density Polyethylene Pipes For Potable
Water Supplies
IS 4984 : 1995
19/01/2017
3.
6806882
M/s. Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd.
SF NO. 248/2,3, 90, Ellayamuthur
Village, Udumalpet,
Coimbatore (Dt)-642154
Unplasticized PVC Pipes For Potable Water
Supplies
IS 4985 : 2000
19/01/2017
4.
6820270
M/s. Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd.
SF NO. 248/2,3, 90, Ellayamuthur
Village, Udumalpet,
Coimbatore (Dt)-642154
Irrigation Equipment - Sprinkler Pipes- Part 2:
Quick Coupled Polyethylene Pipes
IS 14151 (Part 2): 2008
19/01/2017
5.
6820371
M/s. Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd.
SF NO. 248/2,3, 90, Ellayamuthur
Village, Udumalpet,
Coimbatore (Dt)-642154
Irrigation Equipment - Sprinkler Pipes - Part 1:
Polyethylene Pipes
IS 14151 : Part 1 : 1999
19/01/2017
[No. CMD/13:13]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
II
(ii)
2361
िईददल्ली,9फरवरी,2017
का.आ.1068.— भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरो(प्रमाणि)धवधियम1988केधवधियम4केउपधियम(5)केअिुसरणमें
भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधजिलाइसेंसोंकेधववरणिीचेअिुसूचीमेंददएगएहैं,वेस्वीकृत
करददएगएहैं:-
अिुसूची
रम .
सं.
लाइसेंससं
स्वीकृतकरिे
कीधतधथ
वषव/ माह
लाइसेंसिारीकािामवपता
भारतीयमािकका
शीषव
भामासं(भाग/
अिुभाग): वषव
1. 6500023398 20170206
मेससवपी.बी.एस.िगैमाधलगै
61, बज़ारस्ट्रीट,
गोबीचेट्टीपालयम – 638 452.
स्वणवएवंस्वणव
धमश्रिातुएं,आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी–शुिता
एवंमुहरांकि
IS 1417 : 2016
2. 6500023499 20170209
मेससवरामप्रकाशज्वेलरी
435, धबगबज़ारस्ट्रीट,
कोयम्बत्तूर – 641 001.
स्वणवएवंस्वणव
धमश्रिातुएं,आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी–शुिता
एवंमुहरांकि
IS 1417 : 2016
[सं.सीएमडी/13:11]
टी.कलैवाणि,वैज्ञाधिक‘एफ’एवंप्रमुख
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
Sl.
No.
Licence No.
Grant
Date
Name and Address (Factory) of
the Party
Title of the Standard
IS No. Part/
Sec. Year
1.
6500023398
20170206
M/s. P.B.S. Nagai Maaligai
61, Bazaar Street
Gobichettipalayam – 638 452.
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/ Aertefacts-
Fineness and Marking
IS 1417 : 2016
2.
6500023499
20170209
M/s. Ramprakash Jewellery
435, Big Bazaar Street
Coimbatore – 641 001.
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/ Aertefacts-
Fineness and Marking
IS 1417 : 2016
[No. CMD/13:11]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
िईददल्ली,9फरवरी,2017
का.आ. 1069.— भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरो(प्रमाणि)धवधियम1988केधवधियम4केउपधियम(5)के
अिुसरणमेंभारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधजिलाइसेंसोंकेधववरणिीचेअिुसूचीमें
ददएगएहैं,वेस्वीकृतकरददएगएहैं:—
2362
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
अिुसूची
रम .
सं.
लाइसेंससं
स्वीकृत
करिेकी
धतधथवषव/
माह
लाइसेंसिारीकािामव
पता
भारतीयमािककाशीषव
भामासं(भाग/
अिुभाग): वषव
1.
6500023503 20170309
मेससवश्रीवीआरज्वेलरी
98/6, वैश्यालस्ट्रीट,
कोयम्बत्तूर – 641 001
स्वणवएवंस्वणवधमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/ धशल्पकारी–
शुिताएवंमुहरांकि
IS 1417 : 2016
2.
6500023604 20170310
मैससव आशातंगामाधलगै
सं.
137,
कार
स्ट्रीट,
शौरीपालयम,
कोयम्बत्तूर – 641 028
स्वणवएवंस्वणवधमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/ धशल्पकारी–
शुिताएवंमुहरांकि
IS 1417 : 2016
3.
6500023705 20170317
मेससव
श्री
अयप्पि
धसधलन्दडसव
एस
एफ
सं.
201/3,
201/2काभाग,
कृष्णापुरम, धवजयामंगलम
पोस्ट,
पेरुन्ददुरै,ईरोड– 638 056
अल्पदाबएवंदावणोय
गैसोंकेधलए5धलटरसे
अधिकजलिमतावाले
वेधल्डतअल्पकाबविइस्पात
केधससलंडर–उपयोगदकए
गएएलपीजीधससलंडरोंके
पुििवीयिएवंधिरीिण
कोअपेिाय
IS 13258 : 2014
4.
6500023806 20170320
मैससव लेिोरा ग्लव प्राईवेट
धलधमटेड
15/104-1, रोट्टीगौन्दडन्नुर,
धतरुमलयमपालयम
(पोस्ट), मद्क्क्करै ,
कोयम्बत्तूर – 641 105
एकबारउपयोगवालेरबड
केशल्यदरम यादस्तािे
IS 13422 : 1992
5.
6500024097 20170327
मेससव
मयूरा
पैकेसजंग
प्राईवेटधलधमटेड
एस
एफ
सं.
851/3,
कोसयमपालयम
धपठरवु,
कण्डैयम
कोधवल,
कोयमबत्तूर-धत्रची एि एच
रोड,
धतरुप्पुर – 641 665
धवस्फोटकोंकेपैकेजकेधलए
सामान्दय
आवश्यकताएं:
भाग 1 - वाधणधज्यक उच्च
धवस्फोटक
IS 10212 (Part
1): 1986
6.
6500023907 20170328
मेससवएपेक्सइंडस्ट्री
330/2C3,कालापट्टीरोड,
साफ, िंडे पािी के धलए
अपकेंद्रीयपुिरुत्पादकपम्प
IS 8472 : 1998
II
(ii)
2363
िेहरु िगर, कोयम्बत्तूर –
641 012
7.
6500024198 20170328
मेससव चेरि स्टील्स प्राईवेट
धलधमटेड
एस
एफ
सं.
42/2,
मुल्लुपाडी रेल्वे गेट रोड,
सुलक्कल,दकितकडवु,
कोयम्बत्तूर– 642 110
संरचिा इस्पात (सािारण
गुणवत्ता)
IS 15911 : 2010
8.
6500024404 20170329
मेससवकेएमपीइंडस्ट्रीस
सं. 32/1, सीएमकल्याणा
मंडपमकेपास,
पी
एि
पालयम रोड,
गणपधत,
कोयम्बत्तूर - 641 006
साफ, िंडे पािी के धलए
अपकेंद्रीयपुिरुत्पादकपम्प
IS 8472 : 1998
9.
6500024299 20170329
मेससवमहालक्ष्मीपम्प्स
23, शोभा िगर, II वााँ
सडक, केआरपुरम,
आवारमपालयम,
कोयम्बत्तूर - 641 006
गहरे
कुओं
के
धलए
धिम्मजिीयपम्पसेट
IS 14220 : 1994
10. 6500024303 20170329
मेससवमहेन्दद्रापम्प्सप्राईवेट
धलधमटेडयूधिट1
6/433, पी एि पालयम
रोड,पुधलयाकुलम,
कोयम्बत्तूर – 641 045
स्वत: प्राइसमंग अपकेंद्रीय
पम्प
IS 8418 : 1999
11. 6500024505 20170330
मेससवकोवैगोल्डिहाईटेक
कॉपर प्रोडक््स प्राईवेट
धलधमटेड
श्री सुबा गणेश इंडधस्ट्रयल
एस्टेट,
एस एफ सं 222/4B और
222/5,
कुप्पेपालयम,
कट्टमपट्टीपोस्ट,कोयम्बत्तूर
– 641 017.
1100वोल्टतककायवकारी
वोल्टता के धलएपी वी सी
रोधितकेबल
IS 694 : 2010
12. 6500023907 20170328
मेससवएपेक्सइंडस्ट्री
330/2C3,कालापट्टीरोड,
साफ, िंडे पािी के धलए
अपकेंद्रीयपुिरुत्पादकपम्प
IS 8472 : 1998
2364
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
िेहरुिगर,
कोयम्बत्तूर– 641 012
13. 6500024707 20170330
मेससवबेस्कोिइंडस्ट्रीस
सं. 6/10-11, तन्नीर
पन्ददलरोड,
6वााँ सडक, मगेश्वरीिगर,
कोयम्बत्तूर – 641 004
साफ, िंडे पािी के धलए
अपकेंद्रीयपुिरुत्पादकपम्प
IS 8472 : 1998
14. 6500024606 20170330
मेससवििवीकुकवेयसव
एस
एफ
सं.
99/2,
द.सं.1/20-2,
पल्लडमरोड, पाप्पमपट्टी,
कोयम्बत्तूर – 641 016
घरेलूप्रैशरकुकर
IS 2347 : 2006
15. 6500024808 20170330
मेससव
एमराल्ड
ज्वेलरी
रीटेइलधलधमटेड
‘ज्वेलवि’
दरवाजा सं. 336/112,
पुरािा सं. 184, कुमरि
रोड,
धतरुप्पुर– 641 601
स्वणवएवंस्वणवधमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी
–
शुिताएवंमुहरांकि
IS 1417 : 2016
16. 6500024909 20170330
मेससव
एमराल्ड
ज्वेलरी
रीटेइलधलधमटेड
‘ज्वेलवि’
दरवाजा सं. 336/112,
पुरािा सं. 184, कुमरि
रोड, धतरुप्पुर– 641 601
चााँदीएवंचााँदीधमश्रिातुएं,
आभूषण/
धशल्पकारी
–
शुिताएवंमुहरांकि
IS 2112 : 2014
17. 6500025099 20170331
मेससव स्टेन्दडडव इंजीधियररंग
इंडस्ट्रीज
एस
एफ
सं.
88/86,
इलन्दगो
िगर,
के.आर.
पुरम,आवारमपालयम,
कोयम्बत्तूर – 641 006
कृधष एवं जल आपूर्तव के
धलएसाफऔरिंडेपािीके
धबजलीकेमोिोसेटपम्प
IS 9079 : 2002
[सं.सीएमडी/13:11]
टी.कलैवाणि,वैज्ञाधिक‘एफ’एवंप्रमुख
II
(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
Sl.
No.
Licence No.
Grant
Date
Name and Address (Factory) of
the Party
Title of the Standard
IS No. Part/
Sec. Year
1.
6500023503
20170309
M/s. Sri V R Jewellery
98/6, Vysial Street,
Coimbatore – 641 001
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/
Aertefacts-
Fineness and Marking
IS 1417 : 2016
2.
6500023604
20170310
M/s. Asha Thanga Maligai
No. 137, Car Street, Sowripalayam,
Coimbatore – 641 028
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/
Aertefacts-
Fineness and Marking
IS 1417 : 2016
3.
6500023705
20170317
M/s. Sri Ayyappan Cylinders
SF No. 201/3, Part of 201/2,
Krishnapuram,
Vijayamangalam
Post, Perundurai, Erode – 638 056
Welded
Low
Carbon
Steel
Cylinders
Exceeding 5 Litre Water
Capacity
For
Low
Pressure Liquefiable Gas
- Code Of Practice For
Inspection
And
Reconditioning Of Used
LPG Cylinders
IS 13258 : 2014
4.
6500023806
20170320
M/s. Lenora Glove Pvt Ltd
15/104-1, Rottigoundanur,
Thirumalayam Palayam (P. O.),
Madukkarai ,
Coimbatore – 641 105
Disposable
Surgical
Rubber Gloves
IS 13422 : 1992
5.
6500024097
20170327
M/s. Mayura Packaging Private
Limited
SF No. 851/3 Kosavampalayam
Pirivu Kandiyan Kovil, Coimbatore
To Trichy NH Road
Tirupur – 641 665
General requirements for
packages of Explosives:
Part 1 - Commercial high
explosives
IS 10212 (Part 1):
1986
6.
6500023907
20170328
M/s. Apex Industry
330/2C3, Kalapatti Road, Block,
Nehru
Nagar,
Coimbatore
– 641 012
Centrifugal Regenerative
Pumps for clear, cold
water
IS 8472 : 1998
7.
6500024198
20170328
M/s. Cheran Steels Private Limited
SF No. 42/2, Mulluppadi Railway
Gate
Road,
Sulakkal,
Kinathukadavu,
Coimbatore – 642 110
Structural
Steel
(Ordinary Quality)
IS 15911 : 2010
8.
6500024404
20170329
M/s. KMP Industrries
No.
32/1,
Near
CM
Kalyana
Mandapam,
P.N. Palayam Road, Ganapathy,
Coimbatore - 641 006
Centrifugal Regenerative
Pumps for clear, cold
water
IS 8472 : 1998
2366
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9.
6500024299
20170329
M/s. Mahalakshmi Pumps
23, Shoba Nagar, II ND Street, K R
Puram,
Avarampalayam ,
Coimbatore - 641 006
Openwell
Submersible
Pumpsets
IS 14220 : 1994
10.
6500024303
20170329
M/s. Mahendra Pumps Pvt. Ltd.,
Unit 1
6/433, P.N. Palayam Road
Puliyakulam,
Coimbatore – 641 045
Horizontal
Centrifugal
Self-Priming Pumps
IS 8418 : 1999
11.
6500024505
20170330
M/s. Kovai Golden Hitech Copper
Products Pvt. Ltd.
Sree Suba Ganesh Industrial
Estate,
SF
No
222/4B
&
222/5,
Kuppepalayam,,
Kattampatti Post,
Coimbatore – 641 017.
PVC insulated cables for
working voltages upto
and including 1100 V
IS 694 : 2010
12.
6500023907
20170328
M/s. Apex Industry
330/2C3, Kalapatti Road, Block,
Nehru Nagar,
Coimbatore – 641 012
Centrifugal Regenerative
Pumps for clear, cold
water
IS 8472 : 1998
13.
6500024707
20170330
M/s. Bescon Industries
No. 6/10-11,Thanner Pandal Road,
6TH Street, Mageswari Nagar,
Coimbatore – 641 004
Centrifugal Regenerative
Pumps for clear, cold
water
IS 8472 : 1998
14.
6500024606
20170330
M/s. Dhanvi Cookwares
SF No. 99/2, D.No.1/20-2,
Palladam Road, Pappampatti,
Coimbatore – 641 016
Domestic
Pressure
Cookers
IS 2347 : 2006
15.
6500024808
20170330
M/s. Emerald Jewellery
Retail
Limited
‘Jewel One’
Door No. 336/112, Old No. 184,
Kumaran Road,
Tirupur – 641 601
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/
Aertefacts-
Fineness and Marking
IS 1417 : 2016
16.
6500024909
20170330
M/s. Emerald Jewellery
Retail
Limited
‘Jewel One’
Door No. 336/112, Old No. 184,
Kumaran Road,
Tirupur – 641 601
Silver and Silver Alloys,
Jewellery/
Aertefacts-
Fineness and Marking
IS 2112 : 2014
II
(ii)
2367
17.
6500025099
20170331
M/s.
Standard
Engineering
Industries
SF No. 88/86, Elango Nagar,
K.R.Puram,
Coimbatore – 641 006.
Electric Monoset Pumps
for clear, cold water for
agricultural and water
supply purposes
IS 9079 : 2002
[No. CMD/13:11]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
िईददल्ली,
का.आ.—भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरो(प्रमाणि)धवधियम1988केधवधियमि5केउपधवधियमि(6)केअिुसरणमें
भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधिम्िधववरणवालेलाइसेंसोंकोउिकेआगेदशावईगईतारीखसे
रद्द/स्थधगतकरददयागयाहै:—
अिुसूची
रम .
सं.
लाइसेंससं
सीएम/
एल-
लाइसेंसिारीकािामवपता
स्थधगतदकएगए/रद्ददकएगएलाइसेंसके
अंतगवतवस्तु/ प्ररम मसम्बिभारतीयमािक
काशीषवक
रद्दहोिेकी
धतधथ
1.
3507958
मेससवबीडीआरइंडस्ट्रीस
दरवाजासं. 1, तन्दडालमुत्तुसडक,
िल्लमपालयम,गणपधत(पोस्ट),
कोयम्बत्तूर - 641006
IS 9283 : 2013
धिम्मजिीयपम्पसेटकेधलएमोटर
01/02/2017
2.
6074160
मेससव आयवि मोटसव (इंधडया)प्रायवेट
धलधमटडएस
एफ
सं.
128/1,
िरधसम्मािायकिपालयम,
मेटूपालयम रोड, कोयम्बत्तूर -
641031
IS 9283 : 2013
धिम्मजिीयपम्पसेटकेधलएमोटर
01/02/2017
3.
6182466
मेससवदफशरपम्प्सप्रायवेटधलधमटड
यूधिट
II,
9/10,
शापव
िगर,
कालापट्टी,
कोयम्बत्तूर - 641035
IS 8472 : 1998
साफ,
िंडे
पािी
के
धलए
अपकेंद्रीय
पुिरुत्पादकपम्प
02/02/2017
4.
6223757
मेससवमेजधस्टकमेशीिवक्सव
सं. 9/23A, 23B, िेहरु िगर,
कालापट्टी
रोड,
कोयम्बत्तूर - 641014
IS 9079 : 2002
कृधषएवंजलआपूर्तवकेधलएसाफऔरिंडे
पािीकेधबजलीकेमोिोसेटपम्प
02/02/2017
[सं.सीएमडी/13:13]
टी.कलैवाणि,वैज्ञाधिक‘एफ’एवंप्रमुख
2368
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
Sl.
No.
Licence
No.
CM/L-
Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/ Process with relevant Indian
Standard covered by the licence
cancelled/ suspension
Date of
Cancellation
1.
3507958
M/s. BDR Industries
Door No. 1, Thandalmuthu Street,
Nallampalayam, Ganapathy(P.O.),
Coimbatore - 641006
IS 9283 : 2013
Motors For Submersible Pumpsets
01/02/2017
2.
6074160
M/s. Aryen Motors (India) Private
Limited
SF
No.
128/1,
Narasimmanaickenpalayam,
Mettupalayam
Road,
Coimbatore -641031
IS 9283 : 2013
Motors For Submersible Pumpsets
01/02/2017
3.
6182466
M/s. Fisher Pumps Pvt Limited
Unit II, 9/10, Sharp Nagar,
Kalapatti,
Coimbatore -641035
IS 8472 : 1998
Centrifugal Regenerative Regenerative
Pumps For Clear, Cold Water
02/02/2017
4.
6223757
M/s.
Majestic
Machine
Works
No.9/23A,
23B,
Nehru
Nagar,
Kalapatti
Road,
Coimbatore -641014
IS 9079 : 2002
Electric Monoset Pumps For Clear, Cold
Water For Agricultural And Water
Supply Purposes
02/02/2017
[No. CMD/13:13]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
िईददल्ली,
का.आ.—भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरो(प्रमाणि)धवधियम1988केधवधियमि5केउपधवधियमि(6)केअिुसरणमें
भारतीयमािकब्स्टयूरोएतदद्वाराअधिसूधचतकरताहैदकधिम्िधववरणवालेलाइसेंसोंकोउिकेआगेदशावईगईतारीखसे
रद्द/स्थधगतकरददयागयाहै:-
अिुसूची
रम .
सं.
लाइसेंससं
सीएम/एल-
लाइसेंसिारीकािामव
पता
स्थधगतदकएगए/रद्ददकएगएलाइसेंसकेअंतगवत
वस्तु/ प्ररम मसम्बिभारतीयमािककाशीषवक
रद्दहोिेकी
धतधथ
1.
2388668
मेससवश्रीििलक्ष्मीफौन्दड्री
1352A, सधतरोड,
सी एम एस स्कूल के पास,
गणपधत,
कोयम्बत्तूर-641006
IS 9079 : 2002
कृधषएवंजलआपूर्तवकेधलएसाफऔरिंडेपािीके
धबजलीकेमोिोसेटपम्प
14/03/2017
II
(ii)
2369
2.
6500021798 मेससववाधहिीइंजीधियररंग
No. 36, रेणुकागाडवि,
करुपरायि
पालयम,
मैलमपट्टीपोस्ट,
कोयम्बत्तूर- 641062
IS 9079 : 2002
कृधषएवंजलआपूर्तवकेधलएसाफऔरिंडेपािीके
धबजलीकेमोिोसेटपम्प
21/03/2017
[सं.सीएमडी13:13]
टी.कलैवाणि,वैज्ञाधिक‘एफ’एवंप्रमुख
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
Sl.
No.
Licence No.
CM/L-
Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/ Process with relevant Indian
Standard covered by the licence
cancelled/ suspension
Date of
Cancellation
1.
2388668
M/s. Sri Dhanalakshmi Foundry
1352A, Sathy Road,
Near
CMS
School,
Ganapathy,
Coimbatore -641006
IS 9079 : 2002
Electric Monoset Pumps For Clear, Cold
Water For Agricultural And Water
Supply Purposes
14/03/2017
2.
6500021798
M/s. Vahinie Engineering
No. 36, Renuka Garden,
Karuparayan Palayam , Mylampatti
Post, Coimbatore -641062
IS 9079 : 2002
Electric Monoset Pumps For Clear, Cold
Water For Agricultural And Water
Supply Purposes
21/03/2017
[No. CMD/13:13]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
2370
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?”
II
(ii)
2371
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 document
2372
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
II
(ii)
2373
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
: 1st Party/Petitioner Union
Represented by Sri K.M. Elangovan
Plot No. 1, Balaji Nagar
89, Veppambattu.
Thiruvallur-602024
AND
The General Manager
: 2nd Party/Respondent
Telegraph, CTO, BSNL
Chennai.
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
: M/s. K.M. Ramesh, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondents
: Sri P. Srinivasan, Advocate
2374
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
II
(ii)
2375
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.
2376
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
II
(ii)
2377
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
2378
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
—
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, this
2380
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.
II
(ii)
2381
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 Officer
2382
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
(ii)
2383
(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
…Management
2384
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
—
II
(ii)
2385
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 of
2386
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 Officer
II
(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.
2388
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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?
II
(ii)
2389
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 Officer
2390
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
—
II
(ii)
2391
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
—
2392
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 :
The Circle Secretary
: 1st Party/Petitioner Union
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:
II
(ii)
2393
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. For
2394
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
II
(ii)
2395
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.
2396
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 Jointing
II
(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
2398
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
1.
The General Manager
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
Telecom, BSNL
Trichy
II
(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.
2400
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
II
(ii)
2401
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.
2402
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. As
II
(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
2404
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
II
(ii)
2405
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:
2406
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“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.
II
(ii)
2407
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
09.07.2000
2408
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.
II
(ii)
2409
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. Director
2410
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.
II
(ii)
2411
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.
2412
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
II
(ii)
2413
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
Vellore
2414
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 a
II
(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)
2416
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
II
(ii)
2417
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 office
2418
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 Officer
II
(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
2420
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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?
II
(ii)
2421
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.
2422
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 perennial
2424
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 the
II
(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 Food
2426
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
II
(ii)
2427
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
2428
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
—
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
Sl. No
Name of
workman
Father’s name
Address
Post
1
Hemlal Mahato
Gunu Lal Mahato
Palobera, Chepkia
Sardar
2
Nayan Soren
Kupu Soren
Koriya
Loader
3
Muneshwar Soren
Lakhi Ram Soren
Koriya
Loader
II
(ii)
2429
4
Hemashwar Tudu
Rifu Tudu
Koriya
Loader
5
Dagar Mahato
Arjun Mahato
Palobera , Chepkia
Loader
6
Magaram
Hembram
Sonaram Hembram
Palobera , Chepkia
Loader
7
Chhotulal Tudu
Jameshwar Tudu
Daldali, Sundar Pahari
Loader
8
Hari Lal Mahato
Shital Mahato
Palobera , Chepkia
Loader
9
Basudeo Mahato
Tularam Mahato
Palobera , Chepkia
Loader
10
Bagi Hembram
Bana Hembram
Palobera , Chepkia
Loader
11
Debasis Karmakar
Durgapada Karamkar
Kalisen, Bankura
Loader
12
Maguram
Chakrabortty
Dhirendra Nath
Chakrabortty
Bagatbari, Puruliya
Loader
13
Debases
Choudhury
Kripasindhu Choudhury
Badra ., Bankura
Loader
14
Manik Chatterjee
Narayan Chatterjee
Talajuri , Purulia
Loader
15
Panchanand
Mahato
Motilal Mahato
Manjhi Ladia, Biraj Pur
Loader
16
Puran Chand
Mahato
Chandramohan Mahato
Madhu Gora, Birajpur
Loader
17
Sahadeo Mahato
Jagan Mahato
Palobera , Chepkia
Loader
18
Shishir Karmakar
Budhan Karmakar
Khgra, Bankura
Loader
19
Budhadev
Chakrabortty
Kamakhya Chakrabortty
Bikrampur ., Bankura
Loader
20
Debabrata
Choudhary
Kripasindhu Choudhary
Badra, Bankura
Loader
21
Samir Acharjee
Kalipada Acharjee
Dhatla, Puruliya
Loader
22
Sajal Niogi
Dilip Kumar Niogi
Agarda, Bankura
Loader
23
Chakradhar Ahato
Chandra Mohan Mahato
Madhugora, Birajpur
Loader
24
Ujjal Niogi
Laxmikant Noigi
Agarda, Bankura
Loader
25
Parsuram Mahato
Chandra Mohan Mahato
Madhugora, Birajpur
Loader
26
Hari Ram Mahato
Dhaniram Mahato
Palobera , Chepkia
Loader
27
Samir Choudhury
Manbodh Choudhury
Talajuri, Puruliya
Loader
28
Ardhendu Mandal
Sasadhar Mandal
Rampur, Puruliya
Loader
29
Mahadev
Chakrabortty
Swapan Chakrabortty
Bikrampur, Bankura
Loader
30
Sidharth
Chakrabortty
Kamakhya Chakarbortty
Bikrampur, Bankura
Loader
31
Gopal Mahato
Thanu Mahato
Manjhiladih, Birajpur
Loader
32
Nilambar Mahato
Dhaniram Mahato
Palobera, Chepkiya
Lodder
33
Fago Ram
Mahato
Dilu Mahato
Palobera, Chepkiya
Loader
34
Mahadeo Mahato
Jagan Mahato
Palobera, Chepkiya
Loader
35
Parth Sarthi Niogi
Ganesh Ch. Niogi
Agarda, Bankura
Loader
36
Dhrubolochan
Niogi
Ganesh Ch. Niogi
Agarda, Bankura
Loader
37
Jayant Karmakar
Shankar Karmakar
Lal Bazaar, Bankura
Loader
38
Madhu Sudhan
Mukherjee
Mahadev Mukherjee
Bikrampur, Bankura
Loader
2430
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
39
Ranjit Sharkar
Rakhohari Sharkar
Sabalpur, Dhanbad
Loader
40
Sanjit Sharkar
Rakhohari Sharkar
Brindaban Coloney, , Dhanbad
Loader
41
Suresh
Chourasiya
Siyaram Chourasiya
Akhtiyarpur, Dhanbad
Loader
42
Faiyaz Ahmad
Wahid Hussian
Simlabahal, Dhanbad
Loader
43
Dilip Kumar
Sinha
Ramowtar Prasad Sinha
Bararee Coke Plant, Dhanbad
Loader
44
Bhubneshwar
Mahato
Pancho Mahato
Manjiladih Birajpur, Dhanbad
Loader
45
Sadan Kumar
Paswan
Prakash Paswan
Naya-Dhoura, Kustore, Dhanbad
Loader
46
Ejaz Ahamad
Wahid Hussian
Simlabhal, Dhanbad
Loader
M/S :- D.P SHARMA TRANSPORT
1
Satan Hembram
Henand Hembram
Jargudih, Dhanbad
Sardar
2
Narendra
Hembram
Madan Hembram
Jargudih, Dhanbad
Loder
3
Ranjit Kumar
Paswan
Debendra Paswan
Quil Basti, Lakhisarai
Loader
4
Nasim Ansari
Nor Mohamad
Shiv Danga Burdawan
Loader
5
Dipak Kumar
Sinha
Mahendra Prasad
Bararee Coke Plant, Dhanbad
Loader
6
Jajdish Paramanik
Prabhas Pramanik
Sri Rampur, Puruliya
Loader
7
Maheshwar
Ravidas
Manu Ravidas
Sri Rampur, Puruliya
Loader
8
Dinabandhu
Ravidas
Rameshwar Ravidas
Sri Rampur, Puruliya
Loader
9
Arvind Kumar
Saw
Ram Brichh Saw
Alagdiha, Narchahi, Chatra
Loader
10
Charitra Saw
Nanhoo Saw
Suratpur Pipra, Chatra
Loader
11
Surendra Kumar
Saw
Nanhoo Saw
Suratpur Pipra, Chatra
Loader
12
Kausal Kumar
Saw
Prabhu Saw
Pakariya, Chatra
Loader
13
Sakaldeo Saw
Beni Saw
Alagdiha, Narchahi, Chatra
Loader
14
Sanjoy
Vishwakarma
Ram Pd.Vishwakarma
Baramuri, Dhanbad
Loader
15
Pawan Kumar
Rajendra Vishwakarma
Roha, Nawada
Loader
16
Ajoy Kumar Ram
Kailash Ram
Babachak, Chatra
Loader
17
Umesh Kumar
Paswan
Dasrath Paswan
Prakhand, Campus, Jhariya
Loader
18
Salauddin Ansari
Abdul Sattar
Tikiya Para Dhanbad
Loader
19
Md. Hasim
Md. Haqim Mia
I.G. Colony, Burdwan
Loader
20
Binod Bihari
Mahato
Bajnath Mahato
Dumarjore, Benagaria
Loader
21
Pradip Kumar
Lato Saw
Singh rawan, Hazaribagh
Loader
II
(ii)
2431
22
Santosh Kr. Gupta
Hiralal Saw
Khapriyama, Hazaribag
Loader
23
Ranjan Kumar
Saw
Rambrichh Saw
Alakdiha, Chatra
Loader
24
Papu Turi
Badri Turi
Jharia, Dhanbad
Loader
M/S :- BADALWALA TRANSPORT, PUTKI BAZAR, KUSUNDA, DHANDAD
1
Bhut Nath Mahato
Sudhir Mahato
Pandura, Bejra
Sardar
2
Shisir Karamkar
Budhan Karamkar
Khagra, Shyampur
Loader
3
Prakash Saw
Sadhu Saw
Pandua, Bejra
Loader
4
Budhu Mahato
Nunu Mahato
Pandua, Bejra
Loader
5
Gauari Mahato
Nayan Mahato
Pandua, Bejra
Loader
6
Mantu Dhibar
Kokil Dhiba
Pandua, Bejra
Loader
7
Rampado Mahato
Bhuban Mahato
Pandua, Bejra
Loader
8
Tinkari Mahato
Kuhela Mahato
Pandua, Bejra
Loader
9
Madhu Mahato
Patu Mahatoa
Pandua, Bejra
Loader
10
Godal Dhibar
Kokil Dhibar
Pandua, Bejra
Loader
11
Bhim Karmakar
Prasad Karmakar
Talajuri, Gorangdih
Loader
12
Haldhar Mahato
Shantu Mahato
Talajuri, Gorangdih
Loader
13
Dingla Mahato
Kashi Mahato
Talajuri, Gorangdih
Loader
SHARMA TRANSPORT
1
Antim Dutta
Tarapada Dutta
Kariya, Bokaro
Loader
2
Satendra Kumar
Singh
Aviram Pd. Singh
Imadpur, Vashali
Loader
3
Anurag
Aviram Pd. Singh
Imadpur, Vashali
Loader
4
Mukesh Kumar
Singh
Upendra Pd. Singh
Singer Phulkanha Muzaffarpur
Loader
5
Santosh Kumar
Rambalak Roy
Shyampur, Vashali
Loader
6
Rajesh Kumar
Singh
Hari Prasad Singh
Balchi, Saharsa
Loader
7
Raman Prasad
Singh
Hari Prasad Singh
Balchi, Saharsa
Loader
8
Sambhu Kumar
Singh
Raj Kumar Singh
Kishunpur, Madhuban, Muzuffarpur
Loader
9
Jhari Prasad
Mahato
Palu Ram Mahato
Bagdaha, Rajgang
Loader
M/S UNITED TRANSPORT CO. PATHARDIH, DHANBAD
1
Umesh Saw
Sadhu Saw
Pandua, Bejra
Sardar
2
Bipin Gupta
Bajrang Prasad
Karkend Bazaar, Dhanbad
Loader
3
Phudulal Tudu
Budhu Tudu
Pandua, Bejra
Loader
4
Pankaj Kumar
Singh
Mukteshwar Pd. Singh
Imadpur, Vashali
Loader
5
Pintu Kumar Singh
Gajendra Singh
Kisunpur L Muzaffarpur
Loader
2432
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6
Amit Singh
Gajendra Singh
Kisunpur L Muzaffarpur
Loader
7
Sanjoy Kumar
Singh
Bhola Singh
Basantpur, Muzaffarpur
Loader
8
Akhlesh Kumar
Singh
Bhola Singh
Basantpur, Muzaffarpur
Loader
9
Chandan Kumar
Singh
Bineshwar Pd. Singh
Sanghopatti, Muzaffarpur
Loader
10
Manoj Kumar Singh Kedar Singh
Kisunpur L Muzaffarpur
Loader
11
Kundan Kumar
Singh
Dineshwar Prasad
Singh
Sanghopatti, Muzaffarpur
Loader
12
Kaushal Kumar
Singh
Nand Keshari Singh
Fulberia, Vaisali
Loader
13
Asarfi Roy
Jagdeo Roy
Rusulpur Gangti, Vaisali
Loader
14
Krishnandan Singh
Shib Kumar Singh
Kkishunpur Madhuban, Mazaffarpur
Loader
15
Nayun Ansari
Samsul Haq
Bhagabandh, Dhanbad
Loader
16
Ashim Chatterjee
Hiralal Chatterjee
Mohal, Bokaro
Loader
17
Budhadeo Roy
Mansaram Roy
Metala, Bankura
Loader
18
Ramdeo Prasad
Baleshwar Turi
Jamadova 8no., Dhanbad
Loader
19
Akash Kumar Singh Ramlal Singh
Brajadash, Dadpur, Chatra
Loader
20
Bhagwan Jha
Mahendra Jha
Karnapura, , Dhanbad
Loader
21
Bhola Nisad
Rameshwar Mallah
M O.C.P Tisra, Dhanbad
Loader
22
Ranbir Kumar Lala
Indu Lala
Ground Floor K, Dhanbad
Loader
23
Nimai Chand
Mandal
Sudhir Mandal
Tumadaha, Dhanbad
Loader
24
Birindra Nishad
Rameshwar Mallah
M O.C.P Tisra, Dhanbad
Loader
25
Sanjay Nisad
Bishu Nisad
Gutushai, Singh bhum
Loader
26
Md. Kabir Ansari
Md. Yakub Ansari
Dabar, Puruliya
Loader
27
Md. Arif Ansari
Md. Haziabdul Shek
Loyar Beniasole, Adra Puruliya
Loadar
28
Suriya Kant Kumar
Balendra Singh
Kishun Pur Madhuban, Muzaffarpur
Loader
29
Niranja Kumar
Singh
Nagendra Singh
Kishun Pur Madhuban, Muzaffarpur
Loader
30
Suman Kumar
Ram Kishore Singh
Kishun Pur Madhuban, Muzaffarpur
Loader
31
Bhola Kumar
Surendra Pd. Singh
Kishun Pur Madhuban, Muzaffarpur
Loader
32
Dipak Kumar
Kamaldeo Singh
Kishun Pur Madhuban, Muzaffarpur
Loader
33
Santosh Kumar
Singh
Chandeshwar Singh
Kishun Pur Madhuban, Muzaffarpur
Loader
34
Chandra Kishore
Singh
Sheo chandra Singh
Kishun Pur Madhuban, Muzaffarpur
Loader
M/S JANPAL TRANSPORT
1
Pradip Kumar Dan
Kalipada Dan
Meranbapand,
Loader
2
Samir Deogharia
Ashotosh Deoghariya
Bagatbari, Puruliya
Loader
3
Manish Kumar
Sinha
Dayanand Prasad
Baruapa, Jamui
Loader
4
Ashok Kumar
Mandal
Girish Chand Mandal
Damodarpur, Dhanbad
Loader
5
Jay Ram Sharma
Binay Kumar Sharma
Indpur, Bankura
Loader
II
(ii)
2433
6
S.K.Rabiulla
S.K.Rahulla
Kethardanga, Bankura
Loader
7
Ajay Kumar
Sakaldeo Singh
Astpur, Satpura, Vaisali
Loader
8
Rupesh Kumar
Singh
Upendar Pd. Singh
Sringarfulkahan, Muzaffarpur
Loader
9
Kartik Shit
Nepal Shit
Sanabandh, Bankura
Loader
10
Binod Kumar
K .D. Singh
Kustore 10.No ., Dhanbad
Loader
11
Naresh Thakur
Jagmohan Thakur
Kendua, Hindi Bhawan, Dhanbad
Loader
12
Ravi Mukherjee
Dhananjay Mukherjee
Chitrama, Puruliya
Loader
13
Randhir Kunar
Singh
Kapildeo Singh
Harpur, Kasturi, Vaisali
Loader
14
Pankaj Kumar
Singh
Rambalak Singh
Basantpur, Jhitkanhi, Muzaffarpur
Loader
15
HaribanshSingh
Rambrichh Singh
Kishun Pur Madhuban, Muzaffarpur
Loader
16
Chandra Sekhar
Singh
RajKumar Singh
Dumaribaji Pur, Madhuban,
Muzaffarpur
Loader
17
Shyam Kishore
Singh
Dipnarayan Singh
Khirkhanuya, Baishali
Loader
18
Lalbahadur Singh
Dineshwar Singh
Asgaranpur, Vaisali
Loader
19
Rabindra Kumar
Singh
Rambalak Singh
Basantpur, Jhitkanhi, Muzaffarpur
Loader
20
Rahul Kumar Ram
Kedar Ram
Liledih, Giridih
Loader
21
Sujit Kumar Ram
Janardhan Pd. Yadav
Hisdihmara, Munger
Loader
22
Sanjay Das
Kamal Das
Hirapur Hari Mandir, Dha.
Loader
23
Indrajit Kumar
Biren Ram
Kishunpur, Hazaribagh
Loader
24
Rajesh Kumar
Tejnarayan Yadav
Gabrikundi, Bagriya
Loader
25
Rajesh Kumar
Prabhu Mandal
Nandlal Pur, Munger
Loader
26
Suresh Yadav
Fagu Yadav
Jangi, Koderma
Loader
27
Bhuneshwar Yadav
Horil Yadav
Chandawara, Koderma
Loder
28
Dharambir Paswan
Bahadur Paswan
Kalisthan, Malahi, Patna
Loader
29
Dinesh Paswan
Bandhu Paswan
Sirti, Damodih, Hazaribagh
Loader
30
Manoj Kumar Singh Bhuneshwar Singh
Sirmatpur, Chatra
Loader
31
Dilip Kumar Singh
Bhuneshwar Singh
Sirmatpur, Chatra
Loader
32
Raju Rawani
Mantu Rawani
Sirmatpur, Chatra
Loader
33
Raju Paswan
Haro Paswan
Rangamati Giridih
Loader
34
Jitendra Kumar
Paswan
Haro Paswan
Rangamati Giridih
Loader
35
Manoj Paswan
Haro Paswan
Rangamati Giridih
Loader
36
Shankar Singh
Yamuna Singh
Kacchi Balihari, Dhanbad
Loader
37
Hafiz Ansari
Iyaqub Ansari
Dabar, Puruliya
Loader
38
Dineshwar Pd.
Chaurasia
Brahmdeo Pd.
Chourasia
Baligudari Bazaar, Balia
Loader
39
Naresh Yadav
Radho Yadav
Saliyakala, Gaya
Loader
40
Anil Kumar
Radho Yadav
Saliyakala, Gaya
Loader
41
Shambhu Pd. Yadav
Thakuri Pd. Yadav
Sonbigha, Gaya
Loader
42
Bijay Kumar
Gakhul Rawani
Lathatand, Rajgang, Dhanbad
Loader
2434
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
43
Amarender
Kr.Sinha
Kailash Prasad
G.N.Collony, Dhanbad
Loader
44
Arjun Kewat
Kalpu Kewat
Kapur Ram Nagar, Jonpur
Loader
45
Nakul Kewat
Kalpu Kewat
Kapur Ram Nagar, Jonpur
Loader
46
Balmukund Kumar
Lakhan Das
Chhatihara, Sekhpura
Loader
47
Mantu Kanjilal
Saktipada Kanjilal
Saltore, Purulia
Loader
48
Murari Saw
Indu Saw
Alakhdiha, Chatra
Loader
1
Mukhlal Mahato
Gunulal Mahato
Palobera,
Sardar
2
Basudeo Mahato
Tuluram Mahato
Palobera,
Loader
3
Gopal Mahato
Sital Pd. Mahato
Palobera,
Loader
4
Sahadeo Singh
Gurudyal Singh
Koriya
Loader
5
Arjun Mahato
Matru Prasad Mahato
Palobera,
Loader
6
Ganesh Mahato
Dhadu Mahato
Palobera,
Loader
7
Sahadeo Mahato
Matru Mahato
Palobera,
Loader
8
Naresh Chourasia
Siya Ram Chourasia
Akhtiyarpur
Loader
9
Pankaj Thakkar
INdu Thakkar
Matkuria, Dhanbad
Loader
10
Hari Shankar
Mahato
Hublal Mahato
Agarda,
Loader
11
Gopal Hansda
Anand Lal Hansda
Hatbara
Loader
12
Santosh Kumar
Bijay Kumar
Kustore 10.No., Dhanbad
Loader
13
Jitendra Kumar
Pandey
Basudeo Pandey
Bara Pandeydih, Dhanbad
Loader
14
Sita Ram Pandey
Kesheb Ch. Pandey
Bara Pandeydih, Dhanbad
Loader
15
Subhash Kumar
Pandey
Anirudh Pandey
Pandeydih, Giridih
Loader
16
Abir Pandey
Amal Pandey
Harina, Medinipur
Loader
17
Tribeni Pandey
Maharaj Pandey
Harla, Giridih
Loader
18
Aghori Mahato
Shib Dayal Mahato
Palobera
Loader
19
Gopal Krishna
Pandey
Rameshwar Pandey
Kishgo, Giridih
Loader
20
Ganga Dhar Pandey
Dwarika Pandey
Markacho, Koderma
Loader
21
Laxmi Debya
Bhuneshwar Pandey
Bara Pandeydih, Dhanbad
Loader
22
Krishna Murari
Pandey
Rameshwar Pandey
Bakargang, Giridih
Loader
23
Shambhu Saran
Pandey
Rameshwar Pandey
Kishgo, Bakargang, Girdi
Loader
24
Shamant Kr. Pandey
Shankar Pandey
Banaso, Hazaribagh
Loader
25
Palash Kr. Pandey
Ashit Kr. Pandey
Harana, Medenipur
Loader
26
Janardan Pandey
Harihar Pandey
Giridih
Loader
27
Budhu Marandi
Papar Marandi
Koriya
Loader
28
Anil Kumar Pandey
Brij kishore Pandey
Choudharydih, Giridih
Loader
29
Pankaj Pandey
Gangadhar Pandey
Manjihaladih, Giridih
Loader
30
Ranjit Kumar
Pandey
Shreekant Pandey
Atka, Giridih
Loader
II
(ii)
2435
LAYAKDIH GHAT SRAMIK,
M/S :- AGARWAL TRANSPORT MOTI NAGAR, SINDRI,
DHANBAD
1
Sudarshan Kr. Saw
Nandlal Mahato
Nawatand, Govindpur,
Sardar
2
Nandlal Mahato
Bholu Mahato
Nawatand, Govindpur,
Loader
3
Kashi Mahato
Bholu Mahato
Nawatand, Govindpur,
Loader
4
Biju Mahato
Hari Mahato
Nawatand, Govindpur,
Loader
5
Nimai Kumhar
Paltan Kumhar
Nawatand, Govindpur,
Loader
6
Golak Kumhar
Ayodha Kumhar
Nawatand, Govindpur,
Loader
7
Awadh Kishore
Kumhar
Anil Kumhar
Nawatand, Govindpur,
Loader
8
Ujjal Pandey
Pankaj Pandey
Nawatand, Govindpur,
Loader
9
Ashok Kumar
Pandey
Manjudan Pandey
Pathalchatra, Katrash, Dhanbad
Loader
10
Sudhir Kumhar
Moti Kumhar
Pandua, Pokhariya
Loader
11
Subhas Kumhar
Kasha Kumhar
Pandua, Pokhariya
Loader
12
Mangal Kumhar
Shambhu Kumhar
Pandua, Pokhariya
Loader
13
Baiju Kumhar
Ram Pd. Kumhar
Pandua, Pokhariya
Loader
14
Ashok Kr. Pandey
Madjudum Pandey
Pathalchatra, Katrash, Dhanbad
Loader
15
Dhiraj Pandey
Basant Pandey
Handadih, Giridih
Loader
16
Dharma Pandey
Basant Pandey
Handadih, Giridih
Loader
17
Puran Mahato
Pandua, Bejra
Loader
18
Raghunath Mahato
Pandua, Bejra
Loader
19
Jhari Mahato
Pandua, Bejra
Loader
20
Sahadeo Mahato
Pandua, Bejra
Loader
21
Meghu Mahato
Pandua, Bejra
Loader
22
Durgalal Mahato
Pandua, Bejra
Loader
23
Mejaram Mahato
Pandua, Bejra
Loader
24
Rampada Mahato
Pandua, Bejra
Loader
25
Bijay Mahato
Pandua, Bejra
Loader
26
Mansaram Mahato
Pandua, Bejra
Loader
27
Mahadeo Mahato
Pandua, Bejra
Loader
28
Jawaharlal Mahato
Pandua, Bejra
Loader
29
Prahallad Mahato
Pandua, Bejra
Loader
30
Goram Mahato
Pandua, Bejra
Loader
31
Pran Mahato
Pandua, Bejra
Loader
32
Rajib Kr. Pandey
Krishna Pandey
Barakar, Burdwan
Loader
LAYAKDIH GHATH SRAMIK
M/S :- BAJRANG TRANSPORT, RANIBAZAR, KATRASH, DHANBAD
1
Gaya Suddin Ansari
Yaqub Ansari
Badludih,
Sardar
2
Ajay Kr. Pandey
Kishun. Pandey
Bakashpura, Dhanbad
Loader
3
Subodh Kr..
Pandey
Mangal Lal Pandey
Bakashpura, Dhanbad
Loader
4
Rajendra Kr.
Anirudh. Pandey
Kishgo, Pandeydih, Giridih
Loader
2436
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Pandey
5
Sanjay Pandey
Sadhu Sharan Pndey
Arkhango, Giridih
Loader
6
Rajiv Ranjan
Babulal Singh
Tilangra, Chatra
Loader
7
Ranjit Kumar
Om Prakash. Pandey
Nawadih, Koderma
Loader
8
Abdul Hamid
S .K. Rahman Ali
Manic Para, Medinapur
Loader
9
Harendra Singh
Surendra Singh
Dugdha, Bokaro
Loader
10
Shambhu Saran
Pandey
Rameshwar . Pandey
Tilokari, Koderma
Loader
11
Manranjan . Pandey
Pawan Pandey
Bagatpura, Dhanbad
Loader
12
Basant Kr. Pandey
Rajendra Pandey
Hirapur, Singh daha, Dhanbad
Loader
13
Birendar Pandey
Bhairab . Pandey
Tilaiya, Dhanbad
Loader
14
Binod Kr. Pandey
Harihar . Pandey
Lataki Jamuna, Giridih
Loader
15
Amarjit Kr. Singh
Jageshwar Singh
Jariyabadi, Giridih
Loader
16
Uday Shankar .
Pandey
Chandan . Pandey
Khamudih, Dhanbad
Loader
17
Nageshwar Pandit
Parmeshwar Pandit
Lataki Jamuna, Giridih
Loader
18
Manohar Pandey
Satyanarayan Pandey
Somchanch, Koderma
Loader
19
Tarun Pandey
Samir Pandey
Harana, Dharampur, Midenipur
Loader
20
Goutam Kr. Pandey
Amal Pandey
Harana, Dharampur, Midenipur
Loader
21
Ashit Mahato
Meghar Mahato
Uttar Gahami, Midenipur
Loader
22
Santosh Kumar Lala Shashi Bhushan Lala
Nawagarh, Dhanbad
Loader
23
Jagnu Mahato
Khirodhar Mahato
Molidih, Golagi
Loader
24
Karu Singh
Dillu Singh
Kalhabar, Giridih
Loader
25
Raju Rai
Laxman Rai
Chaita, Gomoh
Loader
26
Sukhdeo Manjhi
Dinu Manjhi
Chaita, Gomoh
Loader
27
Santosh Ray
Ramchandar Ray
Chandkukupi, Palmo, Giridih
Loader
28
Mohan Hansda
Babulal Manjhi
Rangamati, Chandrapura, Bokaro
Loader
29
Bijay Ray
Laxman Ray
Chaita, Gomoh
Loader
30
Rajesh Kr. Kishku
Dinu Manjhi
Chaita, Gomoh
Loader
31
Laxman Paramanik
Kuleshwar Paramanik
Santhaldih, Dhanbad
Loader
32
Dipak Singh
Sarjoo Singh
Rithudih, Bokaro
Loader
33
Pradip Kr. Manjhi
Babulal Manjhi
Rangamati, Bokaro
Loader
34
Manoj Soren
Bhagat Manjhi
Kangatta, Bokaro
Loader
BARMO ASHOK TRANSPORT, KATRASH ROAD, DHANBAD
1
Hemlal Hembram
Kandan Hembram
Khakhara, Dumka
Sardar
2
Arun Soren
Sen Kumar Manjhi
Keshalpur, Dhanbad
Loader
3
Chandra Sekhar
Hembram
Debilal Manjhi
Jhiklopa, Bokaro
Loader
4
Punit Soren
Sen Kumar Manjhi
Keshalpur, Dhanbad
Loader
5
Raj Kumar
Hembram
Khelaram Hembram
Lathatand, Bokaro
Loader
6
Manku Singh
Nemchand Singh
Tuktuka, Giridih
Loader
7
Naresh Singh
Tuktuka, Giridih
Loader
II
(ii)
2437
8
Ramdeo Singh
Shyamlal Singh
Tuktuka, Giridih
Loader
9
Manoj Singh
Hublal Singh
Turio, Bokaro
Loader
10
Bishwanath Mahato
Kesho Ram Mahato
Chaita, Dhanbad
Loader
11
Chandra Sekhar
Hembram
Debilal Manjhi
Kanaritola, Bokaro
Loader
12
Arun Soren
Sen Kumar Manjhi
Keshalpur, Dhanbad
Loader
13
Punit Soren
Sen Kumar Manjhi
Keshalpur, Dhanbad
Loader
14
Om Prakash Singh
Tulshi Singh
Banko, Giridih
Loader
15
Shib Chand Mandal
Gobardhan Mandal
Kheshmi, Dhanbad
Loader
16
Pradip Kumar
Mandal
Gobardhan Mandal
Kheshmi, Dhanbad
Loader
17
Magoram Mandal
Dhanuram Mandal
Kendedih, Dhanbad
Loader
18
Subash Ch. Mandal
Khagendra Nath
Mandal
Tundi, Hirapur, Dhanbad
Loader
19
Vivekananda
Mandal
Gobardhan Mandal
Kheshmi, Dhanbad
Loader
20
Om Prakash Mandal
Gobardhan Mandal
Kheshmi, Dhanbad
Loader
21
Prakash Mandal
Iswar Mandal
Maharukhan, Giridih
Loader
22
Poresh Mandal
Mohan Mandal
Khario, Hariharpur, Dhanbad
Loader
23
Rana Mandal
Barun Mandal
Kajora, Burdwan
Loader
24
Ratnesh Lal Karn
Rajendra Prasad
Bishanpur, Gomoh, Dhanbad
Loader
25
Mahesh Pd. Saw
Mahadeo Mahato
Chainpur, Dhanbad
Loader
26
Ashok Mahato
Mangru Mahato
Kanchanpur, Dhariom Bubni,
Dhanbad
Loader
27
Ghanashyam
Mahato
Raju Mahato
Chhatatand, Dhanbad
Loader
28
Khedu Mahato
Shyam Sundar Mahato
Muraidih, Pochari Dhanbad
Loader
29
Prakash Mahato
Binu Mahato
Gorabali, Bokaro
Loader
30
Hublal Saw
Pachu Mahato
Kalyanpur, Dhanbad
Loader
LAYAKDIH GHATH SRAMIK M/S :- ASHOK TRANSPORT KATRASH ROAD
1
Shankar Hembram
Jarmudih
Sardar
2
Lekhak Kr. Saw
Dinu Mahato
Kalyanpur
Loader
3
Umesh Kr. Saw
Atwari Mahato
Balutenda Kenduadih, Giridih
Loader
4
Raju Das
Fulu Das
Lodhoyadih, Topchachi, Dhanbad
Loader
5
Surendra Mandal
Bhagirathrath Mandal
Chaita, Gomoh, Dhanbad
Loader
6
Mahendra Mandal
Bhagirath Mandal
Chaita, Gomoh, Dhanbad
Loader
7
Rajesh Mandal
Tuplal Mandal
Kako, Dhanbad
Loader
8
Jiwan Tudu
Rati Manjhi
Chaita, Gomoh, Dhanbad
Loader
9
Sukhdeo Tudu
Rati Manjhi
Chaita, Gomoh, Dhanbad
Loader
10
Raju Ray
Laxman Ray
Chaita, Gomoh, Dhanbad
Loader
11
Sukhdeo Manjhi
Dinu Manjhi
Chaita, Gomoh, Dhanbad
Loader
12
Santosh Ray
Ram Chandar Ray
Bandarkupi
Loader
13
Bijay Ray
Laxman Ray
Chaita, Gomoh, Dhanbad
Loader
14
Laxman Paramanik
Kaleshwar Paramanik
Santhaldih, Hariharpur, Dhanbad
Loader
15
Naresh Singh
Nemchand Singh
Tuktuki
Loader
2438
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
16
Karu Singh
Dillu Singh
Kalhabar, Giridih
Loader
17
Kishore Ray
Ram Chandar Ray
Bandar Kupi
Loader
18
Mohan Hansda
Babulal Manjhi
Rangamati, Bokaro
Loader
19
Manku Singh
Nem Chand Singh
Tuktuki
Loader
20
Manoj Ray
Hublal Ray
Turiya, Dhanbad
Loader
21
Khemlal Rabidas
Karu Ravidas
Chaita, Gomoh, Dhanbad
Loader
22
Rajesh Kr. Kishku
Dinu Manjhai
Chaita, Gomoh, Dhanbad
Loader
SIJUA GHAT SRAMIK KI SUCHI
Dr. AMBEDKAR SAHAYOG SAMATI LIMITED, HARI LAL GUPTA, BILLING JHARIA
1
Bajlu Mia
Maniruddin Ansari
Sijua, Benagaria, Dhanbad
Sardar
2
Juman Ansari
Panku Ansari
Sijua, Benagaria, Dhanbad
Loader
3
Bishwajeet Sarkhel
Durga Sarkhel
Agarda, Bankura
Loader
4
Uttam Kumar Modi
Diwakar Modi
Brindabanpur, Purulia
Loader
5
Binoy Kumar
Bacchu Yadav
Jangi[Ur, Sekhpura
Loader
6
Arbind Kumar
Jagdish Thakur
Ajhi, Sekhpura
Loader
7
Bharat Ram
Gaya Ram
Ajhi, Sekhpura
Loader
8
Binoy Kr. Rajak
Mushahari Rajak
Kendua, Kathgola, Dhanbad
Loader
9
Indradeo Yadav
Raju Yadav
Mirjagang, Jamui
Loader
10
Adarsh Kr. Pathak
Shaktinath Pathak
Kenduadih Rajputbasti Dhanbad
Loader
11
Sailendra Thakur
Karu Thakur
Ashthama, Sekhpura
Loader
12
Arun Kr. Rajak
Mushari Rajak
Kendua, Kathgola, Dhanbad
Loader
13
Jitendra Kumar
Arjun Prasad
Rahui, Nalanda
Loader
14
Kuleshwar Singh
Shivnandan Singh
Birnama, Nalanda
Loader
15
Iswar Marandi
Sogadih, Benagaria
Sardar
16
Kumar Ajoy
Diwakar
Radhe Prasad
Mehadibigha, Nalandad
Loader
17
Mahendra Ray
Munshi Ray
E .B.Sec Kewra, Dhanbad
Loader
18
Ajay Kumar
Bacchu Yadav
Jangipur, Sekhpura
Loader
19
Dharmendra Kumar
Gopal Yadav
Mehar, Gaya
Loader
20
Dilip Rajak
Bhagwan Rajak
Renguni Phatak, Bhuli, Dhan.
Loader
21
Ravindra Kumar
Shidheshwar Ram
Kuthot, Sekhpura
Loader
22
Ravindar Ram
Ramchandra Ram
Pyor Shitalpur, Burdwan
Loader
23
Mangal Rajak
Babula Rajak
Phulwaribagh, Dhanbad
Loader
24
Mukesh Kr. Mittal
Sajan Kumar Mittal
Kendua Bazar, Dhanbad
Loader
25
Amit Kr. Mittal
Sajan Kumar Mittal
Kendua Bazar, Dhanbad
Loader
26
Krishna kant Kumar
Prasadi Yadav
Chainpur, Gaya
Loader
27
Tezam Ansari
Ramjan Ansari
Sijua, Dhanbad
Sardar
28
Sanjit Kumar
Prasadi Yadav
Chainpur, Gaya
Loader
29
Pratima Devi
Pradip Thakur
Bamuntore, Bankura
Loader
30
Kalawati Devi
Shyam Ch. Chouhan
Shibri, Garwa
Loader
31
Munna Chouhan
Suryadeo Chouhan
Shibri, Garwa
Loader
32
Dulali Devi
Sudhir Das
Sakhoya, Bokaro
Loader
33
Jhumka Devi
Jitu Bhuia
Ranipur, Kulti, Burdwan
Loader
II
(ii)
2439
34
Manoj Kr.
Chourasia
Ram Kripal Chourasia
Udaypur, Samastipur
Loader
35
Binod Chourasia
Ram Kripal Chourasia
Udaypur, Samastipur
Loader
SIJUA GHAT SRAMIK KI SUCHI
SHAKATI MOTOR PARIBAHAN SHAYOG SAMATI LTD, TATA SIJUA, BHELATAND, DHANBAD
1
Aaub Mia
Apsali Mia
Sijua, Benagaria
Sardar
2
Sailesh Kumar
Krishna Singh
New Bishunpur, Dhanbad
Loader
3
Rajib Mandal
Mathur Mandal
Hemchabad, Bankura
Loader
4
Binod Rawani
Bhikhu Rawani
Manaitand, Dhanbad
Loader
5
Ranjit Prasad
Ganesh Prasad
Baro, Giridih
Loader
6
Naresh Kr. Paswan
Baleshwar Paswan
Pathra, Gaya
Loader
7
Shankarlal Nisad
Amrit Nisat
Laxami Coloney, Dhanbad
Loader
8
Somitra Banerjee
Dayamoy Banerjee
Ratibati Chapui, Burdwan
Loader
9
Pradip Thakur
Fatik Thakur
Bamuntor, Bankura
Loader
10
Ramapati Chatterjee
Sanat Kr. Chatterjee
Kubernagar, Nadiya
Loader
11
Hulsah Saw
Nanhu Saw
Suratpur Pipra, Chatra
Loader
12
Durga Prasad Singh
Rameshwar Singh
Deokali, Azamgarah
Loader
13
Ajay Kumar
Paswan
Jitendra Paswan
Pachmi, Gaya
Loader
14
Shitlal Mahato
Ramkishan Mahato
Chanaro, Hazaribagh
Loader
15
Saiyad Md.
Keshwar
Saiyad Md. Yaima
Charhi, Hazaribagh
Loader
M/S RAGHUNATH, MOTOR PARIBAHAN SAHAYOG SAMATI LTD. RAGHUNATH PUR, DHAN
1
Bahadur Mia
Karamat Mia
Sijua, Benagaria
Loader
2
Munaraf Ansari
Punul Ansari
Sijua, Benagaria
Loader
3
Ranjit Kr. Sinha
Kedar Nath Sahay
Asdhirlukum, Hazaribagh
Loader
4
Ajit Kr. Sinha
Kedar Nath Sahay
Asdhirlukum, Hazaribagh
Loader
5
Sumit Kr.Amast
Ramanant Prasad
Charhi, , Hazaribagh
Loader
6
Rohit Kr. Sinha
Ramanant Prasad
Charhi, , Hazaribagh
Loader
7
Sanjoy Sinha
Harish Ch. Prasad
NaginaSingh Road, Giridih
Loader
8
Dilip Kr, Sinha
Suresh Prasad
Uttari Shiv
Loader
9
Rakesh Kr.
Sirvastav
Tribeni Pd. Singh
Pakriya, Bhagalpur
Loader
10
Shyamlal Kishore
Bijay Prasad
Kurman, Godda
Loader
11
Anju Prasad
Chakradhar Prasad
Kurman, Godda
Loader
12
Md. Sahazad
Md. Sahadat
Charhi, Hazaribagh
Loader
13
Ankesh Kumar
Ajay Prasad
Kurman, Godda
Loader
14
Om Kumar Sinha
Ramanand Prasad
Charhi, Hazaribagh
Loader
15
Binod Karmali
Bhatu Karmali
Kedla, Ramgarh
Loader
16
Manjeet Singh
Sraban Singh
Prem Nagar, Hazaribagh
Loader
17
Purnendu Narayan
Mahato
Thanu Mahato
Majhiladih
Loader
18
Jhari Mahato
Jiwan Mahato
Majhiladih
Loader
19
Lalu Mahato
Majhiladih
Loader
2440
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
20
Narendra Mahato
Chandra Mohan
Mahato
Madhugora
Loader
21
Mansur Allam
Anul Ansari
Indra, Hazaribagh
Loader
22
Ram Pravesh Yadav
Radharaman Yadav
Amarjori, Deoghar
Loader
M/S NAWAJAGRAN SAHAYOG SAMITI LIMITED, WASEPUR, DHANBAD
1
Chhatu Mia
Jamal Mia
Sijua
Sardar
2
Sanjib Kr. Sinha
Manoranjan Prasad
South Balihari, Dhanbad
Loader
3
Ramashankar Singh
Ram Kumar Singh
Rudranagar, Bhojpur
Loader
4
Uday Shankar
Singh
Bishwanath Singh
Rudranagar, Bhojpur
Loader
5
Ramesh Prasad
Sago Prasad
Susnilewa, Dhanbad
Loader
6
Kishore Ram
Kharakdhari Ram
Bararee Coke Plant, Dhanbad
Loader
7
Bablu Kr. Ravidas
Sango Ravidas
Bani Yahir, Dhanbad
Loader
8
Manoj Kr. Mishra
Ram Hosila Mishra
Barkagaun, Baksar
Loader
9
Zamir Allam
Jahanggir Allam
Ajad Nagar, Bhuli, Dhanbad
Loader
10
Bikash Ch. Dayal
Bhagwan Prasad
Ramsagar Talao, Gaya
Loader
11
Ashok Varma
Anant Lal Varma
Kenduadih, Dhanbad
Loader
12
Arbind Prasad
Ramsewak Prasad
Uchouli, Aurangabad
Loader
13
Hiro Mahato
Paltu Mahato
Chabaro Parbad, Charni, Hazaribagh
Loader
M/S:- SRAMIK MOTOR PARIBAHAN SAHAYOG SAMITI LIMITED, BALIHARI COLLIERY
1
Indramohan Bouri
Fuchiram Bouri
Sijua, Benageriya
Sardar
2
Meghlal Mahato
Nirmal Mahato
Charhi, Hazaribagh
Loader
3
Chhotan Mahato
Pacchu Mahato
Bansdih, Ramgarh
Loader
4
Anand Thakur
Bhuneshwar Thakur
Charhi, Hazaribagh
Loader
5
Dilip Paswan
Jawahar Paswan
Kudra, Patna
Loader
6
Binod Kumar
Yadu Paswan
Palatapura, Nalanda
Loader
7
Raj Kumar Pswan
Mouji Paswan
Kathwara, Jamui
Loader
8
Ravindar Paswan
Mouji Paswan
Kathwara, Jamui
Loader
9
Rajesh Saw
Naresh Pd. Saw
Papro, Hazaribagh
Loader
10
Sandip Thakur
Bhuneshwar Thakur
Charhi, Hazaribagh
Loader
11
Shambhu Pd. Singh
Basudeo Singh
Chanaro Parbadh, Hazaribagh
Loader
12
Pramod Saw
Naresh Pd. Saw
Papro, Hazaribagh
Loader
13
Kanhaiya Kr.
Paswan
Nunulal Paswan
Naya Dhoura Kustore, Dhanbad
Loader
14
Kartik Rajvar
Mahadeo Rajvar
South Balihari Basti, Dhanbad
Loader
15
Jagatlal Patel
Ramraj Patel
Darogapur, Ilahabad
Loader
16 Raj Kumar Yadav
Narayan Yadav
Mahabigha, Gaya
Loader
17
Upendar Kr. Yadav
Ramprasad Yadav
Mahabigha, Gaya
Loader
18
Umesh Prasad
Yadav
Ramchandar Yadav
Nagbar, Gaya
Loader
19
Nitesh Kumar
Raj Kr. Paswan
Pachar, Orangabad
Loader
20
Sarjoo Yadav
Janki Yadav
Maharambigha, Gaya
Loader
21
Prakash Kumar
Kashinath Singh
Badanpyr, Baishali
Loader
22
Gopal Kumar
Kashinath Singh
Badanpyr, Baishali
Loader
II
(ii)
2441
23
Dhiraj Kumar
Bhagwat Prasad
Chitragupta Patra, Patna
Loader
24
Sudhir Kumar
Dwarika Prasad
Bazaar Patti Tola, Muzaffarpur
Loader
25
Lalita Devi
Rampukar Prasad
Darokhap, Hazaribag
Loader
26
Kunal Kumar Saw
Jogendar Prasad
Sonda Basti, Ramgarh
Loader
27
Karan Kumar Sahu
Jogendar Prasad
Sonda Basti, Ramgarh
Loader
28
Satendra Kumar
Koleshwar Sahu
Marar, Ramgarh
Loader
29
Arth Patin
Choudhury
Kanhailal Choudhury
Badra, Bankura
Loader
30
Shaktipada Das
Arjun Das
Rangamati, Purulia
Loader
31
Rupesh Sharma
Mandal Sharma
Kendawa Bazaar
Loader
32
Jitendra Kumar
Ram
Ram Dadan Ram
Sultan Pur, Baliya
Loader
33
Munna Babu Patel
Ram Raj Patel
Darogapur, Ilahabad
Loader
34
Firoz Khan
Rahamat Tulla Khan
Kutumba, Kazi Mohalla, Orangabad
Loader
35
Yogesh Kr. Yadav
Raju Yadav
Mirjajung, Jamui
Loader
36
Dharminder Yadav
Mahesh Yadav
Aksari Bigha, Sekhpura
Loader
37
Bijay Rawani
Gokhol Rawani
Lathatand, Rajgung, Dhanbad
Loader
38
Umesh Prasad
Mahendra Prasad
Alkusha, Kustore, Dhanbad
Loader
39
Birendra Yadav
Srikant Yadav
Gehuri, Gajipur
Loader
40
Sakinder Yadav
Ramratan Yadav
Gehuri, Gajipur
Loader
41
Ram Prabesh Yadav
Jagdish Yadav
Tetriya, Gaya
Loader
42
Ranjeet Rajbhar
Sufer Rajvar
Karmullapur, Gajipur
Loader
43
Dharmendra
Paswan
Yadu Paswan
Palatapura, Nalanda
Loader
44
Niranjan Paswan
Yadu Paswan
Palatapura, Nalanda
Loader
45
Nabin Kr. Ram
Kailash Ram
Banachack, Chatra
Loader
46
Jitendra Mallah
Mathura Mallah
Golakdih, Dhanbad
Loader
47
JitendraKumar
Mallah
Rameshwar Mallah
M .O.C.P.Collony, Dhanbad
Loader
48
Ravindar Kr.
Choudhary
Anjani Kr. Choudhary
R .K. Puram Road 3, Muzaffarpur
Loader
49
Yetendra Kr.
Choudhary
Anjani Kr. Choudhary
R .K. Puram Road 3, Muzaffarpur
Loader
50
Mahesh Prasad
Ram Sahay Mahato
Kunjila, Nawada
Loader
51
Anup Kumar
Mahendra Prasad
Kunjila, Nawada
Loader
52
Bishundeo Yadav
Prasadi Yadav
Choudiha, Jamui
Loader
53
Abdhesh Kr. Patel
Ramraj Patel
Darogapur, Ilahabad
Loader
54
Raj Kr. Yadav
Mouji Yadav
Thammahan, Jamui
Loader
55
Imam Khan
Nazamuddin Khan
Baradih, Rohatash
Loader
56
Saggir Allam
M D. Idrish Ansari
Shimlabahal Basti, Dhanbad
Loader
SHAHID MOTOR PARIBAHAN SAHAYOG SAMATI LIMITED, BALIHARI COLLIERY
1
Nandlal Mahato
Yalu Mahato
Pandua, Bejra
Sardar
2
Asho Mahato
Hariram Mahato
Pokhoriya
Loader
3
Anand Mahato
Manic Mahato
Pokhoriya
Loader
4
Madhu Mahato
Patal ` Mahato
Pokhoriya
Loader
2442
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5
Karma Mahato
Kundan Mahato
Pokhoriya
Loader
6
Pran Mahato
Anando Mahato
Pokhoriya
Loader
7
Bijoy Mahato
Hari Mahato
Pokhoriya
Loader
8
Jawaharlal Mahato
Nandlal Mahato
Pokhoriya
Loader
9
Rampodo Mahato
Govind Mahato
Pokhoriya
Loader
10
Sahadeo Mahato
Kali Mahato
Pokhoriya
Loader
11
Ayodha Mahato
Kashi Mahato
Pokhoriya
Loader
12
Prahallad Mahato
Kasha Mahato
Pokhoriya
Loader
13
Jagan Tudu
Samra Tudu
Pokhoriya
Sardar
14
Raja Allam
Sahajjad Allam
Sijua Bazaar, Banka
Loader
15
Joy Prakash
Madeshiya
Dasarath Saw
Kenduapul, Dhanbad
Loader
16
Anand Bouri
Rakhal Bouri
Tiltoriya, Dhanbad
Loader
17
Anil Sahu
Radhika Sahu
Bagmundi, Chatra
Loader
18
Baleshwar Yadav
Nanhu Yadav
Kherum, Koderma
Loader
19
Rameshwar Yadav
Budhan Mahato
Jamu, Bokaro
Loader
20
Upendra Yadav
Dukhan Yadav
Mansadih, Giridih
Loader
21
Sikendra Yadav
Bishwanath Yadav
Mansadih, Giridih
Loader
BARAKAR NADI KE SIJUA GHAT SRAMIK KI SUCHI THIKADAR M/S SHIVAM
TRANSPORT, KATRASH ROAD, DHANBAD
1
Lokashan Hembram
Ravidas Hembram
Jurgudih
Sardar
2
Uday Kr. Paswan
Parsadi Paswan
Bastakola, Dhanbad
Loader
3
Suresh Prasad
Sagar Das
Bhuli Nagar, Dhanbad
Loader
4
Birendar Paswan
Sagar Das
Bhuli Nagar, Dhanbad
Loader
5
Sajay Raj Roy
Amar Chandra
Hirapur, Ajanta Para, Dhanbad
Loader
6
Suresh Paswan
Nako Paswan
Gartola, Lakahisarai
Loader
7
Nawin Kr. Ravidas
Khirodhar Rabidas
Silly, Ranchi
Loader
8
Bipin Ch. Jha
Kailash Ch. Jha
Ghanuadih, Dhanbad
Loader
9
Ved Narayan Singh
Uday Narayan Singh
Sihimlabaharcolliery, Dhanbad
Loader
10
Aashit Kumar
Chandra
Khudi Ram Chandra
Kariya, Bokaro
Loader
BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED
BARAKAR NADI BEJRA GHAT BALI SHARAMIK KI SUCHI,
THIKADAR M/S BAJRANJ TRANSPORT, RANI BAZAR, KATRASH
1
Sudhir Mahato
Guddu Mahato
Pandua, Bejra
Sardar
2
Jata Mahato
Guddu Mahato
Pandua, Bejra
Loader
3
Madan Mahato
Nando Mahato
Pandua, Bejra
Loader
4
Vijay Kr. Chandra
Khudi Ram Chandra
Kariya, Bokaro
Loader
5
Raj Kishore Barma
Om Prakash Varma
Baramasia, Dhansar, Dhanbad
Loader
6
Manoj Kumar
Ram Pd. Yadav
Dhaiya, Dhanbad
Loader
7
Nageswar Yadav
Madan Gope
Ganshadih, Dhanbad
Loader
8
Dasrath Yadav
Chhotelal Yadav
Baddhiha, Koderma
Loader
9
Sudhir Kr. Yadav
Madan Gope
Ganshadih, Dhanbad
Loader
10
Ashwani Kumar
Bisheswar Nararyan
Kerkend Dhanbad
Loader
II
(ii)
2443
Singh
11
Tulshi Yadav
Paro Yadav
Nawada Basti, Koderma
Loader
12
Latho Yadav
Mangar Yadav
Pandey Tola, Koderma
Loader
13
Basudeo Yadav
Boudhi Yadav
Nawada Basti, Koderma
Loader
14
Raju Kr. Varma
Om Prakash Barma
Baramasia, Dhansar, Dhanbad
Loader
15
Ashok Kr. Mishra
Tarani Pd. Mishra
Thakur Kuli, Dhaiya Dhanbad
Loader
16
Pentar Hembram
Hemant Hembram
Bhutgaria, Dhanbad
Loader
17
Ghanshyam Yadav
Panchu Yadav
Bhagabandh, Dhanbad
Loader
18
Suman Kumar
Arjun Prasad
Chitragupt Nagar, Koderma
Loader
19
Shiv Nath Kumar
Bishambhar Yadav
Khoraahar, Hazaribagh
Loader
M/S:- SHARMA TRANSPORT KATRASH ROAD, DHANBAD
1
Kalimuddin Ansari
Mantu Ansari
Pandua Bejra
Sardar
2
Ando Mahato
Bhim Mahato
Pandua Bejra
Loader
3
Nepal Ram
Mahabir Ram
Pandua Bejra
Loader
4
Rajendra Yadav
Banshi Yadav
Harino, Koderma
Loader
5
Laxman Yadav
Banshi Yadav
Harino, Koderma
Loader
6
Manoj Yadav
Nirmal Yadav
Khoraahar, Hazaribagh
Loader
7
Anand Yadav
Doman Yadav
Kalipahari, Jamtara
Loader
8
Mitan Yadav
Lakhan Yadaav
Babudih, Jamtara
Loader
9
Md. Meraj
Abdul Sattar
Chhatabad, Dhanbad
Loader
10
Mithun Yadav
Panchu Yadav
Bhagabandh, Dhanbad
Loader
M/S: ASHOK TRANSPORT COMPANY
1
Paresh Mahato
Bejra, Pokhoriya
Sardar
2
Surendra Yadav
Baleshwar Yadav
Nawada Basti, Koderma
Loader
3
Sanjoy Yadav
Harilal Yadav
Karakhunda, Koderma
Loader
4
Shankar Ram
Chamru Ram
Sindhiya Galli, Giridih
Loader
5
Sunil Kr. Das
Bhagwan Das
Bouragarh, Dhanbad
Sardar
6
Manju Kumara
Babulal Rajwar
Ashubandh Tada, Purulia
Loader
7
Shankar Ram
Babulal Ram
Dhand, Jammui
Loader
8
Md. Kalam
Ishaq Ansari
Bela, Jahanabad
Loader
9
Serajul Haq Kureshi
Anul Haq Kureshi
Shimlabahal Basti, Dhanbad
Loader
10
Sanjay Kumar Ram
Kharakdhari Ram
Bararee Coke, Plant, Dhanbad
Loader
11
Chandrabhushan
Ramjanam Singh
Ganiyari, Muzaffarpur
Loader
12
Hiralal Chourasia
NarSingh Pd.
Chourasia
Bareb, Gaya
Loader
13
Hari Rajbhar
Sufer Rajbhar
Karimullahapur, Gajipur
Loader
14
Pawan Kumar
Yadav
Baleshwar Singh
Yadav
Shermath, Gajipur
Loader
15
Pramod Kumar
Yadav
Rajpati Yadav
Deoli, Kashimabad
Loader
16
Dharmendra
Paswan
Shibalak Paswan
NarSingh Pur, Sekhpura
Loader
2444
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
17
Bijay Kumar
Shibalak Paswan
NarSingh Pur, Sekhpura
Loader
18
Sajan Paswan
Indradeo Paswan
More, Patna
Sardar
19
Dinanath Paswan
Alakhdeo Pd. Nirala
Belthan, Patna
Loader
20
Nande Paswan
Alakhdeo Pd. Nirala
Belthan, Patna
Loader
21
Binod Kr.Yadav
Ram Rup Yadav
Kendua Bazaar, Dhanbad
Loader
22
Manoj Kr. Ram
Garib Ram
B.N.R. Putkee, Dhanbad
Loader
23
Birendar Yadav
Bhagwati L Yadav
Bankmore, Dhanbad
Loader
24
Chandra Kant Ray
Yamuna Ray
Yamuna
Loader
25
Munna Yadav
Baleshwar Yadav
Nawada Basti, Koderma
Loader
26
Anil Yadav
Baleshwar Yadav
Nawada Basti, Koderma
Loader
BARAKAR NADI DUMA GHAT BALU SHARAMIK KI SUCHI, M/S SHARMA TRANSPORT
1
Bholanath Modak
Kamlakol Modak
Ukma, Dhanbad
Sardar
2
Janeshwar Murmur
Nandeo Murmu
Ukma, Dhanbad
Loader
3
Rinku Kr. Yadav
Kedar Yadav
Doranda, Giridih
Loader
4
Dharmbir Yadav
Sitaram Yadav
Bhuli , Dhanbad
Loader
5
Bittu Ray
Subhas Ray
Bhuli , Dhanbad
Loader
6
Sanjay Gope
Cholo Gope
Barihadih, Hazaribagh
Loader
7
Md. Imran Ansari
Md. Hussian
Shimlabahal I, Dhanbad
Loader
8
Tapan Deogharia
Gobardhan Deogharia
Chhatna, Bankura
Loader
9
Brahmdeo Keshari
Meghlal Mahato
Charhi, Hazaribagh
Loader
10
Anil Kumar Sonkar
Kashinath Sonkar
Manaitand, Dhanbad
Loader
11
Ramdeo Mahato
Meghlal Mahato
Charhi, Hazaribagh
Loader
12
Bijoy Kumar Maji
Lakhan Maji
Rashra, Purulia
Loader
13
Sakaldeo Sharma
Kameshwar Sharma
Chhatihar, Hirsuja
Loader
14
Bharat Kumar
Singh
Dasrath Singh
New H.N.Colloney, Dhanbad
Loader
15
Jay Kishore Singh
Manoj Kumar Singh
Durja Mandap Road, Baramesia,
Dhan.
Loader
16
Dilip Kumar
Bishwanath Singh
H.E.School.Road, Vistipara Dhanbad
Loader
17
Ramji Singh
Dasarath Singh
New H.N.Colloney, Dhanbad
Loader
18
Sunil Kumar
Satyadeo Prasad
Kabristhan Road, Joraphokar
Loader
19
Rakesh Kr. Singh
Brinda Singh
Harinarayan NagarDhanbad
Loader
20
Bhubneshwar
Mandal
Kujar Mandal
Mohanpur, Jamtara
Loader
21
Sudhir Mandal
Sitaram Mandal
Muchiraydih, Jamtara
Loader
22
Thami Yadav
Hiraman Mahato
Mangrodih, Giridih
Loader
M/S:- BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED
1
Rakesh Kumar
Arjun Pd. Saw
Udaypur, Barawadda, Dhanbad
Loader
2
Dhananjoy
Chourasia
Ram Ch. Chourasia
HarSingh ra, Gaya
Loader
3
Binita Devi
Kishore Kumar
HarSingh ra, Gaya
Loader
4
Pradeep Kr. Mahato
Nandlal Mahato
Nawatand, Govindpur
Loader
5
Himgiri Saw
Rashbihari Saw
Khamarbad, Harladih, Giridih
Loader
II
(ii)
2445
6
Hiralal Gorai
Jiwanlal Gorai
Patharkata, Chandankiyari
Loader
7
Naresh Kr. Saw
Laxman Saw
Khamarbad, Giridih
Loader
8
Sanjib Kumar
Rashbihari Saw
Khamarbad, , Giridih
Loader
9
Wakil Kr. Singh
Damodar Singh
Pokharna, Harladih, Giridih
Loader
10
Sabitri Devi
Arjun Pd. Saw
Khamarbad, , Giridih
Loader
11
Dhirendranath Saw
Sukhdeo Mahato
Damumura, Barawadda, Dhanbad
Loader
12
Usman Ansari
Mahabub
Karmagora, BarawaddaDhanbad
Loader
13
Bishnu Singh
Khiru Singh
Bandhkharo, Giridih
Loader
14
Dipak Singh
Sarjoo Singh
Rithudih, Bokaro
Loader
15
Kumar Amit
Kumar Arjun Singh
Loader
16
Nawin Kumar
Janardan Pd. Singh
Loader
17
Amit Kumar
Loader
18
Gyan Prakesh
Sanjib Singh
Loader
19
Sheo Kr. Barma
Bishun Barma
Loader
20
Prabin Kumar
Loader
21
Bhushan Singh
Loader
22
Ritbik Anand
Manoj Kr. Dubey
Loader
23
Ashok Kumar
Loader
24
Papu Kumar
Bishundeo Paswan
Loader
25
Rabindar Kr.
Mishra
Shankar Pd. Mishra
Panchrukhi, Rajganj, Dhanbad
Loader
26
Ranjan Kr. Singh
Rajendra Pd. Singh
Dhanbad
Loader
27
Rajesh Kr. Mishra
R .L. Mishra
Dhanbad
Loader
BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED
BARAKAR NADI PALOBERA GHAT, BALU SHARIMAK KI SUCHI
M/S:- SHARMA TRANSPORT COMPONY, KATRAS ROAD, DHANBAD
1
Babulal Mandal
Kartik Mandal
Ghosaldih
Sardar
2
Durjan Mahato
Moti Mahato
Ghosaldih
Loader
3
Mantu Kumar
Nayak
Basudeo Nayak
Bhendra, Bokaro
Loader
4
Laxman Ray
Jangu Ray
Chaita, Gomoh, Dhanbad
Loader
5
Sudhir Pd. Barma
Mohan Pd. Barma
Baramesiya, Doeghar
Loader
6
Baneshwar Mandal
Bhado Mandal
Chitra, Sarath
Loader
7
Bisheshwar Mandal
Lakhi Mandal
Dudhichuya, Deoghar
Loader
8
Ganesh Mandal
Janki Mandal
Didhakoli
Loader
9
Santosh Kr. Yadav
Hari Pd. Yadav
Alakwara, Deoghar
Loader
10
Harendra Rajak
Bhajan Ch. Rajak
Barafitchhri, Barwadda, Dhanbad
Loader
M/S :- D.P. SHARMA TRANSPORT COMPONY, KATRAS ROAD, DHANBAD
1
Manoranjan Ram
Hatsara, Chepkiya
Sardar
2
Santosh Soren
Budhan Manjhi
Tilpubera, Bokaro
Loader
3
Jawalla Pd. Singh
Rajendra Pd. Singh
Tarmohanpur, Bokaro
Loader
4
Fanibhusan Singh
Chhatu Singh
Tarmohanpur, Bokaro
Loader
5
Surendra Singh
Panchan Singh
Ghergaun, Koderma
Loader
2446
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6
Bikram Singh
Arjun Singh
Karma, Koderma
Loader
7
Sanjay Singh
Fouddar Singh
Jarsoti, Giridih
Loader
8
Arjun Singh
Badri Singh
Koldiha, Giridih
Loader
9
Chandan Singh
Rajendra Pd. Singh
Tarmohanpur, Bokaro
Loader
10
Allauddin Ansari
Yusuph Ansari
Amtand, Topchanchi, Dhanbad
Loader
11
Abash Ansari
Md. Yusuf Ansari
Amtand, Topchanchi, Dhanbad
Loader
12
Meghnath Mahato
Daharu Mahato
Amtand, Topchanchi, Dhanbad
Loader
13
Taslim Ansari
Md. Yunush Ansari
Sukudih, Gomoh, Dhanbad
Loader
14
Sanjay Kumar Saw
Dinu Mahato
Kalyanpur, Barwadda, Dhanbad
Loader
15
Ghanashyam
Mahato
Bhola Mahato
Konartand, Dhanwar, Dhanbad
Loader
16
Narayan Kumar
Bhim Kumhar
Lusadih, Rajganj, Dhanbad
Loader
17
Om Prakash
Nunulal Mahato
Barwadda, Tundi, Dhanbad
Loader
18
Kartik Singh
Kali Charan Singh
Karharadih, Kotoriya, Banka
Loader
19
Sudhir Pandit
Parmeshwar Pandit
Chholisargadiha, Giridih
Loader
20
Dhananjay Singh
Yamuna Singh
Danidih, Poreyahat, Godda
Loader
21
Krishna Pd. Yadav
Atwari Mahato
Chhotki Kharagdiha, Giridih
Loader
22
Dipu Yadav
Bipat Yadav
Jaina More, Jaridih, Bokaro
Loader
23
Churaman Singh
Sufal Singh
Ojhadih, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
24
Bikram Singh
RamKumar Singh
Jamuniya Tand, Simultala, Jamui
Loader
25
Hiralal Varma
Rajendra Mahato
Harkhodih , Giridih
Loader
26
Amar Kumar Singh
Tara Pd. Singh
Nichitpur, Katrasgarh, Dhanbad
Loader
27
Ganesh Yadav
Ritlal Yadav
Mahuyatand, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
28
Rabindra Singh
Gouri Shankar Singh
Jahitiya, Chaiti, Gaya
Loader
29
Binod Kr. Yadav
Basudeo Pd. Yadav
Chandodih, Koderma
Loader
30
Sanjay Kumar
Nanhaku Ram
Dadpur, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
31
Sarjoo Singh
Puna Singh
Pathalgarwa, Bhendra, Bokaro
Loader
32
Rabindra Kishku
Munilal Kishku
Dhaiya, ISM, Dhanbad
Loader
33
Md. Ikramuddin
Ansari
Nizamuddin Ansari
Chorapatti, Gomoh, Dhanbad
Loader
34
Dahalu Singh
Gopal Singh
Baramasiya, Gourisirsiya, Gandey
Giridih
Loader
35
Dhaniram Mahato
Laxman Mahato
Ramakunda , Dhanbad
Loader
36
Manoj Singh
Ruplal Singh
Damodarpur, Gomoh, Dhanbad
Loader
37
Gourab Sahi
Arjun Sahi
Kachan Saha, Boushi, Banka
Loader
38
Ajay Rajak
Deodhari Rajak
Mahadev Tand, , Hazaribagh
Loader
39
Umesh Singh
Somar Singh
Sonardih, Jamua, Giridih
Loader
40
Rohit Kumar Yadav
Chandar Kishore
Yadav
Fatehpur, Simultala, Jamui
Loader
41
Manoj Kr. Pandey
Kameshwar Pandey
Markachho, Koderma
Loader
42
Shankar Singh
Govind Singh
Kahadih, Jamua, Giridih
Loader
43
Kedarnath Kumar
Anhu Mahara
Radhey Mohadar , Deoghar
Loader
II
(ii)
2447
44
Rajan Singh
Ramakant Singh
Mahuwar, Harla, Bokaro
Loader
45
Manoj Rajak
Saryu Rajak
Darjee Muhalla , Giridih
Loader
46
Prabhat Prakash
Tiwary
Shiv Shankar Tiwari
Jaina More, Jaridih, Bokaro
Loader
47
Laxman Singh
Kedar Singh
Jamuniyatand , Jamui
Loader
48
Sudama Mandal
Tulshi Mandal
Gunghasa, Hariharpur, Dhanbad
Loader
49
SuKumar Singh
Chandrasekhar Singh
Babudih, Karmatandjamtara
Loader
50
Nawal Kishore
Singh
Rohit Singh
Jamuniyatand, Giridih
Loader
M/S:- ANIL TRANSPORT
1
Haradhan Mandal
Kamdeo Mandal
Churuia, Sundarpahar
Sardar
2
Panchu Singh
Umed Narayan Singh
Ojhadih, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
3
Chunni Sahi
Gandhi Sahi
Kachansaha, Sariya, Bousi, Banka
Loader
4
Muruli Singh
Shankar Singh
Pasai, Poriya, Godda
Loader
5
Rajsekher Sahi
Mahendra Sahi
Kachansaha, Sariya, Bousi, Banka
Loader
6
Sukehdeo Singh
Jagdish Sinh
Jamuniyatand, Shimultala, Jamui
Loader
7
Anup Singh
Bahadur Singh
Turkakol, Bouli, Banka
Loader
8
Basist Sahi
Balaram Sahi
Kachansaha, Bousi, Banka
Loader
9
Ramanand Saw
Bajnath Saw
Bela, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
10
Kameshwar Mandal
Shankar Mandal
Gunghusha, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
11
Binod Dhangi
Gandouri Dhangi
Dadpur, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
12
Shiv Charn Mandal
Kasha Nath Mandal
Kandidih, Topchachi, Dhanbad
Loader
13
Salesh Mandal
Chand Mohan Mandal
Gungusha Harihar Pur, Gomho
Loader
14
Sunil Kr. Soren
Ruplal Soren
Balidih, Bokaro
Loader
15
Satendra Dangi
Lekho Mahato
Dadpur, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
16
Jagarnath Singh
Khiru Singh
Belkuiya, Nirsa, Dhanbad
Loader
17
Birendar Singh
Dubey Singh
Chirudih Birni, Giridih
Loader
18
Rohan Dangi
Hiraman Mahato
Dadpur, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
19
M .P.Singh
Chhatu Narayan Singh
Gadikala Deori, Giridih
Loader
20
Pradip Singh
Arjun Singh
Simaltand, Simultala, Giridih
Loader
21
Shankar Singh
Sukhdeo Singh
Bagai, Koderma
Loader
22
Surendar Mandal
Bhagirath Mandal
Chaita, Gomah
Loader
23
Akhleshwar Singh
Kali Singh
Ganrawa, Tetulmari, Dhanbad
Loader
24
Jhagori Bauri
Jagan Bouri
Nutundih, Chandan Dih Bokaro
Loader
25
Laxman Modi
Banshi Modi
Kapilo, Birni, Giridih
Loader
26
Prahallad Mahato
Mohan Mahato
Chandan Kirayari, Bokaro
Loader
27
Badri Manjhi
Babulal Manjhi
Laxmi Pur Gomoh, Dhanbad
Loader
28
Rameshwar Modi
Ladai Modi
Chandan Kirayari, Bokaro
Loader
29
Chando Lal Manjhi
Lakhi Manjhi
Laxmi Pur Gomoh, Dhanbad
Loader
30
Yogendra Singh
Krishnanand Singh
Mirjagang, Sikandra, Jamui
Loader
31
Manic Ch. Singh
Hari Singh
Thakurkuli, Dhaiy Dhanbad
Loader
32
Binod Pandey
Prabhas Pandey
Chaita, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
33
Sreekant Yadav
Baijnath Yadav
Panpur, Kotoyali, Ballia
Loader
2448
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
34
Chakar Bharti
Moti Singh
Ghergaun, Koderma
Loader
BHARAT COCKING COAL LIMITED
JAMUNIYA NADI KHERABEDA GHAT, BALU SHARIMAK KA SUCHI
THIKADAR – M/S:- SHARMA TRANSPORT CO., KATRAS ROAD, DHANBAD
1
Ishwar Mahato
Punit Mahato
Kherabara,
Sardar
2
Laxman Roy
Sarjoo Roy
Chaita, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
3
Nilkanth Manjhi
Bhola Manjhi
Chaita, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
4
Chintamani Mahato
Ghashi Mahato
Kherabara, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
5
Jethu Mahato
Hulash Mahato
Kherabara, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
6
Babulal Manjhi
Karam Ch. Manjhi
Chaita, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
7
Sundar Manjhi
Shibu Manjhi
Laxmi Pur Gomoh, Dhanbad
Loader
8
Sukhdeo Manjhi
Dinu Manjhi
Chaita, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
9
Bhagirath Mahato
Darbari Mahato
Kherabara, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
10
Harish Ch. Ray
Sundar Ray
Chaita, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
11
Nepal Rajwar
Saharai Rajwar
Chandan Kiyari, Bokaro
Loader
12
Rajendra Pandey
Kanhai Pandey
Chaita, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
13
Manpuran Modi
Ghasiram Modi
Chandan Kiyari, Bokaro
Loader
14
Puran Mahato
Khedan Mahato
Chaita, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
15
Kiran Gope
Bholu Gope
Chandan Kiyari, Bokaro
Loader
16
Shanichar Manjhi
Bhola Manjhi
Chaita, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
17
Moti Lal Singh
Banshilal Singh
Chaita, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
18
Prasanna Ray
Gorachand Ray
Chandan Kiyari, Bokaro
Loader
19
Prabhu Singh
Bubraj Singh
Jaina More, Jaridih, Bokaro
Loader
20
Rajan Ray
Sanichar Ray
Chaita, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
21
Manik Rajwar
Babu Rajwar
Chandan Kiyari, Bokaro
Loader
22
Bijay Singh
Bina Singh
Barkangango, Hazaribagh
Loader
23
Haru Rajwar
Chhubu Rajwar
Chandan Kiyari, Bokaro
Loader
24
Ram Kishun Manjhi
Shibu Manjhi
Chaita, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
25
Prayag Singh
Parmeshwar Singh
Barkangango, Barkahatta, Hazaribagh
Loader
26
Md. Naim
Md. Yusup
Purani Bazaar, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
BHARDWAZ TRANSPORT COMPONY
1
Anil Gupta
Purani Bazaar, Gomho, Dhanbad
Sardar
2
Moti Lal Rajawar
Karan Lal Rajwar
Chandan Kiyari, Bokaro
Loader
3
Gobardhan Singh
Nandu Singh
Barkangango, Barkahatta, Hazaribagh
Loader
4
Gopal Rajwar
Bhagdu Rajwar
Chandan Kiyari, Bokaro
Loader
5
Shiba Ray
Mangal Ray
Purani Bazaar, Gomoh Dhanbad
Loader
6
Dil Chand Singh
Lakho Singh
Barkangango, Barkahatta, Hazaribagh
Loader
7
Binod Yadav
Srikant Yadav
Chakkilohona, Brahampur, Baksar
Loader
8
Binod Mistri
Okil Mistri
Choubey, Barakttha, Hazaribagh
Loader
9
Sahadeo Singh
Indramani Singh
Bandhdih, Maniyadih, Tundi
Dhanbad
Loader
10
Binod Singh
Saman Singh
Khurjio, Birni, Giridih
Loader
11
Kameshwar Singh
Atwari Singh
Barkangango, Barkahatta, Hazaribagh
Loader
II
(ii)
2449
12
Kanahi Pandey
Sachidanand Pandey
Chaita, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
13
Subash Pandey
Gobinda Pandey
Chaita, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
14
Sahadeo Pandey
Prabhas Pandey
Chaita, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
15
Kartik Mahato
Punit Mahato
Kherabara, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
16
Lalit Mahato
Dineshwar Mahato
Kherabara, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
17
Kalicharan Mahato
Yodhram Mahato
Kherabara, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
18
Manic Mahato
Chaita Mahato
Kherabara, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
19
Prasadi Mahato
Shiba
Kherabara, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
20
Narayan Mahato
Pati Mahato
Kherabara, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
21
Atwari Mahato
Bhola Mahato
Kherabara, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
22
Janki Mahato
Cholaram Mahato
Kherabara, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
23
Shib Charan
Mahato
Hemlal Mahato
Kherabara, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
24
Mitan Mahato
Sukar Mahato
Kherabara, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
25
Fuchan Mahato
Nakul Mahato
Kherabara, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
26
Jethu Mahato
Pulash Mahato
Kherabara, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
27
Charku Manjhi
Yugal Manjhi
Chaita, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
28
Raj Kumar
Doman Ram
Girhichabani, Ichak, Hazaribagh
Loader
29
Shantosh Kr. Gupta
Dodi Saw
Jwanpur, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
30
Jai Prakash Prasad
Budhan Saw
Jwanpur, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
31
Yashwant Saw
Rameshwar Saw
Dadpur, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
32
Dwarika Singh
Lakhan Singh
Bharpur, Ahilyapur, Giridih
Loader
33
Shankar Kumar
Yamuna Rajak
Sohanpur, Patna
Loader
34
Sanjay Rajak
Yamuna Rajak
Sahebnagar, Patna
Loader
35
Ram Pd. Singh
Babulal Singh
Padampur, Poreyahat, Godda
Loader
THIKADAR :- M/S. NAYATHAK ENTERPRISES COMPANY
1
Jagdish Ray
Hublal Ray
Chaita, Gunghusa, Dhanbad
Sardar
2
Rajendra Pd. Singh
Sufal Singh
Ojhadih, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
3
Munna Kumar Sahi
Arjun Sahi
Kachansa, Sarya, Boushi
Loader
4
Arjun Pd . Barma
Tejo Barma
Kumhargariya, Jamua, Giridih
Loader
5
Ashok Rajak
Baleshwar Rajak
Jaypur, Koderma
Loader
6
Bhupendra Singh
Tiket Singh
Pandeyahat, Godda
Loader
7
Gopal Pd. Singh
Jiblal Singh
Ojhadih, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
8
Sachidanand Singh
Mukteshwar Singh
Jamuniatand, Herla, Bokaro
Loader
9
Ramchandra Singh
Nunulal Singh
Pindra, Sonarihari, Dumka
Loader
10
Bajnath Deb
Sarjoo Narayan Deb
Mathuradih, Banshi, Banka
Loader
11
Gobardhan Mahato
Chouba Mahato
Tardiha, Jamua, Giridih
Loader
12
Bijay Pandey
Umashankar Pandey
Chalkusa, Barkatha, Hazaribagh
Loader
13
Shambhu Nath Sahi
Katki Sahi
Kachnasa, Bousi, Banka
Loader
14
Birendra Kr. Rajak
Bhubaneshwar Rajak
Sonpura Kala, Itkhori, Chatra
Loader
15
Lalan Singh
Akleshwar Singh
Ojhadih, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
16
Sanjay Pandey
Umashankar Pandey
Chalkusa, Barkatha, Hazaribagh
Loader
17
Abhimanyu Kr.
Singh
Shyam Singh
Kashitand, Barwadda, Dhanbad
Loader
2450
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
18
Sikendar Saw
Rupan Saw
Lalpur, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
19
Manoj Singh
Hublal Singh
Turio, Chnadrapura, Bokaro
Loader
20
Dinesh Pandey
Biteshwar Pandey
Sabalpur, Badhara
Loader
21
Ajay Kumar Pandey
Kameshwar Pandey
Markachho, Koderma
Loader
22
Munshi Yadav
Tetar Yadav
Laxmipur, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
23
Khublal Saw
Bhatan Saw
Dadpur, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
24
Anantlal Singh
Pachanand Singh
Damodarpur, Gomoh, Dhanbad
Loader
25
Sanjay Singh
Prasadi Singh
Jaljoga, Badibagh, Jamui
Loader
26
Suresh Kumar
Singh
Rameshwar Prasad
Singh
Chhachhando, Nimiyaghat, Giridih
Loader
27
Sanjay Rajwar
Mangar Rajwar
Mohalibandh, Gomiya, Bokaro
Loader
28
Suresh Pd. Barma
Rajendra Mahato
Kharagdiha, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
29
Sujit Pandit
Rameshwar Pandit
Bedokala, Barkatha, Hazaribagh
Loader
30
Falguni Singh
Ishwar Singh
Ojhadih, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
31
Basudeo Singh
Lutan Singh
Sahariya, Dumriyatand, , Bokaro
Loader
32
Yogendra Prasad
Adri Raut
Pindrabad, Jamua, Giridih
Loader
33
Murli Singh
Niro Singh
Ojhadih, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
34
Durga Pd. Singh
Hari Pd. Singh
Sakra, , Mohanpur, Deoghar
Loader
BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED
BARAKAR NADI, KARAMDAHA GHAT, BALU SHRAMIK KA SUCHI
M/S: - SHIVAM TRANSPORT, KATRAS ROAD, DHANBAD
1
Shiblal Singh
Koriya
Munshi
2
Patwari Hembram
Koriya
Sardar
3
Amit Kumar Singh
Dayaram Singh
Rampur Jamaniya, Gazipur
Loader
4
Anil Kumar
Chandrika Sharma
Sujanpur, Koderma
Loader
5
Pawan Kumar
Singh
Ranjit Singh
Chonapatti, Gom, Dhanbad
Loader
6
Arbind Kumar
Tiwary
Rameshwar Tiwary
Bholapur, Beriya, Ballia
Loader
7
Madhusudan Singh
Umed Narayan Singh
Ojhadih, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
8
Doman Singh
Banbihari Singh
Bundu, Ranchi
Loader
9
Damodar Narayan
Singh
Degan Singh
Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
10
Arjun Mahato
Meghlal Mahato
Khonathi, Barora, Dhanbad
Loader
11
Dinesh Kumar
Rajak
Jay Prakash Dhobi
Lochanpur, Koderma
Loader
12
RajKumar Paswan
Dharmu Paswan
Nagwa, Nauwatpur, Patna
Loader
13
Sikendar Rajak
Kamal Rajak
Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
14
Jitendra Mistry
Budhan Mistry
Patna, Gauan, Giridih
Loader
15
Pramanand Singh
Jiten Singh
Lalchak, Katras, Dhanbad
Loader
16
Harishankar
Mourya
Arjun Prasad
Lochanpur, Koderma
Loader
17
Sitaram Bareth
Adhouri Bareth
Dangraj, , Jangirchampa
Loader
18
Jayprakash Prasad
Harinarayan Mahato
Pipashiya, Isuya, Chapra
Loader
19
Kishore Mistri
Okil Mistri
Choubey, Barkatha, Hazaribagh
Loader
II
(ii)
2451
20
Manikchand Yadav
Nomilal Mahato
Fafandi, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
21
Parmeshwar Singh
Raghunath Singh
Damodarpur, Gomoh
Loader
22
Kishun Singh
Pran Singh
Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
23
Shudhu Tamoli
Nago Tamoli
Karmoni, Gaya
Loader
24
Prakash Prasad
Yadav
Basudeo Mahato
Gaddar, Gauan, Giridih
Loader
25
Ramsagar Rana
Jhari Rana
Bedokala, Hazaribagh
Loader
26
Raju Mahato
Nakul Mahato
Ramakunda, Hutungtugri,
Topchanchi, Dhanbad
Loader
M/S. : JAGPAL TRANSPORT
1
Kirtan Kumar Dan
Kalipada Dan
Meranwatand, Dhanbad
Sardar
2
Sanichar Bhogta
Munilala Bhogta
Koshidih, Pokhoriya
Loader
3
Upendra Kr Rajak
Bhikhan Rajak
Lochanpur, Koderma
Loader
4
Sahadeo Mistry
Thanu Mistry
Nawagarhchati, Giridih
Loader
5
Jitendra Kumar
Parmeshwar Sharma
Alipur, Narhat, Nawada
Loader
6
Netram Bareth
Dharu Ram Bareth
Mukta, Malkharunda, Jajgir champa
Loader
7
Nawin Kr. Sinha
Shyam Kishore Sinha
Pratapur, Chatra
Loader
8
Umesh Prasad
Singh
Teknarayan Singh
Salanpur, Katras, Dhanbad
Loader
9
Sunil Kishku
Siril Kishku
Pipratand, Giridih
Loader
10
Prayag Rana
Jhari Rana
Borokalla, Barkatha Hazaribagh
Loader
11
Rohit Kumar
Paswan
Sonaram Paswan
Chutiyari, Koderma
Loader
12
Gobardhan Bareth
Manglu Ram Bareth
Darimura, Malkharanda,
Jangirchampa
Loader
13
Manoj Kumar
Bhola Tamoli
Hydernagar, Palamu
Loader
14
Sandip Kishku
Munilal Kishku
Dhaiya, ISM, Dhanbad
Loader
15
Mahendra Mahato
Narayan Mahato
Bandgaro, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
16
Maheshwar Kumar
Prabhakar
Sital Ram
Rampuram, Mahadevtand,
Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
17
Umesh Kapri
Ajodhori Kapri
Dumarthar, Chnadan, Banka
Loader
18
Raghunandan
Mahato
Nandu Mahato
Kanothi, Barora, Dhanbad
Loader
19
Bhikhi Ram
Nirpat Ram
Jaynagar, Padiyagharo, Koderma
Loader
20
Uday Mistry
Kasha Mistry
Chak, Gauan, Giridih
Loader
21
Prahalllad Chand
Singh
Meghlal Singh
Mekura, Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
22
Dinesh Rajak
Misar Dhobi
Laskari, Barhi, Hazaribagh
Loader
23
Wakil Singh
Nathu Singh
Karnagora, Topchanchi, Dhanbad
Loader
24
Bhagirathi Bareth
Basawan Bareth
Khumhati Khurdh, Baradawar,
Jajgirchampa
Loader
25
Ashok Kumar Rajak
Mohar Rajak
Belkhori, Itkhori, Chatra
Loader
26
Hemlal Mahato
DeoKumar Mahato
Netwari, Tundi, Dhanbad
Loader
2452
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED
BARAKAR NADI GHURANI BEDA GHAT, BALU SHARIMIK KI SUCHI
M/S :- KRISHNA TRANSPORT, KATRASH MODE, JHARIA, DHANBAD
1
Saka Mohali
Megha Mohali
Sunderpaharui
Sardar
2
Dipak Kr. Sinha
Sukhdeo Lala
Mokamo, Diridih
Loader
3
Pradip Singh
Satnarayan Singh
Ichak, Hazaribag
Loader
4
Jagdish Ram
Beni Ram
Parria, Kodarma
Loader
5
Amit Thanedar
Rokhohari Thanedar
Kunthol, Dhanbad
Loader
6
Malik Ram
Bhukhaw Ram Bareth
Darang, Jajgir Chhgar, Champa
Loader
7
Mahendra Singh
Prameshwar Singh
Palar, Banka, Bihar
Loader
8
Anup Kr.Singh
Umesh Singh
Raypur, Gajipur
Loader
9
Mit lal Mandal
Bhatu Mandal
Bandkharo, Sariya
Loader
10
Ramdhari Singh
Arjun Singh
Thakurkuli, Dhaiya, Dhanbad
Loader
11
Suresh Rajwar
Meghlal Rajwar
Birini, Bokaro
Loader
12
Kuldip Singh
Bhagirath Singh
Jamuaniyatand
, Jamui
13
Jaychand Bareth
Gangaram Bareth
Kausa, Damra, Janjgirchampa
Loader
14
Pankaj Ram
Barhan Ram
Naitand, Markacho, Kodarma
Loader
15
Yaswant Kumar
Dayaram Singh
Salanpur, Katrash, Dhanbad
Loader
16
Binod Singh
Yamuna Singh
Hariyadi, Chakai, Jamui
Loader
17
Prakash Singh
`Kartik Singh
`Parandagal, Kherboni, Dumka
Loader
18
Manjhi Anil
Nakul Manjhi
Rammoti, Jaypur, Purlia
Loader
19
Sudhansu Sekhar
C.L.Singh
Sector 2, A, Sadar Bokaro
Loader
20
Rajendar Mistry
Lakhanlal Mistry
Nawagarh, Rajdhanwar, Giridih
Loader
21
Yogeshwar Bareth
Hetram Bareth
Mukta, Malkhoranda, Janjgirchampa
Loader
22
Shambhu Rajak
Juran Rajak
Kemo, Itkhori, Chatra
Loader
23
Arbind Kr. Singh
Dayaram Singh
Raypur, Jamaniya, Gajipur
Loader
24
Harendra Singh
Surrender Singh
Damodarpur, Hariharpur, Dhanbad
Loader
25
Suresh Kr. Rana
Sarju Rana
Kadma, Karkam Sai, Hazaribag
Loader
M/S:- M. N. SHARMA TRANSPORT COMPANY
1
Fulchand Mohali
Bhogan Mohali
Chuturiya, Sundarpahari
Sardar
2
Magram Kumahar
Fuchu Kumahar
Daldali
Loader
3
Mishin Hembram
Kariya Hembram
Kurkutand
Loader
4
Munna Singh
Kedar Singh
Jamuniyatand, Simultala, Jamuai
Loader
5
Tribhuban Mahato
Kunjbihari Mahato
Nayagarh Chatty, Rajdhanwar Giridih
Loader
6
Deb Kumar Rajwar
Harihar Rajwar
Kirigora, Patratu, Hazaribag
Loader
7
Surrender Nath
Rajwar
Thakur Ch. Rajwar
Kadamtand, Rajgung, Dhanbad
Loader
8
Ganesh Thakur
Mohan Thakur
Pakerbera, Tatri, Topchanchi, Dhanbad
Loader
9
Anuj Kr.Karash
Banawa Lal Karsh
Malni, Jaijepur, Janjgir Champa
Loader
10
Upendra
Kr.Kushwaha
Dwarika Mahato
Fakirapahari, Sariya, Giridih
Loader
11
Manoj Kr.Deshwali
Debi Pd.Deshwali
Koradih, Katrash, Dhanbad
Loader
12
Ramesh Singh
Teknarayan Singh
Korabad, Ujyarpur, Samastipur
Loader
13
Laxman Singh
Giridhari Singh
Bandhdih, Tundi, Dhanbad
Loader
II
(ii)
2453
14
Karuna Ray
Sunil Kr.Ray
Berla, Jamuaniya, Burdwan
Loader
15
Gajanand Dhobi
Nakul Dhobi
Lochanpur, Kodarma
Loader
16
Bijay Pd.Barma
Bhagirath Pd.Barma
Choski, Ahalyapur, Giridih
Loader
17
Suraj Kr.Karsh
Banwa Lal Karsh
Malani, Jaijpur, Janjgir Champa
Loader
18
Gandori Dangi
Lekho Mahato
Dadpur, Chouparan, Hazaribag
Loader
19
Thakur Pd.Singh
Chandra Mohan Singh
Bardar, Daludih, Katrash, Dhanbad
Loader
20
Rabi Singh
Kapildeo Singh
Charghara, Charmuri, Jamui
Loader
21
Md .Ainul Haq
Rahamat Mia
Bholapur, Hirodih, Giridih
Loader
22
Mahesh Pandey
Pandeydih, Tundi, Dhanbad
Loader
23
Santosh Thakur
Ganesh Thakur
Maharajgunj, Tungi, Dhanbad
Loader
24
Uday Chand Bareth
Ganga Ram Bareth
Kausa, Gamra, Janjgirchampa
Loader
25
Umesh Kumar
Churaman Ram
Lochanpur, Kodarma
Loader
26
Sugrib Ram Rajak
Kishore Rajak
Dadpur, Chouparan, Hazaribag
Loader
27
Indradeo Rajak
Maharu Rajak
Sanpura, Mayapur, Itkhori, Chatra
Loader
M/S. SHARMA TRANSPORT, KATRASH ROAD, DHANBAD
1
Haradhan Mandal
Kamdeo Mandal
`Chururiya, Sundarpahari
Sardar
2
Rajesh Kr.Pandey
Bijay Pandey
Sultanpur, Raghunathpur, Siwan
Loader
3
Narayan Singh
Tilu Singh
Mekura, Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Sardar
4
Jehal Mandal
Jagdish Mandal
Bandhkharo, Sariya, Giridih
Loader
5
Bajrang Rajak
Hari Rajak
Sanpura, Itkhori, Chatra
Loader
6
Ganesh Kumar
Bhuneshwar Das
Akdonikhord, Muhafsil, Sioline, Gaya
Loader
7
Fakira Kumar
Rambrichh Tamoli
Sury Kunda, Bishnupad, Gaya
Loader
8
Anil Kr.Gour
Ganesh Ram
Bherapati, Shakti, Janjgirchampa
Loader
9
Ashok Baitha
Dhaneshwar Baitha
Bariyath, Ichak, Hazaribag
Loader
10
Babulal Singh
Chandramohan Singh
Bardar, Katrash, Dhanbad
Loader
11
Dinesh Kumar
Churaman Dhobi
Lochanpur, Kodarma
Loader
12
Debnarayan Singh
Chundi Singh
Butaturi, Mohanpur, Deoghar
Loader
13
Santosh Kr.Das
Ruplal Rabidas
Kasidih, Sariya, Giridih
Loader
14
Deb Das Ram
Ram Ch. Ram
Mahadevtand, Chouparan, Hazaribag
Loader
15
Krishna Tamoli
Kesho Tamoli
Haider Nagar, Palamu
Loader
16
Dara Singh
Mathur Singh
Maharajgung, Tundi, Dhanbad
Loader
17
Kritram Bareth
Pilaram Bareth
Karibandhu, Shakti, Janjgirchampa
Loader
18
Mukesh Kr.Singh
Armanand Singh
Sabanpur, Chouparan, Hazaribag
Loader
19
Aswani Singh
Uchit Singh
Dahikuri, Garjoypur, Purulia
Loader
20
Laldeo Ram
Dhaman Dhobi
Mahadevtand, Chouparan, Hazaribag
Loader
21
Birender Kr. Singh
Jagdamba Singh
Hirna, Mohanpur, Deoghar
Loader
22
Rabinder Singh
Puni Singjh
Kahadih, Jamua, Giridih
Loader
23
Malik Ram Bareth
Bhukharu Ram Bareth
Darang, Champa, Janjgirchampa
Loader
24
Amulya Singh
Uchit Singh
Hikuri, Garjoypur, Purulia
Loader
25
Prabhu Dayal
Pandey
Ramnath Pandey
Mohankodhiya, Dariyapur, Chhapara
Loader
26
Dewandra Bhagat
Dorha Bhagat
Agarwal Building, Chirkunda,
Dhanbad
2454
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
27
Chandradeo Kr.
Mitrajeet Ram
Rampur, Chouparan, Hazaribag
Loader
28
Shaktipada Gorai
Bhusan Gorai
Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
29
Baleshwar Singh
Dhiren Singh
Chaita, Gomoh, Dhanbad
Loader
30
Sadhan Mandal
Sanat Mandal
Mahishila, Asansol, Burdwan
Loader
31
Kamal Pd. Yadav
Radhelal Yadav
Karibandhu, Shakti, Janjgirchampa,
Loader
32
Bikash Kr.Mandal
Nepal Mandal
Hirapur, Tundi, Dhanbad
Sardar
33
Ramdeo Rajak
Barahan Rajak
Dadpur, Chouparan, Hazaribag
Loader
34
Bittu Kumar
Suresh Pd.Tamoli
Suryakund, Civil Line, Gaya
Loader
35
Dinesh Kr. Das
Ruplal Das
Kushbani, Bagodar, Giridih
Loader
36
Dharmendra Kr.
Sinha
Dhrubnarayan Sinha
Barwadih, Dhanbad
Loader
M/S. KHENDALWAL TRANSPORT COMPANY
1
Sukhdeo Mohali
Binda Mohali
Chururiya, Sundarpahari
Sardar
2
Brahamdeo
Kushwaha
Gyani Mahato
Bajladhav, Markachcho, Kodarma
Loader
3
Ravi Nandan Singh
Yamuna Singh
Dhulmapur, Chakai, Jamui
Loader
4
Raju Ram
Deoki Ram
Pathra, Chouparan, Hazaribag
Loader
5
Sarban Tamoli
Ramanand Tamoli
Kataiya, Godamghagir, Chatra
Loader
6
Sunil Kumar
Bachchu Pd.Tamoli
Sadhana Hotel, Bakanpur, Patna
Loader
7
Nepal Parmanik
Panchanand
Paramanik
Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
8
Kaleshwar Paswan
Mahabir Paswan
Bandarwaro, Sariya, Giridih
Loader
9
Anand Rajwar
Radhu Rajwar
Khario, Hariharpur, Dhanbad
Loader
10
Mahesh Rajak
Banshi Rajak
Harino, Chouparan Hazaribag
Loader
11
Hanus Ram Bareth
Bhukharu Bareth
Darang, Champa, Janjgirchampa
Loader
12
Mittan Mandal
Manik Mandal
Bakbando, Asansol, Burdwan
Loader
13
Dhiren Kumar
Krishna Tamoli
Uppar Bazaar, Ranchi
Loader
14
Prayag Pd.Yadav
Chando Mahato
Jhalibad, Rajdhanwar, Giridih
Loader
15
Ajablal Singh
Chintamani Singh
Bara Charpa, Madhupur Deoghar
Loader
16
Brajesh Rajak
Pokhan Rajak
Dawari, Giddhor, Chatra
Loader
17
Mahendra Rajak
Bhikari Rajak
Harino, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
18
Sanichar Singh
Hublal Singh
Khamargora, Kakomath, Dhanbad
Loader
19
Dhiren Gope
Shanty Gope
Chandan Kiyari, Bokaro
Loader
20
Basant Singh
Gopal Singh
Chita Kharo, Birni Giridih
Loader
21
Arun Singh
Basudeo Singh
Dakikundi, Garjaypur, Purulia
Loader
22
Hari Krishna
Mandal
Babulal Mandal
Dolabar, Jamtara
Loader
23
Jay Prakash Kr.
Baldeo Ram
Partapur, Chouparan Hazaribagh
Loader
24
Chheru Ram Bareth
Khadaw Ram Bareth
Darang Champa, Janjgirchampa
Loader
25
Prithi Nath Mahato
Kamal Mahato
Piprahiya, Ushwapur, Saran
Loader
26
Haradhan Singh
Sikhdeo Singh
Mekura, Chandan Kiyari Bokaro
Loader
27
Ganga Poddar
Kokil Poddar
Dhaiya Dhanbad
Loader
II
(ii)
2455
28
Ganesh Rajak
Bishnudhari Rajak
Rampur Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
29
Sanjay Kumar
Ramdeo Prasad
Tamoli
Fatepur, Gaya
Loader
30
Suresh Ram bareth
Ganpat Bareth
Mukta Malkharando, Janjgirchama
Loader
31
Daulat Singh
Kaila Singh
Koiridih, Bagor, Giridih
Loader
32
Pahupati Gope
Khandu Gope
Lepri, Kanda, Purulia
Loader
33
Teklal Singh
Gokul Singh
Ashnasindha, Topchachi, Dhanbad
Loader
34
Naresh Kumar
Rajak
Bishnudhari Rajak
Rampur Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
35
Satyanarayan
Tamoli
Dhura Tamoli
Hydernagar Bazaar, Plamu
Loader
36
Jiwanlal Karsh
Puran Karash
Mukta, Janjgirchampa
Loader
37
Kishori Singh
Meghlal Singh
Nawagarh, Rajchanwar, Giridih
Loader
38
Govind Singh
Sanatan Singh
Mekura, Chandan Kiyari Bokaro
Loader
39
SuKumar Gope
Gostu Gope
Barri Kanda, Purulia
Loader
40
Manivendra Tiwari
Satynarayan Tiwari
Piparhiya, Isujapur, Saran
Loader
41
Chetlal Rajak
Barhen Baitha
Amjhar, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
M/S D. P . SHARMA TRANSPORT COMPANY, KATRAS ROAD, DHANBAD
1
Lal Hembram
Rafik Hembram
Ghurnibera, Sundarpahari
Sardar
2
Gupin Hembram
Maha Hembram
Ghurnibera, Sundarpahari
Loader
3
Golak Mahato
Surendra Mahato
Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
4
Md. Rafiq Ansari
Abdul Quam Ansari
Amtand, Topchanchi, Dhanbad
Loader
5
Govind Prasad
Bishun Mahato
Chandramarni, Bagodar, Giridih
Loader
6
Rajib Kumar
Dhaman Dhobi
Mahadevtand, Chouparan, Hazaribag
Loader
7
Amritlal Karsh
Rohanlal Karsh
Durga Pandal, Ramnagar, Korwa
Loader
8
Binay Kumar
Upadhaya Sudhakar
Dant Shuma Isuwapur, Chhapra
Loader
9
Upendra Mistry
Laxman Mistry
Patna, Ganha, Giridih
Loader
10
Mahadeo Rajak
Banshi Rajak
Harino, Chouparan Hazaribag
Loader
11
Bhadu Rajwar
Titu Rajwar
Khario, Hariharpur, Gomoh,
Dhanbad
Loader
12
Kaushal Kr.Rajak
Ram Byas Ram
Dumari, Chouparan Hazaribag
Loader
13
Bihari Parsad
Jawahir Parsad
Piparhiya, Isujapur, Chhapra
Loader
14
Kamlesh Yadav
Dhanpat Yadav
Tilaiya, Jaynagar, Kodarma
Loader
15
Chandradeo Singh
Sundar Singh
Tand Mohanpur, Jaridih, Bokaro
Loader
16
Bhim Pd. Bareth
Radheyshyam Bareth
Darang, Champa, Janjgirchampa
Loader
17
Subhas Kr.Pandey
Ramnath Pandey
Mohan Kothiya, Dariyapur, Saran
Loader
18
Madhav Mandal
Nirupad Mandal
Kalisako, Salanpur, Burdwan
Loader
19
Ajit Kr.Singh
Surendra Singh
Damodarpur, Hariharpur, Gomoh,
Dhan.
Loader
20
Kailash Rajak
Bhikhari Rajak
Harino, Chouparan Hazaribag
Loader
21
Bhim Ray
Bhubaneshwar Ray
Manjhiladih, Giridih
Loader
22
Panchu Singh
Dhiren Singh
Chaita, Gomoh, Dhanbad
Loader
23
Nagendra Nath
Tiwari
Badrinath Tiwari
Summa, Ushwapur, Saran
Loader
2456
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
24
Brahmdeo Ram
Doman Ram
Papro, Chouparan, Hazaribag
Loader
25
Mithlesh Kr. Singh
Chandrasekhar Singh
R.D.Bazar, Pachgachhiya, Burdwan
Loader
26
Birbal Ray
Madan Ray
Barramundi, Maithan, Dhanbad
Loader
27
Kaleshwar Singh
Sukar Singh
Sahariya, Nawadih, Bokaro
Loader
28
Hiraman Singh
Manjho Singh
Pradhandih, Domri, Giridih
Loader
29
Rajendra Pd. Barma
Kishon Mahato
Bara Charpa, Madhupur, Deoghar
Loader
30
Rattan Lal Singh
Ramkinkar Singh
Mukundpur, Jaypur, Purulia
Loader
31
Birendra Singh
Lakhan Singh
Purana Nagar, Kodarma
Loader
33
Suresh Ram
Deoki Ram
Pathra, Chouparan, Hazaribag
Loader
34
Rattan Singh
Sukhdeo Singh
Kashiyatand, Barawada, Dhanbad
Loader
35
Sanjiv Kr.Singh
Shyam Sundar Singh
Tandmohanpur, Jaridih, Bokaro
Loader
36
Bhubaneshwar Pd.
Yadav
Brinda Yadav
Baracharpa, Madhupur, Deoghar
Loader
M/S. SHIV TRANSPORT COMPANY KATRAS ROAD, DHANBAD
1
Ghanshayam
Rawani
----------
`Kutanpahari, Sundarpahari
Sardar
2
Binod Kr.Singh
Baro Singh
Barwadih, Markachcho, Kodarma
Loader
3
Jitendra Mahato
Gaurav Mahato
Khonathi, Barora, Dhanbad
Loader
4
Rajendra Kr.Rajak
Ramchandra Rajak
Mahadevtand, Chouparan, Hazaribag
Loader
5
Bhola Pd.Singh
Govind Singh
Karahdih, Jamua, Giridih
Loader
6
Iswari Singh
Budhan Singh
Baracharpa, Madhupur, Deoghar
Loader
7
Bijay Singh
Thakur Singh
Mekura, Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
8
Haradhan Singjh
Khemnarayan Singh
Ashnasindha, Topchanchi, Dhanbad
Loader
9
Ajay Kr.Singh
Nameshwar Pd. Singh
R.D.Bazar, Panchgariya, Burdwan
Loader
10
Ashok Kr.Rajak
Madan Rajak
Dumri, Chouparan, Hazaribag
Loader
11
Kanthi Singh
Banwari Singh
Karahdih, Jamua, Giridih
Loader
12
Manoj Singh
Hari Singh
Dumariyatand, Nawadih, Bokaro
Loader
13
Khedan Singh
Tilakdhari Singh
Maniya, Barkatha, Hazaribag
Loader
14
Chhatu Singh
Sahdeo Singh
Bardar, Daludih, Katras, Dhanbad
Loader
15
Anil Kr.Rajak
Sitaram Rajak
Singh ghani, Falgara, Chatra
Loader
16
Sadanand Singh
Bholanath Singh
Beharkunda, Talharo, Dumka
Loader
17
Dhunu Mahato
Bushnu Mahato
Khonathi, Dharora, Dhanbad
Loader
18
Birendra Singh
Shyam Sundar Singh
Ojhadih, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
19
Yamuna Pd. Sinha
Dwarika Lala
Dimra, Gola, Hazaribag
Loader
20
Shyamal Deswali
Manu Deswali
Basa, Chas, Alkusa, Bokaro
Loader
21
Dhiren Rajwar
Bhim Rajwar
Khario, Hariharpur, Gomoh, Dhanbad
Loader
22
Binod Kr. Mishra
Ranju Mishra
Ganoriya, Thokri, Baliya
Loader
23
Laltu Ghosh
Samir Ghosh
Brahamandih Colliney, Asansol,
Burdwan
Loader
24
Arun Pd. Singh
Bhubneshwar Singh
Bhashpur, Ahaliyapur, Giridih
Loader
25
Sonu Kr. Singh
Ramkishun Singh
Mohan Bazaar, Pathardih, Dhanbad
Loader
26
Mukesh Kr. Rajak
Jagdeo Rajak
Pathriya, Itkhori, Chatra
Loader
27
Roshanlal Mahato
Dillu Mahato
Gujariyadih, Nawadih, Bokaro
Loader
II
(ii)
2457
28
Basdeo Singh
Hiraman Singh
Nawagarh, Rajdhanwar, Giridih
Loader
29
Surendra Baitha
Bali Baitha
Bhando, Chandrawar, Kodarma
Loader
30
Tufan Singh
Lakhi Narayan Singh
Barsar, Baludih, Rajgunj, Dhanbad
Loader
31
Jaydev Kumar
Anil Kr.Rajak
Pratap Pur, Chouparan, Hazaribag
Loader
32
Prakash Singh
Jagdish Singh
Mahabir Colliyari, New Colony,
Raniganj, Burdwan
Loader
33
Abdhesh Kr.Tiwari
Satnarayan Tiwari
Piprahiya, Isujapur, Giridih
Loader
34
Varun Singh
Lakhan Singh
Bhaspur, Ahilyapur, Giridih
Loader
35
Niranjan Rajak
Ramdhin Rajak
Barwadih, Chouparan, Hazaribag
Loader
36
Haradhan Mahato
Barahan Mahato
Khonathi, Borora, Dhanbad
Loader
37
Naru Gopal
Chakraborty
Harilal Chakraborty
Gandhinagar, Panchgariya, Asansol,
Burdwan
Loader
38
Suresh Ray
Dhanpat Ray
Khabri, Baniyapur, Saran
Loader
39
Lalchandra Ray
Janakdhari Ray
Mahadevtand, Chouparan, Hazaribag
Loader
40
Dhaneshwar Singh
Shahdev Singh
Bardar, Daludih, Katrash, Dhanbad
Loader
41
Pran Narayan Singh
Umed Narayan Singh
Ojhadih, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED
BARAKAR NADI MOHASHIDIH GHAT BALU SHARIMIK KI SUCHI
M/S. :- SHARMA TRANSPORT COMPANY
1
Manoranjan Das
Amulya Dan
Ukma
Sardar
2
Thakuri Mistry
Budhan Maistry
Patna Gaun, Giridih
Loader
3
Laxman Kumar
Tilakdhari Rajak
Pathra, Chouparan, Hazaribag
Loader
4
Kuldip Singh
Bhagirathi Singh
Jamuniatand, Simultal, Jamui
Loader
5
Manish Singh
Ranjeet Singh
Choraptti, Gomoh, Dhanbad
Loader
6
Ashok Rajak
Deglal Rajak
Sariya Road, Bagodar, Giridih
Loader
7
Jagarnath Mistry
Somar Mistry
Berokolla, Barkattha, Hazaribag
Loader
8
DeoKumar Bareth
Banaw Lal Bareth
Malni, Joujeypur, Janjgirchampa
Loader
9
Rakesh Kr. Mahato
Laldhar Mahato
Pachour, Taraiya, Saran
Loader
10
Hiru Ray
Muna Ray
Baramuri, Chirkutand, Dhanbad
Loader
11
Baleshwar Pd.
Yadav
Anup Mahato
Fulandi, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
12
RajKumar
Durga Prasad
Tamur, Ranchi
Loader
13
Prakash Kumar
Jageshwar Rajak
Pathra, Chouparan, Hazaribag
Loader
14
Shibu Pd.Singh
Girdhari Singh
Mekura, Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
15
Liladhar Bareth
Ramchandra Bareth
Kansa, Dammar, Jajgirchampa
Loader
16
Bikash Singh
Ganesh Singh
Bhutgaria, Bauragarh, Dhanbad
Loader
17
Manbana Tudu
Jagan Adibasi
Guhiyatand, Karharbari, Giridih
Loader
18
Kusal Mahato
Khublal Mahato
Makhdumpur, Sonpur, Saran
Loader
19
Dipak Kumar
Bhola Tamoli
Hedarnagar, Plamu
Loader
20
Mahadev Rajak
Pokahan Rajak
Mandeklam Sadar, Hazaribag
Loader
21
Om Prakash Koiri
Ram Kumar Koiri
Gomoh Dhanbad
Loader
22
Nakul Singh
Bhusan Singh
Ojhadih, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
23
Dinesh Kr. Singh
Shiv Narayan Singh
Raypur, Jamaniya, Gajipur
Loader
24
Daduram Bareth
Sukhram Bareth
Malni, Jijepur, Janjgirchampa
Loader
2458
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
25
Munni Tamoli
Dhura Tamoli
Haidar Nagar Bazaar, Plamu
Loader
26
Bijay Pd. Tamoli
Ramanand Tamoli
Kataiya Godam Ghangri, Jori, Chatra
Loader
27
Balai Mandal
Kamal Mandal
Mera, Chirkunda, Dhanbad
Loader
28
Lalachand Ram
Janakdhari Ram
Rampur, Mahadevtand, Chouparan,
Hazaribag
Loader
29
Baijnath Pd. Barma
Kujo Mahato
Chhoti Kharakdiha, Bengabad,
Giridih
Loader
30
Niraj Kumar
Narayan Bhagat
Bhaganbigha, Nalanda
Loader
31
Shyamal Mandal
Anand Mandal
Chinpuriya, Burdwan
Loader
32
Bijay Kr. Karsh
Daduram Karsh
Malni, Jijepur, Janjgirchampa
Loader
` BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED
BARAKAR NADI TASARA GHAT AND ANA COLLIERY BANKAD, BALU SHARIMAK KI SUCHI
M/S. PANCHAM SINGH , MOHALBANI, BHOWRA, DHANBAD
1
Yugal Mahato
Bishu Mahato
Kubritand Giridih
Sardar
2
Dip Chand Mahato
Bandiram Mahato
Kubritand Giridih
Loader
3
Girdhari Ram
Ashu Ram
Namohir, Chirkunda, Dhanbad
Loader
4
Ramdeo Yadav
Gango Yadav
Kheriodih, Deori, Giridih
Loader
5
Surendra Mahato
Harkho Mahato
Chhotki Kharakdiha, Bengabad,
Giridih
Loader
6
Naresh Kumar
Rajak
Madan Ram
Dumri, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
7
Mahabir Singh
Deo Narayan Singh
Bishnapur, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
8
Surendra Kr. Bareth
Sukhen Pd.Bareth
Kumhrikala, Baradwar,
Janjgirchampa
Loader
9
Robin Singh
Jagarnath Singh
Dahikuri, Jarjaypur, Purulia
Loader
10
Sonu Kumar
Mahato
Azadi Mahato
Pochour, Saraiya, Saran
Loader
11
Govind Prasad
Bishun Pd. Mahato
Chandmarni, Saraiya, Giridih
Loader
12
Ranjeet Singh
Dindayal Singh
Damodarpur, Hariharpur, Gomho,
Dhan.
Loader
13
Rajesh Kumar Rana
Pokhan Rana
Jamwari, Ichak, Hazaribagh
Loader
14
Raj Kumar
Paramanik
Gurucharan
Paramanik
Pancha, Ormanjhi, Ranchi
Loader
15
Jitendra Singh
KumbhakarnSingh
Sahariya, Nawadih, Bokaro
Loader
16
Tarun Barma
Ravi Shankar
Pd.Kushwaha
Baddiha, Hirodih, Giridih
Loader
17
Satrudhan Bareth
Ghasiram Bareth
Jatapara, Jaijepur, Janjgirchampa
Loader
18
Ashok Paramanik
Nandlal Paramanik
Lodoyadih, Topchachi, Dhanbad
Loader
19
Kishori Mohan
Pandey
Sukhdeo Pandey
Pipraghoghar, Barhi, Hazaribagh
Loader
20
Sandip Singh
Sahadeo Singh
Dahikuri, Garjaypur, Purulia
Lodder
21
Dhiraj Kumar
Indradeo Bhagat
Agarwala Collony, Galafarbari,
Dhanbad
Loader
22
Manoj Prasad
Gopal Prasad Tamoli
Gathjain Mandir, Ramana Road,
Gaya
Loader
23
Ranjan Kumar
Rajak
Ram Kisnun Ram
Bekowar, Koderma
Loader
24
Raju Rana
Kishun Rana
Lalbazar, Rajdhanwar, Giridih
Loader
II
(ii)
2459
25
Raju Rajak
Bodhi Rajak
Shilwarkhurdh, Hazaribag
Loader
26
Sanat Chandra
Tej Ram Chandra
Shikaribar, Jejepur, Janjgirchampa
Loader
27
Rashdeo Yadav
Lali Yadav
Merda, Chirkunda, Dhanbad
Loader
28
Sumit Kumar
Tribhushan Sing
Angarpathara, Katrashgarh, Dhanbad
Loader
29
Vishal Soren
Mangal Soren
Madandiha, Giridih
Loader
30
Pramod Kumar
Munna Tamoli
Hyder Nagar, Palamu
Loader
31
Bikash Kumar
Suresh Pd. Tamoli
Suryakund, Bishunpad Civil Line,
Gaya
Loader
32
Jitan Mandal
Manic Mandal
Bakbandi, Asansol, Burdwan
Loader
33
Iswar Saw
Lekho Saw
Berokalla, Barkattha, Hazaribagh
Loader
34
Babulal Karsh
Ghanashyam Karsa
Parsawani, Darma, Janjgirchampa
Loader
35
Lalo Rajak
Somar Rajak
Mahuri, Bagodar, Giridih
Loader
36
Sarjoo Prasad Singh
Vishu Singh
Damodarpur, Hariharpur, Gomho,
Dhanbad
Loader
37
Raj Kumar Singh
Gajanand Singh
Barkangango, Barkattha, Hazaribagh
Loader
38
Jitendra Pd. Singh
Jay Mangal Singh
Dinadaha, Shikari Para, Dumka
Loader
39
Birju Ram
Kamal Dhobi
Patchra, Chouparan, Hazaribag
Loader
40
Dilu Prasad Varma
Suhi Mahato
Nimayatand, Giridih
Loader
41
Chhotan Singh
Mahavir Singh
Damodarpur, Hariharpur, Gomho,
Dhan.
Loader
42
Dinesh Singh
Pedku Singh
Mekura, Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
43
Sanjay Bareth
Panchram Bareth
Azad Nagar, Godhari Para, Koriya
Loader
44
Kuldip Singh
Kishan Singh
Dahikudi, Garhaytur. Purulia
Loader
45
Dhaneshwar Rajan
Somar Ram
Amjhar, Chouparan, Hazaribag
Loader
46
Bishwanath Pandey
Rakhal Pandev
Rohini, Josidih, Deoghar
Loader
47
Ramesh Rajwar
Ganesh Rajwar
Maheshpur, Madhuban, Dhanbad
Loader
48
Ram Pd. Singh
Mahabir Singh
Nawagarh, Chatty, Rajdhanwar,
Giridih
Loader
BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED
YAMUNIYA NADI CHAITA GHAT, BALU SHARIMIK KA SUCHI
M/S. BAJRANG TRANSPORT COMPANY, KATRAS GARH, RANI BAZAR, DHANBAD
1
Prakash Prasad
Ganesh Pd. Mahato
Kalyanpur, Barawadda, Dhanbad
Sardar
2
Ram Singh
Sukar Singh
Mohanpur, Topchachi Dhanbad
Loader
3
Gulab Singh
Kailash Singh
Barkangango, Barkattha, Dhanbad
Loader
4
Dhananjoy Kr.
Pandey
Balmukund Pandey
Berikala, Barkattha, Hazaribagh
Loader
5
Sanju Kumar Bareth
Pancharam Bareth
Azadnagar, Chirmiro, Janjgirchampa
Loader
6
Ashok Kumar
Mahato
Kamal Mahato
Piprahiya, Isuj, Chhapra
Loader
7
Rajesh Singh
Kumb Karan Sing
Pipratand, Nagnagar, Barawadda,
Dhn.
Loader
8
Bajrang Rana
Dwarik Rana
Shandi, Jamua, Giridih
Loader
9
Bhola Nath Singh
Meghlal Singh
Mekura, Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
10
Chhatu Rajwar
Charan Rajawar
Marar, Ramgarh
Loader
11
Chandra Sekher
Singh
Sagar Singh
Dimadaha, Pakdaha, Dumka
Loader
2460
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
12
Shankar Singh
Meghlal Singh
Damodarpur, Hariharpur, Gomho, Dhn.
Loader
13
Ashok Kumar
Pandey
Jogeshwar Pandey
Chandramarani, Sariya, Giridih
Loader
14
Praveen Kumar Jha
Ram Brichh Jha
Jagarnath Basant, Lalganj, Bairhahi
Loader
15
Laxmikant Pandey
Dular Ch. Pandey
Berikala, Barkattha, Hazaribagh
Loader
16
Mahendra Kr.
Pandey
Kedar Pandey
Bekowar, Kodarma
Loader
17
Sanjoy Yadav
Anup Yadav
Merha, Chirkunda, Dhanbad
Loader
18
Ishwarlal Singh
Sufal Yadav
Mekura, Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
19
Shraban Kumar
Karsh
Ganeshram Karsh
Nagridih, Janjgirchampa
Loader
20
Rattan Singh
Chhutu Singh
Bhaiyadih, Jamua, Giridih
Loader
21
Arvind Kumar
Rupan Dhobi
Pathra, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
22
Santosh Kumat
Singh
Ruplal Singh
Damodarpur, Hariharpur, Gomho,
Dhan
Loader
23
Baldeo Singh
Thakur Singh
Mekura, Rangamati, Bokaro
Loader
24
Gorelal Bareth
Nankiram Bareth
Sonadula, Janjgirchampa
Loader
25
Suresh Prasad
Ram Brichh Tamoli
Suryakund Bishnupad, Gaya
Loader
26
Chhatradhari Singh
Budu Singh
Pradhandih, Dumri, Giridih
Loader
27
Suresh Singh
Chhathi Singh
Tarabora, Barawadda, Dhanbad
Loader
28
Om Prakash Rajak
Mahesh Rajak
Jamuwari, Ichak, Hazaribagh
Loader
29
Biendra Singh
Lal Mohan Singh
Kalipur, Jaridih, Bokaro
Loader
30
Bhururam Bareth
Nankiram
Sonadola, Markhor, Janjgirchampa
Loader
31
Upendra Singh
Kartik Singh
Pradhindih, Dumri, Giridih
Loader
32
Patilal Singh
Mahadeo Singh
Dmodarpur, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
33
Arjun Rajak
Rama Rajak
Mandeklam, Sadar, Hazaribagh
Loader
34
Hare Krishna Singh
Taralal Singh
Mekura, Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
35
Bijoy Pd. Singh
Kartik Singh
Pradhandih, Dumri, Giridih
Loader
36
Kishore Saw
Tapeswar Saw
Kalgatisardar, Hazaribagh
Loader
37
Raj Kr. Chandra
Pilalal Chandra
Lakhali, Champa, Janjigirchampa
Loader
38
Mirtunjay Kumar
Lala Pd. Tamoli
Suyakund Bishnupad, Gaya
Loader
39
Sunil Prasad
Balmukund Prasad
Pathar Bangle, Jorapkhor, Dhanbad
Loader
40
Kishore Pd. Gupta
Kali Pd. Gupta
Shibwala Road, Daltanganj, Palamu
Loader
41
Rajendra Pd. Sinha
Ramanand Lala
Mokamo, Sariya, Giridih
Loader
42
Raju Kr. Singh
Shyam Narayan Singh
Marafari, Bokaro
Loader
43
Tulshi Ram Bareth
Gopal Ram Bareth
Lakhuri, Saragaun, Janjgirchampa
Loader
44
Santosh Pd. Singh
Onkar Singh
Babudih, Dhanbad
Loader
45
Debnarayan Singh
Dipnarayan Singh
Fulwar, Sonahatu, Ranchi
Loader
46
Mohan Kr. Pandey
Balmukund Pandey
Berokola, Barkatha, Hazaribgh
Loader
47
Nageshwar Kr.
Rajak
Bhuneshwar Rajak
Bagodih, Sariya Giridih
Loader
48
Bhuneshar Saw
Janki Saw
Khandra, Rajdhawnar, Giridih
Loader
49
Rishiram Sirwas
Puni Ram Sirwas
Umreli, Urang, Korwa
Loader
II
(ii)
2461
M/S. KHANDALWAL TRANSPORT, PUTKI BAZAR, KUSUNDA DHANBAD
1
Kanhai Pandey
Sachidanand Pandey
Chaita, Gomho, Dhanbad
Munshi
2
Anil Mandal
Sahadeo Mandal
Chaita, Gomho, Dhanbad
Sardar
3
Birndra Pd. Mahato
Nandu Mahato
Khonathi, Borora, Dhanbad
Loader
4
Brajesh Kr. Rajak
Shibnarayan Rajak
Pathara, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
5
Dilip Kuma
Munna Tamoli
Haidarnagar Bazaar, Plamu
Loader
6
Dilip Kumar Sinha
Sukhdeo Lala
Mokamo, Sariya, Giridih
Loader
7
Anil Kumar
Balmukund Tamoli
Suyakund, Bishnupad, Gaya
Loader
8
Amit Kumar
Balmukund Tamoli
Pathar Bangle, Jorapokhar, Dhanbad
Loader
9
Tijaw Ram Bareth
Bharat Ram Bareth
Kumharikhurdh, Janjgirchampa
Loader
10
Aditya Kr. Pandey
Umashankar Pandey
Barkatha, Hazaribagh
Loader
11
Suresh Pandit
Fuchan Pandit
Ojhadih, Bengabad, Girdih
Loader
12
Kritiwas Das
Jhasi Das
Mekura, Chandan Kiyari, Bokaro
Loader
13
Babulal Adibasi
Sagan Adibasi
Guhiyatand, Karharbari, Giridih
Loader
14
Shankar Kumhar
Atwari Kumhar
Koradih, Topchachi, Dhanbad
Loader
15
Chandan Kumar
Debdas Ram
Ram Pur Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
16
Shib Kr. Chandra
Tejram Chandra
Shikari Nagar, Janjgirchampa
Loader
17
Guddu Kumar
Bajnath Tamoli
Malla Tola, Nardanggal, Gaya
Loader
18
Ajay Kr. Singh
Sibnath Singh
J.C.Mallik Rd. Near Nepal Colony,
Dhan.
Loader
19
Jaylal Singh
Degan Singh
Ojhadih, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
20
Anil Kumar
Kesho Lala
Sirdala, Nawada
Loader
21
Ranbir Kr. Sinha
Anant Pd. Sinha
Kadma, Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
23
Shiblal Mahato
Jharilal Mahato
Amdiha, Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
24
Dharmendra Kr.
Satyanarayan Saw
Salanpur, Katrashgarh, Dhanbad
Loader
25
Hemraj Bareth
Uday Chandra Bareth
Kausa, Damra, Janjgirchampa
Loader
26
Raj Tamoli
Ghura Tamoli
Haidar Nagar Bazaar, Plamu
Loader
27
Pintu Kumar
Suresh Tamoli
Sahadeokhap, Dovi, Gaya
Loader
28
Mukesh Rana
Pokhan Rana
Jamuyari, Ichak, Hazaribagh
Loader
29
Kamaldeo Singh
Atwari Singh
Ojhadih, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
30
Barun Kumar
Yadav
Gobardhan Yadav
Fulwar, Sonahatu, Ranch
Loader
31
Ashok Tabedar
Amulya Tabedar
Merda, Chirkunda, Dhanbad
Loader
32
Kartik Rajak
Lakhan Rajak
Chirda, Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
33
Amritlal Karsh
Ramlal Karsh
Ngjhar, Lalkhoronda, Janjgirchampa
Loader
34
Gulab Pd. Sinha
Ramanand Lala
Mokamo, Sariya, Giridih
Loader
M/S. BHARADYAJ TRANSPORT COMPANY, KATRAS ROAD, DHANBAD
1
Hari Ram Raj
Sundar Raj
Chitra, Ghomho, Dhanbad
Sardar
2
Surendra Singh
Bhola Singh
Kalpeshwari, Kulti, Burdwan
Loader
3
Indrajeet Mandal
Gokul Mandal
Koradih, Topchachi, Dhanbad
Loader
4
Hemant Kumar
Mitrajit Ram
Ram Pur Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
5
Kanhaiyalal Bareth
Samarulal Bareth
Kausa, Champa, Janjgirchanpa
Loader
6
Karn Ch. Rajak
Adhir Ch. Rajak
Chirda, Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
2462
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7
Arjun Marandi
Tepo Marandi
Kheshkari, Sariya, Giridih
Loader
8
Shibnandan Pd.
Saha
Misho Saha
Tetarhat, Halsi, Lakhisarai
Loader
9
Sunil Kr. Deshawali
Jagdish Deshwali
Koradih, Topchachi, Dhanbad
Loader
10
Umesh Kr. Rana
Jadish Rana
Bera, Barkatha, Hazaribagh
Loader
11
Bhim Kr. Chandra
Pila Lal Chandra
Lakhali, Champa, Janjgirchampa
Loader
12
Bhawani Das
Khesho Das
Nigotila, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
13
Sunil Kr. Rajak
Gour Ch. Rajak
Chirdi, Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
14
Sufal Kumhar
Nakul Kumhar
Koradih, Topchachi, Dhanbad
Loader
15
Bikram Jyoti
Baj Nath Y Adav
Berakala, Barkatha, Hazaribagh
Loader
16
Prasant Singh
Prem NathSingh
Ramdhani Market, Asansoale, Dhan
Loader
17
Ashok Kr. Gupta
Sitaram Saha
Suryakunda Bishunpad, Gay A
Loader
18
Sahadeo Pd. Barma
Amrit Mahato
Chandamari, Sariya, Giridih
Loader
19
Manojlal
Raghulal
Sirdala, Nawada
Loader
20
Debendra Kr.
Deshwali
Debi Pd. Deshwali
Koradih, Topchachi, Dhanbad
Loader
21
Rasu Raj Rajak
Kisto Rajak
Chirda, Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
22
Kalaram Sahu
Tejram Sahu
Adarsh Nagar, Korwa
Loader
23
Shambhu Kumar
Dulal Ch. Pandey
Berokala, Barkatha, Hazaribagh
Loader
24
Basudeo Singh
Dami Singh
Chhachhando, Nimiyagath, Giridih
Loader
25
Ramwatar Bareth
Dhurulal Bareth
Jetha, Shakti Janjgirchampa
Loader
26
Manish Kr. Tiwari
Satyanarayan Tiwari
Ranchi Colony, Melthdem, Dhanbad
Loader
27
Parash Kumar
Gopal Tamoli
Upper Bazaar, Ranchi
Loader
28
Shankar Singh
Manager Singh
Ghagra, Mohanpur, Deoghar
Loader
29
Raju Yadav
Baso Mahato
Berokala, Barakatha, Hazaribagh
Loader
30
Mahesh Prasad
Barma
Babulal Mahato
Harkhundi, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
31
Kalicharan Mahato
Gopal Mahato
Khonathi, Barora, Dhanbad
Loader
32
Tapan Singh
Sayamlal Singh
Mekura, Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
33
Krisna Pd. Barma
Ramsawrup Barma
Chhanmon, Koshi, Nawada
Loader
34
Mohan Sahi
Bodhi Sahi
Rakhatand, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
35
Tiger Bareth
Ram Chandra Bareth
Kausa, Damra, Janjgirchampa
Loader
36
Gridhari Mahato
Chandramohan
Mahato
Tundi, Dhanbad
Loader
37
Pintu Singh
Khiru Singh
Chandkharo, Saria, Giridih
Loader
38
Madhusudhan
Mahato
Rinju Mahato
Saraidhela, Dhanba
Loader
39
Saroj Kr. Thanedar
Bholanath Thanedar
Kumthol, Nirsa, Dhanbad
Loader
40
Sulesh Singh
Kunwar Singh
Bhaspur, Ahilyapur, Giridih
Lodder
BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED
BARAKAR NADI CHITARPUR GHAT GIRDIH, BALU SHARIM KI SUCHI, M/S D.P. SHARMA, KATRAS ROAD,
DHAN.
1
Narayan Saw
Fulchand Saw
Hutunggi, Topchachi, Dhanbad
Sardar
2
Upendra Pd. Akela
Puran Mahato
Ghirosinga, Hirodih, Giridih
Loader
3
Sanjay Kr. Saw
Dinu Saw
Tandmohanpur, Shaidajridih, Bokaro
Loader
II
(ii)
2463
4
Gangadhar Rajak
Gyani Rajak
Barkangango, Jamua, Giridih
Loader
5
Balgobind Sharma
Babulal Hazam
Ramhardih, Jamua Giridih
Loader
6
Thakur Pd. Rout
Adri Rout
Pindrabad, Balgo, Jamua, Giridih
Loader
7
Pankajdhir Singh
Baleshwar Pd. Singh
Chhachhando, Nimayaghat, Giridih
Loader
8
Punit Rajak
Kheman Dhobi
Manaiya, Barkatha, Hazaribagh
Loader
9
Sukar Gope
Durga Gope
Mahuatand, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
10
Nunulal Singh
Chintaman Singh
Ojhadih, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
11
Brahmdeo Rana
Khiru Rana
Dadpur, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
12
Mitnarayan Singh
Mitan Barma
Artoka, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
13
Rajendra Rabidas
Budhan Ravidas
Kasiyadih, Sariya, Giridih
Loader
14
Sikandar Rajak
Haro Rajak
Akurhawa, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
15
Dasrath Singh
Jaynarayan Singh
Ojhadih, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
16
Tale Shwar Das
Jogeshwar Das
Saharjam, Itkhori, Hazaribagh
Loader
17
Jogeshwar Pd.
Yadav
Lal Bihari Mahato
Babdgaro, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
18
Shemal Mandal
Nimai Mandal
Korabag, Nirsa, Dhanbad
Loader
19
Indradeo Kr. Das
Laxman Das
Koyridih, Sariya, Giridih
Loader
20
Manoj Mandal
Sahadeo Mandal
Sabarnpur, Pirtand, Giridih
Loader
21
Rajendra Rabidas
Ramlal Rabidas
Chano, Bishnugarh, Hazaribagh
Loader
22
Md . Qyum Ansari
Ismail Ansari
Naiyadih, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
23
Pabitra Mandal
Gambhir Mandal
Palberia, Panchayet, Dhanbad
Loader
24
Chamru Mandal
Teklal Mandal
Kandedih, Topchachi, Dhanbad
Loader
25
Suresh Mahato
Nanhaku, Mahato
Sundartand, Handadih, Giridih
Loader
26
Kartik Ram
BARETH
Kriparam Bareth
Kausa, Damra, Janjgirchampa
Loader
27
Subrato Mandal
Nischand Mandal
Haridih, Nituriya, Purulia
Loader
28
Amit Kumar Tiwari
Nagendra Nath Tiwari
Ranchi Colloney Maithen, Dhan.
Loader
29
Churaman Singh
Narayan Singh
Pratappur, Pirtand, Giridih
Loader
30
Ujjal Mandal
Abashya Mandal
Ladhna, Jamtara
Loader
31
Sibu Manjhi
Mehilal Manjhi
Barkatha, Hazaribagh
Loader
32
Babu Chandra
Bareth
Gangaram Bareth
Kausa, Damra, Janjgirchampa
Loader
33
Sushen Mandal
Bhaktipada Mandal
Simuldan, Nirsha, Dhanbad
Loader
34
Pradip Kumar
Munna Tamoli
Haidar Nagar, Plamu
Loader
35
Sudip Kumar Saha
Rattan Saha
Dubrajpur, Birbhum, West Bengal
Loader
36
Dasrath mahato
Dharma Mahato
Singdaha, sariya, Giridih
Loader
37
Bhikho Hembram
Babulal Hembram
Belgam, bagodar, giridih
Loader
38
Bankesh Mandal
Bhaktipada mandal
Simuldan, Nirsha, Dhanbad
Loader
39
Shashi bhushan
Bareth
Paluram Bareth
Supa, Pusor, Ramgarh
Loader
M/S KHENDALWAL TRANSPORT COMPANY, PUTKI BAZAR, DHANBAD
1
Tiket Pd. Mahato
Chandra Mohan
Mahato
Metbari, Tundi, Dhanbad
Sardar
2
Sukmoy Tabedar
Sahadeo Tabedar
Mera, Chirkunda, Dhanbad
Loader
2464
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3
Pradip Mistry
Lakhan Lal Mistry
Nawagarh, Rajdhanawar, Giridih
Loader
4
Uttam Kr. Mandal
Haripad Mandal
Jamuatard, Katrash, Dhanbad
Loader
5
Santosh Kumar
Babulal
Rakhudih, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
6
Raj Kumar Ram
Bishundhari Rajak
Rampur, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
7
Puraniklal Bareth
Dhaniram Bareth
Charoda, Malkhoranda,
Janjgirchampa
Loader
8
Shubindra Mandal
Madanlal Mandal
Chalbalpur, Sitarampur, Kulti,
Burdawan
Loader
9
Binod Kumar Gupta
Laxman Saw
Gandhi Road Jharia, Dhanbad
Loader
10
Anil Mistry
Jagdish Mistry
Patna, Gauan, Giridih
Loader
11
Tapan Kumar
Mandal
Kailash Mandal
Simuldan, Nirsha, Dhanbad
Loader
12
Mohan Chandra
Ramadhar Chandra
Khoundhar, Domara Janjgirchampa
Loader
13
Foudar Singh
Somar Singh
Pahariyadih, Birni, Giridih
Loader
14
Ganesh Mandal
Madan Mandal
Chalbalpur, Kulti, Burdwan
Loader
15
Chandan Kr. Singh
Babu Mani Singh
Sikendarpur, Baushi, Banka
Loader
16
Sailen Bagti
Bholanath Bagti
Kunthol, Nirsa, Dhanbad
Loader
17
Kumar Singh
Somar Singh
Bahadurpur, Dumri, Giridih
Loader
18
Monu Kumar
Suresh Pd. Tamoli
Suryakund, Bishunpad, Gaya
Loader
19
Mantu Mandal
Prafulla Mandal
Barda, Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
20
Shiv Kumar Bareth
Bhuru Ram Bareth
Sonadula, Malkhoranda,
Janjgirchampa
Loader
21
Suresh Singh
Nepali Singh
Bathanbari, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
22
Sawpan Mandal
Prahllad Mandal
Jamuatard, Katrashgarh, Dhanbad
Loader
23
Kishun Singh
Budhan Singh
Bathanbari, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
24
Rabi Mandal
Prahallad Mandal
Jamuatard, Katrashgarh, Dhanbad
Loader
25
Rajendra Pd. Singh
Jiwal Narayan Singh
Fatehpur, Baushi, Banka
Loader
26
Dilip Kumar Singh
Chalisa Singh
Chirudih, Birni, Giridih
Loader
27
Sharat Tabedar
Amulya Tabedar
Mera, Chirkunda, Dhanbad
Loader
28
Amrit Saw
Paro Saw
Bekokulgo, Bagodar, Giridih
Loader
29
Yogeshwar Singh
Pran Singh
Damodarpur, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
30
Sunil Hansada
Surajlal Hansada
Bathanbari, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
31
Nilkanth Singh
Chhotan Singh
Damodarpur, Gomho, Dhanbad
Lodder
32
Manoj Singh
Jogeshwar Singh
Bathanbari, Bagodar, Giridih
Lodder
33
Sri Kant Singh
Tribeni Singh
Chirudih, Birni, Giridih
Loader
34
Dayanand Singh
Loknarayan Singh
Chirudih, Birni, Giridih
Loader
35
Shashilal Mahato
Dularam Mahato
Birajpur, Barwadda, Dhanbad
Loader
36
Sapan Kr. Loya
Bhim Loya
Dhaiya, I.S.M Dhanbad
Loader
37
Budhan Mahato
Thanu Mahato
Majhiladih Barawadda, Dhanbad
Loader
38
Dinesh Prasad
Barma
Bandhu Mahato
Chirudih, Birni, Giridih
Loader
39
Rohan Mahato
Shivcharan Mahato
Madhugora, Barawadda, Dhanbad
Loader
40
Lalu Mahato
Jiwan Mahato
Majhiladih Barawadda, Dhanbad
Loader
41
Naresh Mahato
Chandramoha Mahato
Madhugora, Barawadda, Dhanbad
Loader
II
(ii)
2465
42
Uday Singh
Bajnath Singh
Ghagra, Gaun, Giridih
Loader
43
Sanjay Kumar
Singh
Mohan Singh
Dhaiya, Thakurkuli, Dhanbad
Loader
44
Gobardhan Singh
Brahma Singh
Chirudih, Birni, Giridih
Loader
45
Laldhari Singh
Atwari Singh
Kashiyatand, Barwadda, Dhanbad
Loader
46
Kishore Ray
Khiru Ray
Maheshpur, Giridih
Loader
47
Krishnagopal Saw
Jagarnath Saw
Madeydih, Topchachi, Dhanbad
Loader
48
Naresh Singh
Balgovind Singh
Chirudih, Birni, Giridih
Loader
49
Lalu Ram Mahato
Alku Mahato
Rathtard, Topchachi, Dhanbad
Loader
50
Manoj Singh
Kishun Singh
Chirudih, Birni, Giridih
Loader
51
Ram Chandra
Nayak
Matan Saw
Dadpur, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
52
Naresh Yadav
Jhari Yadav
Dulampur, Chakai, Jamui
Loader
53
Dasarath Mahato
Bandhu Mahato
Jorasakh, Jamua, Giridih
Loader
54
Shivnandan Pd. Saw
Bangali Saw
Madhyagopali, Chouparan,
Hazaribagh
Loader
55
Ashok Saw
Prabhu Saw
Suratpur, Pipra, Itkhori, Chatra
Loader
56
Sanjay Kumar
Singh
Kamdeo Singh
Basantpur, Chakai, Jamui
Loader
57
Hemraj Ray
Sanichar Ray
Majhiladih, Giridih
Loader
58
Lakhan Dhangi
Balo Mahato
Dadpur, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
59
Bambgorang Singh
Bhimsen Singh
Karhi, Chakai, Jamui
Loader
60
Raj Mohan Singh
Hari Singh
Majhiladih, Giridih
Loader
61
Narendra Mahato
Manic Mahato
Chandarbaro, Sariya, Giridih
Loader
62
Manoj Kumar
Sukhdeo Saw
Singh pur, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
63
Chandrika Singh
Avoy Singh
Maheshwari, Soni, Jamui
Loader
64
Kanhai Saw
Bangali Saw
Suratpur, Pipra, Itkhori, Chatra
Loader
65
Kaleshwar Paswan
Hiralal Paswan
Bandhkharo, Sariya, Giridih
Loader
66
Prakash Saw
Dodi Saw
Madhyagopali, Chouparan,
Hazaribagh
Loader
M/S ANIL TRANSPORT, KATRAS ROAD DHANBAD
1
Mahendra Saw
Hardayal Saw
Jitpur
Sardar
2
Kamlesh Prasad
Ramashis Prasad
Jitpur
Loader
3
Keshwar Singh
Suresh Singh
Karhi, Chakai, Jamui
Loader
4
Rajendra Pd. Barma
Raman Mahato
Birini, Giridih
Loader
5
Sanjay Mandal
Anand Mandal
Shasanberia, Nirsa, Dhanbad
Loader
6
Jitnath Gupta
Likan Saw
Parsoni, Itkhori, Chatra
Loader
7
Kishun Saw
Bharan Saw
Dadpur, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
8
Sunil Kumar Saw
Baldeo Saw
Barajori, Parson, Giridih
Loader
9
Habu Ghosh
Bajnath Ghosh
Agarkund, Chirkunda, Dhanbad
Sardar
10
Gopal Saw
Bhuneshwar Saw
Birikala, Barkattha, Hazaribagh
Loader
11
Rajesh Kumar
Singh
Ram Kumar Singh
Karhi Chakai, Jamui
Loader
12
Arun Vishwakarma
Badrinath
Vishwakarma
Jhaj, Rajdhanawar, Giridih
Loader
2466
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13
Sudama Saw
Basudeo Saw
Birkala, Barakatha, Hazaribagh
Loader
14
Bajrangi Saw
Lukan Saw
Parsoni, Itkhori, Chatra
Loader
15
Pintu Kumar Singh
Bateshwar Singh
Jamua, Chakai, Jamui
Loader
16
Debanand Barma
Sanichar Mahato
Nawagarhchatti, Rajdhanwar
Giridih
17
Nageshwar Yadav
Gopal Yadav
Karma, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
18
Lalit Narayan Singh
Bhimsen Singh
Karhi Chakai, Jamui
Loader
19
Fulchand Saw
Chaman Saw
Sriramdih, Rajdhanawar, Giridih
Loader
20
Pankaj Saw
Ghanashyam Saw
Dadpur, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
21
Binod Yadav
Shova Mahato
Gadi Nawagarh, Rajdhanawar,
Giridih
Loader
22
Manteshwar Singh
Sadanand Singh
Karhi, Chakai, Jamui
Loader
23
Suresh
Vishwakarma
Rewet Vishwakarma
Rajdhanawar, Giridih
Loader
24
Yamuna Saw
Hiraman Saw
Rasoya Dhamana, Barhi Giridih
Loader
25
Arvind Kumar
Singh
Krishnadeo Singh
Jamua, Chakai, Jamui
Loader
26
Anuj Mandal
Laxmikant Mandal
Tupkadih, Balidih, Bokaro
Loader
27
Nemdhari Yadav
Beni Yadav
Newarikarma, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
28
Ankeshwar Mandal
Kashinath Mandal
Kandedih, Topchachi, Dhanbad
Loader
29
Dhirendra Singh
Basudeo Singh
Chirudih, Birni, Giridih
Loader
30
Basant Saw
Ghanashyam Saw
Dadpur, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Lodder
31
Manoj KumarSingh
Doman Singh
Palmo, Gurngi, Giridih
Lodder
32
Anil Mandal
Ashutos Mandal
Jamuatand, Katrash, Dhanbad
Loder
33
Karambir Saw
Dasarath Saw
Igunia, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
34
Dinesh Kumar
Mandal
Basudeo Mandal
Mahtodih, Baniyadih, Giridih
Loader
35
Gulabi Singh
Mani Singh
Barkangango, Barkatha, Hazaribagh
Loader
36
Mahendar Ram
Madan Ram
Dumari, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
37
Arvind Kumar
Singh
Rajendra Pd. Singh
Ojhadih, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
38
Rajdeo Lal
Bindeshwari Lal
Mokamo, Sariya, Giridih
Loader
39
Dalak Niranjan
Gupta
Laxmi Narayan Gupta
Bishunpur
Loader
40
Binod Yadav
Narayan Yadav
Sariya Rajdhanawar, Giridih
Loader
M/S SHIVAM TRSNSPORT COMPANY KATRAS ROAD, DHANBAD
41
Anand Saw
Rohan Saw
Purani Bazaar, Gomho, Dhanbad
Sardar
42
Ranjit Singh
Keshwar Singh
Nawagarh, Rajdhanawar, Giridih
Loader
43
Jaleshwar Ravidas
Sukhan Ravidas
Kashiyadih, Bagoder, , Giridih
Loader
44
Prabhu Singh
Suklal Singh
Bariyarpur, Pirtand, Giridih
Loader
45
Ghanshyam Pd.
Barma
Ram Chandra Barma
Bandkharo, Sariya Giridih
Loader
46
Tapwswar Kr.
Singh
Deb Narayan Singh
Ojhadih, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
47
Ramdeo Ray
Govind Ray
Bandkharo, Sariya Giridih
Loader
48
Kapildeo Singh
Mit Narayan Singh
Chhachhando, Nimiaghat, Giridih
Loader
II
(ii)
2467
49
Jitendra Kr. Sinha
Kameshwari Pd.
Chino, Dumri, Giridih
Loader
50
Binod Singh
Raj Kumar Singh
Dharway, Gawan, Giridih
Loader
51
Akabar Ansari
Md. Rasul Ansari
Bandkharo, Sariya Giridih
Loader
52
Manoj Kr.
Upadhyay
Janardhan Upadhyay
Upar Bhaloja, Pirpeti, Bhagalpur
Loader
53
Sona Singh
Bundi Singh
Dharway, Gauan, Giridih
Loader
54
Jitendra Singh
Rasman Singh
Dharway, Gauan, Giridih
Loader
55
Rajesh Mandal
Santosh Mandal
Panchmohali, Kashipur, Purulia
Loader
56
Shiv Shankar
Tiwari
Krishna Pd. Tiwari
Rajapur, Nirsha, Dhanbad
Loader
57
Bharat Ram Bareth
Jankiram Bareth
Sonadula Malkharunda, Janjgirchampa
Loader
58
Surendra Kr.
Mahato
Sudama Mahato
Bandkharo, Sariya Giridih
Loader
59
Bhagirath Mandal
Prahallad Mandal
Simuldan, Nirsa, Dhanbad
Loader
60
Ashis Kr. Singh
Ambika Singh
Sikandarpur, Bousi, Banka
Loader
61
Sunil Singh
Sahadeo Singh
Bardar, Rajganj, Dhanbad
Loader
62
Amit Kumar
Balmukund Prasad
Patharbangla, Joraphokar, Dhanbad
Loader
63
Ranjit Mandal
Mohan Mandal
Matrukha, Baniyahir, Giridih
Loader
64
Deo Kumar
Chandra
Kushwa Ram Chandra
Khondhar, Damra, Janjgirchampa
Loader
65
Gopi Nath Tabedar
Diwakar Tabedar
Medha Chirkunda, Dhanbad
Loader
66
Bajrangi Ray
Amrit Ray
Banguan, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
67
Ashok Gour
Dhanaw Ram Gour
Ram Nagar, Korwa, Janjgirchampa
Loader
M/S SHIVAM TRANSPORT COMPANY KATRAS ROAD, DHANBAD
1
Ajit Mandal
Kirtan Mandal
Dhaiya I.S.M Dhanbad
Loader
2
Arvind Kumar
Balmukund Prasad
Pathar Bangala, Jorapokhar, Dhanbad
Loader
3
Pappu Yadav
Narayan Yadav
Sinari, Rajdhanwar, Giridih
Loader
4
Kishori Yadav
Mahadeo Yadav
Pandey Dih Markacho, Bokaro
Loader
5
Sahadeo Sahi
Nim Nath Sahi
Kachansah, Bounsai, Banka
Loader
6
Babalu Kumar
Kedar Singh
Jamuniyatand, Simultala, Jammui
Loader
7
Yudhisthir Singh
Tori Singh
Chandara, Chandankiyari, Bnokaro
Loader
8
Ranjan Singh
Arjun Singh
Chandara, Chandankiyari, Bnokaro
Loader
9
Teklal Prasad
Yadav
Nomila Mahato
Badiya Bad, Bengabad, Bokaro
Loader
10
Manoj Rewani
Chandara Rewani
Baracharpa, Marmo Munda, Deoghar
Loader
11
Baneshwar Mahato
Sanu Mahato
Ramakunda, Topchachi, Dhanbad
Loader
12
Jai Prakash Singh
Deo Narayan Singh
Ojhadih, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
13
Chandarsekher
Singh
Padampur Pandey, Pahat, Godda
Loader
14
Bundlal Singh
Dawarika Prasad
Singh
Ojhadih, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
15
Sankar Dayal
Mistry
Tulshi Das Mistry
Pochari, Borora, Dhanbad
Loader
16
Santosh Kumar
Sign
Bahadur Singh
Boro, Pachamba, Giridih
Loader
17
Fakir Kapri
Moti Kapari
Dumathar, Chanam, Banka
Loader
2468
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
18
Rameshwar Yadav
Nanhku Yadav
Nayatand, Gyandey, Giridih
Loader
19
Fuleshwar Singh
Sita Singh
Yamunitand, Simultali, Jammui
Loader
20
Jai Prakash
Laltu Modi
Chhoti Kharakdiha, Bengabad,
Giridih
Loader
21
Pankaj Barma
Rup Narayan Barma
Luli Tori Mohanpur, Devghar
Loader
22
Deokinandan Yadav
Dulal Mahato
Artoka, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
23
Chandra Kishore
Yadav
Banawari Yadav
Fatepur, Simultala, Jamui
Loader
24
Kameshwar Pd.
Yaday
Gokhul Yadav
Suija, Gandey, Giridih
Loader
BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED
YAMUNIYA NADI CHAITA GHAT BALU SHARIMIK KA SUCHI
M/S BAJRANG TRANSPORT COMPANY, KATRAS GARH, RANI BAZAR, DHANBAD
1
Chinta Mani
Mahato
Laxmipur
Sardar
2
Chandramohan
Gope
Prahlad Chandra Gope
Mekura, Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
3
Santosh Kumar
Bareth
Mahesh Ram Bareth
Laxmanpur, Baradawar,
Janjgirchampa
Loader
4
Binod Bihari Rajak
Adhor Chandra Rajak
Chirda, Chandakiyari, Bokaro
Loader
5
Gauri Rajwar
Darku Rajwar
Koradih Topchachi, Dhanbad
Loader
6
Manoj Singh
Bundi Singh
Cherwa Ganwa, Giridi
Loader
7
Kanhiya Bareth
Bhagarathi Bareth
Kumharikurdh, Baradawar,
Janjgirchampa
Loader
8
Manoj Kumar
Srivastav
Sahadeo Pd. Srivastav
Uppar Bazar, Ranchi Kotayali,
Ranchi
Loader
9
Vishnu Kumar
Hemantha Khapari
Babamundii, Nirsha, Dhanbad
Loader
10
Lekh Ram Chandra
Panch Ram Chandra
Khamardih, Jejepur, Janjgirchampa
Loader
11
Raju Rana
Baldeo Rana
Bagodih, Sariya, Giridih
Loader
12
Jagdish Saw
Laljeet Saw
Tetarhat, Halshi, Lakahisaraya
Loader
13
Bablu Rajak
Lalji Rajak
Khesmi Gomoh, Dhanbad
Loader
14
Ram Brichh Mistry
Sadho Rana
Nimadih, Ganawa Giridih
Loader
15
Chandra Sekhar
Kanwar
J R Kanwar
Darang, Paradawar, Janjgirchampa
Loader
16
Vikash Kumar
Tiwari
Nagendar Tiwari
Radhi Coloney, Mithan, Dhanbad
Loader
17
Rajendar Ram
Ram Prasad Ram
Ghurangdaghi, Jamuiya Giridih
Loader
M/S A.V.P. SINGH , BANIYAHIR, JHARIA, DHANBAD
1
Yugal mahato
Matha mahato
Baradih, giridih
Sardar
2
Nepal Singh
Bishwanath Singh
Damodarpur, gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
3
Falguni rajak
Pursottam rajak
Chirda, chandankiyari, bokaro
Loader
4
Sheo Kumar Bareth
Phul Nath
Dorang baradawar, janjgirchampa
Loader
5
Pawan Kr. Verma
Sanichar mahato
Chirda, Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
6
Tarani Rajak
Gopal Rajak
Chirda, Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
7
Md Ayub Ansari
Md Rafiq Ansari
Gunghusha, Gomo, Dhanbad
Loader
8
Bideshi Turi
Nanhku Turi
Manjahalidih Dumri Giridih
Loader
II
(ii)
2469
9
Laxami Narayan
Sandilya
Ram Sandilya
Baremurbar, Damra, Janjgirchampa
Loader
10
Kalachand Rajak
Adhir Chandra Rajak
Chirda, Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
11
Ram Chandar
Baurnawal
Mahru Modi
Dumara, Baghmara, Dhanbad
Loader
12
Gopal Kumhar
Vishu Kumahar
Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
13
Babulal Yadav
Soman Yadav
Saradih, Jammua, Giridih
Loader
14
Binod Kumar Karsh
Daduram Karsh
Malni, Jagepur, janjgirchampa
Loader
15
Lochan Mahato
Jhari Mahato
Khonadih, Borara, Dhanbad
Loader
16
Nand Gopal Singh
Rabi Singh
Mekura, Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
17
Jayaul Rizbi
Md. Idrish Ansari
Mokamo, Sariya, Giridih
Loader
18
Ajoy Kumar
Sukrit Lal
Sonadula, Markharanda,
Janjirchampa
Loader
19
Shankar Prasad
Sitaram Prasad
2 No. Dungri More, Jamadobha,
Dhanbad
Loader
20
Pravin Kumar
Verma
Kishun Mahato
Isadih, Sariya, Giridih
Loader
21
Rup Lal Saw
Budhu Saw
Gujardih Nawadih, Bokaro
Loader
22
Sri Kant Ray
Jharilal Ray
Banmudi, Chirkunda, Dhnbad
Loader
23
Ghasiram Bareth
Shri Prakash Bareth
Amruwa, Saragawh, Jahangirchampa
Loader
24
Papap Kumar
Barma
Sahadeo Prasad Barma
Chandramarani, Sariya Giridih
Loader
25
Bhimlal Mahato
Meghlal Mahato
Khonathi, Barora, Dhanbad
Loader
26
Fulchand Mahato
Basu Mahato
Chandakiyari, Bokaro
Loader
M/S. ANIL TRANSPORT COMPONY KATRAS ROAD, DHANBAD
1
Madan Majhi
Chunu Manhi
Laxmipur, Hariharpur
Loader
2
Ram Dhani Rabidas
Bhushan Das
Lodwadh, Topchachi, Dhanbad
Loader
3
Ranjit Kumar Rajak
Kharakdhari Rajak
Mahadeotand, Chouparan Hazaribagh
Loader
4
Padum Lal Karsh
Sita Ram Karash
Malkhouranda, Janjgirchampa
Loader
5
Santosh Kumar
Singh
Chhatradhari Singh
Chirudih, Birni, Giridh
Loader
6
Tapan Ray
Manik Ray
Barmundi, Chirkunda, Dhabad
Loader
7
Basant Rajwar
Sisti Rajwar
Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
8
Satish Modi
Teko Modi
Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
9
Manoj Kumar
Gupta
Subha Prasad Gupta
Lodna, Jharia, Dhanbad Loader
10
Mahesh Singh
Bal Gobind Singh
Chirudih, Birni, Giridih
Loader
11
Manbodh Bareth
Nathuram Bareth
Sonadola, Malkhourandha,
Janjgirchampa
Loader
12
Banshi Mahato
Madho Mahato
Topchachi, Dhanbad
Loader
13
Manoj Yadav
Khoshi Yadav
Khirodh, Tishri, Giridih
Sardar
14
Gyanchand Mahato
Prem Chand Mahato
Gujardih, Nawadih, Bokaro
Loader
15
Vijay Ray
Laxman Ray
Chaitha, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
16
Dasarath Pd. Verma
Punit Mahato
Passna, Rajdhanawar, Giridih
Loader
17
Zabed Khan
Bikauha Khan
Chirkunda Dhanbad
Loader
18
Vikash Chandra
Mahato
Kartik Mahato
Rathtand, Topchachi Dhanbad
Loader
2470
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
19
Raju Singh
Dina Singh
Nawadih, Bokaro
Loader
20
Mantu Mistry
Bhagirath Mistry
Kishutand, Tishri, Giridih
Loader
21 Avhimanu Kumar
Ram Bachan Singh
Aamkuda, Maithan, Dhanbad
Loader
22
Somnath Chandra
Joshik Ramchandra
Kansha, Dabhara, Jahajirchampa
Loader
23
Ashok Mistry
Jabadi Mistry
Patna, Gawa, Giridih
Loader
24
Ram Sewak Singh
Hemlal Singh
Manaiya, Barkattha, Hazaribagh
Loader
25
Gopal Bouri
Jadu Bouri
Kamaliya, Maithan, Dhanbad
Loader
26
Arjun Mahato
Puran Mahato
Sahariyatand, Nawadih, Bokaro
Loader
THIKADAR :- M/S KHUTENTA TRANSPORT
1
Birendar Saw
Hardayal Saw
Purani Bazaar, Gomo, Dhanbad
Loader
2
Surendra Rana
Rameshwar Rana
Karihari, Hirodih, Giridih
Loader
3
Sahdeo Pd. Singh
Ghanshyam Singh
Hirapur, Tundi, Dhanbad
Loader
4
Raj Kumar Das
Chotan Das
Shyamdih, Katrash, Dhanbad
Loader
5
Pankaj Kumar
Saryu Pd. Mahato
Baliiya, Chandrapura, Bokaro
Loader
6
Rajesh Kumar
Yadav
Chando Mahato
Jhalbad, Rajdhanawar, Giridih
Loader
7
Arun Pandey
Chandrika Pandey
Nawadih, Markaccho, Koderma
Loader
8
Madhu Sudhan
Kr.Rana
Bashudeo Badhai
Nawadih, Berni, Giridih
Loader
9
Sudan Singh
Tulo Singh
Kamiyadih Tundi, Dhanbad
Loader
10
Ramdhani Sah
Sukhdeo Sah
Dulam Pu, R Chakai, Jamui
Loader
11
Deepak
Kr.Vishwararma
Choote Lal
Vishwakarma
Paysam, Birini, Giridih
Loader
12
Jawharlal Bareth
Sohanlal Bareth
Sukhada, Damara, Janjahirchampa
Loader
13
Pradeep
Vishwakarma
Pramod Vishwakarma
Phulwari, Topchachi, Dhanbad
Loader
14
Sandip Kumar
Gupta
Arjun Ram
Koiradih, Sariya, Giridih
Loader
15
Nagendra Bauri
Habu Bauri
Nutandih, Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
16
Makindra Chouhan
Sri Ram Chandan
Chouhan
Khashjairamdih, Baghmara, Dhanbad
Loader
17
Bhukhal Singh
Atwari Singh
Kashiyatand, Barawadda, Danbad
Loader
18
Mahindra Pandit
Somar Pandit
Ojhadih, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
19
Murlidhar Karsh
Rambali Karsh
Thuthi, Jaijaipr, Jahangirchampa
Loader
20
Babulal Mistry
Sukar Mistry
Gawaha, Giridih
Loader
21
Basudev Singh
Mahindra Pd. Singh
Hariharpur, Tundi, Dhanbad
Loader
22
Manahor Lal Yadav
Hori Lal Yadav
Chirahadih, Jaijaipur, Jahangirchampa
Loader
23
Labu Mahato
Bhartu Mahato
Khonathi, Baghmara, Dhanbad
Loader
24
Kishor Ram
Sahadeo Rewani
Gadhi, Srirampur, Giridih
Loader
25
Mahendra Nayak
Choba Nayak
Nawadih Giridih
Loader
26
Sumitra Ghosh
Subal Ghosh
Aayamkuda, Maithan, Dhanbad
Loader
27
Pantu Ray
Sahadeo Ray
Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
II
(ii)
2471
M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED
BARAKAR NADI BANTU BENDAR GHAT BALU SHARIMAK KA SUCHI
1
Sumu Soren
Lekho Soren
Palkara, Muraidih, Dhanbad
Sardar
2
Bhuneshwar Pandit
Bhairo Pandit
Ojhadih, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
3
Kalu Chand Mandal
Munshi Ram Mandal
Meyjhaladih, Saraidhela, Dhanbad
Loader
4
Binod Kumar
Mandal
Bholanath Mandal
Telo, Nawadih, Bokaro
Loader
5
Dhaneshwar
Mandal
Girish Mandal
Paturukha, Beniyadih, Giridih
Loader
6
Bhim Ray
Vishan Ray
Dulam Pur, Chakai, Jamui
Loader
7
Pradish Kumar
Mandal
Jagdish Mandal
Pardha, Baliyapur, Dhanbad
Loader
8
Balram Mandal
Sarju Mandal
Telo, Nawadih, Bokaro
Loader
9
Ajay Kumar Yadav
Sri mangar Yadav
Naiytand, Gandey, Giridih
Loader
10
Manoj Singh
Dasarath Singh
Fatheypur, Bounshi, Banka
Loader
11
Binod Kumar Singh
Prabhu Singh
Chirudih, Birni, Giridih
Loader
12
Madhusudhan Singh Kumbkaran Singh
Pipratand, Barwadda, Dhanbad
Loader
13
Ganga Pd. Singh
Babulal Singh
Manjahiladih, Gadhi, Srirampur,
Giridih
Loader
14
Karmbir Singh
Sudan Singh
Kandara, Sindri, Dhanbad
Loader
15
Jivlal Mahato
Somar Mahato
Puranidih, Sariya, Giridih
Loader
16
Suresh Rewani
Indra Rewani
Barwadih, Hariharpur, Gomo, Dhan.
Loader
17
Mahendra Singh
Bharat Singh
Baghnal, Sariya, Giridih
Loader
18
Madhu Goswami
Shambhu Gowswami
Barwadih, Hariharpur, Gomo, Dhan.
Loader
19
Ram Kishore
Kumar
Narayan Mahato
Parachidiha, Jamuwa, Giridih
Loader
20
Rajesh Ravidas
Naresh Ravidas
Dholatand, Baghmara, Dhanbad
Loader
21
Rajesh Rabidas
Panchanand Ravidas
Thakurchack, Nimiyaghat, Giridih
Loader
22
Pahalwan Singh
Baijnath Singh
Damodarpur, Hariharpur, Gomo, Dha
Loader
23
Madan Gope
Durga Gope
Mahuwatand, Bengabad, Giridih
Loader
24
Pradip Singh
Sri Ram Pd. Singh
Manjahiladih, Gadhi, Srirampur,
Giridih
Loader
25
Satnarayan Lal
Mahato
Lalu Ram Mahato
Kamata, Topchachi, Dhanbad
Loader
26
Pradip Kumar
Manic Mahato
Bandkharo, Sariya Giridih
Loader
27
Prakash Chand
Mahato
Jitendra Pd. Mahato
Kamata, Topchachi, Dhanbad
Loader
28
Kamal Saw
Baldeo Saw
Barajori, Rajdhanwar Giridih
Loader
29
Hiralal Mahato
Nandu Mahato
Khonathi, Baghmara, Dhanbad
Loader
30
Rakesh Singh
Suresh Singh
Kardi, Chackhi, Jamui
Loader
31
Surendar
Vishwakarma
Rewet Vishwakarma
Jamreddy, Dhanwar, Giridih
Loader
32
RajKumar Singh
Bhuneshwar Singh
Jamuwa, Chackai, Giridih
Loader
33 Manoj
Vishwakarma
Baidhnath
Vishwakarma
Jhanja, Rajdhanawar, Giridih
Loader
34
Sudhamay Mandal
Hashu Mandal
Kalimati, Chirkunda, Dhanbad
Loader
35
Haripad Mandal
Bhola Mandal
Telo, Nawadih, Bokaro
Loader
2472
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
36
Anup Kumar Singh
Mahesh Pd. Singh
Choudhary
Chutiyaro, Barawadda, Dhanbad
Loader
37
Raj Kumar
Hembram
Anand Hehbram
Balidih, Bokaro
Loader
38
Surendar Kumar
Mandal
Prahalad Mandal
Kheshmi, Topchachi, Dhanbad
Loader
39
Kishnath Manjhi
Phool Chand Manjhi
Balidih, Bokaro
Loader
40
Ajit Mandal
Radhanath Mandal
Bda, Satudih, Puruliya
Loader
41
Mahendra Pd,
Singh
Jaldhari Singh
Hirapur, Tundi, Dhanbad
Loader
42
Jay Nath Manjhi
Ful Manjhi
Balidih, Bokaro
Loader
43
Dilip Modak
Haripad Modak
Singh daha, Topchachi, Dhanbad
Loader
44
Meghan Dangi
Lekho Mahto
Dadpur, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
45
Mahendar Yadav
Dharm Yadav
Jhumari Koderma, Koderma
Loader
46
Bhagirath Mandal
Beni Mandal
Chaita, Gomo, Dhanbad
Loader
47
Binod Dangi
Bhuneshwar Dangi
Dadpur, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
48
Inder Singh
Sibu Singh
Pipara, Barawadda, Dhanbad
Loader
49
Sanjay Singh
Prabhu Singh
Chirudih, Birni, Giridih
Loader
50
Jagdeo Rana
Latho Rana
Lebari Karma, Chouparan H. bagh
Loader
51
Raj Kishore Gupta
Ram Das Saw
Merchi Khurd, Itkhori, Chatra
Loader
52
Surendra Singh
Rajwanshi Singh
Chirudih, Birni, Giridih
Loader
53
Badri Singh
Arjun Singh
Siyatand, Simualtala, Jamui
Loader
54
Nitai Mandal
Panchanand Mandal
Gunghusha, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
55
Bittu Kumar
Badari Saw
Singh rawa, Chouparan, Hazaribagh
Loader
56
Pintu Kumar
Surajdeo Singh
Siyatand, Simualtala, Jamui
Loader
57
Janardan Mahato
Somar Mahato
Salahidih, Birni, Giridih
Loader
58
Hiralal Rajwar
Kartik Rajwar
Chandan Kiyari, Bokaro
Loader
59
Kari Singh
Dilo Singh
Kalahawar, Dumari, Giridih
Loader
60
Sonaram Mahato
Somar Mahato
Chaita, Hariharpur, Gomho, Dhan.
Loader
61
Santu Ray
Sahadeo Ray
Chandan Kiyari, Bokaro
Loader
62
Nunu Lal Manjhi
Shyam Manjhi
Laxmipur Gomho Dhanbad
Loader
63
Prakshit Modi
Ghashiyaram Modi
Chandan Kiyari, Bokaro
Loader
64
Gobind Pandey
Prabhash Pandey
Chaita Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
65
Ajay Vishwakarma
Churaman
Vishwakarma
Borotand, Birini, Giridih
Loader
66
Mohan Mandal
Akalu Mandal
Chaita Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
67
Kuldip Saw
Aghanu Saw
Gujardih, Nawadih, Bokaro
Loader
68
Nirmal Singh
Laxman Singh
Kalhabara, Dumari, Giridih
Loader
69
Indralal Mahato
Jodhi Ram Mahato
Kherabeda, Gomho, Dhanbad
Loader
70
Ashok Kumar
Yadav
Ram Yadav
Chhakilohana, Brahampur, Bakshar
Loader
71
Sri Ram Manjhi
Raju Manjhi
Laxmipur, Gomo, Dhanbad
Loader
72
Parshuram Singh
Moti Singh
Ghergaw, Koderma
Loader
73
Vijay Kumar
Sharma
Babulal Vishwakarma
Jharkhi, Saranda, Giridih
Loader
74
Manoj Kumar
Yadav
Hareram Yadav
Chaki, Lohawa, Brahmpur, Bakshar
Loader
75
Mansha Rajwar
Badari Rajawar
Maharagang, Tundi, Dhanbad
Loader
II
(ii)
2473
BARAKAR NADI KE LUKAIYA GHAT BALU KHADAN KE SRAMIK KI SUCHI
1
Rajendar Pd.
Baurnwal
Mahadeo Pd.
Baurnwal
Jaridih, Giridih
Munshi
2
Prahalad Modi
Babulal Modi
Manodih, Giridih
Loader
3
Rajesh Ravidas
Tulshi Ravidas
Shyamenglaststationpada, Baurdawan
Loader
4
Raju Ravidas
Moji Ravidas
Telo, Bokaro
Loader
5
Suresh Kumar Das
Sewa Ravidas
Latweda, Giridih
Loader
6
Dharmendar
Paswan
Kailash Paswan
Youkhadi, Munger
Loader
7
Sahadeo Das
Shukan Das
Muraidih, Barorara, Dhanbad
Loader
8
Mahadeo Das
Shukan Das
Muraidih, Barorara, Dhanbad
Loader
9
Shankar Pd.
Ravidas
Hari Pd. Ravidas
Shyalanga, Kulti, Baurdwan
Loader
10
Mahesh Pd.
Baurnwal
Banwarilal Modi
Kamayadih, Koderma, Hazaribagh
Loader
11
Subash Pd.
Baurnwal
Ishwar Pd. Baurnwal
Bhandaro, Giridihi
Loader
12
Tribhuwan Pd.
Baurnwal
Ishwar Pd. Baurnwal
Bhandaro, Giridihi
Loader
13
Laldeo Paswan
Raghunath Paswan
New Coloney, Muraidih, Dhanba
Loader
14
Suresh Das
Hanuman Das
Junkudar, Chirkunda, Dhanbad
Loader
15
Dhanu Das
Masha Das
Phulwar, Katrash, Dhanbad
Loader
16
Kailashwar Modi
Dumara, Baghmara, Dhanbad
Loader
17
Ashok Pashwan
Prayag Paswan
Mandara, Nawagadh, Dhanbad
Loader
18
Ganesh Pd. Sharma
Kamalkant Sharma
Matigada, Nadkhurki, Dhanbad
Loader
19
Amar Kumar Singh
Tara Pd. Singh
Nitchpur, Katrashbazar, Dhanba
Loader
20
Nandlal Sharma
Kailash Sharma
Matigada, Nadkhurki, Dhanbad
Loader
21
Suresh Yadav
Shivajee Yadav
Matigada, Nadkhurki, Dhanbad
Loader
22
Ashok Kumar
Shrivastav
Badho Lal
C/O A.K.Singh Matigadh, Dhanbad
Loader
23
Shri Kant Kumar
Shina
Ram Chandra Lal
C/O A.K.Singh Matigadh, Dhanbad
Loader
24
Gobind Mahato
Ganesh Mahato
Patarakuli, Dugdha, Giridih
Loader
25
Jetho Mahato
Ramcharan Mahato
Beltand, Dugdha, Giridih
Loader
26
Janga Ram Mahato
Chaman Mahato
Patarakuli, Dugdha, Giridih
Loader
27
Sailash Kumar
Prabhudat Sharma
Karmatand, Dugdha, Giridih
Loader
28
Anil Kumar Singh
Ram Pd. Singh
Manikapur, Gopalgang
Loader
29
Arun Kumar Singh
Pradip Singh
Nayatola, Sahebgang, Chappra
Loader
30
Nawal Kishore
Singh
Vindhanchal Singh
Mahamada, Chappra
Loader
31
Sanjeev Pd. Singh
Ayodhaya Pd. Singh
Loader
32
Balmukund Ram
Ram Sarup Kahar
Loader
33
Ranjit Rewani
Manohar Rewani
Udaypur, Barwadda, Dhanbad
Loader
34
Bisheshwar Rewani
Manohar Rewani
Udaypur, Barwadda, Dhanbad
Loader
35
Sakaldeo Rewani
Lakhan Rewani
Udaypur, Barwadda, Dhanbad
Loader
36
Dinesh Pd.
Shiv Charan Ram
Udaypur, Barwadda, Dhanbad
Loader
2474
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
37
Arjun Pd. Kushwah
Sanichar Mahato
Bakaradih, Bagodar, Giridih
Loader
38
Ganga Pd. Sinha
Dwarika Prasad Lala
Dimra, Hazaribagh
Loader
39
Rajendra Pd.
Ishwar Mahato
Chandramarani, Sariya, Giridih
Loader
40
Fagu Yadav
Budhan Gope
Ghorwari, Sariya, Giridih
Loader
41
Arjun Pd. Verma
Mahadeo Mahato
Dainabad, Markaccho, Giridih
Loader
42
Rajendra Pd.
Diwakar
Sanichar Mahato
Bakaradih, Bagodar, Giridih
Loader
43
Dharmchandra
Yadav
Khemchandra Yadav
Ghorwari, Sariya, Giridih
Loader
44
Ranjit Kumar
Verma
Nemchand Pd. Verma
Koimara, Giridih
Loader
45
Bhuneshwar
Mahato
Sito Mahato
Singh adaha, Giridih
Loader
46
Sajan Singh
Taleshwar Singh
Mokamo, Giridih
Loader
47
Bulaki Mistry
Janaki Mistry
Nawagadchatti, Giridih
Loader
48
Dwarika Rana
Janaki Mistry
Nawagadchatti, Giridih
Loader
49
Sunil Rana
Dwarika Rana
Nawagadchatti, Giridih
Loader
50
Prabhu Ravidas
Babulal Ravidas
Jagdishpur, Giridih
Loader
51
Ravindranath
Chandra
Khudiram Chandra
Chandankiyari, Bokaro
Loader
52
Deepak Sen
Haripad Sen
Marapari, Bokaro
Loader
53
Badal Sen
Harendra Sen
Marapari, Bokaro
Loader
54
Vijay Kumar
Chandra
Khudiram Chandra
Marapari, Bokaro
Loader
55
Ashit Kumar
Chandra
Khudiram Chandra
Marapari, Bokaro
Loader
56
Amit Kumar Dey
Naw Kumar Dey
Marapari, Bokaro
Loader
57
Bablu Modi
Chitranjan Modi
Marapari, Bokaro
Loader
58
Uttam Kumar Dey
Ramkrishna Dey
Marapari, Bokaro
Loader
59
Dhrist Kumar
Chandra
Ashutosh Chandra
Marapari, Bokaro
Loader
60
Guljar Anshari
Abdul Khatir Anshari
Kalipur, Pochari, Dhanbad
Loader
61
Abdul Jabar Ansari
Suleman Anshari
Kalipur, Pochari, Dhanbad
Loader
62
Ureman Ansari
Mohamad Ansari
Agardih, Bokaro
Loader
63
Ahmad Hussian
Akhatar Hussian
Jharia, Dhanbad
Loader
64
Md.Anjar Hussian
Anwar Hussian
Jharia, Dhanbad
Loader
65
Md. Shamid Ansari
Akthar Hussian
Jharia, Dhanbad
Loader
66
Kishori Kumar
Sharma
Doga Rana
Taratand, Giridih
Loader
67
Ashok Pd.
Kushwaha
Prem Chand Mahato
Barsundhi, Giridih
Loader
68
Ajit Kushwaha
Prem Chand Mahato
Barsundhi, Giridih
Loader
69
Narayan Rana
Prasadi Rana
Tekotand, Giridih
Loader
70
Mayauddin Anshari
Khetu Miya
Kalianpur, Dhanbad
Loader
71
Kumar Gaurav
Tikaith Mahato
Barwatand, Tundi, Dhanbad
Loader
73
Hiralal Singh
Hari Shankar Singh
Gopalpur, Katrash, Dhanbad
Loader
II
(ii)
2475
74
Harjit Singh
Hari Shankar Singh
Gopalpur, Katrash, Dhanbad
Loader
75
Md. Jakir Ansari
Muslim Miya
Muraidih, Barora, Dhanbad
Loader
76
Basudev Manjhi
Ramdhan Manjhi
Satanpur, Bokaro
Loader
77
Mangal Manjhi
Surjan Manjhi
Shyampur, Bokaro
Loader
78
Raj Kumar Soren
Haradhan Manjhi
Shyampur, Bokaro
Loader
79
Satyanarayan
Manjhi
Somar Manjhi
Jainabashti, Bokaro
Loader
80
Manoj Murmur
Sayamlal Manjhi
Bishunpur, Dhanbad
Sardar
81
Sunil Manjhi
Surjan Manjhi
Shyampur, Bokaro
Loader
82
Chandramohan
Soren
Haradhan Soren
Shyampur, Bokaro
Loader
83
Babuchand Soren
Samara Manjhi
Jainabasti, Bokaro
Loader
84
Anil Soren
Surjan Manjhi
Sayampur, Bokaro
Loader
85
Chandrasekhar
Manjhi
Samara Manjhi
Jainabasti, Bokaro
Loader
86
Dinesh Murmur
Sayamlal Murmu
Bishnapur Dhanbad
Loader
87
Sukhdeo Pd.
Kushwaha
Kunjbihari Mahato
Nawagadhchatti, Giridih
Loader
88
Anil Rana
Jitan Rana
Nawagadhchatti, Giridih
Loader
89
Binod Kumar
Munna pd. Tamoli
Haydernagar, Palamu
Loader
90
Kishun Paswan
Budhan Paswan
Gomiya, Bokaro
Loader
91
Kishori Mistry
Vanshi Mistry
Mirjaganj, Giridih
Loader
92
Aman Kumar
Nirmal Prasad
Loader
93
Ramdeo Mistry
Manger Mistry
Nawagadhchatti, Giridih
Loader
94
Ravi Kumar
Manohar Chourashiya
Nosha, Mode, Patna
Loader
95
Anand Kumar
Jarjan Yadav
Newcoloney , Dhanbad
Loader
96
Gaya Shankar
Yadav
Kedarnath Yadav
Puranabazar, Dhanbad
Loader
97
Chotu Kumar
Ashok Prasad
Youmadi, Gaya
Loader
98
Prakash Kumar
Magedhiya
Rambharosh Prasad
Dahuram, Gaya
Loader
99
Guddu Kumar
Lakhan Prasad
Dobhi, Gaya
Loader
100
Ganesh Pd. Saw
Sarowar Saw
Naya Bazaar, Lakhisaray
Loader
101
Kapil Tamoli
Rajendra Pd. Tamoli
Jamena, Gaya
Loader
102
Sakil Ahmad
Hazi Ishlam Ahmad
Bhuiya, Chitro, Dhanbad
Loader
103
Bibhas Kumar
Vindhaychal Kumar
Vishnapur, Godda
Loader
104
Gautam Kumar
Vindhaychal Kumar
Vishnapur, Godda
Loader
105
Alok Kumar Singh
Gopal Pd. Singh
Barkop, Godda
Loader
106
Rajdip Rajak
Ganesh Rajak
Mahijam, Jamtada
Loader
107
Tapan Murmur
Karamchand Murmur
Dharampur, Jamwada, Puruliya
Loader
108
Satyawan Murmur
Permashwar Murmu
Dharampur, Jamwada, Puruliya
Loader
109
Binod Kumar
Manjhi
Suphal Manjhi
Narkera, Bokaro
Loader
110
Siyaram Bhuiya
Phuleshwar Bhuiya
Bhatdih, Mahuda, Dhanbad
Loader
111
Manoj Kumar
Bhuiya
Bhawan Bhuiya
Chhatabad, Katrash, Dhanbad
Loader
112
Bibhakar Hanshad
Motilal Hanshad
Kakidih, Singbhum
Loader
113
Mukesh Das
Sahadeo Das
Muraidih, Dhanbad
Loader
2476
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
114
Sikandar Saw
Suraj Saw
Pandeydih, Koderma
Loader
115
Rameshwar Yadav
Kali Yadav
Bangaiya, Koderma
Loader
116
Kapildeo Kumar
Ram Bilash Prasad
Afjaldigaha, Nalanda
Loader
117
Laljit Saw
Gopichand Saw
Gajhandi, Bokaro
Loader
118
Santosh Yadav
Chutu Yadav
Teytaryadih, Dokoderma
Loader
119
Pravin Kumar Jha
Durga Nand Jha
Dhanbad
Loader
120
PraphulKumar Jha
Durga Nand Jha
Dhanbad
Loader
121
Niraj Shiwastav
Mewaram Shriwastav
Dhanbad
Loader
122
Mamta Devi
Tribhuwan Mahato
Nawagadhchatti, Giridih
Loader
123
Shanti Devi
Kishori Prasad Sharma
Tara, Giridih
Loader
124
Pappu Mistry
Wakil Mistry
Choubey, Hazaribagh
Loader
125
Wakil Pandit
Parmeshwarpandit
Belatand, Giridih
Loader
126
Payrelal Pandit
Dwarika Pandit
Belatand, Giridih
Loader
127
Suresh Kr
Choudhary
Harishchandra
Choudhary
Bandkharo, Giridih
Loader
128
Rewat Gope
Manger Gope
Dhobari , Sariya, Giridih
Loader
129
Sushila Devi
Sunil Prasad
Dhobari , Sariya, Giridih
Loader
130
Parvati Devi
Sahadeo Mistry
Nawagadhchatti, Giridih
Loader
131
Saraswati Kumari
Haricharan Mahato
Pipraiya, Chapara
Loader
132
Bharti Kumari
Krishna Prasad Tamoli
Kashmar, Pratappur, Chatra
Loader
133
Puspa Devi
Sanjeev Kumar
Tamoli
Saraidhela, Dhanbad
Loader
134
Roshan Lal Mahato
Gujardih, Bokaro
Loader
135
Hira Devi
Sharawan Tamoli
Sataiya, Chatra
Loader
2.
The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 06.07.1992. After receipt of reference, both Parties are
noticed, Thereafter the management files a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court bearing No. CWJC 2698/92
(R) which was dismissed vide order dated 4.02.93, it was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court bearing No.
SLP (Civil) No. 3850/93 which was also dismissed.
3.
Thereafter the Sponsoring Union files their written statement on 21/24.02.1997 and the management also files
their written statement-cum-rejoinder on 06/07.08.1997. Rejoinder and document also filed by the parties. Four
witnesses examined on behalf of the workman/Sponsoring Union and one withess examined on behalf of the
Management. Documents of management is marked M-1 to M-6 as exhibit. But no document marked on behalf of the
Sponsoring Union.
4.
The case of the Sponsoring Union is that the management pf M/S BCCL requires sand for stowing purpose in
their collieries after complete excavation coal from the coal seam if the gap created by extraction of coal is not filled up
by non cabnegeous materials. There may be heavy subsidence and also risk of spontaneous combustion leading to
spreading of fire in caol seam. It is therefore necessary to fill this gap by sand which is sent to these excavation of
mixing the sand with water and this process is turned as stowing . Thus sand is the essential part for mining purposes.
The management has several collieries in the district of Dhanbad from where several tonnes of coal is extracted daily.
Thus the management has requires a big quantity of sand for their collieries.
5.
It is further submitted by the Sponsoring Union that the availability of sand is found in the neighbouring river
beds. The Damodar River bed, Barakar river bed, Jamunia river bed, Khudia river bed and other river beds which are
available in the district of Dhanbad and Burdwan are the source of sand for the said estowing purposes. These reiver
beds are under the control of the State of Bihar now in Jharkhand and the State grants all mining lease for excavation
and use of these minerals, as the management taken mining lease of several Ghats in those river beds. There are also
several private mining lease of different persons for realising royalty from the user of sand from such river beds.
6.
It is also submitted by the Sponsoring Union that the management of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd requires sand and
they engaged several workmen for the job of excavation of sand from the sand beds and to load it in the truck of the
transporters engaged by the management and they being paid by the management. But the wages of workmen were not
II
(ii)
2477
regularised by the management of M/S BCCL . The workmen of some sand Ghats represented by Sponsoring Union
made representation before the management for realisation of their services and payment of wages according to the
NCWA as well as other statutory benefits. But the demand were not attended by the management . The above process
of escavation of sand and loading is being done through contractors but the fact that these workmen are really
workmen of the management of M/S BCCL in order to shirk their responsibilites to ensure proper wages to these
workmen, they are not accepting the workmen.
7.
It is further submitted by the Sponsoring Union that the management have deployed these concerned workmen
for escavation and collection of sand from the river beds commonly known as river sand loaders and for loading of
sand into the truck for transportation of the same to their collieries . Therse workmen are engaged in mining
excavation, so that they cannot be treated as employees of Contractor as the concerned contractor for transportation of
sand have no lincence in this connection and therefore in absence of such licence the concerned workmen are the
workmen of principal employer and thus there is relationship of employer and employee relationship in between the
management and the concerned workmen.
8.
The concerned workmen are know as reiver bed loaders who are continously working since 1977 under the
supervision and control of the officers deputed by the management and on several points of the said river beds.
The grievance of the workmen also supported by the then Dy Commissioner of Dhanbad when he found that the
concerned workmen were not given proper wages. The Deputy Commissioner (C) Dhanbad look into the matter and
by his letter dated 18.08.89 replied to the request of the Dy. Commissioner Dhanbad and said that M/S BCCL is the
Principal employer of the concerned workmen. Therefore it is crystal clear that taking advantage of poor workmen,
the management have indulged their right to dispose of their absorption as real workmen. Hence the action of the
management to refuse these workmen with the status of their own workmen is not proper and justified.
9.
On the other hand the case of the management is that the present refereence is not legally maintainable as no
employer employee relationship exists between the management and the concerned person, thay have no right to raise
any Industrial Dispute against the management as the present reference is vague and indefinite.
10.
It is submitted by the management that the sand Transport contractors are called supplier of material into the
establishment of M/S BCCL. The contractor engaged for supply of sand or articles of manufacture to the estalishment
is an excluded group of contractor from the purview of engagement of contractor labour in ny establishment.
A Contractor always means a person who undertake to produce given result by engaging contract labour in the
establishment. A mere supplier of material and goods is not a contractor and the workmen deployed by such persons in
the course of laoding and unloading of goods for supplying the same to an establishment cannot be said to be contract
labour for producing any result in the establishment.
11.
It is also submitted by the management that the collection of sand from the river bed and loading the same into
trucks or dumpers and transporting the same to the colliery bunker will not amount to working in the mine. On the
basis of their own assertion that some of them were deployed by sand Transport Contractors, it is well established that
they are not the workmen of the mine. Its demand for employment of some of its member who happened to work
under some sand transport contractors in the process of gathering sand from river beds is not proper.
12.
It is also submitted by the management that tender notice are issued innting sealed tender from established
transport contractors capable of transporting sand of minimum fixed quantities in a year from various river ghats of
Damodar, Barakar, Jamuni as well as from ropeway dumps to the colliery bunkers. Rates are required to be quoted in
rupee per Cubic Metre for loading unloading and transportation form the Ghat to the colliery bunkers. Thus the
contractors have to do all acts for supplying sand at the colliery bunker at the agreed rates per cubic meter of sand
supplied to the company. It is a contract for supply of material for outside palce to the coal mines.
13.
It is further submitted that the tender committee are formed for opening the sealed tender and submitting the
report recommending the names of the transport contractor alongwith the rates quoted by them and the proposed rates
to be accepted for different ghats of different rivers and the committee takes into account the various factors while
finalising the rates for loading unloading and transporting up to the colliery bunker and submits the recommendation to
the competent autority. Then the competent autority finalise the parties as well as rates and work order is issued in
favour of the parties for supplying sand to different collieries. The contractor is required to ensure proper payment of
wages and all benefits as per the provisions and laws applicable to engagement of labour by such persons and also
ensure medical facilities to the workers engaged by them. They are also required to pay all legal dues and dispose all
their labour engaged by them after termination of the contract.
14.
The contractor engaged in supply of sand is required to engage its own trucks or may hire the trucks from
others but becomes fully responsible for all consequences in case of hired trucks. The contractors employ its
agents/representative to supervise all the jobs connected with gathering, loading, transporting and unloading of sand
and such agent in the absence of the contractor. The conctractor becomes liable for payment of all taxes, cess and
2478
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
royalties and becomes responsible for supplying all meterials, tools equipements to its staff and labour engaghed by
him and is responsible for all payment to the workers engaged by him. It is quite but natural for village labour to
demand for their employment in the coal industry. Hence the demand by sponsoring Union is not proper.
15.
The reference is as to the workmen concerned are the employee who are to be regularised as workmen in
M/s. BCCL or not.
16.
The case of the workman that they were engaged by BCCL to fill sand in the void of the mines, where coal
have been extracted. Their further case is that they were extracting sand from river bed loaded in trucks which was
coming to mine site, for filling of the void.
17.
On the other hand the management says that they engaged contractors who engaged their employees and doing
that work and the contractor takes payment, and there is no employer employee relationship between the workmen
and the BCCL though, the workman rendered services.
18.
The further case of the management is that the all the names of the workmen was not in the reference, and fake
persons might have come to makes back door entry to the company, if any order of regularisation is made.
19.
It appears from the record that at the time of reference order received from the ministry, the names of the
workman is not recieved and the case proceed from here to Apex Court. During pendency of the case point mentioned
by the parties that list of workmen is not enclosed with order of reference therefore after asking to the ministry, the list
of workmen received by the Tribunal on 08.07.2013. On perusing of the record and names of workmen it is ordered
to file identity proof of 1751 workmen but the sponsoring Union files only 1251 names and their photographs. It is also
submited by the sponsoring Union that now claims for only 1251 workmen out of 1751, before this Tribunal.
20.
In this case, on behalf of the workman four witnesses have been examined but their evidence is contrary to each
other and prevaricating. Some says that they have been engaged by the management and some says that they were
working under contractors. They further say, that they have no appointment letter and they have no identity card,
issued either by the contractor or by the management though presently they have filed their photograph of 1251 Nos.
workmen only.
21.
As per Cross examination of WW-4, some part of cross-examination is quoted below:-
Xxxxx
“I have gone through the tender, the agreement and other documents connected with the transporters
filed in the present case. It is a fact that prior to engaging the contractor for the sand transportation,
tender were being invited and after acceptance of the tender the contract was awarded.”
xxxxx
22.
Cross examination of WW-3, some part is quoted below:-
Xxxxx
“I have got no paper to show that I was appointed by BCCL. I have got no paper to show that we were
appointed by Agrawal Transporter. We have not filed those paper which are in our possession to show that we
were working there. We have got no order to show that the official of BCCL had been given direction to us
regarding loading of sand.”
XXXXX
23.
Sri Chintamani mahto as WW-1 say in cross-examination “that we have got no appointment letter and we
were orally appointed by the owner of Ashok Transport. I do not know the full name of owner. He also says
that every Sunday the munshi of Ashok Transport used to make us payment of wages through Kachha
Voucher. To my Knowledge no muster roll register was being maintain by the munshi of Ashok Transport. Nor
he used to maintain payment sheet. he also says that no pass issued to us, rather only challan was being issued
to the driver of the truck on the strength of which the truck was allowed to be entered into the colliery premises.
He also says that I cannot says the union which has raised this dispute, has been registered or not.”
24.
On perusal of all evidence and document, It is not possible to know whether they were engaged by the
contractor or the management. Management flatly denied that the workmen concerned are not their employee and they
have doubt that they worked for filling of sand.
25.
The union at the time of conciliation, have not given the names of all the workmen or their identity. The cross-
examination of WW-4 & WW-1 is very much material, that they are admitted that tender invited and after acceptance
of tender contract awarded, they are also say that we are only contractor workmen and no gate pass or identity card
issed to us and payment was made through Kachha voucher. Hence it is presumed that there is not employer employee
II
(ii)
2479
relationship exist. Therefore it is not possible to know, as to whether the workmen were engaged by the management
or contractor.
26.
It is admitted by the Sponsoring Union in Para 15 of Written statement, that all concerned workmen are
working since 1977, it means now all workmen are about 60 years of age. This being the situation this Tribunal is
unable to give any relief to the workmen.
27.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that 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 not justified, Accordingly they were not entitled
to get any relief.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
—
17/09, 18/09, 20/09, 21/09, 22/09, 23/09, 24/09, 25/09, 26/09, 27/09, 28/09, 29/09, 30/09, 36/09, 37/09, 40/09,
41/09, 42/09, 45/09, 46/09, 47/09, 48/09, 49/09, 50/09, 51/09, 52/09, 53/09, 82/09, 83/09, 84/09, 85/09, 86/09,
87/09, 100/09, 101/09, 102/09, 103/09, 104/09, 105/09, 106/09, 107/09, 108/09, 109/09, 1/10, 2/10, 3/10, 4/10,
5/10, 6/10, 22/10
2480
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 19th April, 2017
S.O. 1094.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/LC/R/38/2009, 17/09, 18/09, 20/09, 21/09, 22/09, 23/09, 24/09,
25/09, 26/09, 27/09, 28/09, 29/09, 30/09, 36/09, 37/09, 40/09, 41/09, 42/09, 45/09, 46/09, 47/09, 48/09, 49/09,
50/09, 51/09, 52/09, 53/09, 82/09, 83/09, 84/09, 85/09, 86/09, 87/09, 100/09, 101/09, 102/09, 103/09, 104/09,
105/09, 106/09, 107/09, 108/09, 109/09, 1/10, 2/10, 3/10, 4/10, 5/10, 6/10, 22/10) of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to the Sr. General Manager, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 17.04.2017.
[No. L-14011/31/2008-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/17/2008-IR (DU),
II
(ii)
2481
No. L-14011/16/2008-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/14/2008-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/13/2008-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/27/2008-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/26/2008-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/28/2008-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/23/2008-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/24/2008-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/25/2008-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/19/2008-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/22/2008-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/18/2008-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/29/2008-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/30/2008-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/33/2008-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/34/2008-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/35/2008-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/10/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/9/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/8/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/2/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/3/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/4/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/5/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/6/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/7/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/22/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/23/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/24/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/25/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/20/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/21/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/31/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/39/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/38/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/35/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/34/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/37/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/36/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/40/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/33/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/32/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/48/2009-IR (DU),
2482
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
No. L-14011/44/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/46/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/47/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/49/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/50/2009-IR (DU),
No. L-14011/45/2009-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/38/2009, 17/09, 18/09, 20/09 to 30/09, 36/09, 37/09, 40/09 to 42/09, 45/09 to 53/09,
82/09 to 87/09, 100/09 to 109/09, 1/10 to 6/10 & 22/10.
General Secretary,
Ayudh Nirmani Vahan Chaalak Sangh,
MP Zone, Qr.No. 2287/A, New Type-II,
Sector-I, VFJ, Jabalpur
…Workman/Union
Versus
Sr.General Manager,
Vehicle Factory,
Jabalpur
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 25th day of November, 2016
1.
(1)
As per letter dated 23-3-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/31/2008/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri S. Naushad, Fireman-II, Fire Brigade
Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(2)
As per letter dated 3-3-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/17/2008/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri Raj Kumar, Fireman-II, Fire Brigade
Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(3)
As per letter dated 3-3-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/16/2008/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri Fateh Singh , Fireman-II, Fire Brigade
Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(4)
As per letter dated 3-3-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/14/2008/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri H.R.Tiwari, Fireman-I, Fire Brigade
II
(ii)
2483
Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(5)
As per letter dated 3-3-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/13/2008/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“ Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri Jamna Prasad, Fireman-I, Fire Brigade
Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(6)
As per letter dated 3-3-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/27/2008/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri Ali Mohammad, Fire Engine Driver,
Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the workman is
entitled to?”
(7)
As per letter dated 3-3-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/26/2008/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri Prat Pal, Fireman-I, Fire Brigade
Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(8)
As per letter dated 3-3-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/28/2008/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri G.M.Singh, Fire Engine Driver,
Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the workman is
entitled to?”
(9)
As per letter dated 3-3-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/23/2008/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri S. Singh, Fireman-I, Fire Brigade
Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the workman
is entitled to?”
(10)
As per letter dated 3-3-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/24/2008/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri R.S.Rajak, Fireman-I, Fire Brigade
Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(11)
As per letter dated 3-3-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/13/2008/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri R.P. Dubey, Fireman-I, Fire Brigade
Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the workman
is entitled to?”
2484
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(12)
As per letter dated 3-3-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/19/2008/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri P.N. Pathak, Leading Hand Fire, Fire
Brigade Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(13)
As per letter dated 3-3-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/22/2008/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri Makhan Singh, Leading Hand fire,
Fire Brigade Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
(14)
As per letter dated 3-3-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/18/2008/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri Jayavelu Ravi, Fireman-I, Fire Brigade
Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(15)
As per letter dated 23-3-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/29/2008/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri M.G. Rajji, Fireman-I, Fire Brigade
Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(16)
As per letter dated 23-3-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/30/2008/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri Harish Kumar, Fireman-II, Fire
Brigade Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(17)
As per letter dated 23-3-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/33/2008/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri A.S.Patel, Leading Hand Fire, Fire
Brigade Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(18)
As per letter dated 23-3-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/34/2008/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri S./S. Jharia, Fireman-I, Fire Brigade
Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(19)
As per letter dated 23-3-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/35/2008/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
II
(ii)
2485
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri Mohd. Javed, Fireman-II, Fire
Brigade Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(20)
As per letter dated 1-4-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/10/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri Hari Singh , Fireman-I, Fire Brigade
Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(21)
As per letter dated 1-4-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/9/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri Ram Singh , Fireman-I, Fire Brigade
Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(22)
As per letter dated 1-4-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/8/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri M.Iqbal Khan, Fireman-I, Fire Brigade
Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(23)
As per letter dated 1-4-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/2/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri Dharmendra, Fireman-I, Fire Brigade
Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(24)
As per letter dated 1-4-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/3/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri Om Prakash, Fireman-I, Fire Brigade
Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(25)
As per letter dated 1-4-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/4/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri S.K. Gupta, Fireman-I, Fire Brigade
Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(26)
As per letter dated 1-4-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/5/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri Rakesh Kumar, Fireman-II, Fire
2486
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Brigade Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(27)
As per letter dated 1-4-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/6/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri V.S. Sengar, Fireman-II, Fire Brigade
Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(28)
As per letter dated 1-4-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/7/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri B.L.Yadav, Fireman-I, Fire Brigade
Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(29)
As per letter dated 30-9-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/22/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri D.K.Singh , Fireman-II, Fire Brigade
Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(30)
As per letter dated 30-9-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/23/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri Ganesh Prasad, Fireman-II, Fire
Brigade Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(31)
As per letter dated 30-9-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/24/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri Sanjay Yadav, Fireman-II, Fire
Brigade Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(32)
As per letter dated 30-9-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/25/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri Pursottamlal, Fireman-II, Fire Brigade
Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(33)
As per letter dated 30-9-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/20/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri Larence Bablu, Fireman-II, Fire
Brigade Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
II
(ii)
2487
(34)
As per letter dated 30-9-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/21/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch
from the management of Vehicle Facto for their workman Shri S.P.Raikwar, Fire Engine Driver-I,
Fire Brigade Section, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief
the workman is entitled to?”
(35)
As per letter dated 30-11-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/31/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour rest
during working hours to Shri R.S.Tiwari by the management of Vehicle Factory is legal and justified?
If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
(36)
As per letter dated 30-11-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/39/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour rest
during working hours to Shri S.K.Gond by the management of Vehicle Factory is legal and justified?
If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
(37)
As per letter dated 30-11-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/38/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour rest
during working hours to Shri R. Shrivastava by the management of Vehicle Factory is legal and
justified? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
(38)
As per letter dated 30-11-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/35/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour rest
during working hours to Shri Motilal by the management of Vehicle Factory is legal and justified? If
yes, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
(39)
As per letter dated 30-11-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/34/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour rest
during working hours to Shri Dhan Singh by the management of Vehicle Factory is legal and justified?
If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
(40)
As per letter dated 30-11-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/37/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour rest
during working hours to Shri S.K.Dubey by the management of Vehicle Factory is legal and justified?
If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
(41)
As per letter dated 30-11-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/36/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour rest
during working hours to Shri Makhan Singh by the management of Vehicle Factory is legal and
justified? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2488
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(42)
As per letter dated 30-11-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/40/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour rest
during working hours to Shri C.B.Singh by the management of Vehicle Factory is legal and justified?
If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
(43)
As per letter dated 30-11-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/33/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour rest
during working hours to Shri Tahal Singh by the management of Vehicle Factory is legal and justified?
If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
(44)
As per letter dated 30-11-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/32/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour rest
during working hours to Shri A.U.Abbasi by the management of Vehicle Factory is legal and justified?
If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
(45)
As per letter dated 29-12-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/48/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour rest
during working hours to Shri Onkar Singh , Leading Hand Fire, Fire Brigade Section by the
management of Vehicle Factory is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled
to?”
(46)
As per letter dated 29-12-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/44/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour rest
during working hours to Shri R.P.Dubey, Fire Engine Driver-I, Fire Brigade Section by the
management of Vehicle Factory is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled
to?”
(47)
As per letter dated 29-12-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/46/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour rest
during working hours to Shri B.P.Sharma, Fire Engine Driver-A, Fire Brigade Section by the
management of Vehicle Factory is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled
to?”
(48)
As per letter dated 29-12-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/47/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour rest
during working hours to Shri T.R.Shukla, Fire Engine Driver-A, Fire Brigade Section by the
management of Vehicle Factory is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled
to?”
(49)
As per letter dated 29-12-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/49/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour rest
during working hours to Shri I. Das Kachhi, Leading Hand Fire, Fire Brigade Section by the
II
(ii)
2489
management of Vehicle Factory is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled
to?”
(50)
As per letter dated 29-12-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/50/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour rest
during working hours to Shri Chhidami Lal, Leading Hand Fire, Fire Brigade Section by the
management of Vehicle Factory is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled
to?”
(51)
As per letter dated 29-12-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D .Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-14011/45/2009/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour rest
during working hours to Shri T.R. Kosta, Fire Engine Driver-A, Fire Brigade Section by the
management of Vehicle Factory is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled
to?”
2.
Present reference and other 51 reference are received for adjudication. After receiving those reference, notices
were issued to the parties. As per order dated 1-5-2013, after hearing counsel for parties, all those 52 references are
clubbed with present case R/28/09. Identical statement of claim is filed in all the matters. The term of reference in all
the reference is identical, only variation is about name of workman. Present reference R/38/09 is treated as lead case.
The case of Ist party workman is that they are working in Fire Fighting cadre on different posts. Fireman Grade II,
Fireman Grade-I, Fire Engine Driver, Leading Hand Fire working in the Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur. The post on
which they are working involve functions of fire fighting and therefore are commonly termed as Fire Fighting
Personnel/staff. That services of fire fighting staff under management are categorized as essential services where the
person cannot leave place of work at any point of time during 8 hours shift. Even during period of lunch break, fire
fighting personnel is required to be available and present on duty to meet the contingency of outbreak of fire. Because
of said characteristics of their service, fire fighting staff are required to work for 8 hours which includes lunch time of
half hour. The personnel belonging to non-essential services were allowed to go from duty during half hour lunch time
and therefore have to work for an additional 30 minute for have availed 30 minute lunch. Fire fighting personnel
remained continuously in duty for 8 hours without any break for lunch. Workman further submits that there are 39
Ordnance Factory situated in country. The vehicle factory, Jabalpur is involved in manufacturing and assembly of
vehicles for defence and paramilitary forces. It functions under direct supervisory control of Ordnance Factory Board
and Defence Department, the Ministry of Defence. It is covered as industry under Section 2(j) of IDAct amended Act
of 1982 not came into force. That Vehicle Factory is covered under Section 2(k) of Factories Act 1948. It is
undertaking on regular and continuous basis. Sr.General Manager has ultimate control over affairs of VFJ being
occupied defined under Section 2A of Factory Act. Compliance of provisions of Factories Act is required. Ist party
workman reiterates that they are working 8 hours without any extra time for lunch. Letter dated 30-12-05 is
representing duties of the fire fighting staff. That for non-essential services, the lunch hour has been specifically
provided 11 hours to 12 hours, 12 hours to 13 hours but for essential service of fire fighting personnel, the term spot
lunch has been mentioned under the column of lunch which means that fire fighting personnel will have to avail lunch
at the spot of work as they cannot leave the place of their working. That separate lunch is included within 8 hours of
shift duty. It can neither be availed nor provided opportunity for 8 hours shift duty. Duty chart as per shift is shown in
Para 11 of the statement of the claim. Present list for duration 28-10-00 to 28-10-06 is produced. It is reiterated that act
of the management amounts to violation of Section 51 of Factory Act which prohibits management to compel the
worker to work in a factory for more than 48 hours in a week. That at the time of 8 ½ daily shift, workman are made
to work, the workman is actually made to work for 51 hours in a week comprising of 6 working days. That they work 3
hours overtime in a week. That repeated representations were submitted by the workman to Sr. General Manager
claiming benefit of Additional wages for half hour. He also requested to curtail duty hour to 8 hour which should
include half hour for lunch and not duty. No action was taken on their representation. The action of the management
amounts to unfair labour practice under Section 25 T, U of ID Act. On such ground, Ist party workman prays that
management be directed to pay additional wages/ benefit for additional half hour duty beyond normal 8 hours shift with
arrears and claimed 18 % interest.
3.
2nd party filed identical Written Statement in all the references opposing claim of Ist party workman. 2nd party
submits that the claim of workman for additional wages for additional 30 minutes duty beyond normal 8 hours duty is
not proper. Said claim is opposed by management alleging that the ground contented by workman are vague and not
clear. Said claim is opposed by management alleging that the ground contented by workman are vague and not clear.
2490
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The claim is too old and there is no justification for raising such dispute at belated stage therefore the claim is liable to
b rejected. That services of workmen is an essential category of staff. The factory is registered under Factory Act and
MP Factory Rules framed. The duty hour of all the workmen is 8 hours per day. Time of each of the workman depend
on nature of work for each detailed i.e. daily shift, rotational shift etc. after 5 hours duty, workman is given 30 minutes
interval for rest which is usually used for taking lunch, dinner etc or for rest in the night shift. The duty hours of
workman are rotated in shift but in whatever shift he is detailed, his duty hours is 8 hours excluding 30 minutes
interval of rest being given after 5 hours continuous work. The claim of workman that break period of 30 minute
should be included in total working hours and if so counted, the duty hours is 8 ½ hours and as such claim extra wages
for half hours. Claim of workman is baseless. Every workman is given 30 minutes interval for rest after 5 hours duty
which is mandatory as per provisions of Factory Act. During rest period, some workers who are not in essential
category staff might be leaving out for lunch etc but they are bound to return for duty after rest period. The essential
category of staff is also given rest of 30 minutes after 5 hours of duty, but they do remain within the premises or at
their duty place where they have been provided rest room/ canteen facilities etc. Said period is utilized by workman for
taking rest/meals could not perform any work. There is no issue that services of workman were utilized during rest
period to claim extra wages. Their claim is they are not permitted to go out during half hour rest period/ interval. 2nd
party management reiterates as per Section 54 of Factory Act, the period of work of adult workers in factory shall be
so fixed that no period shall exceed 5 hours, no worker shall work more than 5 hours before half hour lunch. That all
workmen were given 30 minutes rest after 5 hour working. The duty hours of all workmen are 8 hours per day i.e. 48
hours in a week. The claim of Ist party workman deserves to be rejected.
4.
Workman filed rejoinder in all the matters reiterating their contentions in statement of claim.
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani
Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour
lunch from the management of Vehicle Factory for
their workmen in all the reference cases since 1973
is legal and justified?
In Negative
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
Workmen are not entitled to any relief.
REASONS
6.
The term of reference in all the reference cases is identical except variation in name of workmen. Demand of
Union pertains to half hour time for lunch since the year 1973. The dispute has been referred in the year 2009-2010. As
stated earlier, all the references are clubbed with R/38/09 as per order dated 1-5-2013. R/38/09 is the leading case. Ist
party filed affidavit of Shri R.K. Sharma, Harish Kumar Pradhan, R.P. Dubey, R.K. sharma in his affidavit of
evidence has stated that he was working as fireman and retired on 30-8-2011. That fire fighting services are covered as
essential services. Workman in non-essential services worked for 8 hours with one hour lunch time. Workman working
in essential services are working for 8 hours 30 minutes with half hour lunch i.e. spot lunch. They cannot go out of the
premises during lunch period. That the workmen remains at work place. He doesnot get time for lunchs therefore
overtime may be allowed for the period of spot lunch and claims that fire fighting staff works 51 hours per week.
7.
Affidavit of evidence of Shri Harish Kumar Pradhan & R.P. Dubey are almost identical. Shri R.K. Sharma in
his cross-examination says documents Exhibit W-1 to W-3 was obtained from GCF Khamaria, Dehradun by Santosh
Kumar. Mr. Raghuvbanshi was President of their federation. That he was working in VFJ till 30-8-2011. He was
initially appointed on 27-11-90. Shri Naushad in present reference was appointed after 1990. He denies that he was not
knowledge since when workman was working in fire brigade. Rather he reiterated that Naushad was working as
Fireman Grade II. Naushad was transferred to administration block but he was unable to tell the year. Their work is
carried in 3 shifts, each shift is for 8 ½ hours with half hour lunch time. During lunch time, employee cannot leave the
spot. Witness was unable to tell about the order issued in that regard. In his further cross, witness says he had worked
during lunch time but could not tell its day, month or year. That time of lunch is not fixed. There is facility for rest and
tiffin rooms is available in the factory. They are not using room for their lunch/tiffin.
8.
Evidence in cross-examination of Harish Kumar Pradhan is almost similar. He says that he was acquainted with
Shri Naushad. Naushad was appointed in 1995. He says that contents of his affidavit about half hour lunch time is
incorrect. Witness explained that 8 /2 hours period doesnot include lunch time. Lunch time is not fixed. When they get
time, they used to take their lunch. Since his joining service, he works for 8 ½ hours every day. he had orally claimed
overtime for half hour working. He was unable to tell why dispute was raised belatedly. He denies that his claim is
false.
II
(ii)
2491
9.
Shri R.K. Sharma in his cross-examination says he is working in VFJ since 1983. Since beginning he was
working as fireman. He had not claimed overtime wages for working in lunch period. Many times work of fire fighting
staff exceeds 8 hours working, its details are given by him. He denies that no work is carried during during lunch time.
10.
Management’s witness Rajendra Sen in his affidavit of evidence filed in all the cases has given the date of
appointments, promotions, retirement. The management’s witness further says the VFJ is registered under Factories
Act, it is working under control of Defence Ministry, Department of production. That working hours of Ist party
workmen are 8 hours. After 5 hours working, all the workmen are given 30 minutes interval/ rest period as per
provisions of Factories Act. That fireman employed in the brigade present in the factory premises during working hours
and not promoted outside factory premises during break, it doesnot mean that they have to perform duty during rest
period. All the workmen got lunch/ rest time of 30 minutes every day after5 hours working. Any of the workman have
not claimed over time wages to lunch period. In his cross, management’s witness says except fire fighting staff, all
employees are working 8 hours every day with one hour interval for lunch. During lunch period, other staff can go
outside, fire fighting staff is given half hour lunch time. During lunch time, they cannot go outside. The lunch time of
other staff is 12.30 to 1.30 PM. Half hour lunch time of fire fighting staff is not fixed. During emergency, fire fighting
staff continuously work and no lunch time is given. Overtime is allowed to fire fighting staff for working more than 8
hours. The contents of his affidavit that after 5 hours working, break is given is incorrect. The evidence of witness of
Ist party is clear that they are given half hour interval for lunch/ rest but they are not allowed to go outside. They are
required to stay within factory premises. Any of the witnesses of Ist party have not deposed that during half hour
interval/ lunch period, they are required to work every day. the pleadings and evidence of 2nd party is clear that when
ever the workmen are required to work more than 8 hours, overtime wages are paid as per provisions of Factories Act.
Evidence of management’s witness on above point is not shattered.
Section 51 of Factories Act provides- No adult worker shall be required or allowed to work in a factory for more
than forty-eight hours in any week.
Section 54 provides Subject to the provisions of Section 51, no adult worker shall be required or allowed to
work in a factory for more than nine hours in any day
Section 55 provides The periods of work] of adult workers in a factory each day shall be so fixed that no period
shall exceed five hours and that no worker shall work for more than five hours before he has had an interval for rest of
at least half an hour.
11.
The documents produced Exhibit W-1 working in the shift of General employees is shown. Exhibit W-2 shows
fire fighting staff working hours are 8hours 30 minutes in a day and 51 hours in a week. Rest/ lunch period is not
shown separately. In Exhibit W-3 timing of in and out of the staff is shown. It is not useful for deciding controversy. In
Exhibit M-1, shift timings of fire brigade (P) is shown, lunch time is shown 11 to 11.30, 13 to 13.30, 19 to 19.30, 3
to 3.30 for half hour. There is no evidence that during lunch period, workmen are required to work every day. on the
other hand, management submits that whenever fire fighting workmen required to work more than 8 hours overtime
wages are paid. As firefighting staff is not required to work every day therefore lunch hour of 30 minutes cannot
treated as duty period. Therefore the claim of Ist party workmen for additional wages is not justified. At the time of
argument, learned counsel for 2nd party Shri Shankaran Nair submitted that Shri Naushad is not examined. Except 3
witnesses of Ist party, other workmen are not examined. Affidavit of evidence filed in other cases are not cross
examined. Term of reference in all cases are identical pertains to demand for half an hour lunch for workmen working
in fire brigade Section since 1973. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri Salunke submitted that application is submitted
by him accepting evidence of 3 witnesses examined in R/38/09, examination of other witnesses is not necessary. That
affidavit of management’s witness Rajendra Singh filed in other cases. Affidavit filed in all the other cases mentions
date of appointment and retirement, promotions. The management’s witness in other cases is not cross examined. As
per evidence of management’s witness in Case No. R/41/09 date of appointment of workman is 19-7-70 and retired on
31-8-08, in R/42/09 date of appointment is 20-11-01 and is still working, in R/45/09 date of appointment is 20-11-01
and retirement is 30-8-2011, in R/46/09 date of appointment is 28-4-76 and retired on 30-9-12, R/47/09 date of
appointment is10-4-78 and retired on 31-5-2010, R/48/09 date of appointment is 7-9-95 and is still working, in
R/49/09 date of appointment is 16-8-90 and retired on 30-9-13, in R/50/09 date of appointment is 8-9-95 and is still
working, in R/51/09 date of appointment is 2-2-96 and is still working, in R/52/09 date of appointment is 12-10-99
and retired on 16-4-09, in R/53/09 date of appointment is 1-1-1973 and working, in R/82/09 date of appointment is
18-6-05 and is still working, in R/83/09 date of appointment is 27-11-99 and is still working, in R/84/09 date of
appointment is 26-12-05 and is still working, in R/85/09 date of appointment is 1-12-76 and retired on 31-7-13, in
R/86/09 date of appointment is 25-4-97, promoted on 27-10-15 and is still working, in R/87/09 date of appointment is
19-2-70 and retired on 28-2-08, in R/100/09 appointed on 11-6-73 and promoted on 1-3-08, in R/101/09 appointed on
4-4-05 and is still working, in R/102/09 appointed on 5-4-05 and is still working, in R/103/09 appointed on 12-10-99
and is still working, in R/104/09 date of appointment is 15-11-83 and retired on 31-5-08, in R/105/09 appointed on 5-
4-05 and is still working, in R/106/09 appointed on 14-6-83, promoted on 1-11-10 and is still working, in R/107/09
2492
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
appointed on 15-2-70 and retired on 31-3-09, in R/108/09 appointed on 27-2-78 and retired on 23-10-10, in R/109/09
appointed on 29-2-80 and retired on 31-8-13, in R/1/10 appointed on 21-11-72 and retired on 3-4-2010, in R/2/10
appointed on 6-5-70 and retired on 28-2-09, in R/3/10 appointed on 27-11-70 and retired on 1-4-08, in R/4/10 date of
appointment is 27-11-70 and retired on 30-11-07, in R/5/10 date of appointment is 21-11-72 and retired on 28-2-08, in
R/6/10 date of appointment is 4-12-72 and retired on 31-10-09 and in R/22/10 date of appointment is 19-2-90 and
retired on 8-11-09.
The evidence of management’s witness about appointment, promotions, retirement of respective workmen
remained unchallenged but it will have no consequence in deciding the dispute whether the workmen are entitled to
half hour lunch time/wages for lunch time/rest period. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in
Negative.
12.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahanchalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch from the
management of Vehicle Factory for their workmen in all the reference cases since 1973 is not legal and
proper.
(2)
Workmen are not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
—
New Delhi, the 19h April, 2017
S.O. 1095.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 383/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Chief General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Chennai & others and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 03.04.2017.
[No. L-40011/49/2003-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. 383/2004
(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)
BETWEEN :
Sri N. Vivekanandh
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1.
The Chief General Manager
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
Telecom, BSNL
29, Eldams Road
Now at No. 89, Millers Road
Chennai-600010
2.
The General Manager
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
BSNL
Statesman Building
New Delhi
II
(ii)
2493
3.
The Chief General Manager
:
2nd Party/3rd Respondent
Telecom
BSNL, Tamil Nadu Circle
Anna Salai
Chennai-600002
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
M/s. Balan Haridas, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondents
:
Sri D. Simon, Advocate
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-40011/49/2003-IR (DU)
dated 09.07.2004 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 the contract labourers numbering seventeen viz. S/Sri G. Ponnu Kalathi, S. Samuel, P. Dili
Babu, V. Krishnan, N. Bather, N. Vivekan, E. Elangovan, B. Venkatesan, Ramesh, M. Meganathan, M.
Kanniappan, R. Dili Babu, R. Parthasarathy, A. Dhanasekaran, A. Gnana Velu, Ms. Maheswari and Rani 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 No. 383/2004 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 dispute is raised on behalf of workmen working in the Office of BSNL Chengalpattu SSA. They
are doing Cleaning Work. 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 the Contractors and not with the Respondents. The petitioner is not entitled to
any relief.
5.
The ID was earlier answered against the petitioner as the petitioner failed to prosecute the case. Subsequently,
Vivekan, one of the workmen named in the Schedule of reference (subsequently changed his name as Vivekanandh as
per Ext.W13 gazette notification) got the matter restored to file. Now this workman alone is pursuing the dispute.
2494
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and documents marked as Exts.W1 to 29. The
Respondents did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary
7.
The point for consideration is:
(i)
Whether the action of BSNL in non-regularizing Vivekanandh is justified?
(ii)
What if any is the relief to which he is entitled?”
The Point
9.
In the Claim Statement filed the Union has stated that Vivekanandh as well as other workmen concerned in the
case were doing cleaning work in the Office of BSNL at Chengalpattu. According to the petitioner though the workmen
were working under a contract system it was a sham one. It is stated that all the workmen were under the direct control
and supervision of the Telecom Department and subsequently under BSNL. It is further stated that Contractors were all
regular employees of the department. The petitioner has claimed absorption of workmen on the ground that the contract
under which they were working is sham and nominal and also on the ground that they are entitled to permanency under
Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman) Act as they have completed 480
days of work within a period of 24 calendar months.
10.
Vivekanandh, the concerned workman has got himself examined as WW1. In the Proof Affidavit filed by him
he has reiterated the case in the Claim Statement. Apart from that he has stated that he had started to work in Sub-
Divisional Office at Kancheepuram in August 1998. According to him, though he was termed to be a contract
employee he was discharging work which is permanent in nature and was under the direct control and supervision of
the Respondents. Though as per the Claim Statement the workmen were doing cleaning work, as stated by WW1 in his
affidavit, he was doing the work of Telecom Mechanic and was carrying out works like Line Connection, Rectifying
Cable Fault, Repairing Telephone Instruments and Power Plant Module and also Repairing Electrical Appliances. He
has stated that he was engaged continuously by the department. He has claimed that he is entitled to be absorbed in
BSNL.
11.
What are the documents available to substantiate the case of the petitioner? Ext.W1 is a card issued by BSNL
and described as Authorization Letter and states that WW1 is a member of the working group of contract labourers of
BSNL Telecom Sector at Kancheepuram. Below the signature of Sub-Divisional Engineer a date of 2005 is seen. Thus
it is clear that this was issued in 2005. Ext.W2 is a membership card by Tamil Nadu Telecom Contract Workers Union.
This does not bear any date. Ext.W3 to Ext.W12 are all employment or experience certificates issued in the name of
Officers of BSNL, mostly Sub-Divisional Engineers. Ext.W3 and Ext.W4 are the certificates pertaining to the period
prior to the raising of the dispute. One is for the period from 02.08.1999 to 01.02.2000 and the other is for the period
from 12.08.1998 to 18.07.1999. Ext.W5 issued in 2001 merely states that WW1 was doing service in Faulting
Telephones in Kancheepuram Outdoor Section. Ext.W6 and Ext.W7 are the certificates issued in 2003 to the same
effect, the year in which the dispute was raised. Other certificates are of the period after the dispute was raised. There
are also appreciations letters marked as Ext.W19 and Ext.W20 issued by the Sub-Divisional Engineers in 2014 and
2015. Ext.W24 and Ext.W25 are some certificates obtained by WW1 from some institutions.
12.
Though WW1 claims that he has started to work for the Telecom Department in August 1998, no documents of
any kind other than the certificates said to have been issued by the officials are produced by the petitioner to prove that
he has been and is working in the establishment. It is surprising that he was not able to produce any document, not
only pertaining to the period before the dispute was raised but even in respect of the period after the dispute was raised,
though he claims that he continues to work for the Respondents even now. In the absence of any supportive documents
to justify the case that WW1 has started to work in August 1998, the certificates produced by him could not be relied
upon. These certificates are not proved as such. The veracity of these documents have been questioned on behalf of the
Respondents during cross-examination of WW1. In the absence of evidence by those who purportedly issued the
certificates there should have been some supportive evidence to justify these documents.
13.
The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the burden is upon the Respondents to prove that WW1 has not
been working in the establishment. He has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in DIRECTOR, FISHERIES,
TERMINAL DEPARTMENT VS. BHIKUBHAI MEGHAJI CHAWDA reported in 2010 1 SCC 47 in this respect. It
was a case where the workman has claimed that he has completed 240 days of service. The workman in this case was
hired on daily wage basis. The Apex Court has held that the workman would have difficulty in access to all the official
documents, muster rolls, etc. in connection with his service, that he having come forward and deposed, the burden
shifts to the appellant employer to prove that he did not complete 240 days of service in the requisite year to constitute
continuous service. In the present case the very case of WW1 is that he was working on contract basis though the
contract is stated to be sham and nominal. He claims to be still working. The case of the Respondents is that the
workmen are engaged on contract basis, that there is no employer-employee relationship between the department and
II
(ii)
2495
the workmen and that documents are not available with it. The Respondents having put forth a case that they do not
have any documents in the absence of employer-employee relationship the petitioner alone can prove his case.
14.
In any case WW1 would not be entitled to any relief. The case of WW1 is that he started to work for the
Respondents in August 1998. However, even the certificates available only states that WW1 had been working from
August, 1999. The case of WW1 is that he was working on contract basis. There is no material to show that the
contract is sham. Even if he has completed 480 days of service he would not be entitled to absorption with the
Respondents, his service having been with the Contractor.
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
:
WW1, Sri N. Vivekanandh
For the 2nd Party/Respondents
:
Nil
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
-
Authorization given by the respondent by mentioning designation
Ext.W2
-
Membership Card
Ext.W3
03.03.2000
Employment Certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Engineer (OD/North
Telephone Exchange, Kancheepuram for the period of work from12.08.1998 to
01.02.2000
Ext.W4
10.11.2000
Employment Certificate for the period of work from 12.08.1998 to 18.07.1999
Ext.W5
06.10.2001
Experience Certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Engineer
Ext.W6
20.01.2003
Experience Certificate
Ext.W7
18.02.2003
Experience Certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Wallajabad
Ext.W8
02.02.2003
Employment Certificate for the period of employment from 04.06.2003 to
31.12.2003
Ext.W9
11.05.2004
Experience Certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Phones,
Kancheepuram
Ext.W10
22.01.2008
Experience Certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Wallajabad
Ext.W11
05.09.2008
Employment Certificate issued by the TNWBD
Ext.W12
18.06.2009
Employment Certificate issued by the Junior Telecom Officer, Walajabad
Ext.W13
30.12.2009
Gazette Notification dated regarding Change of my name
Ext.W14
01.02.2010
Order issued by the Respondent regarding revision of wages for temporary
status Mazdoors/Casual Labour
Ext.W15
30.01.2011
Employment Certificate
Ext.W16
25.02..2011
Employment Certificate
Ext.W17
22.06.2012
Order on O.A. No. 156 & 157/2012
Ext.W18
21.02.2014
Letter of Sub-Divisional Engineer in respect of issue of Election pass to the
BSNL Staff who have been given election duty
Ext.W19
06.08.2014
Appreciation letter issued by the Sub-Divisional Engineer
Ext.W20
23.06.2015
Appreciation letter issued by the Sub-Divisional Engineer
Ext.W21
25.06.2015
Community Certificate issued by the Tahsildar
Ext.W22
03.07.2015
Representation made by the petitioner
Ext.W23
14.08.2015
Representation made by the petitioner
Ext.W24
30.04.1999
Certificate recognized by the Department of Employment and Training, Madras
Ext.W25
21.01.2002
Certificate of Training in Office Automation
Ext.W26
21.03.20106
Reply of Parliaments Question regarding contract Labour
2496
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.W27
-
Experience Certificate
Ext.W28
May 2009
B.Com degree issued by Madras University
Ext.W29
01.01.2010
Revision of wages for casual Labour
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
—
New Delhi, the 19th April, 2017
S.O. 1096.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 113/2003) 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 Chief
General Manager, BSNL, Tamil Nadu Circle, Madurai and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 03.04.2017.
[No. L-40011/14/2003-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. 113/2003
(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 Another
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
1.
The Chief General Manager
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
BSNL, Tamil Nadu Circle
Anna Salai
Chennai-600002
Bibikulam
Madurai-625002
2.
The General Manager, Telecom
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
BSNL, No. 2, V.P.
Rathinasamy Nadar Road
Bibikulam
Madurai-625002
II
(ii)
2497
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-40011/14/2003-IR (DU)
dated 20.06.2003 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the workers M. Parasakthi, S. Murugesan and P. Sundari are entitled for regularization by the
Telecom Department, Madurai? If so, the relief they are entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal numbered it as ID 113/2003 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
Sweeping and Cleaning Work. 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 the 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.M8.
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 three workmen who are said to be doing Sweeping and
Cleaning Work in the Madurai Office of BSNL. 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
2498
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
One of the workmen has been examined by the petitioner to substantiate the case. He has given evidence on
behalf of other workmen as well. There is also the evidence of WW2, an Office Bearer of the Petitioner Union. His
evidence is intended to meet the case of the Respondent that the Petitioner Union has no locus-standi to raise the
dispute.
8.
WW1 has stated in the affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination filed by him that he is discharging the work of
delivery of telegrams and the other two members were discharging the work of housekeeping, scavenging, etc.
According to the witness, the other two workmen were deprived of job during the pendency of the ID. According to
him, all of them were getting wages directly from the erstwhile Telecom Department and subsequently from BSNL.
He has claimed that all of them are entitled to get permanent status in the Respondent establishment.
9.
It is to be seen whether the documents justify the case put forth by WW1. Ext..W1 is an order approving
payment of coolie charges for the work of Sweeping, Cleaning, etc. at Telegraph Office at Dindigul. Ext.W2 states
coolie charges for delivery of telegram is fixed at the rate of Rs. 10/- Both these documents are of the year 2000.
Ext.W3 refer to the names of certain persons as those who were engaged for doing the work of Sweeping, of
Watchman, etc. in January 2000. However, the name of none of the concerned workmen are found in this. Ext.W4
contains ACG-17 receipts one each, in the name of Sundari and Parasakthi, the other workmen involved in the ID.
These are of August 1999. There are also some details showing payment to WW1 for intermittent days. Ext.W4 (series)
contain details of telegrams delivered by WW1 during the period from April 2000 to October 2002. These are almost
continuous with gaps of certain days. However, for certain days more than one delivery receipts are there. These set of
receipts probably shows that WW1 was working in the establishment throughout from 2000 to 2002 in which year
dispute was raised. However, these are not sufficient to establish the case that the contract work in which he was
engaged was a sham one. Even if these would show that WW1 had worked continuously for 480 days he is not
entitled to the relief of regularization or absorption claimed. The very case in the petition is that the workers were
engaged through a Contractor, though the contract is alleged to be a sham one. So in any case a relief could not be
granted to 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 S. Murugesan
WW2, Sri Srinivasan
For the 2nd Party/Respondents
:
MW1, Sri S. Selvaraj
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
18.08.1999
Pay + Coolie Charges
Ext.W2
29.03.2000
Coolie Register from delivery of Telegrams
Ext.W3
Jan.2000
Coolie engaged for the January 2000
Jan.2001
Coolie engaged for the January 2001
Ext.W4
18.08.1999
ACG 17
-
Payments Vouchers
-
Messengers Delivery Receipt
April 2000
The number of Telegram delivered by the S. Murugan
To
October 2002
II
(ii)
2499
Ext.W5
-
Work Days
Ext.W6
-
Annexure to the 2(K) petition
Ext.W7
31.08.2000
Photo graph of TRC Annual dated 31.08.2002 wherein the petition in this
ID.R.Sundari, S.Murugan, M.Parasakthi alongwith JTO-in-Charge, TM-in-
harge and other official of BSNL.
Ext.W8
-
Bye-laws of the Union
Ext.W9
30/31 Oct’2001
Resolution of the union
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 2.02.1993
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
—
New Delhi, the 19th April, 2017
S.O. 1097.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 386/2004) 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, BSNL, Thanjavur and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
03.04.2017.
[No. L-40011/53/2003-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
2500
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Industrial Dispute No. 386/2004
(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
21/10, RK Srinivas Apartments
Bharatiyar 1st Street
Pazhavanthangal
Chennai-600114
AND
The General Manager
:
2nd Party/Respondent
BSNL, Telephone Bhawan, Trichy Road
Thanjavur
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-40011/53/2003-IR (DU)
dated 06.07.2004 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the demand of the BSNL Employees Union from the management of BSNL, Thanjavur for
regularization/absorption of Sri T. Padmanabhan and 12 Others contract labour (as per the Annexure) is legal
and justified? If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled to and from which date?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal numbered it as ID 386/2004 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 dispute is raised on behalf of workmen working in the Office of Telecommunications, BSNL,
Thanjavur. These workmen are doing the work of delivery of telegrams. 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
II
(ii)
2501
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.
5.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and WW2 and MW1 and documents marked as
Ext.W1 to Ext.10 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 13 workmen whose names and other details are given in
the annexure to the Schedule of reference. As seen from the annexure, these workmen are doing the work of telegram
delivery. The date on which they have started to work in the Department of Telecom are also given in the annexure.
According to the petitioner, though the concerned workmen are purportedly working as contract labour, they were
directly paid by the Respondent and were under the direct control and supervision of the officials of the Respondent. It
is stated that the so-called contract system is only a camouflage. The petitioner has claimed that the workmen are
entitled to be absorbed with BSNL, the present establishment as the contract system in which they are working is a
sham one and also because they have completed more than 480 days of continuous work with the Respondent within a
period of 24 calendar months.
8.
One of the workmen named in the annexure to the Schedule of reference has been examined as WW1. He has
reiterated the case in the Claim Statement in the Proof Affidavit filed by him. He has stated in the Proof Affidavit that
the workmen including him do not even know who the Contractors are. He has further stated that if there is a
Contractor the workers have no objection in the Management bringing him as a party to the dispute. WW1 has asserted
that all the concerned workmen are working under the direction and control of the officials of the Respondent. He has
also named the officials who are said to have extracted work from the workmen. The evidence given by WW1 is
intended to be on behalf of the other workmen concerned as well.
9.
Though evidence is given by WW1 on behalf of other workmen as well documents pertaining to others are not
available. Except for evidence given by WW1 there is nothing to show that the other workmen had been continuously
working for the Respondent that they have been getting payment from the Respondent and that they have worked for
more than 480 days within a period of 24 calendar months. In fact there is nothing to substantiate the case on behalf of
those other workmen. So their case for absorption has to be rejected at the outset itself.
10.
The documents in respect of WW1 are produced by the petitioner. Ext.W1 consists of several telegram delivery
payment vouchers. These show direct payment by Sub-Divisional Engineer to WW1. Ext.W1 consists of vouchers
starting from July 1998. Such vouchers are available for a period up to 2002. These vouchers show the dates on which
WW1 had done the work of delivery of telegrams as well, apart, apart the amount paid. It could be seen from the
vouchers that he was working continuously, almost on all days. Ext.W2 is document described as Duty Chart. This
gives the names of WW1 and some others. This contains the signature of Sub-Divisional Engineer of Thanjavur also.
This would show that WW1 was in the establishment in 2002 and 2003 as well. Ext.W4 is a document by the Sub-
Divisional Engineer stating that WW1 is deputed to work at Camp Office on the eve of Maha Kumbabhishekam of
Mariamman Koil on 27.06.2004. This shows WW1 continuously worked in the establishment even after the dispute
was raised. Ext.W3 is the certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Thanjavur stating that WW1 and some
others have done housekeeping work satisfactorily in the month of January 2005. Ext.W6 is said to be the details of
sweeping work done by WW1. This starts from July 2003. It is admitted by WW1 during his cross-examination that
this is a document prepared by him. The document contains only some signatures as that of the officials. However,
WW1 has stated specifically that these are signatures put by the officials of the Respondent. He has given the names of
the officials. There is no necessity to view this document with suspicion. Thus this also justifies the case that WW1 was
continuously working for the Respondent establishment. Ext.W7 is said to be the document showing that WW1 has
worked as Telegram Messenger. However, this does not show his name or the signature of any officials. Even as
admitted by WW1 this was prepared by him so the authenticity of this document could not be asserted. However even
without this it is clear from the documents referred to that WW1 was continuously working for the Respondent or the
erstwhile Telecom Department at least from July 1998. As seen from his evidence he is still working for BSNL.
2502
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11.
The Respondent has stated in the counter statement as well as through the evidence given by MW1 on its behalf
that work was carried out by contract labour and there was never employer-employee relationship between it and the
concerned workman. However, the documents reveal that WW1 was paid directly by the Respondent. When
acceptable evidence is produced by the petitioner to show that WW1 was working directly, it is for the Respondent to
prove otherwise.
12.
The Respondent has been harping on the fact that there was a notification banning direct employment of casual
workers even in the year 1985. Ext.M2 is the notification regarding this. However, it could be seen from the
documents produced that in spite of the ban direct employment was prevalent. As could be seen, WW1 received
payment directly from the Respondent. So the contract system, if any claimed by the Respondent could only be a sham
one.
13.
There is a contention for the Respondent that the Petitioner Union has no locus-standi to raise the dispute.
According to the Respondent the Union cannot take up the cause of workmen who are not its members or of those who
are not employees of BSNL. MW1 has stated that Ext.M1 is the letter of the General Manager, Telecom, Tamil Nadu
Circle stating that only employees of BSNL can become members of the Union. The petitioner has examined WW2 to
meet this case of the Respondent. WW2 is the Circle Treasurer of the Petitioner Union. Ext.W8, the bye-laws of the
Union and Ext.W9, a copy of the resolution passed by the Union are marked through WW2. This witness has stated
that as per the bye-laws of the Union, the Union is entitled to espouse the cause of BSNL employees in general. There
is also the resolution by which the Union has decided to take up the cause of the concerned workmen. So the case of the
Respondent that the petitioner has no locus-standi to raise the dispute is to be rejected.
14.
WW1 has been working for the Respondent at least from July 1998 as discussed. He still continues to work for
the Respondent, So his claim for absorption in the establishment is only reasonable. The contract system having been
found a sham one, he is entitled to be absorbed as an employee of the Respondent. Relief in favour of WW1 is
moulded based on the period from which he has started to work. Accordingly an Award is passed as below:
WW1 shall be absorbed in the Respondent establishment in his present position within two months from the
publication 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 S. Gopalakrishnan
WW2, Sri K. Srinivasan
For the 2nd Party/Respondents
:
MW1, Sri K. Chandramohan
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
-
Telegram delivery Payment Vouchers
Ext.W2
-
Duty Chart
Ext.W3
27.06.2004
Deputation Certificate
Ext.W4
01.02.2005
Certificate of House keeping Work issued by the respondent for Jan.2005
Ext.W5
-
Annexure to 2(K) petition
Ext.W6
-
Duty performed by Gopalakrishnan
Ext.W7
-
Employment as Telegram Messenger
Ext.W8
-
Bye-laws of the Union
Ext.W9
30/31 Oct’2001
Resolution of the union
Ext.W10
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.
II
(ii)
2503
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 M/s. Pudukkottai
Security Service Contractor.
Ext.M10
01.05.2003
Certificate of Registration, Form II (See Rule -18 (1)
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
30.06.2006
Online Consultancy Services.
—
New Delhi, the 19th April, 2017
S.O. 1098.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 73/2005) 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
General Manager, BSNL, Grays Hills, Coonoor and others and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 03.04.2017.
[No. L-40012/24/2005-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 22nd March, 2017
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
2504
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Industrial Dispute No. 73/2005
(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 Three
Others and their workman)
BETWEEN :
The Circle Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
BSNL Employees Union,
R.K. Srinivas Apptts.
No. 21, Bharathiyar First Street
Pazhavanthangal
Chennai-600114
AND
1.
The General Manager
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
BSNL, Grays Hills
Coonoor
2.
The Chief General Manager
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
BSNL, Tamil Nadu Telecom Circle,
Annasalai
Chennai-600002
3.
The Chairman & Managing Director
:
2nd Party/3rd Respondent
BSNL, Statesman House
New Delhi-110001
4.
The Chief General Manager, Telecom :
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-40012/24/2005-IR (DU)
dated 11.08.2005 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 M. Ganeshan and 9 Others (Annexure) 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 73/2005 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 Line 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 so-called contract system is a sham one. 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
II
(ii)
2505
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 documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W3. The
Respondents did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary.
6.
The point for consideration is:
Whether the concerned workmen are entitled to the relief of absorption as claimed?
The Point
7.
The dispute is raised on behalf of 10 workmen whose names are given in the annexure to the Schedule of
reference. According to the petitioner the workmen whose names are given in the Schedule of reference are working as
Linemen with the Respondents. The date of joining are also shown in the annexure to the Schedule of reference. As per
the annexure they have started to work in different years in between 1989 and 2001. The petitioner has claimed that the
concerned workmen are entitled to be absorbed with the Respondents. It is stated that though they were working
through the alleged Contractor, the so-called contract system is a camouflage and the contract is a sham one.
Permanency is claimed also on the basis of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status)
Act.
8.
One of the concerned workmen has been examined as WW1. He has stated in the Affidavit in lieu of Chief
Examination filed by him that workmen other than himself and one Prashant are not pursuing the case. Out of the other
8 workmen, one Ramesh Kumar is said to be contesting the case in another ID. Others are said to be not interested in
the dispute any more.
9.
WW1 has stated that he is at present working in the Office of the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Coonoor. The other
workman, C. Prashant on whose behalf also he is giving evidence is said to be working in the Office of the
Sub-Divisional Engineer, Kothagiri. He has further stated that he is doing Line Work, Cable Jointing Work and
Exchange Maintenance Work for the past 17 years. For the last 2 years he was working in the office taking care of
dispatch of letters and delivery of letters and messages. Prashant also is said to be doing Line Work and Cable Jointing
Work at Kothagiri for the last 8 years. WW1 has also stated that both of them have been working continuously and
have completed more than 480 days of continuous service in a period of 24 calendar months long ago and they should
be deemed to have attained permanent status as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment
of Permanent Status) Act. He has further stated that the so-called contract system is a sham one and that the Contractor
through whom they are paid is only a name lender.
10.
Though WW1 has given evidence on behalf of one Prashant as well, apart from what he has stated in the Proof
Affidavit no evidence is available at all to show that Prasanth has been working for the Respondents for a long time,
either through a Contractor or directly. Ext.W1 and Ext.W2 on the side of the petitioner do not make mention of the
name Prashant at all. Ext.W3 is a document of 2015 which is not of any use in establishing the case put forth in the
Claim Statement. Even in Ext.W3 Prashant is shown as a person who has worked in leave vacancy for 8 days in April
2015 and has collected the amount due to him for these days. This workman has not come forward to present his case
before this Tribunal. There is absolutely no evidence available to establish the case on behalf of Prashant.
11.
Though some documents are marked on behalf of WW1 these are not helpful in establishing the case. Ext.W2
are the extracts from a Despatch Register for the period from 19.10.2010 to 29.10.2010. The document gives the name
of WW1 though it will not reveal that this has got anything to do with the Respondents. Ext.W1 is the only
document of the period prior to the raising of the dispute. This is said to be the work diary maintained by WW1 for the
period from 01.09.1999 to 30.11.2001. Unfortunately this document containing 13 sheets, also do not contain any seal
of the Respondents or anything to show that this has originated from the Office of the Respondents. Even assuming hat
these documents pertain to the Office of the Respondents these are not sufficient to prove the case set up by WW1.
The first page in Ext.W1 presumably shows the date on which he started work in September, 1999 and the date on
which he closed his work in the month. The total days of work are shown as 25. The subsequent pages reveal that he
had worked in different months for different number of days. There was never consistency in the number of days he
had worked each month. If it is 7 days in one month, it is 12 in another, 20 in another and 15 in another and so on.
2506
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Apart from this is the fact that Ext.W1 series which is said to be for the period from 01.09.1999 to 30.11.2001 would
not even show that he had worked consistently in all the months during the period. It does not show in which office he
had worked, under whom he had worked, whether it was under a Contractor or whether it was directly under the
Respondents. Even the claim of the petitioner that WW1 had worked for more than 480 days within a period of 24
calendar months is not established by this. What WW1 has stated during his cross-examination is that he had worked
for 480 days from the year 1999 to 2005. So even the claim that work of 480 days has been completed within a period
of 24 calendar months before the dispute was raised is not established. In any case the very case in the Claim Statement
is that the work is done through the Contractor and payment is made through a Contractor who is just a name-lender.
Thus, the case is that there is a contract system even though it is a sham one. So it is for the petitioner to establish it to
be sham. There is no evidence in this respect also. The case being that the work is done through the Contractor, the
Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman) Act for conferment of permanent
status to workmen does not apply also. Thus, viewed from any angle the petitioner has failed to establish the case. 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 G.SelvaKumar
For the 2nd Party/Respondents
:
Nil
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
-
Work Diary maintained by G.SelvaKumar for the period 01.09.1999 to
30.11.2001, 13 Sheets (W1 Serias)
Ext.W2
-
Extras from dispatch register for the period 19.10.2010 to 20.10.2010, 4 Sheets
(W2 Series)
Ext.W3
Aril, 2015
Statement containing the Names of workmen with No. of days worked and the
Amount paid to them (W3 Series)
On the Management’s side
Ext.No.
Date
Description
Nil
—
New Delhi, the 19th April, 2017
S.O. 1099.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 11/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Site
Executive Director, Rajasthan Atomic Power Station Station Unit, Kota, Rajasthan and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 28.10.2016.
[No. L-42011/68/2012-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
II
(ii)
2507
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
I.D. 11/2016
Reference No. L- 42011/68/2012-IR (DU) Dated: 19.2.2013/20.2.2013
The General Secretary
Anushakti D R Shramik sangh, Rawatbhata,
Main Road, Near Police Station,
Distt. Chittod, Rawatbhata (Kota).
V/S
The Site Executive Director
Rajasthan Atomic Power Station Unit
R R site, Anushakti via Kota (Raj.)
Kota (Rajasthan)- 323305.
AWARD
30.9.2016
1.
The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2 (A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:-
“Whether the demand of Anushakti D R Shramik Sangh for same wages for the same work for contract
labourers from the management of Principal Employer, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.,
Rawatbhata, Rajasthan site management is legal and justified? To what relief the contract labourers are
entitled to and from which date ?”
2.
Pursuant to the receipt of the reference order, registered notices were issued to the parties as per the order of the
tribunal fixing 25.4.2016 for filing statement of claim.
3.
On 25.4.2016 Sh. Imran Khan, President & Sh. Yusoof Khan, Secretary were present for applicant & requested
for time to file statement of claim. None appeared for opposite party. 27.6.2016 was next date fixed for filing statement
of claim. On 27.6.2016 none appeared on behalf of applicant & statement of claim was also not filed. Sh. Rajendra
Gupta, learned advocate appeared for learned representative of opposite party Sh. Dharmendra Jain. Case was
adjourned by tribunal suo-moto in interest of justice fixing 19.9.2016 for filing statement of claim.
4.
On 19.9.2016 case was called out. Neither anyone appeared on behalf of applicant nor statement of claim was
filed. None appeared on behalf of opposite party also. In the interest of justice case was again adjourned by tribunal on
its own motion fixing 29.9.2016 for filing statement of claim.
5.
On 29.9.2016 also neither anyone appeared on behalf of applicant nor statement of claim was filed. None
appeared on behalf of opposite party also. Looking into lack of interest of the applicant in filing statement of claim
despite his appearance & seeking adjournment on 25.4.2016 & also despite number of opportunities extended to the
applicant suo-moto by tribunal further proceeding in the case was closed & case was reserved for award.
6.
It is pertinent to mention that reference order dated 19.2.2013/20.2.2013 was sent by Ministry to applicant with
direction to file statement of claim within 15 days from the date of receipt of reference but applicant has neither filed
statement of claim on the direction of Ministry nor on notice & knowledge of the proceeding pending before the
tribunal. It appears that applicant is not interested & willing in submitting the claim for adjudication. In the
circumstances & in the absence of material evidence brought on record, tribunal is unable to record the finding on
merit on the issue referred to it. Accordingly, “No Claim Award” is passed against the reference under adjudication.
The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
7.
Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
—
2508
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 19th April, 2017
S.O. 1100.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 34/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Kota, Rajasthan as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the Deputy Telecom, District Engineer, Bundi, Rajasthan and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 11.04.2017.
[No. L-40012/120/2002-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
vuqca/k
U;k;k/kkh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ¼dsUnzh;½ dksVk] ¼jkt-½
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& Jh txeksgu 'kekZ] vkj-, p-ts-, l-
funsZ'k izdj.k dzekad % vkS- U;k- ¼dsUnzh;½&34@2002
fnukad LFkkfir % 20@8@02
izlax % Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k dza- ,y&40012@120@2002&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½ fnukad 5@8@2002
funsZ'k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947
e/;
jes'k dqekj iq= Hkaojyky }kjk tujy lsØsVªh]
fgUn etnwj lHkk] caxkyh dksyksuh] Nkouh] dksVk
&&izkFkhZ Jfed
,oa
fMIVh VsyhdkWe ftyk bathfu;j] cw¡nh] ftyk cwWnh
&&vizkFkhZ fu;kstd
mifLFkr
izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k
%
Jh iq:"kksRre nk/khp
vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k
%
Jh fo'othr 'kekZ
vf/kfu.kZ; fnukad% 20@3@2017
%%vf/kfu.kZ;%%
Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 5@8@2002 ds tfj;s fuEu funsZ'k fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]
1947 ¼ftls rnqijkUr **vf/kfu;e** ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ds vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ
lEizsf”kr fd;k x;k gS%&
"Whether the action of the management of Dy. Telecom District Engineer, Bundi in terminating the services of
Sh. Ramesh Kumar is fair and just? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?"
2-
funsZ'k@fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa izkIr gksus ij iathc) mijkUr i{kdkjksa dks lwpuk@uksfVl tkjh dj fof/kor voxr djok;k x;kA
3-
izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls Dyse LVsVesUV U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr dj laf{kIr% O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks vizkFkhZ nwj
lapkj ftyk vfHk;Urk] Hkkjr ljdkj] nwj lapkj foHkkx]cw¡nh }kjk fn- 30@6@97 ls LFkkbZ deZpkjh ds in ij lsokesa fu;ksftr fd;k x;k FkkA
izkFkhZ dks iwoZ esa 3@6@99 dks lsok ls gVk fn;k x;k Fkk] fdUrq M~;wVh ij ysus dh vkilh lgefr gksus ij 19@1@2000 dks izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW
mifLFkfr fjiksZV ds lkFk M~;wVh ij mifLFkr gqvk rks mls M~;wVh ij ys fy;k x;kA rnqijkUr izkFkhZ ;wfu;u us i= fn-16@4@2001 ds }kjk mls
LFkkbZ fd;s tkus dh ekax dh] fdUrq ml ij ncko Mkyk x;k fd LFkkbZ djus dh ekax er djks vU;Fkk ukSdjh ls gVk nsaxs vkSj izkFkhZ dks fn-
9@8@2001 dks ukSdjh ls voS/kkkfud :i ls gVk fn;k x;kA bl izdkj izkFkhZ us fn-30@6@97 ls 8@8@2001 rd fujUrj dk;Z djrs gq,
240 fnu ls Hkh dkQh vf/kd le; rd dk;Z dj fy;k Fkk] rFkkfi mls lsok ls gVk;s tkus ls iwoZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&, Q] th o, p dh
ikyuk ugha dh x;hA vUr esa fiNys lEiw.kZ osru] ykHkksa lfgr lsokesa cgky fd;s tkus ds vuqrks"k iznku fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;hA
4-
mijksDr Dyse LVsVesUV dk tokc izLrqr dj vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZ foHkkx esa dHkh LFkk;h
deZpkjh ds :i esa fu;ksftr ugha jgk] cfYd mls foHkkx ds Hkou esa nks ?kUVs lQkbZ ds vkaf'kd dk;Z gsrq lafonk vk/kkj ij j[kk x;k Fkk rFkk
tc&tc Hkh ftruk dk;Z djrk Fkk] mldk Hkqxrku dj fn;k tkrk FkkA vizkFkhZ foHkkx u;s Hkou esa LFkkukUrfjr gks tkus ls izkFkhZ Lo;a gh dk;Z
NksM+dj pyk x;k blfy, mls gVk;s tkus dk iz'u gh mRiUu ugha gksrkA izkFkhZ }kjk 240 fnu fujUrj dk;Z fd;k tkuk Lohdk;Z ugha gSA izkFkhZ
II
(ii)
2509
ds ekeys ij vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ykxw ugha gksrsA vUr esa Dyse izkFkh fujk/kkj rF;ksa dk gksus ls vLohdkj dj fujLr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh
x;hA
5-
lk{; esa Lo;a izkFkhZ Jfed jes'k dqekj o vizkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls lk{khx.k jkeizdk'k 'kekZ o pUnk HkkfV;k ds 'kiFk&i= izLrqr gq, ] fdUrq
vizkFkhZ lk{kh pUnk HkkfV;k dks ftjg gsrq izLrqr ugha fd;s tkus ls fof/kuqlkj mldk 'kiFk&i= lk{; esa xzkg~; ugha gS] 'ks"k lk{khx.k ls nksuksa i{kksa
ds izfrfuf/kx.k }kjk , d&nwljs i{k ds 'kiFk&i=ksa ij ftjg dh x;hA i{kdkjksa dh vksj ls izys[kh; lk{; Hkh izLrqr dh x;hA
6-
fo}ku izfrfuf/kx.k i{kdkjku dh cgl vfUre lquh x;h o i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA nkSjku cgl U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k ;g rF;
tkudkjh esa vk;k gS fd lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed dks dc lsok ls eqDr@i`Fkd fd;k x;k] bl frfFk dk dksbZ
mYys[k ugha gSA vr% ;g fLFkfr Li"V ugha gS fd ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed dh dkSulh frfFk] lsok i`Fkd frfFk ekudj vizkFkhZ ds
d`R; dh mfprrk ,oa oS/krk dk fofu'p; djsxk\ bl lEcU/k esa ekuuh; jkt- mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr U;k;n`"Vkar **2003 MCY;w-,y-lh- ¼jkt-
½ ;w-lh- i`”B 424& egkohj d.MDVj cuke uUnfd'kksj** esa ;g izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd lsokvksa ds i;Zolku dh frfFk dk jsQzsUl esa mYys[k ugha
gksus ls Je U;k;ky; fdlh deZdkj ds dFkukuqlkj i;Zolku dh frfFk dks Lohdkj dj funsZ'k@jsQzsUl dh 'krksZ esa lq/kkj] la'kks/ku ;k mikUrj.k
djus esa l{ke ugha gS ,oa uk gh U;k;ky; dks i{kdkjksa dh lgefr ls, slh vf/kdkfjrk izkIr gksrh gSA vr% ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk
funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa deZdkj dh lsok i;Zolku dh frfFk of.kZr ugha gksus ls vf/kfu.kZ; dks vikLr dj fn;k x;kA bl mDr U;k;fu.kZ; esa izfrikfnr
fl)kar ds vuqlkj tgk¡ funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa lsok ls gVkus] eqDr djus ;k i`Fkd djus dh frfFk dk vadu ugha gS rks Je U;k;ky; dks ml frfFk dks
lgh djus ;k la'kks/ku djus dh vf/kdkfjrk i{kdkjksa }kjk, slh frfFk lq>kfor fd;s tkus ij Hkh izkIr ugha gks tkrh gSA vFkkZr ;fn funsZ'k esa lsok
ls eqfDr] i`Fkd ;k gVkus dh frfFk dk dksbZ vadu ugh gS o nksuksa gh i{kdkj, slh frfFk ;fn crk Hkh nsrs gksa rks Hkh Je U;k;ky; dks ml crk;h
x;h frfFk dks ekudj mlds vk/kkj ij funsZ'k@jsQzsUl mRrfjr djus dk vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gks tkrk gSA bl U;k;fu.kZ; ds isjk la-11 esa ekuuh;
mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ^^enuikyflag cuke mRrj izns'k jkT; o vU;&, vkbZvkj 2000, l-lh- 537^^ ds fu.kZ; dks foosfpr fd;k x;k gS rFkk
vUr esa ;g fu”d”kZ fudkyk x;k fd Je U;k;ky; funsZ'k esa of.kZr fcUnqvksa rd gh lhfer {ks=kf/kdkj j[krk gS ,oa mldks i{kdkjksa ds ukeksa esa
funsZ'k ls ijs tkdj la'kks/ku vkfn dk vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gksrkA ;fn ukeksa ;k frfFk vkfn esa dksbZ ifjorZu ;k vadu djkuk gS rks i{kdkjksa dks
leqfpr ljdkj ds le{k bl ckcr i{k j[kdj mlesa la'kks/ku djkuk gksxk] ijUrq Je U;k;ky; dks ,slk la'kks/ku djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gSA
vr% blh fu.kZ; dks vk/kkj ekurs gq, ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk mDr ekeys esa Je U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vf/kfu.kZ; dks {ks=kf/kdkj ds vHkko
dk ekurs gq, vikLr dj fn;k x;kA
7-
vc ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k gLrxr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa izkFkhZ Jfed dks vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk dkSulh frfFk] lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus dh frfFk
ekudj vizkFkhZ ds mDr d`R; dh mfprrk ,oa oS/krk dk fofu'p; djsxk rFkk D;k ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k i{kdkjksa }kjk lq>k;h x;h frfFk ekudj
izdj.k dk xq.kkoxq.k ij fofu'p; dj ldrk gS vFkok funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa la'kks/ku djus dh vf/kdkfjrk j[krk gS\ bl lEcU/k esa ekuuh;
jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mDr U;k;n`"Vkar **2003 MCY;w-,y-lh-¼jkt-½ ;w-lh- i`”B 424&egkohj d.MDVj cuke uUnfd'kksj** ds isjk
la[;k 12 dk mYys[k fd;k tkuk U;k;laxr gS ftlesa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk jsQzsUl ds fucU/ku ;k lsok lekfIr frfFk esa la'kks/ku vkfn
ckcr fuEu fLFkfr izdV dh x;h gS%&
"Thus, in view of the above, I reach the inescapable conclusion that the Labour Court has no competence to
correct/modify/amend /alter the terms of the reference or mention the date of termination etc., or proceed with
the reference and accepting the date of termination as suggested by the workman and in case it does so, the
award becomes nullity, being without jurisdiction, based on the bad reference."
8-
vr% ekuuh; jkt- mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mijksDr U;k;n`"Vkar ds izdk'k esa gLrxr ekeys esa ;g U;k;ky; i{kdkjksa }kjk lq>k;h x;h
frfFk@uke vkfn dks la'kksf/kr frfFk@uke ekudj izdj.k dks xq.kkoxq.k ij fuLrkfjr fd;s tkus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha j[krk gSA bl izdkj ekuuh;
mPpre ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Åij foosfpr fd;s x;s U;k;fu.kZ;ksa esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa ds vuqlkj gLrxr izdj.k esa bl
U;k;kf/kdj.k dks ,sls i{kdkjksa dk la'kks/ku izLrko Lohdkj fd;s tkus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gksus ls bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dh jk; esa ;g
U;k;kf/kdj.k ;fn dksbZ vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr Hkh djrk gS rks og {ks=kf/kdkj ds vHkko dk gksdj 'kwU; gksxkA bu U;k;fu.kZ;ksa ds [k.Mu esa ;k vU;
dksbZ U;k;fu.kZ; ,slk is'k Hkh ugha fd;k x;k ftlesa fd Åij of.kZr fLFkfr gksus ds ckotwn Hkh U;k;ky; dks funsZ'k vf/kfuf.kZr djus dk vf/kdkj
izkIr gksA vr% dqy feykdj fLFkfr mDr U;k;fu.kZ;ksa ds gh vHkh rd izHkko'khy gksus dh ik;h tkrh gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ,oa ekuuh;
mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mDr U;k;fu.kZ;ksa esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa ls ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k vkc) gSA vr%,slh ifjLFkfr esa lEiw.kZ foospu ds
mijkUr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dh jk; esa bruk gh dguk i;kZIr gS fd gLrxr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa izkFkhZ Jfed dks vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk dkSulh frfFk
ls lsok i`Fkd fd;k x;k gS] ,slh frfFk dk dksbZ vadu ugha gksus ls ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k, sls funsZ'k esa dksbZ la'kks/ku dj vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr djus dh
vf/kdkfjrk ugha j[krk gS ,oa ;fn i{kdkj l{ke ljdkj ls bl ckcr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa la'kks/ku djkdj U;k;kf/kdj.k esa is'k djrs gSa rks
U;k;kf/kdj.k ,slk la'kks/ku izkIr gksus ij izdj.k esa fof/k vuqlkj dk;Zokgh dj ldsxk] ijUrq bl izdze ij fQygky ;g ekeyk bl U;k;kf/kdj.k
ds {ks=kf/kdkj ds vHkko dk ik;k tkrk gSA
ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 5@8@2002 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl fookn
dks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mDr U;k;n`"Vkar **2003 MCY;w-,y-lh-¼jkt-½ ;w-lh- i`”B
424&egkohj d.MDVj cuke uUnfd'kksj** esa izfrikfnr fl)kar ds vuqlj.k esa gLrxr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa of.kZr izkFkhZ Jfed jes'k dqekj dks vizkFkhZ
fu;kstd }kjk dkSulh frfFk dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k gS] ,slh frfFk dk dksbZ vadu ugha gksus ls o bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks i{kdkjksa }kjk lq>k;h
x;h frfFk dks Lohdkj fd;s tkus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gksus ls gLrxr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tkuk 'kwU; ,oa {ks=kf/kdkj ds
vHkko dk gksxkA i{kdkj ;fn l{ke ljdkj ls mDr frfFk ckcr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa la'kks/ku@vadu djkdj U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k is'k djsaxsa rks
U;k;kf/kdj.k xq.kkoxq.k ds vk/kkj ij fof/k vuqlkj vkxs izdj.k ds fuLrkj.k dh dk;Zokgh dj ldsxkA
txeksgu 'kekZ] U;k;k/kh'k
2510
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
—
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2017
S.O. 1101.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 36/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
President, Merchant Navy Officers and Seamen’s Association, Kutch, Gujarat and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 04.01.2017.
[No. L-42012/152/2012-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 22nd November, 2016
Reference: (CGITA) No. 36/2013
The President,
Merchant Navy Officers and Seamen’s Association,
Marine Club Building,
New Kandla, Kutch (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
Shri Rakesh B.,
C/o D-129, Maheshwari Colony,
New Kandla, Kutch (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri Rajendrasinh B. Zala
For the Second Party
:
None
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-
42012/152/2012-IR(DU) dated 25.02.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Marine Club, Kandla in terminating the services of Shri Rakesh B. is
justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 25.02.2013. Later, the second party submitted a copy of declaration cum affidavit
vide application Ext. 6 which shows that he has settled the matter with the first party and does not want to prosecute the
reference.
2.
Thus the reference is dismissed as not pressed.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
II
(ii)
2511
—
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2017
S.O. 1102.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Nos. 21/2005, 22/2005, 25/2005) 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 Chairman & Managing Director, BSNL, New Delhi & others and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 03.04.2017.
[No. L-40011/23/2004-IR (DU),
No. L-40011/24/2004-IR (DU),
No. L-40011/27/2004-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. 21, 22 and 25 of 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 Four
Others 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
1.
The Chairman & Managing Director
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
BSNL
Sanchar Bhawan
New Delhi-1
2.
The Chief General Manager
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
BSNL, Tamil Nadu Circle
Annasalai
Chennai-600002
3.
The General Manager
:
2nd Party/3rd Respondent
BSNL
New CTO Building
2512
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Rangapillai Street
Pondicherry-505001
4.
Sri Somasundaram
: 2nd Party/4th Respondent
Ex-Serviceman Security & Intelligence
Service
5.
M/s First Man Security Force
:
2nd Party/5th Respondent
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
M/s K.M. Ramesh, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/1st, 2nd & 3rd Respondent
:
Sri Priyakumar, Advocate
For the 4th & 5th Respondents
:
Sri Abdul Faizal, Advocate
S.No.
Industrial Dispute No.
Reference No.
1.
ID 21/2005
L-40011/23/2004-IR (DU) dated 19.01.2005
2.
ID 22/2005
L-40011/24/2004-IR (DU) dated 19.01.2005
3.
ID 25/2005
L-40011/27/2004-ID (DU) dated 19.01.2005
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment referred the IDs mentioned above to the Industrial
Tribunal, Chennai for adjudication. The IDs were numbered as ID 21/2005, 22/2005 and 25/2005 respectively. In both
IDs the parties have entered appearance through the counsel and filed claim and counter statement respectively.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
ID 21/2005
“Whether the action of the management of Telecom Department, BSNL, Pondicherry in non-
regularizing/absorbing the services of the contract labourers numbering twenty (list enclosed) is legal and
justified and if not, to what relief the workmen/contract labourers are entitled to?”
ID 22/2005
“Whether the action of the management of Telecom Department, BSNL, Pondicherry in non-
regularizing/absorbing the services of the contract labourers number 39 (list enclosed) is legal and justified and
if not, to what relief the workmen/contract labourers are entitled to?”
ID 25/2005
“Whether the action of the management of Telecom Department, BSNL, Pondicherry is non
regularizing/absorbing the services of the contract labourers numbering four (list enclosed) is legal and justified
and if not, to what relief the workmen/contract labourers are entitled to?”
COMMON AWARD
3.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal numbered it as ID 21/2005, 22/2005 and 25/2005 respectively
and issued notices to both sides. Both sides entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and Counter
Statement respectively.
4.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in ID 21/2005 are as below:
The petitioner is a union registered under the Trade Unions Act. It has substantial number of persons working in
BSNL as its members. The workmen concerned in the case are doing the work of house-keeping. Housekeeping is an
integral part of the work of BSNL. The work done by them is perennial in nature. They are doing the very same kind of
work carried out by the permanent employees of the Respondent. The alleged Contractors in most of the cases are one
of the employees of the Respondents. The concerned workmen cannot be treated as contract labour.
The so-called contract is sham. The overall control of the so-called contract labour remains with the Respondents. The
concerned employees are to be made permanent on completion of 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months in the
service of the Respondents under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman)
Act. An Award 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 with continuity of service and attendant benefits.
5.
The Third Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:
The Counter Statement is filed on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 as well. The petitioner has no locus-standi to
espouse the cause of persons who are not employees of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). The petitioner is
II
(ii)
2513
entitled to raise Industrial Dispute only in matters related to the service conditions of the employees of BSNL. The
workmen on whose behalf the dispute is raised are not employees of BSNL. The work of housekeeping and
conservancy in Pondicherry SSA is entrusted to the registered Contractors through tender procedure and payments for
the work are made to the Contractor only. The workmen listed in the annexure to the schedule of reference are in no
way connected to the Third Respondent. The petitioner cannot raise dispute in respect of workmen engaged by the
Labour Contractors. The contention in the Claim Statement that the concerned workmen carry out the work of
permanent employees in the Telecom Department, that they are doing work which is perennial in nature, that the
alleged contractors are mostly employees, etc. are not correct. The concerned workmen were never paid wages by
BSNL. A contract labour cannot be a member of the Petitioner Union since they are not employees of BSNL. The
question of regularization of the concerned workmen on completion of 480 days does not arise as they are not labourers
engaged by BSNL. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
6.
Respondents 4 and 5 were subsequently impleaded in the party array. The Fourth Respondent has filed Counter
Statement contending as below:
The Fourth Respondent is a Managing Partner of Ex-Serviceman Security and Intelligence Service, Pondicherry.
He has obtained contract from BSNL by participating in the tender and having become the successful bidder. The
Fourth Respondent was engaged for executing contract work in BSNL, Pondicherry during the period from January
2002 to December 2004. The Fourth Respondent had engaged workmen depending upon the nature of work in
accordance with the schedule prescribed by the BSNL tenders. There is no direct contract between the workmen and
BSNL. The workmen were paid by Fourth Respondent. These workmen are not members of the Petitioner Union. The
petition is liable to be dismissed.
7.
The workmen involved in ID 22/2005 are said to be doing cable work. The petitioner has raised contentions on
their behalf similar to those raised in ID 21/2005. It is stated that these workmen are doing work of perennial nature,
that they have been continuously working, that the so-called Contractor is employee of the Respondents, that
supervision of the workmen are by the Officers of BSNL and that the concerned workmen are entitled to be absorbed in
the service of BSNL.
8.
The Third Respondent has filed Counter Statement on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 as well resisting the
contentions in the Claim Statement and putting forth contentions similar to those raised in ID 21/2005. Respondents 3
and 4 have not filed any Counter Statement.
9.
ID 25/2005 is in respect of those workmen who are doing the work of delivering telegraphs. Their work also are
said to be perennial in nature. On their behalf also contentions similar to those in the other two IDs are raised. The
Third Respondent has filed Counter Statement in this ID also raising contentions similar to those in the other two IDs.
10.
All the above three disputes have originated from Pondicherry Secondary Switching Area. The parties have
agreed for a joint adjudication of the three matters, the parties being the same and the contentions raised in all the cases
being similar in nature except for the fact that the workmen concerned in each of the cases are working in different
areas of BSNL.
11.
In ID 21/2005 the petitioner has examined WWs 1 to 3 and marked Ext.W1 to Ext.W20. In ID 22/2005 the
petitioner has examined WW1 and marked Ext.W1 to Ext.W5. In ID 25/2005 the petitioner has examined WW1 and
marked Ext.W1 to Ext.W5 also. On the Respondent’s side MW1 was examined and Ext.M1 to Ext.M10 were marked.
12.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the demand of the Petitioner Union for absorption of the workmen involved in the different IDs
are justified?
(ii)
What are the reliefs, if any to which the concerned workmen are entitled?
ID No. 21/2005
13.
20 workmen are involved in ID 21/2005. The list of these workmen along with details, such as their Date of
Birth, Date on which they have started to work, their place of work, the name of the Contractor, etc. are given in the
annexure to the schedule of reference. The case advanced on behalf of the workmen, as stated, is that they were doing
the work of housekeeping from the date specified in Annexure, that the work is perennial in nature, that the contract is
sham and that they were directly under the supervision of the BSNL and they are entitled to be absorbed in the
establishment.
14.
Initially WW1, S.No. 19 in the annexure to the schedule of reference has been examined. This witness has stated
that the case of the Respondent that they are contract labourers is incorrect. He has further stated that all the concerned
workmen are getting salary directly from the Respondents and that they were being paid monthly. He has also stated
that all the concerned workmen have completed 480 days of continuous service in a period of 24 calendar months and
2514
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
they ought to have been conferred permanent status. According to him initially they have signed in a payment receipt
which was meant for the employees of the Respondents. Ext.W1 to Ext.W6 were marked through this witness.
15.
WW2, one of the workmen (S.No. 12) in the annexure to the schedule of reference) was examined after the
matter came back to this Tribunal after stay by the High Court was vacated. By this time, WW1 has left the job and the
country. WW2 has stated that WW1 is not interested in getting any relief as he has left India. WW2 has stated that he is
giving evidence on his own behalf and also on behalf of other 14 workmen involved in the ID. The evidence given by
this witness is in tune with the evidence of WW1.
16.
What is the evidence available to prove the case of the petitioner? Ext.W1 consists of Bill Payment Receipts of
several workmen starting from one of the workman Mahalingam. Though the printed portion of the receipts are not
clear the written portion reveals payments made to Mahalingam directly by the Officer of Telecom starting from July
2001. The receipts up to November 2002 are seen produced though receipts for the entire period are not available.
Ext.W2 and Ext.W3 are also said to contain evidence in respect of the work done by Mahalingam. Some of the pages
reveal payment to Mahalingam in 2006. So it is clear that he was continuing in the establishment long after the dispute
was raised also. However, the period of work done by this workman before the dispute was raised was very little. Even
as per the schedule of reference he has started to work in the establishment on 02.02.2000. The documents reveal
payment to him from July 2000 only. One of the basis on which the claim was raised is that the workmen are entitled to
be conferred permanent status as per Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to
Workmen) Act. However, in the annexure to the schedule of reference itself the concerned workmen are said to be
working under the Contractor whose name is given. So there is no question of conferment of permanent status to this
workman or any other workman involved in the case. In any case there is no evidence at all to show that this workman
had worked for more than 480 days within a period of 24 calendar months. It was only for a short period he had been
working before the dispute was raised.
17.
Ext.W1 includes some bill payment receipts in respect of Prathibha, Lalitha and Tamil Vendhan also. These are
also of late 2001 and subsequent period. Same is the case with Ext.W2 in which also the names of Pratibha and Lalitha
are mentioned. Ext.W3 (series) are said to be in respect of Lalitha also. But nothing could be made out on perusal of the
document. The document gives the heading “Circle Dak” and it is described as the File Movement Register. However,
it will not show how Lalitha is connected to this. So also the connection of Mahalingam and Pratibha in respect of
another File Movement Register coming under Ext.W3 also could not be made out from the document. There is no
evidence as to on which date they have started to work. There is of course the fact that the payments are seen made
directly by the Respondent in spite of the claim of the Fourth Respondent in the Counter Statement that he is the
Contractor and he was making payments to the concerned workmen and there was no direct dealings between the
workmen and the Respondents. The above workmen are not eligible for any relief, in the absence of any evidence.
18.
The documents about which other workmen are concerned could be examined now. Ext.W4, Ext.W5 and
Ext.W6 are documents said to be in respect of Kumar, Hariprakash and Ganesan. Though Ext.W4 is termed as an
appointment letter, this document states that Kumar is “allotted to” GM (O) and Hariprakash is “allotted to” DE
(South). One is in May, 2000 and the other is in July, 2000. Ext.W5 is said to be the Attendance Register of Kumar but
it could not be deciphered for which month or year it is. Ext.W6 payment bills are all of the year 2005, long after the
dispute was raised. They only shows that Kumar, Hariprakash and Ganesan had been working subsequently also.
Amount payable is seen passed for each of them individually by the Accounts Officer. This at least shows that payment
was being made directly and not through the Contractor. Ext.W7 are ACG-17 and ACE-2 receipts in respect of Kumar
for different dates in the year 2001 to 2004. Ext.W8 is described as copy of Maintenance Register in respect of
Hariprakash and Ganesan for the period from 2004 to 2005 but nothing could be made out on examination of the
document itself. It does not reveal connection to the two workmen named. None of the workmen are entitled to any
relief on the basis of these documents.
19.
Ext.W9 to Ext.W14 are the documents said to be in respect of Selvam, Abdul Majid, Abdul Kader and
Manimegalan. Ext.W9 (series) are payments made during 2005 mostly. A few bills of 2001 are also seen. Ext.W10 is a
paper stating that Selvam was deputed for Election Duty in September, 2002. Ext.W11 is described as Inward Register
in respect of Selvam. However, except for the name Selvam having been written at the top of Page-5 this document
does not convey anything to show that these are in respect of Selvam. The inward pagination of the document would
show that these are not in order but different pages at random are combined together. Ext.W12 is said to be Inward
Register of Abdul Majid but this also does not convey anything. It could not be deciphered if the entries therein are by
Abdul Majid or whether it contains his signature. WW2 has stated that Abdul Majid is not interested in getting any
relief. Even in respect of other workmen referred to, the documents do not serve any purpose.
20.
Ext.W15 (series) consists of bill payments to Bertin for the period from 2001 to 2005. These of course would
show that he was there and paid directly by the department from July 2001. However, the dispute was raised even
before a year of this date. Even if Tamil Nadu Conferment of Permanent Status Act is applicable this workman would
not have become eligible for relief. Being in the establishment from July 2001 does not entitle him to be absorbed on
II
(ii)
2515
the ground that the contract is a sham one. This is the case with Kasilingam, Jayavel, Magesh and Brono Eric in whose
favour some bills are there. Ext.W16 contain late hour payment voucher bill in respect of Bertin, Kasilingam, Jayavel,
Magesh and Brono Eric. All these are from late 2001. The reasoning given earlier applies to this document as well.
Same is the case with Ext.W17 Bill Payment Register in respect of Kasilingam, Jayavel and Magesh, Ext.W18 Duty
Chart and Letter Inward Register of Magesh and Ext.W19 note sheet of bill payment file in respect of Brono Eric.
Ext.W17 does not even show that it is in respect of the workman named. Thus the documents produced are not
sufficient to give any relief to the workmen involved in ID 21/2005. There is no necessity to examine the evidence
given on the side of the Respondent for this reason. This ID is to be answered against the petitioner.
ID No. 22 of 2005
21.
There are 39 workmen involved in this ID as revealed from the annexure to the schedule of reference. One of the
workmen has given evidence representing all others. This witness has stated that himself and other workmen involved
in the ID are getting salary directly from the department and they were working under the direction and supervision of
the Officers of the Department. He has also stated that all of them have completed 480 days of continuous service in a
period of 24 calendar months.
22.
Ext.W1 to Ext.W5 are produced to prove the case of the workmen in this ID. Ext.W5 is only a copy of the
annexure to the schedule of reference. Ext.W1 is said to be work details and Gate Pass of Sachidanandam, Madurai,
Rajendran and Shanmugham. These Gate Passes are of 2005 and after. The work details will not reveal who were doing
the work. Ext.W2 is the work details of WW1. The document contains his signature at every page but this is of the
period from 2002 only, all after the reference. Ext.W3 Gate Passes and Key Entry Register in respect of Natarajan are
of 2005 and 2006 long after the reference. Ext.W4 work details is in respect of Selvam and Kumar, but much after the
reference. The documents referred to are not sufficient to establish the case of the concerned workmen. None of the
workmen in ID 22/2005 are also entitled to any relief.
ID No. 25 of 2005
23.
In this ID two witnesses were examined on the side of the petitioner. WW1 has stated that he is filing the Proof
Affidavit on behalf of four workmen, but without stating on behalf of which workmen. He has stated that the case of the
Respondent that they are contract labourers is incorrect. It is further stated by him that they were getting salary directly
from the Respondent. He has claimed that himself and other workmen had completed 480 days of continuous service in
a period of 24 calendar months and the Respondents should have conferred permanent status on them. The names of the
Officers who had allegedly extracted work from him and others are also mentioned in the Proof Affidavit. This witness
seems to be still working with BSNL.
24.
WW2, Ekavalli stated said that she is giving evidence for herself and two others by name Zakira and Ravinath.
Herself and Zakira are said to be doing telegraph work and also house-keeping as part-time work. Ravinath is said to be
now doing house-keeping work. All of them are still working, she has stated. The witnesses have not stated from which
date the concerned workmen have started to work in the establishment. Their claim seems to be on the basis that they
have worked for more than 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months in the Respondent establishment. However,
there is nothing to prove this claim of the concerned workmen.
25.
Ext.W1 to Ext.W5 are produced in support of the workmen concerned in the case. Ext.W1 is only a request by
the Sub-Divisional Engineer to the Divisional Engineer (Admn.), Pondicherry on 13.10.2000 to arrange two contract
labourers for working as Sweepers. This is not of any help to the concerned workmen in so far as this does not contain
the name of any of them. Apart from that is the fact that this document is of 2000 only a few months before the dispute
was raised.
26.
Ext.W2 is the communication stating that bio-data of Zakira and Ekavalli are being sent. It also states that
payment up to 30.09.2000 would be made at CTO. This will probably show that these two workers were in the
establishment at the time. But this will not show at what time they have started to work in the establishment. Ext.W3 is
described as Payment Log Book for the period from October 1998 to August 2002. However, it could not be deciphered
from the document to whom it pertains to. This does not contain any name. Only a few initials are there. This is not of
any help to the concerned workmen. Ext.W4 is the Attendance Log Book containing the names of Krishnamurthy and
Ravinath, two of the workmen concerned. This starts from September 2000. So this is also a document that has come
up immediately before the dispute was raised. This would not show that the concerned workmen were working in the
establishment for a long time. It will not even show that they have completed 480 days of continuous service in the
establishment within a period of 24 calendar months. So the petitioner has failed to prove the case of the workmen
involved in ID 25/2005 also. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief in any of the three IDs.
2516
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
27.
In view of my discussion above itself the petitioner is not entitled to relief in any of the cases. There is no
necessity to discuss the evidence given on behalf of the Respondent for this reason.
For the foregoing reasons all the references are answered against the petitioner. Awards are 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
ID 21 of 2005 (PONDICHERRY)
Witnesses Examined for Petitioner
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
WW1, Sri. M. Abdul Majeeth
WW2, Sri C. Kumar
For the 2nd Party/Respondents
:
MW1, Sri G. Rajendren
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
2001 to 2005
Bill Payment Receipts of B. Mahalingam, J. Prathiba, M. Lalitha, S.
Tamilvendan
Ext.W2
2002 to 2006
Service Book, Stationary Bills, Attendance, Bill Received Register, Car Bill File
Note Sheet of B. Mahalingam, J. Prathiba, M. Lalitha
Ext.W3 Series
2002 to 2006
Circle Dak, DGM(F) Dak, File Movement Register, Letter Received Dak of M.
Lalitha
Ext.W4
2000
Appointment letter of C. Kumar & P. Hariprakash
Ext.W5
2000
Attendance of C. Kumar
Ext.W6
2005
Payment bill of C. Kumar, P. Hariprakash and S. Ganesan
Ex.W7
2001 to 2004
ACG-17 and ACE-2 of C. Kumar
Ex.W8
2004 to 2005
Xerox Copy of maintenance register of P. Hariprakash and S. Ganesan
Ext.W9
2001 to 2005
Bill payment of K.Selvam, M. Abdul Majeeth and A. Abdul Khadhar
Ext.W10
2000
Election duty I.D., Telecom Recreation Club levy of K. Selvam
Ext.W11
2003 to 2005
Letter inward register of K. Selvam, M. Abdul Majeed and K. Manimegalan
Ext.W12
2004
Letter of respondent BSNL authorizing M. Abdul Majeed
Ext.W13
2001 to 2003
Letter inward register & ACE-2 of M. Abdul Majeed
Ext.W14
2000 to 2002
Attendance Register, Receipt of M. Abdul Majid, A. Abdul Kader
Ext.W15
2001 to 2005
Bill Payment of V. Bertin, R. Kasilingam, J. Jayavel, V. Magesh, J. Bronoeric
Ext.W16
2001 to 2005
Late hour payment voucher bill and despatched STD & local PCO payment bills
vouchers of V. Britin, R. Kasislingam, J. Jayavel, V. Magesh and Brono Eric
Ext.W17
2001 to 2006
Bill Payment Register of R. Kasilingam, J. Jayavel and V. Magesh
Ext.W18
2000
ACG-17, duty chart and letter inward register of V. Magesh
Ext.W19
2003
Note sheet of Bill payment file of K.R.Guru travels of J. Brono Eric
Ext.W20
-
Annexure to 2K petition
ID 22 of 2005 (PONDICHERRY)
Witnesses Examined for Petitioner
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
WW1, Sri. A. Pitchai
II
(ii)
2517
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
2003 to 2005
Work Details and Gate Pass of J. Sachidanandam, M. Madurai, V. Rajendran, S.
Shanmugham
Ext.W2
2002 to 2005
Work Details of A. Pitchai
Ext.W3
2005 to 2006
Gate pass and key entry register of A. Natarajan
Ext.W4
2003 to 2004
Extra hours duty and work details of P. Selvam and D. Kumar
Ext.W5
-
Annexure to 2K Petition
ID 25 of 2005 (PONDICHERRY)
Witnesses Examined for Petitioner
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
WWs, Sri. S. Tamil Vendhan/Smt. S. Egavalli
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
13/10/2000
SDE request letter to DE Admin
Ext.W2
30/09/2000
Bio Data of Zakira and Egavalli
Ext.W3
1/10/1998 to
31/08/2002
Payment Log Book
Ext.W4
2000
Attendance log book of B. Krishnamurthy and S. Ravindran
Ext.W5
-
Annexure to 2K Petition
On the Management’s side
Ext.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
July 2001
Register of wages of contract labourers of M/s.Ex-servicemen security and
Intelligence Labours, Puducherry.
Ext.M2
1.4.2001 to
Form 6 Employees State Insurance Corporation of M/s.Ex-servicemen security
30.9.2001
and Intelligence Labours, Puducherry.
Ext.M3
21.6.2001
Registration certificate/renewal of M/s.Ex-servicemen security and Intelligence
Labours, Puducherry.
Ext.M4
July 2001
Register of wages of contract labourers of M/s. Ex-servicemen security and
Intelligence Labours, Puducherry
Ext.M5
January 2003
Register of wages of contract labourers of M/s. Ex-servicemen security and
Intelligence Labours, Puducherry
Ext.M6
1.4.2001 &
Form 6 Employees State Insurance Corporation of M/s. Ex-servicemen security
30.9.2001
and Intelligence Labours, Puducherry
Ext.M7
1.10.2001 to
Form 6 Employees State Insurance Corporation of M/s. Ex-servicemen security
31.3.2002
and Intelligence Labours, Puducherry
Ext.M8
April 2001 to
Form 6A Employees Provident Fund Scheme of M/s. Ex-servicemen security
March 2002
and Intelligence Labours, Puducherry
Ext.M9
3.8.2007
Registration certificate/renewal of M/s. Firstman Security Force Trichy
Ext.M10
2006-07
Form 6A Employees Provident Fund of First Man Security Force Labours,
Trichy.
2518
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
—
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2017
S.O. 1103.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Nos. 54/2003, 313/2004) 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, BSNL, Coimbatore and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
03.04.2017.
[No. L-40011/48/2002-IR (DU),
No. L-40011/38/2003-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 22nd March, 2017
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 54/2003 and 313/2004
(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. 21/10, R.K. Srinivas Apartments
Bharathiyar 1st Street
Pazhavanthangal
Chennai-600114
AND
The General Manager
:
2nd Party/Respondent
BSNL
Coimbatore-43
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
M/s K.M. Ramesh, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Respondent
:
Sri D. Simon, Advocate
S.No.
Industrial Dispute No.
Reference No.
1.
54/2003
L-40011/48/2002-IR (DU) dated 17.04.2003
2.
313/2004
L-40011/38/2003-IR (DU) dated 13.02.2004
II
(ii)
2519
COMMON AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment referred the IDs mentioned above to the Industrial
Tribunal, Chennai for adjudication. The IDs were numbered as ID 54/2003 and ID 313/2004 respectively. In both IDs
the parties have entered appearance through the counsel and filed claim and counter statement respectively.
The schedules mentioned in the respective orders are:
ID 54/2003
Whether the demand of the Union for absorption of the 30 workers (list attached) engaged through various Contractors
for telegraph work by BSNL is justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled?”
ID 313/2004
Whether the demand of the Union for absorption of 8 workers (list enclosed) engaged through Contractors by the
General Manager, BSNL, Coimbatore to do CTO Messengers work is justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled
to?”
2.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in ID 54 of 2003 are as below:
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 under Coimbatore SSA. They are doing the work
of Telegraph Messengers, Sweepers, Housekeeping 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.
3.
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 does 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 workmen concerned in ID 313/2004 are also said to be working under Coimbatore SSA, as CTO
Messenger, etc. The Petitioner Union has raised the same contention as that in ID 54/2003 in respect of these workmen
and has claimed their absorption in BSNL. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement raising contentions similar to
those in ID 54/2003 in this ID as well. The two cases were tried jointly, both of them are coming under Coimbatore
SSA and also because the petitioner and the Respondent are the same in both cases. Evidence was recorded in ID
54/2003 treating it as the main case.
5.
The evidence consists of oral evidence of WW1 to WW3 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to
Ext.W17 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M12.
2520
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.
The points for consideration in both cases are:
(i)
Whether the claim of the Petitioner Union for absorption of the concerned workers is justified?
(ii)
What if any is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?
The Points
7.
The Petitioner Union has raised the dispute as per ID 54/2003 on behalf of 30 workers whose names and other
details are given in the annexure to the schedule of reference. There are 8 workmen involved in ID 313/2004. Their
names and other details are given in the annexure to the schedule of the said ID. The concerned workmen are said to be
working as Telegraph Messengers, Sweepers, etc. According to the Petitioner Union, though the workmen were
working under the so-called contract system they were always under the control and supervision of Department of
Telecom initially and thereafter under BSNL. The contract system if any the workmen are working is said to be a sham
one. The Contractors are stated to be employees of the department themselves. The petitioner has also stated that all the
workmen have completed more than 480 days of work within 24 calendar months. The petitioner has claimed
absorption of the workmen on the ground that the contracts under which they are working are sham and nominal and
also because they are entitled to permanent status under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of
Permanent Status to Workmen) Act.
8.
The petitioner has examined two workmen involved in ID 54/2003 to establish the case. WW1 has stated in his
Proof Affidavit filed by him that he is giving evidence on behalf of all the workmen concerned in both cases. He has
also stated in his affidavit that all of them were working for a period ranging from 5 to 15 years and were doing the
work of delivering telegrams or working as Sub-Staff. They have been working in different places under Coimbatore
SSA. He has stated that all the concerned workmen have requested the BSNL to confer them permanent status. The
names of the officials who are said to have extracted work from the workmen are also given in the Proof Affidavit.
WW2, the other workmen has stated in his affidavit that his evidence is on behalf of other workmen concerned in ID
54/2003 as well. He has stated that he has been working for 12 years. He had been doing the work of delivering
telegrams and also as Sub-Staff. Both witnesses have stated in their affidavits that the contract system is sham and they
were directly under the control of the Telecom Department or BSNL as the case may be.
9.
What are the documents available to substantiate the case of the petitioner? Ext.W1 and Ext.W2 are only replica
of the annexure to the schedule of reference. Ext.W3 contains several wage receipts and other documents pertaining to
the concerned workmen. Page 1 of Ext.W3 is a memo stating that lowest quotation for sweeping and cleaning of the
office of the Senior Superintendent, Telegraph Traffic, Coimbatore Division was received from Nagalakshmi and she
would paid at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. Pages 2 to 5 are Acquittal Rolls showing payment to Nagalakshmi for
different months in the year 1996 and 1997. Page 47 of Ext.W3 contains and endorsement regarding Nagalakshmi
showing that she has performed the work in November, 1995. Those pages contains the seal of the Telecom Centre at
Kaundanpalayam, Coimbatore. Though Page-1 of Ext.W3 states that lowest quotation was received from Nagalakshmi,
in the pages of acquittal roll she is described as the Sweeper-cum-Cleaner on contract basis. It is clear that though it is
described as a Contractor Nagalakshmi herself was doing the work and so she was the workman also. However,
documents are not available to show if Nagalakshmi had been continuing as a Sweeper even after 1997. She has not
come forward to give evidence. So her claim for absorption cannot be considered.
10.
Ext.W7 contains the details of work done by Krishnamurthy examined as WW1. These are labour charge bills
for the period from December 1997 to April 1999. Ext.W4 (Page-45) contains the Identity Slip of Krishnamurthy. This
document dated 31.09.1992 issued by the Superintendent, Central Telegraph Office, Coimbatore shows Krishnamurthy
was a Coolie Messenger employed at CTO for delivery of telegraphs and contingent works. Page-46 contains an
Identity Slip issued in 1993 by the same Superintendent showing that Krishnamurthy was doing the same type of work
even in 1993. Page-49 gives the details telegrams delivered by Krishnamurthy in the year 2001. Page-53 reveals that he
was continuing in the establishment and was doing the same work in 2002, immediately before the dispute was raised
also. Thus it is clear from the documents referred to above that Krishnamurthy was working in the department at least
from 1992. There is no reference of his having been engaged as contract worker. Several other documents produced on
behalf of this witness shows that he is continuing in the establishment. Ext.W8 (series) shows that during 2004 and
2005 as well Krishnamurthy had been working in the establishment. There is also the evidence given by WW1 that he
had been continuously working in the establishment. Thus it is clear that even though the Respondent is claiming that
all the workmen including WW1 must have been engaged as contract labours, as revealed in the documents they were
directly under the control and supervision of the officials of the Respondent. WW1 was directly reporting to them and
they were sanctioning payment for him.
11.
Another workman who seems to have been working for a long time is Manimaran examined as WW3. Ext.W12
is regarding sanction of coolie charges to Manimaran for delivering telegrams in the year 1993 and 1994. These
II
(ii)
2521
documents show that he was working for the establishment on all days. Ext.W13 is an Identity Slip issued in 1992
stating that Manimaran was employed in Central Telegraph Office, Coimbatore for delivery of telegrams. Ext.W15
containing the seal and signature of Telegraph Office, Ramanathapuram shows that Manimaran had been working for
the establishment in 1991 also. In fact Ext.W15 contains the details of days for which Manimaran had worked in the
years 1991 to 2002. When considered alongwith other documents this should be treated as the correct
acknowledgement of the work done by Manimaran. Ext.W3 contains the details of telegrams delivered by Manimaran
in February 2001. He had delivered 893 telegrams and had collected Rs. 1,786/- from the Telegraph Office, R.S.
Puram. There is the evidence given by WW3, Manimaran that he had been working in the establishment from 1991 as a
Telegraphman. So it is apparent that he was working in the establishment at least from 1991 and was there even at the
time when the dispute was raised. As in the case of WW1, he was also directly working under the Respondent for a
long time continuously. He is not referred to as a contract workman. Even if he was working on contract basis it is to be
treated as a sham one.
12.
Ext.W3 contains details in respect of some other workmen also. However, the particulars of their engagement in
2000 or 2001 only are available. There is nothing to show that they have been working in the establishment for a long
time. There is no evidence also to show for how many days they have worked. So their claim for absorption or
permanency in any case could not be entertained.
13.
The counsel for the Respondent has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Uma Devi’s case reported in
2006 4 SCC 1 to contend that there cannot be regularization of the workmen as they were engaged without following
due process of selection as envisaged in constitutional scheme. However, the dictum laid down in the Uma Devi’s Case
has been subsequently explained in the case MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS.
CASTERIBE RAJYA PARIVAHAN KARMACHARI SANGHATHANA reported in 2009 2 SCC (L&S) 513. It has
been held in the above decision that the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts were not under consideration in
Uma Devi case and issues like the one pertaining to unfair labour case was not at all referred to, considered or decided
in Uma Devi case. Unfair labour practice on the part of the employer in engaging them as Badlis, casuals or temporaries
and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privilege of permanent
employees as provided in Item-6 of schedule IV and the power of Industrial and Labour Courts under Section-30 of the
Act did not fall for adjudication or consideration before the Constitution Bench, it was held. It was also held that Uma
Devi does not denude the Industrial and Labour Courts of the statutory power to order permanency of the workers who
have been victims of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer.
14.
When considered in the light of the above proposition of law it could be seen that WW1 and WW3 were made to
work continuously in the establishment under the guise of contract or otherwise. The establishment had been extracting
work from them at a very low rate of wages for a very long time. It is unfair labour practice on the part of the
establishment. They are entitled to be regularized.
15.
MW1, the Assistant General Manager of Coimbatore SSA has stated that Ext.M1 is the notification which would
show that BSNL Employees Union is given recognition only to represent the matters of its own members. 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.W10 the bye-laws of the Union and Ext.W11 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.W11 resolution. So the contention that the Union is not competent to
espouse the cause of the workmen will not hold good.
In view of the above discussion WW1 and WW3 are entitled to be absorbed in the establishment. Accordingly,
an Award is passed as below:
WW1 and WW3, S.Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the annexure to the schedule of reference in ID 54/2003 are
deemed to have been absorbed with BSNL in their then position from the date on which the dispute was raised.
They are entitled to the difference in the wages due to them on such absorption. The arrears of pay shall be paid
within two months of the publication of the Award. In default it will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of the Award.
ID 313/2004 is answered against the petitioner.
Awards are 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
2522
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
WW1, Sri R. Krishnamoorthi
WW2, Sri K. Srinivasan
WW3, Sri R. Manimaran
For the 2nd Party/Respondents
:
MW1, Sri V. Visveswaran
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
-
Annexure to 2(k) petition
Ext.W2
-
Annexure to 2(k) petition
Ext.W3
-
Wage Receipt
Ext.W4
-
Identity Slip
Ext.W5
-
Messenger Delivery Slip
Ext.W6
-
Working Particulars
Ext.W7
Dec’ 1997 to April 1999
Labour Charges bill for delivery of telegrams of R.Krishnamurthy
Ext.W8 Series [29 volumes]
Messenger Delivery Receipts of R. Krishnamurthy
Ext.W9
Oct’2004
Delivery record book of R. Palanisamy, R. Manikandan
to Mar’2005
and M. Manikandan
Ext.W10
-
Bye-laws of the Union
Ext.W11
30/31 Oct’2001
Resolution of the union
Ext.W12 Series
3.5.2002
Wage receipt for the payment made
Ext.W13 Series
11.09.1992
Identification slip issued by the BSNL
Ext.W14 Series
10.10.2000
No. of telegrams delivered by me
Ext.W15 Series
1991 to 2002
Working Particulars
Ext.W16 Series
11.04.1995
No. of working days given by Muniappan, ASTT
& 1998
And Ayyavoo, ASTT, Coimbatore
Ext.W17
-
Byelaw of the union original
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
II
(ii)
2523
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
-
Copy of the agreement entered into between BSNL and D. Kannan
Contractor.
Ext.M10
21.11.2005
Certificate issued to for executing the Cable Construction Work in
Coimbatore, Form V 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
19.12.2005
Award of Tender for Cable Constructions Work.
—
[
II
]
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2017
S.O. 1104.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/32 of 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court (CGIT-2), Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s.
CPWD and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.04.2017.
[No. L-42012/263/2005-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/32 of 2006
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The Executive Engineer,
Central Public Works Department,
Goa Central Division, Bambolim,
Goa.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
The Secretary
CPWD Mazdoor Union,
CPWD Office Compound, Bamanwada,
Vile Parle [E],
Mumbai – 400 099.
APPEARANCES :
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Mr. H.D. Rathod, Advocate
FOR THE WORKMAN
:
Mr. J.H. Sawant, Advocate
Mumbai, dated the 6th February, 2017
2524
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
1.
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its order No. L-42012/263/2005 – IR (CM-II)
dated 31.05.2006 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 have referred the following dispute to this tribunal for adjudication.
“Whether the action of the Executive Engineer, Central Public Works Department, Goa Division of utilizing
the services of Shri Shabir I Telsiwale on contractual basis and not regularizing the services w.e.f. 3.10.1989 is
legal and justified ? If not, to what relief Shri Shabir I Telsiwale is entitled ? “
2.
After the receipt of the reference, notices were issued to both parties. In response to the notice, second party
workmen filed his statement of claim Ex.7. According to the second party workman, he was employed with
management of Central Public Works Department. He was selected and appointed by the management of CPWD in
capacity of Motor Lorry Driver for driving the vehicles of the management. He was driving the management jeep No.
CLR 4261 w.e.f. 3.10.1989. He was in continuous employment of the management. He was paid wages directly by the
management. He was posted for the work at Kolhapur Central Sub-Division -1. He was paid wages at minimum rates
on wages. He was not granted any other benefits which were available to the regular workman of the management
attending the same and similar work of the management. He was repeatedly requesting the management to regularize
his services as permanent workman of the management as done in case of other workmen placed in similar
circumstances. His appointment and his continuation in service was approved and sanctioned by the competent
authorities of the management from time to time by modifying the procedure of recruitment suitably for the reasons that
there was ban on recruitment and therefore it was not possible for the management to follow strictly the rules of
recruitment. He was qualified for the post and was appointed and continued in service by following office procedure
for approval and sanction etc. His case for his regularization in service was under the active consideration of
management. He was given assurance from time to time that he shall be given permanency in the employment.
However, instead of regularizing his service, management continued his service and subsequently made paper
arrangement that this services have been engaged through the contractor and threatened him of his dismissal from the
services. As such management continued to indulge in unfair labour practice.
3.
According to the applicant / union vide its letter dt. 3.5.2005 raised industrial dispute before Asstt. Labour
Commissioner [Central], Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, Mumbai over the demand for conferring upon the
workman the status and privileges of permanent workman w.e.f. 3.10.89 in the post of Motor Lorry Driver with all
consequential benefits. However, conciliation ended in failure. The Central Govt. has referred dispute for adjudication
to this tribunal. The workman prays that action of Executive Engineer CPWD, Goa Division in utilising services of
workman on contractual basis, in not regularizing the services w.e.f. 3.10.1989 and further discontinuing the services of
workman w.e.f. 1.4.2006 be declared illegal and unjustified. He also prays for restoration of his services by conferring
upon him the status of permanent workman.
4.
The first party management resisted the statement of claim vide its written statement Ex.8. According to them
the concerned workman Shri Shabir I Telsiwale was never employed at any time by the management of CPWD. He
was neither working in CPWD nor employed by the CPWD. It is submitted that Executive Engineer Goa Central
Division, Goa purchased a jeep and transferred the same to the Asst. Engineer Belgaon Central Sub Division – 4,
CPWD Sambra – 24 under its control in November 1989. As there was no regular jeep driver available to run the
departmental vehicle, Assit. Engineer Belgaon invited quotations for running the said jeep for the period of 3 months
from various local contractors. The quotations were called on regular intervals for providing the services of driving the
departmental vehicles and the work orders used to be issued to the lower tenderers. One such contractor Shri Shabir I
Telsiwale, concerned workman quoted his tender which was lowest @ 1000/- per month and Rs. 25/- per day as night
halt outside Belgaon. Accordingly, the work order was issued to the lower contractor Shri Shabir I Telsiwale for 3
months only. For every 3 months work orders for driving vehicle had been issued to the agency which had quoted the
lowest rates after fresh call of quotations and the payment for providing the services had been made as per the rates in
the work orders and having accepted by the agency.
5.
According to the management, concerned workman was not paid wages. He was paid contractual amount as per
the quotations quoted by him and work order issued to him for driving the departmental vehicle. After the 3 months
period is over, such contract came to a end. As such the applicant, the concerned workman Shri Shabbir I Tashewale
was never employee of the management.
6.
The work allotted to the concerned workman was as a contractor and hence there is no relation in between
department and Shri Shabbir I Tashewale as of employer and employee.
7.
According to the management, jeep which was in service was very old running on the road from 1989 and it was
almost 17 years old. In the first week of January 2006 it met with break down on the road and is not in working
II
(ii)
2525
condition. Therefore no quotation was called after 31.3.2006 for driving the said jeep on contractual basis. It is thus
contended that there was no question of restoration of services of Shri Shabbir I Tashewale. Therefore they prayed that
reference be dismissed with costs.
8.
Following are the issues for my determination. I reproduce the issues along with my findings thereon for the
reasons to follow:
Sr. No.
Issues
Findings
1
Does union prove that, concerned workman is a employee of
first party ?
No
2.
Does it establish employer-employee relationship of
concerned workman with first party?
No, not proved
3.
Is concerned workman entitled for relief sought ?
As per final order
4.
What Order ?
As per final order
REASONS
Issue No. 1 & 2
9.
Admittedly the concerned workman Shri Shabbir I Tashewale was working as motor lorry driver on work order
basis. It is uncontroverted that he was paid the wages through contractor since 1989. M/s. Gulmohar Construction,
Solapur was the contractor. Even it is admitted that there was ban to recruit the drivers in the department in 1989. The
work of driving jeep was entrusted to lowest tenderer on the work order basis for the period of 3 months. The
concerned workman in the reference has quoted his tender which was the lowest @ 1000/- per month and Rs. 25/- per
day as night halt outside Belgaon and accordingly the work order was issued to the said lowest contractor Shri Shabbir I
Tashewale on 30.11.2089. Ex.B below Ex.19 is the chart showing the details of periodical orders issued to the
agencies. It shows that Shri Shabbir I Tashewale was issued the work order from 3.10.89 to 30.9.2001 initially for the
period of 3 months which was continued for every 3 months period till 30.09.2001. It shows that on 1.10.2001 till
31.03.2005 work order was issued to M/s. Gulmohar Construction, Solapur and Shri Shabbir I Tashewale. This work
order was issued for 3 months during the said period and thereafter from 1.4.2005 till 31.2.2006 work orders were
issued to M/s. Gulmohar Construction, Solapur, A.B. Construction, again for M/s. Gulmohar Construction, Solapur and
then to A.B. Construction for every months during this period. Chart clearly shows that the work orders were issued
after inviting the quotations for driving the departmental vehicle / jeep and had issued for 3 months only to the lower
tenderer. Ex.C below list Ex.19 is the copy of work order dated 3.10.1989. It shows that labour charges for driving
departmental jeep were fixed at Rs. 1000/- per month and for 3 months which were fixed for Rs. 3000/- plus extra for
night halts outside Belgaon for 15 days were fixed at Rs. 375/-. Total Rs. 3375/- were fixed towards labour charges and
extra night halts. Contractor was responsible for the cleanliness of the jeep etc. and other conditions are mentioned in
the said work order. Similar were the work orders on the basis of which the concerned workman worked as driver since
3.10.89 till 31.3.2006. The question is whether it could establish employer-employee relationship of the concerned
workman with first party ?
10.
The test which is uniformly applied in order to determine the relationship is the existence of right of control in
respect of manner in which the work is to be done. The distinction is also drawn between contract for service and
contract of service. In one case master can order or require what is to be done while in another case he can not only
order or require what is to be done but how it shall be done. The principle which emerges from the authorities is that
prima-facie test for determination of relationship between master and servant is the existence of right in the master to
supervise and control the work done by the servant not only in the matter of directing what work the servant is to do but
also manner in which he shall do his work. The correct method approach would be to consider whether having regard
to the nature of work there was due control and supervision by the employer.
11.
Here in instant case it is no doubt true that the concerned workman continuously worked from 3.10.89 till
31.3.2006 as jeep driver. He has put in 240 days service on 31.3.2006. But then the fact remains that since there was
ban for recruitment, he was working on the basis of work order. After expiry of work order fresh quotations were again
called and he again quoted lowest rates and fresh work order was issued to him for same work. He quoted lowest rates
continuously for years together and work orders were issued to him for running the vehicle during this period. In view
of that it can be said that his engagement was always for fixed 2 – 3 months and it was categorically provided so in each
one of the work order given to him. Therefore non-engagement of concerned workman Shabbir I Tashewale on the
expiry of period of last work order given to him did not amount to his retrenchment under section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D.
2526
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Act, 1947 it is clearly provided that termination of the service of workman because of non-renewal of contract of
employment of employment and its expiry does not amount retrenchment. In this regards hand can be led on the
decision in case of M/s. Haryana State FCCW Stock Ltd. Vs. Ram Nivas AIR 2002 SC 2495 wherein the termination of
service of the concerned workman on expiry of fixed period of his employment was not held to be accounting to his
retrenchment despite of the fact that the workman has worked for 240 days in a year.
12.
Learned Counsel for the concerned workman submitted that first party management has employed the concerned
workman for his perennial nature of work for the period from 3.10.89 to 31.3.2006 on one device or the another. He
was paid the amount of wages as per the rates decided by second party and that the services of the similarly situated
workmen have been regularized by the first party management. He submits that appointment of second party workman
and its continuation in service was approved and sanctioned by the competent authority of first party from time to time
by modifying procedure of recruitment suitably for the reason that there was ban of recruitment and therefore it was not
possible or permissible for the management to follow strictly the rules of recruitment. He submitted that the workman
was qualified for the post and appointed and continued in service by following the office procedure. By approval and
sanction under the device of the work order or otherwise, it can be said that the management continued to indulge in
unfair labour practice within the meaning of items 10 and 13 of the 5th Schedule to the ID Act, 1947 read with section
2(RA) and 25T of the I.D. Act, 1947.
13.
It is not possible to accept the submission. The first party is the Central Govt. Dept. and there are specified
recruitment rules. If there is a vacancy it has to be advertised. The candidates have to be interviewed and medically
examined and police verification has to be done before any person is appointed to the job. No such procedure was
followed. The second party workman has admitted in cross-examination that no PF was deducted from his account. He
used to get the payment as per work order and not on the basis of his presence at the work place. There was no muster
roll. He admits that he was not medically examined. There was no police verification. He has filed quotations in 1989
and no other application form was filed by him for getting the employment. There is no order terminating the services
of the second party workman because he was never given an appointment in the department. The second party
workman worked on the basis of contractual work order. That would show that there never existed relationship of
employer – employee between first party and second party workman even after second party workman has worked for
240 days on the basis of contract entered into by him with first party.
14.
In the context, Learned Counsel for first party management seeks to rely on decision in case of Secretary State of
Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (3 & ors 2006) 4 SCC – 1. With regard to legality of the engagement of workers on daily
wages by the govt. the constitution bench observed as under
“3. A sovereign Government, considering the economic situation in the country and the work to be got done,
is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages……………
12. In spite of this scheme, there may be occasions when the sovereign State or its instrumentalities will have
to employ persons. In posts which are temporary, on daily wages, as additional hands or taking them in
without following the required procedure, to discharge the duties in respect of the posts that are sanctioned and
that are required to be filled in terms of the relevant procedure established by the Constitution or for work in
temporary posts or projects that are not needed permanently. This right of the union or of the State
Government cannot but be recognized and there is nothing in the constitution which prohibits such engaging of
persons temporarily or on daily wages, to meet the needs of the situation. But the fact that such engagements
are resorted to cannot be used to defeat the very scheme of public employment. Nor can a court say that the
Union or the State Governments do not have the right to engage persons in various capacities for a duration or
until the work in a particular project is completed……….”
15.
In a nutshell, the legal position which emerges from Umadevi case can (supra) can be de-lineated as under:
“(i) the Government is not precluded from engaging workers on daily wages; (ii) appointment to public posts
can only be made in terms of statutory rules framed under Article 309 of Constitution of India; (iii) an
employee engaged on daily wage basis cannot claim to be made a permanent employee; (iv) the courts cannot
direct regularization of services of workers engaged on daily wage basis; (v) the doctrine of ‘equal pay for
equal work’ has no application in case of regularization of services of workers engaged on daily wage basis
and (vi) in cases where services of workers engaged on daily wage basis gets regularized, such workers cannot
claim parity with regular employees with regard to payment of salary and other allowances for the period prior
to regularization of their services.”
16.
These are the observations which I borrow from the decision in case of Union of India Vs. Pooldev Singh WP
[C] 12479/2009 [Delhi High Court]. In view of this legal position it cannot be said that in facts and circumstances of
this case, the first party management indulged into unfair labour practice.
II
(ii)
2527
17.
Learned Counsel for the concerned workman relied on various documents pertaining to the internal
communication in between concerned workman and department. Ex.21 is the certificate given by the first party to the
second party stating that second party workman was working at Belgaon Central Sub Division CPWD Belgaon under
Goa Central Division and he is hard working, sincere and very honest, obedient as well as skilled worker. Ex.40 is the
internal letter in relation to recommendation for the regularization of service of second party workman. Ex.23 is also
internal letter recommending the regularization of second party workman in the post of Motor Lorry Driver. Ex.24 is
the circular stating that services of daily rated employees engaged prior to ban of recruitment are to be regularized.
Ex.25 is also internal letter stating that representation received from the second party workman has been sent to higher
authorities for duly recommending his services. Relying on these documents the submission is that even the
recommendations were made for regularizing the services of second party workman in the post of Motor Lorry Driver
since he is hard working, sincere and very honest.
18.
These recommendations were contrary to the law laid down in Umadevi’s judgment and merely on the basis of
these recommendations it cannot be said that there existed employer employee relationship in between first party
management and concerned workman. I say so because these recommendations are not binding on Central Govt.
There was ban from the Government for recruitment in the year 1994 and the ban continued. Therefore the workman
was appointed on contract, by work order to drive the jeep and not heavy vehicles. In his evidence management
witness has not stated that there was availability of the post as per recruitment rules. When drivers are to be recruited
depending upon availability of post as per recruitment rules the workman cannot be regularized unless ban is lifted.
Even in case of similarly situated workman, the management is directed to regularize the service as and when ban lifted
and vacancy arises as per rules. So far as present workman is concerned he cannot claim regularization on the basis of
availability of post as per recruitment rules. In view of that also all these recommendations and the internal letters
relied upon by the concerned workman are of no help and he cannot claim regularization of service.
19.
Even then Learned Counsel for the concerned workman submitted that the action of management is in utter
disregard to the provisions made u/s. 33 of the I.D. Act, 1947 since management discontinued the services of concerned
workman w.e.f. 1.4.2006 with willful disobedience of order of Hon’ble High Court.
20.
In this respect if we see the evidence that has been placed on record it can be seen that admittedly in June 2006
the jeep which the concerned workman was driving, broke down. He admits that the said jeep was 17 years old jeep.
Thereafter, the said jeep was scrapped and therefore quotations in respect of jeep were stopped. Admittedly the vehicle
broke down during the quarter from 1.1.2006 to 31.3.2006. Break down took in the first week of said quarter.
Admittedly the said such quotation was given to A.B. Construction and thereafter quotations in respect of that jeep was
stopped. Obviously therefore there was no question of issuing any fresh work order in respect of that jeep and therefore
it appears that his services were discontinued.
21.
In that respect the Learned Counsel for the first party management seeks to rely on the decision in case of AB
Security Agents employees Union and RLC & Ors 2010 (127) FLR 643. In para 9 of the judgment it has been observed
while referring to Division Bench judgment in case of Delhi Pradesh Rajdhani Mazdoor Union Vs. DDA CW (P) 1305 /
1991 that the DDA in terminating the services in terms of contract had not in any manner varied the terms of services of
the members of the petitioner union in that case and therefore no question of seeking any express permission in writing
of the authority before it the proceedings were pending because the services got extinguished by efflux of time on
expiry of their contract. It was further held that if DDA would have tried to terminate the services before the contract
was over then the workmen would have been protected under section 33. It is held that discharge of services after
expiry of term of his employment does not violate the provisions of section 33 of the Act. In view of this legal position
also I find that the services of the concerned workman Shri Shabbir I Tashewale were discontinued on account of break
down of jeep which he was driving and therefore the quotations of that jeep were stopped. In view of that also he
cannot seek regularization of services since his services were discontinued because of non-renewal of contract of
employment on its expiry and it does not amount to retrenchment.
22.
Learned Counsel of the concerned workman seeks to rely on the decision in case of Durgapur Casual Workers
Union & Ors. Vs. FCI & Ors. 2015 – 1 CLR 379 to submit that Industrial Labour Court has power under section 30
read with section 32 of MRTU & PULP Act to order permanency of the workers who have been victims of unfair
labour practice of the employers. Once the unfair labour practice on the part of employer is established the Industrial &
Labour Courts has their powers under section 30 read with section 32 of MRTU & PULP Act. Here in the instant case
it is finding of fact that the management is not indulged in unfair labour practice.
23.
Learned Counsel of the concerned workman also placed reliance on the decision in case of Devinder Singh Vs.
Municipal Corpn. Sanaur 2011 (II CLR) 461 to submit that source of employment, the method of recruitment, the
quantum of wages, pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a person is workman
within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act.
2528
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
24.
He also seeks to rely on the decision in case of Executive Engineer Public Works Dept. & Anr. Vs. Parshuram
Mukund Malode 2002 II CLR 113 to submit that when the demands of permanency of PWD workers are pending in
consolation the action of their retrenchment without permission of consolation officers amounts to unfair labour
practice.
25.
The facts in the cases cited above are quite distinct and distinguishable.
26.
Considering all these facts, I find that the second party workman has not established employer-employee
relationship with first party management. Material placed on record amply makes it clear that the concerned workman
worked on the basis of contractual work orders. He was not employed by the first party management and therefore he
is not employee of first party. Issue Nos. 1 & 2 are answered accordingly as indicated against each of them in terms of
above observations.
Issue Nos. 3 & 4
27.
In view of my findings to Issue Nos.1 & 2, the concerned workman is not entitled to relief of conferring upon
him the status and privilege of permanent workman. He also cannot seek reinstatement. As such he is not entitled to
reliefs sought. The reference is liable to be rejected with no order has to costs. Thus the order.
ORDER
Reference is rejected with no order has to costs.
Date: 06.02.2017
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
—
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2017
S.O. 1105.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Nos. 50/2003, 56/2003, 58/2003, 319/2004, 331/2004, 351/2004,) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager, BSNL, Coimbatore and others and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on 03.04.2017.
[No. L-40011/46/2002-IR (DU),
No. L-40011/47/2002-IR (DU),
No. L-40011/45/2002-IR (DU),
No. L-40011/40/2003-IR (DU),
No. L-40011/39/2003-IR (DU),
No. L-40011/37/2003-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
II
(ii)
2529
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 22nd March, 2017
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute Nos. 50, 56, 58 of 2003 and 319, 331 and 351 of 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
Indian Telecom Employees Line Group “C” & “D”
No. 21/10, R.K. Srinivas Apartments
Bharathiyar 1st Street
Pazhavanthangal
Chennai-600114
AND
1.
The General Manager
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
BSNL,
Coimbatore-600043
2.
The Chief General Manager
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
BSNL, Tamilnadu Circle
Anna Salai
Chennai-600002
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
M/s. K.M. Ramesh, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Respondent
:
Sri D. Simon, Advocate
S.No.
Industrial Dispute No.
Reference No.
1.
50/2003
L-40011/46/2002-IR (DU) dated 06.03.2003
2.
56/2003
L-40011/47/2002-IR (DU) dated 17.04.2003
3.
58/2003
L-40011/45/2002-IR (DU) dated 23.04.2003
4.
319/2004
L-40011/40/2003-IR (DU) dated 13.02.2004
5.
331/2004
L-40011/39/2003-IR (DU) dated 29.03.2004
6.
351/2004
L-40011/37/2003-IR (DU) dated 01.04.2004
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment referred the IDs mentioned above to the Industrial
Tribunal, Chennai for adjudication. The IDs were numbered as ID Nos. 50/2003. 56/2003. 58/2003, 319/2004,
331/2004 & 351/2004 respectively. In both IDs the parties have entered appearance through the counsel and filed claim
and counter statement respectively.
The Schedule mentioned in that order is :
ID Nos. 50/2003
“Whether the demand of the Union for absorption of the 133 workers (List attached) engaged through various
contractors for house-keeping work, by BSNL is justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled?”
ID No. 56 of 2003
“Whether the demand of the Union for absorption of the 90 workers (list attached) engaged through various
contractors for cable work, by BSNL is justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled?”
2530
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ID No. 58 of 2003
“Whether the demand of the Union, for absorption of the 153 workers (list attached) engaged through various
contractors by BSNL is justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled?”
ID No. 319/2004
“Whether the demand of the Union for absorption of 137 workers (list enclosed) engaged through contractors
by the General Manager, BSNL, Coimbatore to do house-keeping work is justified? If not, to what relief they are
entitled to?”
ID No. 331/2004
“Whether the demand of the Union for absorption of 25 workers (list attached) engaged through contractors by
the General Manager, BSNL, Coimbatore to do work is justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled to?”
ID No. 351/2004
“Whether the demand of the Union for absorption of 78 workers (list enclosed) through contractors by the
General Manager, BSNL, Coimbatore to do cable work is justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled to?”
COMMON AWARD
3.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal numbered it as ID No. 50/2003 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.
4.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in ID No. 50 of 2003 are as below:
The petitioner is a registered union having substantial number of permanent workmen working in BSNL as
its members. The employees who are concerned in the dispute are working under the control and supervision of BSNL.
They are all doing housekeeping work. This is integral part of the work of the department. The workers who are doing
such works cannot be treated as contract labour. The so-called contract system is sham. The work performed by the
concerned workmen are essential in nature. The Respondent is an establishment as per Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman) Act. The concerned employees have to be made
permanent on completion of 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months of their joining the establishment. An Award
may be passed holding that the concerned workmen are entitled to be absorbed and regularized in the service of the
Respondent from the date of their joining the service together with continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
5.
The Respondents have 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 petitioner is not a recognized union. The subject-matter of the claim does not relate to service conditions of the
employees of BSNL so the claim is not justified. The claim of the petitioner that the work done by the concerned
employees is perennial in nature, that there is direct control and supervision by the Respondents etc. are incorrect. The
petitioner having admitted that the concerned workmen are contract labourers, there is no question of absorption or
regularization of these workmen. It is not admitted that the concerned employees are doing the work of housekeeping.
The averment that contract system is sham is not correct. The concerned employees are not entitled to permanency
under BSNL under the provisions of CLRA Act. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
6.
The workmen who are concerned in ID No. 56/2003 are said to be doing cable work. The contention raised on
their behalf is similar to that in Claim Statement in ID No. 50 of 2003. It is stated that all the concerned workmen have
been under the direct supervision and control of the Respondents, that they are doing work which is perennial in nature,
that the contract system, if any concerning them is a sham one and they are entitled to be regularized in the service of
the Respondents. The Respondents have filed Counter Statement raising contentions similar to the one in ID No.
50/2003.
7.
The workmen involved in ID No. 58/2003 are said to be doing line work, cable jointing work, etc. They have
also claimed that they are under the direct control and supervision of the Respondents, that the alleged contract
concerning them is sham and they are entitled to be regularized in the service of the Respondents. The Respondents
have filed Counter Statement raising contentions similar to that in ID No. 50/2003.
8.
The workmen involved in ID No. 319/2004 are said to be doing housekeeping work. They have also contended
that the contract system is a sham one, that they are doing work which is perennial in nature and they are entitled to be
regularized in the service of the Respondents. In this also Counter Statement is filed resisting the claim.
9.
The workmen involved in ID No. 331/2004 are also said to be doing line work. They have also claimed
regularization in the service of the Respondents on the ground that they are doing work which is perennial in nature,
II
(ii)
2531
that the contract, if any concerning them is sham and they are entitled to regularization. The contentions raised in the
Counter Statement are similar to those raised in the connected cases.
10.
The workmen involved in ID No. 351/2004 are also said to be doing cable work. They have also claimed
regularization in the service of the Respondents.
11.
The petitioner and the Respondents in all the IDs are the same. The reliefs claimed also are similar. These IDs
are tried jointly at the instance of the parties treating ID No. 50/2003 as the main case. Evidence was recorded in this
case.
12.
The evidence consists of oral evidence of WWs 1 to 4 and MW1 and MW2 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to
Ext.W29 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M34.
13.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the demand of the Petitioner Union for absorption of the workmen involved in different IDs are
justified?
(ii)
What are the reliefs, if any, to which the concerned workmen are entitled?
The Points
14.
There are 133 workmen involved in ID No. 50/2003, 90 workmen in ID No. 56/2003, 153 workmen in
ID No. 58/2003, 137 workmen in ID 319/2004, 25 workmen involved in ID 331/2004 and 79 workmen involved in
ID No. 351/2004. the claim of the petitioner on behalf of these workmen is that they have been working with the
Respondents in different areas such as housekeeping, line work, cable work, etc., that the contract system, if any under
which they are allegedly working are sham and nominal, that the work done by them is essential and perennial in
nature, that they are under the direct control of the Respondents and they are entitled to be absorbed and regularized in
the service of BSNL which is represented by the Respondents. All these workmen are said to have started to work even
before the formation of BSNL when it was under the Department of Telecommunications. The names and other details
of the concerned workmen are given in the annexure to the schedule of reference in the respective IDs.
15.
Though, such a large number of workmen are claiming absorption, only three of them, WW1, WW3 and WW4
have given evidence. WW2 is an Office Bearer of the Petitioner Union. His evidence is intended to show that the
Petitioner Union has got locus-standi to espouse the cause of the concerned workmen. The documents produced pertain
to a few numbers of workmen only.
16.
The evidence given by WW1 who is S.No. 107 in the annexure to the schedule of reference in ID No. 50/2003
and the documents pertaining to him could be examined first. This witness has in fact given evidence on behalf of all
the workmen concerned in all the IDs together. This witness has reiterated the contentions in the respective Claim
Statements. He has stated in the Proof Affidavit that the workmen including him are getting payment directly from the
Office of the BSNL and they were getting wages directly from the Department of Telecom prior to formation of BSNL.
He has also given the names of the Officers who are said to have extracted work from them. Ext.W1 is the Attendance
Register said to be in respect of workmen including WW1. This register is prepared in plain paper. However, most of
the pages contain the signature of JTO under whom he is said to have been working. The register is for the period from
01.09.1998 to 31.03.1999. WW1 is still working with BSNL. Ext.W11 is another document that is available regarding
the work of this witness. This document (Page-139) is a certificate by Sub-Divisional Engineer given on 14.10.2005 to
the effect that he has been doing cleaning work under tender for providing housekeeping and general conservancy
services from August 1999 in the Central Telephone Exchange premises, Coimbatore. No other documents are
available in respect of this witness. However, the fact that he is still working with BSNL is not in dispute. So it is clear
that he must have been working for the establishment at least from 1998. Housekeeping is work which is perennial in
nature. So he must have been doing the work continuously. Though there is a case for the Respondents that all the work
were being done on contract basis, the particular contract through which WW1 is engaged is not produced by the
Respondents. So his case that he is under the direct control of the Respondents is to be accepted. Even if there is any
contract it must be a sham one. It is stated in the Claim Statement and also in the Proof Affidavit that even in cases
where there are contracts for work the employees of BSNL themselves are the Contractors. The Respondents have
not taken any steps to show otherwise. This fortifies the case that the contract is a sham one.
17.
Mary Vasantha, WW3 is S.No. 122 in the annexure to the schedule of reference is ID No. 50/2003. She is also
still working in the establishment. She has named 11 other workers involved in ID No. 50/2003 and has stated that she
is giving evidence on behalf of those persons also. She has stated that all of them are getting payment directly from the
Office of BSNL and from the Department of Telecom before the formation of BSNL. She has stated that the case of the
Respondents that they are contract workmen is not correct and the Contractors have not appointed them.
18.
Ext.W2, Ext.W3, Ext.W11 and Ext.W13 are the documents concerning WW3. Ext.W2 is the Duty Chart
showing the name of WW3 as well. Though, prepared in plain paper it contains some signature purportedly that of the
2532
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Officers of Departments of Telecommunications. Ext.W3 is a letter by a Sub-Divisional Engineer of one department to
another. This contains the seal of the establishment also. In this letter of January 2002. It is stated that the names of
contract labourers working in the Main Telephone Exchange prior to the year 1988 are given. The list of the concerned
workers also is annexed to this letter. WW3 is shown as S.No. 3 in this. It states that she had worked from 01.12.1995
to 31.08.1994 from 01.09.1995 to 01.09.1999 and from 1999 to till date. The nature of work done by her is said to be of
Creche Ayah, Casual Mazdoor and also cleaning, sweeping, scavenging, etc. It is further stated that the work is under
contract basis. Ext.W11 (series) contains the certificate of this witness as well. The certificate given in Page-132 is by
the Lady Welfare Superintendent of the Telephone Exchange, Coimbatore. This states that the work is on contract
basis. Ext.W13 (Page-141) is a letter from Sub-Divisional Engineer of one department to another. It is stated in this that
WW3 was Sweeper. This letter is dated 10.03.2005. Page-145 of the same document contains the details of Mazdoors
engaged prior to 1988. This detail is also given by the Lady Welfare Superintendent and it contains her signature and
seal. As seen from this, WW3 has started to work from 01.12.1985 and was continuing in the establishment. It is
apparent from this information given by the Welfare Superintendent that this witness had been working for the
establishment even from 1985 and she had been working as Ayah and had also been doing cleaning, sweeping and
scavenging work and had been continuously working. Apparently, the works were perennial in nature even though her
work is referred to as contractual in nature, details are not given by the Respondents. When the nature of the work and
the circumstances under which this worker had been working are taken into account the contract, if any is to be treated
as a sham one.
19.
Next is the evidence given by WW4, Vadivelu who is S.No. 55 in ID No. 351/2004. This workman has named
13 more workmen in his affidavit and has stated that he is giving evidence on their behalf as well. He has stated that all
those named are still working with the Respondents. He has stated that cable jointing work done by him and those
others named by him is an integral part of the work of the department. He has further stated that all of them are getting
salary from a Telecom Mechanic who is a permanent employee of the department. According to him, this Mechanic has
been giving directions and instructions regarding the work to be done. He was being paid by the establishment from
1990 onwards. Earlier it was wages but from 1992 onwards he was paid a consolidated amount as salary. It was only in
the year 1998 tender was called for contract to do cable work and though the concerned workmen were described as
contract workers, any such Contractor has not been available.
20.
Ext.W18 is the Muster Roll containing the signature and seal of the Sub-Divisional Officer in the column for
each day starting from 01.02.1992 and upto 31.07.1994. Ext.W19 contains copies of cable diagrams for the period from
15.09.2005 to 14.10.2005. All these contain the signature of WW4. Of course, these are subsequent to the reference but
shows that the concerned workman was working in the establishment even after the reference. This justifies the case
that he is still working in the establishment. Ext.W21 contains copies of work order note for carrying out fault repair for
the period from 03.09.2013 to 13.11.2013. These also contain the signature and seal of the concerned official of the
department. The witness is described as Cable Jointer in all these. Ext.W25 is a certificate by a Retired Officer stating
that the witness had worked as casual labour for Telecom Cable and Line Work during the period from 04.04.1997 to
07.08.1999. Of course, the person might not have been competent to issue such a certificate. But when considered along
with documents already discussed it is clear that WW4 has been working from the year 1992. Work was being extracted
from him all along and he is an expert in the Cable Jointing Work. In spite of continuous work of perennial in nature he
is described as contract worker but without any supportive documents. The contract, if any is to be treated as a sham
one.
21.
Ext.W7 is the document produced in respect of C. Prabhu, S.No. 121 in ID 50/2003. Ext.W7 is the imprest
account showing payment to Prabhu towards labour charges for the period from 05.04.1997 to 21.10.1998. No
documents are available to show that he was continuing with the Respondents at the time when the reference was made.
There is nothing to show that this individual is now working in the establishment also. On the basis of Ext.W7 alone no
relief can be granted to Prabhu.
22.
M. Sridharan is S.No. 120 in ID No. 50/2003. Ext.W8 contains a series of certificates stating that Sridharan had
attended duty on particular dates. The series evidence payment for the period from 01.04.1997 to 30.04.1999. Ext.W9-
Attendance Register (Page-76) states that Sridharan joined duty on 24.03.1997. Page-100 reveals his presence up to
April 1999. No other evidence is available to show that he continued in the establishment after this period and was there
even at the time when the dispute was raised. The concerned person himself did not come forward to give evidence. He
is also not entitled to any relief.
23.
Ext.W9-Attendance Register shows the name of Sivasakthivel, S.No. 119 in ID No. 50/2003 also. This
document evidences attendance from November 1996 to March 1997 only. One does not know if he has continued after
that also or if he was there at the time when the dispute was raised. He is also not entitled to any relief.
24.
Ext.W9 reveals attendance of Ramesh, S.No. 127 in ID No. 50/2003 also. Ext.W9 (Page 112) shows he was
there in April 1998. His attendance is seen marked up to March 1999. There is no indication of his having been
continuing as a workman even after that. He is also not entitled to any relief.
II
(ii)
2533
25.
Vijaya is S.No. 128 in ID 50/2003. Ext.W9 (Page-104) shows she was working in November, 2001. Her
presence upto February 2002 (Page-111) is seen marked in the Register. There is nothing to show that she has started to
work in the establishment even earlier. Ext.W11 (Page-131) is a Service Certificate by the Welfare Superintendent
stating that she is working on contract basis from 11.08.2004. There is no evidence as to whether she was there after
February 2002 and before 11.08.2004. The documents are insufficient to grant a relief in favour of this individual.
26.
Maragatham is S.No. 124 in ID 50/2003. Ext.W11 (Page-133) is a certificate stating that Maragatham was
working in Coimbatore Telephone Exchange from 08.04.1975 to 21.09.1980 as Casual Mazdoor and from 05.07.1982
as Ayah. The certificate is seen issued in 1984. Ext.W15 gives the service particulars including that of Maragatham.
This is one sent by the Lady Welfare Superintendent. The particulars in respect of Maragatham reveal that she started to
work in 1975 and was working there even on 30.01.2002, the date on which the details were given. It further states that
from September 1999 onwards she was working as contract labour. This document reveals that Maragatham had
worked for a long time. There is the evidence of WW3 that she is still working. This is probable when the fact that she
was there on 20.01.2002 on the eve of raising of the dispute is considered. In that case she is definitely entitled to relief.
After continuously working directly under the establishment she seems to have been put under the pretext of a contract.
The contract is to be considered sham. She is to be deemed to have been regularized in the service of the Respondents
from the date on which the dispute was raised.
27.
Amaravathi is S.No. 123 in ID 50/2003. Ext.W13 is a letter from the Principal General Manager of BSNL,
Coimbatore to Amaravathi asking her to furnish certain particulars including the Muster Rolls, etc. However, the next
letter (Page-140) states that she cannot be considered for re-engagement as casual mazdoor. Ext.W15 (Page-145) refers
to Amaravathi also. This document, as stated, is giving details of mazdoors engaged prior to 1988. As seen from the
document she has started to work in 1982 and had been continuing even on 30.01.2002, the date of the document. So it
is clear that subsequently she was re-engaged even if there was a gap. Ext.W11 (Page-136) is the Service Certificate in
respect of Amaravathi which states that she was working on contract basis from 11.08.2004. As per Ext.W15 she was
continuing with BSNL even on 30.01.2002. So it is to be assumed that she continued thereafter also and subsequently
treated as a contract labour. The Respondents did not state under which Contractor she has been working on contract.
The contract, if any should be considered as a sham one and she is entitled to be regularized in the service of the BSNL.
29.
Saraswathi is S.No. 125 in ID 50/2003. Ext.W15, the details given by the Welfare Superintendent states that she
has been doing scavenger work from 10.06.1986 and had been still continuing as on 30.01.2002. Ext.W11 includes the
Service Certificate (Page-136) of this worker. The Welfare Superintendent had certified that she had been working from
11.08.2004 on contract basis. That shows she was there even after the dispute was raised. Mention of her as a contract
worker is not of any consequence in view of long period of work undergone continuously. She seems to have been
treated as a contract worker at a late stage. This was only a camouflage used by the Respondent to avoid regularization.
The contract, if any is to be treated as sham. She is also entitled to be regularized, considering her long period of work,
from the date on which the dispute was raised.
30.
Palaniswamy is S.No. 1 in ID 351/2004. The evidence given by WW4 is on behalf of this workman also. He is
named as a person who is still working with BSNL. Ext.W25 is a certificate stating that Palaniswamy was a casual
labour for Telephone Cable and line Work during the period from 04.04.1997 to 07.08.1999. But this is of course issued
by a Retired Officer. Ext.W26 is an Issue Slip requesting to issue certain materials to Palaniswamy. This is dated
15.07.2003. Ext.W26 (series) contain Issue Slips requesting to issue certain materials to Palaniswamy. These are of
2003. Ext.W27 are details regarding shifting of cable joint at Udumalpet Exchange. The name of the worker given is of
Palaniswamy. However, most of the documents in the series do not give any date. The dates shown in some of them are
dates after reference of the dispute other than Ext.W25. There is nothing to show if he was working even before the
date of reference or in what capacity. So this workman is not eligible for any relief.
31.
Though several workmen are named in the annexure to the schedule of reference in the respective IDs no
documents are available at all to show that these individuals have ever worked with the Respondent establishment or
are continuing in the establishment. So none of them are entitled to any relief.
32.
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 directly engaged 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-
2534
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
employee relationship between them and the Respondents. This burden is not discharged. The contract if any is to be
treated as sham.
33.
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 the 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 concerned workers were working was only sham and nominal and they were really working under the
Respondents itself.
34.
There is a contention for the Respondents in the Counter Statement that the Union has no capacity to represent
the 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 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 are entitled to relief.
35.
Relief can be moulded on the basis of the period of work of the concerned workman. WW3 and WW4,
Maragatham, Amaravathi and Saraswathi were working for a long time. On the other hand WW1 had started to work
only in late 1998. Those who had been working for a longer time are entitled to be absorbed and regularized from the
date on which the dispute was raised. WW1 will be absorbed from the date of Award only.
Accordingly an Award is passed as below:
Mary Vasantha, S.No. 122, Maragatham, S.No. 124, Amaravathi, S.No. 123 and Saraswathi, S.No. 125 in ID
50/2003 and Vadivelu, S.No. 55 in ID 351 of 2004 shall be deemed to have been absorbed and regularized in
the service of BSNL in their then position with effect from the date on which the dispute was raised. They shall
be entitled to regular scale from this date. The difference in the salary payable to them shall be paid within two
months of the publication of the Award. In case of default, interest at the rate of 6% is payable on the amount
from the date of the Award. WW1, S.No. 107 in ID No. 50/2003 shall be regularized in the service of BSNL
from the date of the Award.
ID 50/2003 and ID 351/2004 are thus partly answered in favour of the petitioner.
ID 56/2003, 58/2003, 319/2004 and 331/2004 are answered against the petitioner.
(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. Shanmughasundaram
WW2, Sri K. Srinivasan
WW3, Sri K.J. Mary Vasantha
WW4, Sri M.P. Vadivel
For the 2nd Party/Respondents
:
MW1, Sri V. Visveswaran
MW2, Sri R. Karthikeyan
II
(ii)
2535
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
01.09.1998 to
Attendance Registers
01.03.1999
Ext.W2
08.09.1994 to
Duty Chart
08.07.1999
Ext.W3
31.01.2002
Mazdoors Engaged Letter
Ext.W4
-
Annexure to 2(k) petition
Ext.W5
-
Bye-Laws of the Union
Ext.W6
30/31 Oct.
Resolution of the Union
2001
Ext.W7
05.04.1997 to
ACE 2 Imprest Account of C. Prabhu signed by
21.10.1998
S. Gnanasambandhan and Karunambal, SDE E 10 B
Ext.W8
01.04.1997 to
Payment claimed for M. Sridharan for Housekeeping and
30.04.1999
General Service – Internal Correspondence
Ext.W9
1996 to 1999
Available Attendance Register of R. Sivasakthivel,
And 2001
M. Sridharan, R. Ramesh, K. Vijaya, R. Maragadam, K.J. Mary Vasantha, P.
Saraswathy
Ext.W10
11.06.1996
Certificate of Appreciation given to Vijaya, Casual Labour by the Department of
Telecom
Ext.W11
-
Service
Certificate
issued
to
R.
Sivasakthivel,
P.
Saraswathy,
A.
Shanmugasundaram, K. Vijaya R. Maragadam, N. Amaravathy, Mary Vasantha
by Labour Welfare Superintendent, Telecom
Ext.W12
-
Personal Record of employment on Muster Roll of N. Amaravathy and other
correspondence (series)
Ext.W13
10.03.2005
Particulars of Housekeeping personnel furnished by SDE C. Subramaniam
Ext.W14
-
Bye-Law of the Union
Ext.W15
20.01.2002
Service particulars of 5 employees
Ext.W16
21.03.2006
Parliamentary Question
Ext.W17
13.09.3002
Report of Failure of Conciliation
Ext.W18
-
Copies of Muster Roll for the period of 01.02.1992 to 31.07.1994 (W-1 Series)
Ext.W19
-
Copies of Cable Diagram for the period 15.09.2005 to 14.10.2005 (W-2 series)
Ext.W20
-
Copies of Work Gate pass for getting materials from Stores for 14.10.2011(W-3
series)
Ext.W21
-
Copies of Work order note for carrying out fault repair for the period 03.09.2013
to 13.11.2013 (W-4 series)
Ext.W22
-
Copies of Cable Fault Maintenance Diagram for the period 08.06.2009 to
31.07.2009 (W-5 series)
Ext.W23
03.01.2011
Copy of letter from Divisional Engineer, Udumalpet to the Asstt. General
Manager, Coimbatore (Ext.W-6)
Ext.W24
-
Photographs showing the work performed by V. Palanisamy (W-7 series)
Ext.W25
-
Certificate issued by Line Inspector, Phones to V. Palanisamy (Ext.W-8)
Ext.W26
-
Copies of store slips issued to V. Palanisamy (Ext.W-9)
2536
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.W27
-
Diagrams for carrying out fault repair regarding V. Palanisamy (Ext.W-10
series)
Ext.W28
11.06.2004
Purchase order issued in favour of V. Palanisamy (Ext.W-11)
Ext.W29
-
Diagrams for carrying out fault repair regarding V. Palanisamy (Ext.W-12
series)
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
09.12.2005
Copy of the agreement entered into between BSNL and D. Kannan Contractor.
Ext.M10
21.11.2005
Certificate issued to for executing the Cable Construction Work in Coimbatore,
Form V 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
19.12.2005
Award of Tender for Cable Constructions Work.
Ext.M13
19.05.2003
To
22.05.2003
Issue Slip 3532,3534
Ext.M14
31.01.2009
Receipt No. 1410, 1412, 1413, 1414 & 1415
14.02.2009
10.02.2009
10.02.2009
13.02.2009
Ext.M15
03.01.2011
DE Udumalpet letter
Ext.M16
28.07.2008
Specimen copy of awarding of security services in Coimbatore Secondary
Switching Area
Ext.M17
Various dates
Awarding of tender for cable maintenance work
Ext.M18
Various dates
Attendance
Sheet,
Statement
of
EPF/ESI
19.05.2003
Ex-Servicemen
Corporation for 2004 and M/s First Man Security Service for the year 2002
—
II
(ii)
2537
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2017
S.O. 1106.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant (SAIL) and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
13.04.2017.
[No. L-43012/3/2013-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
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. 27/2014
Employers in relation to the management of M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant (SAIL)
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearance :
For the Employers
:
Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman
:
ShriV.B.Singh, Advocate
Industry :- Steel
Dated :-24/03/2017
AWARD
By order No . L- 43012 /03/2013 /IR (M) dated 19/ 02/2014, 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 action of the management of water management Deptt. of SAIL Bokaro Steel Plant in
dismissing Sri R.C.Pandit from the service of the company vide order letter dated 26.03.2013 i.e just
before 5 days of his normal superannuationis fair and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled?’’
2.
The case is received from Ministry of Labour on 13.03.2014. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. The workman files their written statement on 20.06.2014. And the management files their written statement on
17.10.2014. Thereafter documents filed by the parties. no witness examined by either side but documents of the
management marked as M-1 to M-5 and documents of workman are also marked as W-1 to W-13.
3.
The case of the workma is that the management issued a charge-sheet to the concerned workman to alleged
misconduct of theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the company vide charge sheet letter No. per/RCL/II-1320
dated 08.09.2011. but what property of the company has been theft and what fraud was committed by the workman has
not been spelled out under the charge sheet. In absence of specific charge , the charge sheet does not have legs to stand
in eys of law and further maintain silence in disposal of departmental proceeding and suddently implosing the penelty
of dismissal just before 5 days before the date of superannuation i.e. 31.03.2013.
4.
It is also submitted by the workman that during the enquiry proceeding , the enquiry committee ingnored almost
2538
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
all the points raised by the workman and submitted its reports holding the workman guilty of the charges.
5.
It is further submitted by the workman that some papers concerning to police case have been filed by the
presenting officer, but those paper neither proved by the writer of those concerned paper nor opportunity of cross
examination by the workmna was offorded . In such circumstances those paper cannot be accepted as authenticated
documents and cannot be treated the part of document of evidence in the enquiry.
6.
It is also submitted by the workman that the workman has been discriminated , whereas the workman in question
has been dismissed but other employees who have also held to be invoved in receiving payments that is to say the
following employee whose payment were made by J.P.Singh in their account by Sri J.P.singh were left out free.
7.
In respect of the allegation in the charge sheet about payment of the amount of Rs. 3,34,861/- in salary account
of the workman it was stated by him that – The payment was made in the salary account of the workman by Sri
J.P.Sinha one of the officer of the employer without knowledge and demand by the delinquent workman. The payment
was made to his bank account directly within a very short span of time i.e 2.5 months which was by mistake not noticed
by the workman. But as soon as the workman got knowledge of that the amount happens to be of SAIL/BSL he tried his
best to return back the said amount but by the time a police case was lodged as result after getting permission from the
court, he immediately returned back the amount in the bank account of BSL by way of Draft. The workman is most
humbly submitted that he has not committed any nefarious act which has landed the employer on wrongful loss / or for
the workman as wrongful gain.
8.
On the Other hand the case of the management is that the workman was an employee of the Bokoro Steel Plant
and was involved in misappropriation of company’s huge money through fraudulent means and has caused heavy
financial loss to the company. This act was a serious misconduct therefore the company acuthority issued charge sheet
vide charge No. per/W/RCL/11-1320 dated 8/9/2011 for commission of theft, fraud or dishonesty in concection with
company’s business.
9.
After receiving the charge sheet the workman concerned submitted his reply which was not found satisfactory ,
therefore the management appointed enquiry officer for domestic enquiry in accordance with principle of natural
justice.
10.
The domestice enquiry in presence of workman submitted his reported holding their in that the allegation
levelled against him duly proved. After second show cause notice, the workman concerned submitted his reply which
was not found satisfactory. Thereafter the Disciplinary authority dismissed the workman concerned vide letter dated
26.03.2013. The dismissal of the workman is legal and justified.
11.
The short point to be decided in this reference is as to whether dismissal of the workman from his service just
few days prior his superannuation is justified or not.
12.
It is alleged that the workman involved in financial irregularities and cause loss to the management, for which
departmental enquiry and police case was started. Management produced documents that the workman was convicted
for the said financial irregularity offence, in criminal Court and his appeal, in appellate Court was dismissed. The
management further submitted that after the departmental enquiry, when he found the workman guiltty after, observing
all formality, dismissed him.
13.
The analysis of case before the domestic enquiry in para 1 is that “ Shri Janardan Prasad Sinha staff No.
460270 , Junior Manager(F&A) has admitted in his confessional statement that he was involved in fraudulent
transaction and had made wrong payment to Shri R.C. Pandit and M/S Sheo Shakti Co. “ as well as in para 3 of that
analysis is that “ Fradulent payment was made by Sri J.P.Sinha in the bank account of Sri R.C.Pandit through nine
cheques during 25.05.2011 to 06.08.2011 amounting to Rs. 3,34,861/-.
14.
As per above facts admitted by Sri J.P.Sinha whereas on the other hand Sri Pandit is not aware of that transction
made by Sri J.P.Sinha, it is also strange that Sri J.P.Sinha admitted that he was involve in fraudulent transctions
whereas Sri R.C.Pandit was not aware but punishment made only on R.C.Pandit and J.P.Sinha is chargeless and
forgiven as well as doing service without any punishment.
15.
The workman filed a catena of decisions and argued, dismissal at the fag end of service i.e few days before,
retirement is worng.
16.
Crime and impropriety has not space in an organisation. The management’s action in the matter is quite
discretionary whether it will forgive him or eradicate. This Tribunal restrain to interfare in any way in the action in this
particular case which is placed before this tribunal. In this situation the Tribunal will not interfare in the action of the
management , particularty the Tribunal will also see the industrial peace alongwith welfare of workman.
17.
Considring the facts and circumstances of this case, It is held that the action of the management of water
management Deptt. of SAIL Bokaro Steel Plant in dismissing Sri R.C.Pandit from the service of the company vide
II
(ii)
2539
order letter dated 26.03.2013 i.e just before 5 days of his normal superannuation is proper hence he is not entitled to get
any relief.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
—
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2017
S.O. 1107.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 82/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Gas Authority of India Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 13.04.2017.
[No. L-30012/33/2009-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 30th March, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 82/2010
The General Manager,
M/s Dalma Energy LLC,
Project Office, 303-305, ‘Rubellite Hub’,
32, Ajit Nagar, BPC Road,
Nr. Urmi Crossing Akogta,
Baroda (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
Shri Harold D’Souza,
C/o ChandrakantVankiar, 1st Floor,
Karnik Building O/o Chetankumar K. Gore,
Dandia Bazar Cross Road,
Vadodara (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri Yogen Pandya
For the Second Party
:
Shri Chetan
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-
30012/33/2009-IR(M) dated 29.12.2009 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
2540
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s Dalma Energy LLD, Vadodara through the Area Manager –
India Operation in terminating the services of Shri Harold D’Souza with immediate effect vide letter dated
22.10.2008 is legal and just? If so, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 29.12.2009. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 6 on 07.07.2010.
The first party despite service failed to submit the written statement despite giving number of opportunities. It is
noteworthy that the second party has been absent since submitting the statement of claim. Both the parties have not
been appearing since the submission of statement of claim, therefore, on 21.02.2011, a fresh notice Ex. 9 was sent to
both the parties to appear on 24.03.2011 but to no result.
2.
Thus, it appears that the second party has not been willing to prosecute the case.
3.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of in non-prosecution of the case by the second party with the observation as
under: “the action of the management of M/s Dalma Energy LLD, Vadodara through the Area Manager – India
Operation in terminating the services of Shri Harold D’Souza with immediate effect vide letter dated 22.10.2008 is
legal and just.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
—
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2017
S.O. 1108.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 575/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Gas Authority of India Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 13.04.2017.
[No. L-30012/20/2003-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 30th March, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 82/2010
The Assistant General Manager,
Gas Authority of India Ltd.,
809, Saakar – II, Alice Bridge,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…First Party
II
(ii)
2541
V/s
The Secretary,
Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha,
104, Maharana Pratap Complex,
Near Alice Bridge Post,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri B.K. Oza
For the Second Party :
Shri Amrish Patel
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-30012/20/2003-IR(M) dated 15.10.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the Industrial Dispute raised by Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha against the management of Additional
General Manager, Gas Authority of India Ltd., Ahmedabad over regularisation of services of Shri Kiran S.
Rajput justified? If so, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled?”
1.
The reference dates back to 15.10.2003. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on 12.11.2003
along with application for interim relief on the same date. The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 19 on
16.02.2004. Since then the second party has not been leading evidence. The second party on 06.01.2016 was given last
opportunity to lead evidence on 01.04.2016. On 01.04.2016, the second party was again given one more opportunity to
lead evidence on 02.08.2016 and on 02.08.2016, the second party vide his adjournment application Ex. 46 was given
another opportunity to lead evidence on 27.09.2016. On 27.09.2016, 14.12.2016, 30.01.2017 and lastly on 27.03.2017,
the second party failed to appear and to lead evidence despite the presence of the first party advocate. It is noteworthy
that the second party advocate is very much present in the tribunal but he did not respond. Thus it appears that the
second party in person and as well as his advocate have no intention to prosecute the case.
2.
Therefore, the tribunal has no option but to dispose of the reference in the absence of the second party with the
observation as under: “the Industrial Dispute raised by Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha against the management of Additional
General Manager, Gas Authority of India Ltd., Ahmedabad over regularisation of services of Shri Kiran S. Rajput is not
justified.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
—
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2017
S.O. 1109.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
13.04.2017.
[No. L-29012/67/2008-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
2542
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 28th MARCH, 2017
PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
C R No. 60/2008
I Party
II Party
Sh. Manjunatha,
The Managing Director,
S/o Sh. Sannappa, MML Worker,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Siddapura Village, Kithanakere Post Dudda
No. 39, M G Road,
Hobli, Hassan Taluk & District.
Bangalore.- 560001
(For I Party, M/s. K.T. Vovinde Gowda &
(For II Party M/s. A.K. Vasanth &
Sh. C.G. Dileep Gowda, Advocates)
M.K. Girish, Advocates)
AWARD
1.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/67/2008-IR(M) dated 04.08.2008 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made
this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the order of dismissal imposed on Shri. Manjunatha by the management of M/s Mysore Minerals
Limited w.e.f. 01.07.1996 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
Brief details mentioned in the Claim Statement are as follows:-
The I Party submits that on 02.05.1989, he has joined in the service of the II Party management at its Mining
Unit viz., Bageshapura Koalin Works, Gandasi Hobli, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District, as a Mazdoor. The I Party has
been rendering his service Sincerely, Honestly, Diligently without giving any room for any omission or
commission.During the year 1996, due to Industrial hazardness and due to weakness and skin allergy the I Party
frequently fell sick. The I Party has orally intimated the same to the officials of the II Party and availed sick leave from
01.07.1996 and has taken treatment in Nati Vaidya for a long period. After recovering from sickness the I Party
reported for duty on 15.06.1997 at Bageshapura Koalin Works, but the Officials of the II Party refused to provide
employment to the I Party and asked him to come after some days as they require instruction from Higher Authorities.
The II Party officials have avoided to provide employment to the I Party and during the month of August 1998, the II
Party mining officials told the I Party that the Head Office has not given permission to them for allowing the I Party to
work on the plea that they do not require the service of the I Party service. Taking advantage of I Party weakness the II
Party Officials obtained signatures during the month of February 2001 for Provident Fund Form. The I Party, with no
other alternative and also, left with the sole intention of financial relief in hard days, signed in the EPF Form. The I
Party came to know that the II Party has terminated his service vide Order No. CVSO/42/DP/98-99/1546 dated
06.07.1998 with retrospective effect i.e., from 01.07.1996 from the date of availing the sick leave. The termination
letter is not served on the same day and also it is not supported with any prior notice of 3 months or 3 months notice
pay. Hence, the Order of termination issued under Annexure-‘A’ is itself illegal, irregular and not sustainable in law.
The I Party submits that he is the only bread winner of his family and hence he immediately approached the II Party
Mines Manager for re-calling the above mentioned illegal order and permit him to work in the above mines. All the
efforts made by him went in vain because of adamant, unreasonable attitude and hostile discrimination of the II party.
The action of the II Party in this regard is highly illegal, irregular and not sustainable in law for the following reasons:
(1)
The Order of termination dated 06.07.1998 under Annexure-‘A’ is not from the prospective date from the
day of serving the termination order but from the retrospective effect i.e., from the date of availing the
sick leave and there is no 3 months notice or 3 months pay in lieu of notice. Apart from the same, the
said Order has not been served to the I Party.
(2)
The action of the II Party in terminating the I Party service without issuing any Charge-Sheet, Show
Cause Notice calling for any explanation and also, without conducting any Inquiry thereon and without
following the due process of law and principle of natural justice and terminating the I Party service is
highly illegal, irregular, arbitrary and amounts to hostile discrimination and also there is no enquiry at all.
(3)
The alleged charges of II Party, against the I Party are baseless, vague and deliberately made with
malafide intention, lack of material fact, particulars and without any basis, to victimize I Party. Hence,
II
(ii)
2543
the same has vitiated the entire Enquiry proceedings and the proper procedure has not been followed and
also, the II Party has violated the Principle of Natural Justice. Therefore, the so-called alleged Enquiry is
bristles with very many infirmities and illegalities.
The I Party respectfully submits that apart from the violation of various provisions of the I.D. Act, Principle of
Natural justice, the II Party violated its own Certified Standing Orders namely Mysore Minerals Limited Officers and
Employees Conditions of Service, Conduct and Disciplinary Proceedings Rules under Rule/Clause 24 & 33. The I
Party submits that the II Party failed to issue the charge sheet and show-cause notice to the I Party. The I Party submits
that the I Party belongs to socially and economically weaker section and also, he is the Rural based worker and used to
work in Mines, which is in a remote place of the village and the I Party is also an illiterate worker belonging to
Economically weaker section & not a matching party to fight against the II Party, for the injustice done by the II Party.
The I Party is facing financial hardship and mental agony due to stoppage of his monthly earnings in the II Party
organization and also, due to illegal termination. Also, the I Party is not able to maintain himself and his family with
day to day, food and basic needs. The I Party has faced the financial hardship to reach the Labour Department like
Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli from his place, for raising the dispute and also, to
set right his grievances. Ultimately with great hardship, mental agony and with the help of well wishers, the I Party has
raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli on 14.07.2007. The I
Party is entitled for back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits from the date of refusal to
provide employment w.e.f. 01.07.1996. The II Party violated the provisions of I.D. Act as well as its own Certified
Standing Orders/Service Rules as stated above. Under the I.D. Act there is no limitation prescribed for raising the
dispute and the Article 137 of Schedule to the limitation Act is not applicable to proceedings under I.D. Act. This point
is repeatedly decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble High Courts of various states namely,
(i)
LLJ-II-2001-pg788-792 [SC], Sapan kumar Pandit Vs U.P. State Electricity Board and others.
(ii)
LLJ-I-1999-pg 1260-1265 [SC], Ajaib Singh Vs Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-processing Service
Society.
(iii)
LLJ-II-1999-pg-482-483[SC], Mahavir Singh Vs U.P. State Electricity Board and others.
(iv)
LLJ-I-2003-pg 412-414 [MP], Ramadhar Tiwari Vs Union of India and others.
(v)
LLJ-I-1994-pg 468-471 [All], U.P. State Spinning Mills Co. Vs State of U.P & Others
(vi)
LLJ-II-2003-pg 1143-1145[Ori], Management of Aska Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Vs State of
Orissa
(vii)
LLJ-I-2002-pg-204-206 [Mad], E.E. Construction Division 2, Mannarpuram, Trichy and Another Vs
M.Gajapathy and Another
(viii) LLJ-I-2002-pg-1079-1081[Del], Mangal Singh Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No.1, Delhi and
Another
(ix)
LLJ-I-2002-pg-1129-1132[Bom], Haribhau S/o. Gaman Waghchaure Vs State of Maharastra and
Another.
Therefore, the I Party prays this Court to pass an award holding that the action of the II Party Management is not
justified in terminating the services of I Party with retrospective effect from 01.07.1996 and to direct the II Party to
reinstate the I Party, with continuity of service, with payment of Full back wages and other consequential benefits from
the date of termination i.e., 01.07.1996 till providing employment as per the details mentioned in B-register and EPF
records and Service records maintained by the II Party and EPF Authorities and pay the interest at the rate of 18%
from the said due date, up to the date of payment and further, award for the cost of the present proceedings, in the
interest of justice and also, equity.
3.
Brief details mentioned in the counter statement are as follows:-
The II Party states that, the I Party as mentioned in the claim petition that on 02.05.1989, the I Party joined the
service of the II Party at its mining unit, i.e., Bageshapura Koalin Works. It is true that the petitioner has not been
allowed to work after 06.07.1998 due to the reason that the I Party reached the age of superannuation. At no point of
time, I Party requested the officials of II Party, seeking reinstatement. The II Party considering the age of I Party and
after following the service rules, relieved the I Party from his service. All the required facilities have been provided by
the II Party to the I Party as per the Mines act. The whole allegation made in the said claim statement are false and not
correct. The Medical Examination is conducted as per the Mines Rules, 1955 and the same doesn’t offend any of the
provisions of Mines Rules. All the required service regulations governing the I Party have been followed by the
II Party. On the sole ground of ‘Delay and Latches’ the claim petition filed by the I Party is liable to be dismissed.
2544
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
Further, on 28.01.2014, it is ordered by this Court that, the II Party, in spite of granting several adjournments has
failed to produce the Enquiry file and hence it is taken that no Domestic Enquiry is held in the present matter.
Thereafter on 04.10.2016, the Office Superintendent appeared before this Court and prayed time to proceed in the
matter. Thereafter, on 02.02.2017 and again on 14.02.2017, no representation has been made on behalf of II Party,
though counsel for I Party present with I Party. Further, the counsel for I Party, reported that the II Party has not
conducted any enquiry on the alleged misconduct of unauthorized absence and also, the principles of natural justice,
reasonableness and fairness have not been followed by the II Party. This is an old case of the year 2008 and no
representation has been made for II Party for several dates, though sufficient time and adequate opportunities have been
granted to II Party. Hence, this Court is constrained to pass an appropriate award in accordance with law after the
perusal of entire materials brought on record in the present case.
5.
The crucial point that arises for consideration in the present matter is:-
“Whether the order of dismissal imposed on Shri.Manjunatha by the management of M/s Mysore Minerals
Limited w.e.f. 01.07.1996 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
6.
Analysis, Discussion Findings with regard to the above mentioned point:-
The I Party/workman namely WW1 has specifically stated in the claim statement and also in his evidence that he
has joined in the service of II Party/Management at its mines unit, namely Bageshpura Koalin Works as a Mining
worker on 02.05.1989, and his date of birth is 02.11.1968 and WW1 has rendered his service sincerely, honestly,
diligently, without giving room for any omission or commission. Further, WW1 has particularly stated that, during the
year 1996 due to Industrial hazardousness and due to weakness and skin allergy, WW1 used to fell frequently sick and
the I Party has availed the sick leave from 01.07.1998 and the I Party has promptly intimated about the same to the II
Party Mines Manager and recently the I Party came to know that the II Party has terminated the service vide its Order
No. CVSO/42/DP98-99/1546 dated 06.07.1998 with retrospective effect i.e, from 01.07.1996 from the date of availing
sick leave. Further, I Party has categorically stated in the claim statement and also in his evidence that the II Party
without issuing any Show cause notice, charge sheet to the I Party and also, calling for explanation and further, without
conducting the fair and proper enquiry and without following the due process of law, the II Party has issued the
Termination Order as per Ex W-1.
7.
Further, the I Party has pointed out in his claim statement and evidence, that as per the Termination Order dated
06.07.1998, the II Party has terminated the service of I Party with retrospective effect from 01.07.1996 and the said
Termination Order is not supported with any prior notice of 3 months or 3 months notice pay. In the circumstances, the
I party has specifically pointed out that, the Order of termination issued by the II Party, as per Ex W-1 itself, is illegal,
irregular and not sustainable in Law. Furthermore, in the affidavit and the evidence the I Party/workman has stated that
all the efforts made by him, for recalling above mentioned termination order has not materialised, due to the
unreasonable attitude of the II party. Further, I party has particularly stated in his evidence that he is an illiterate and he
is the only bread winner of his family and his repeated request has not been considered by the II Party, due to the
adamant, un-reasonable, un-helpful attitude and hostile discrimination of the II Party Management. Further, as per Ex
W-2, circular issued on 22.08.2008 by the II Party the retirement age of workman has been increased from 58 to 60
years, by the II Party.
8. Further, the I Party has clearly stated that he has met the officers of the II Party several times and also requested
for cancellation of Termination Order issued by the II Party illegally, but the II Party has failed to consider the request
of I Party and therefore the punishment of dismissal imposed by the II Party is illegal, irregular, arbitrary, malafied and
also not justified in accordance with law. Further, in the evidence the I Party has clearly stated that he is not gainfully
employed anywhere during the termination period and he is depending upon the earnings from the employment with the
II Party and due to his illegal termination he has suffered mental agony and hardship. Further, it is settled law that there
is no estoppel as against the statutory rights as pointed out in the Social Welfare legislation of Industrial Dispute Act.
Hence, the Management cannot submit that after receiving the terminal benefits, the workman cannot adjudicate for his
legal rights under the provisions of I.D. Act.
9. Further, on a careful scrutiny of the pleadings namely claim statement and objection filed by the II Party and also
evidence and documents filed on behalf of both parties and Exhibits filed on behalf of I Party, it is found that the II
Party has not taken action as per the principles of natural justice, fairness and reasonableness. Further, on appreciating
the evidences adduced and also the documents produced by both the parties, in the proper perspective, it is found that
the workman is entitled to get reinstatement, with full back wages, and also with the continuity of service. Further, it
is seen that, the II Party/Management is adopting super technical and hyper technical measures, so as to stop the
workman from getting the legal benefits. Further, the intension of the legislature in enacting the Social Welfare
provisions of Industrial Dispute Act would be defeated, if the untenable submissions of the II Party/Management are
not taken into consideration very seriously and, it is found that the legal benefits of the workman have to be granted in
the best interest of Industrial Adjudication.
II
(ii)
2545
10.
Further, in Annexure-‘A’, it has been stated by the II Party that, three memos dated 07.08.1996, 28.08.1996 and
27.09.1996 have been issued to I Party. Thereafter, final notice has been published in the local kannada daily on
05.12.1996. Thereafter, Inquiry has been ordered by appointing Sri. M.N. Ganapathi, as Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry
Officer submitted the report. Thereafter, final show cause notice issued on 28.05.1997, as to why the I Party should not
be dismissed from service. However, no explanation is given in the dismissal order, as to whether the final show cause
notice has been served to the I Party. Further, copies of the various notices mentioned above have not been filed on
behalf of II Party and also Enquiry report has not been filed on behalf of II Party. However, I Party has clearly stated
that his Date of Birth is 02.11.1968, and he will be attaining the age of superannuation on 02.11.2028 and after
recovering from sickness the I Party, reported for duty on 15.06.1997.
11.
Further, it is relevant to mention that the I Party workman has been punished by II Party on 01.07.1996 itself.
Further, the underlying aim and object of adjudication of an Industrial Dispute is, in effect, dispensation of social and
economic justice and translating fundamental rights as well as directive principles into some tangible relief. As held in
Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs State of U.P., (1979) 2 SCC 88, by V. Kishna Iyer. J: “Industrial Jurisprudence does not
brook nice nuances and torture some technicalities to stand in the way of just solutions reached in a rough and ready
manner. Grim and grimy life-situations have no time for the finer manners of elegant jurisprudence.” Thus, the
process of industrial adjudication is an onerous task being guided by the constitutional mandates and aiming at
settlement of the industrial dispute on a fair and just basis, tested on the touchstone of social and economic justice.
When an industrial dispute is raised, it is a commotion to be pacified by dispensing justice. In such adjudication, not
just the right to equality and other Constitutional guarantees, but the aims and ideals of the Constitution enter into the
consideration. It is the duty of the Courts to apply directive principles in interpreting the Constitution and the laws.
The jurisdiction of an Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, therefore, is expansive and creative and not restricted to
only enforcing or interpreting the contract of service or the extant legal provisions and it is not-fettered by the
limitations of contracts and can even involve extension of existing agreement of the making of a new one, or in general,
creation of new obligations or modification of old ones. The ultimate object is to see that industrial disputes are settled
by industrial adjudication on principles of fair play and justice.
12.
Further, in the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, dated 29.03.2001, Mr. Hon’ble Justice. K.L.
Manjunath, in Writ Petition No. 5615/2001(S-RES), between Smt. K. Dundamma Vs MML(II Party herein), it is
clearly held as follows:- “The Management herein shall not change the date of birth of the petitioner in the service
register without adopting the procedure known under the law”. Further, in the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka, dated 12.06.2002, by the Hon’ble Mr. N.K. Jain, Chief Justice and Mr. Hon’ble Justice. S.B. Majige, in
Writ Appeal No. 3460/01 C/W W.A. No. 3459/01(S), between MML(II Party herein) Vs Puttachari and others, it is
specifically held as follows:- “Once the age is entered in service record, it cannot be changed unless the procedure
prescribed for changing the date of birth is followed.” Also, in the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka,
dated 01.06.2006, Mr. Hon’ble Justice. Ashok.B. Hinchigeri, in Writ Petition No. 26101/01 C/W W.P. Nos. 23798/01,
23797/01 & 23794/01(S-RES), between Sh. V.C. Range Gowda and others Vs MML (II Party herein), it is particularly
held as follows:- “I unmistakably hold that the impugned order and the medical reports are totally unsustainable and
quash them for the following reasons:-
a)
The decision making process is not fair and transparent.
b)
The impugned decision to retire them from the service is passed in fragment violation of the principles of
natural justice.
c)
It shocks the judicial conscience that somebody’s age can be determined based on the medical
examination; even when the medical science and technology have advanced, a stage has not yet come
where the date of birth can be ascertained with a absolute certainty based on the medical examination.
d)
There is no application of mind either by the respondents or by the author of the medical reports.
e)
The respondents are in no position to spell out the details of the ‘Mass Medical Examination’. They have
not filed the affidavits of the doctors who conducted the medical tests on the basis of which the age is
determined. How many employees were subjected to the medical examination, what is the length of the
medical examination and how many doctors did the examination are not forthcoming from the
respondents.
f)
Based on the unreliable medical reports, the date of birth of the petitioners cannot be altered to their
prejudice and disadvantage.
Viewed from any angle, the impugned orders and the medical reports are wholly unsustainable. Therefore, the
respondents order dt. 26.02.2001 Annexure-B in W.P. No. 26101/01, dt. 12.03.2001 Annexure-B in W.P. Nos
23798/01, 23797/01 & 23794/01 and dt. 27.03.2001 Annexure-A in W.P. No. 23797/01 and the medical reports
Annexures C-1 to C-4 in W.P. No. 26101/01, Annexure-B in 23797/01 & Annexure-C in W.P. No. 23794/01 are
2546
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
hereby quashed. For no fault of the petitioners they are driven to this Court by the capricious acts of the respondents.
Therefore, I impose a cost of Rs. 1,000/- on the respondents payable to each of the petitioners within 4 weeks from
today. The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed.” Hence, the II Party is not justified in submitting in the
Objection/Written Statement that, the Medical Examination has been conducted as per the Mines Rules, 1955 and it is
true that, I Party, has not been allowed to work after 06.07.1998, as the I Party has reached the age of superannuation.
13.
Further, in the Judgment reported in 1981-1-LLJ-327 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, dated 12.12.1980,
Mr. Y.V. Chandrachud, Hon’ble Chief Justice, Mr. Justice A.P. Sen, between Grindlays Bank Limited Vs Central
Government Industria; Tribuanl and others, it is pertinently held as follows:- “It is needless to stress that where the
Tribunal proceeds to make an award without notice to a party, the award is nothing but a nullity. In such
circumstances, the Tribunal has not only the power but also the duty to set aside the ex parte award and to direct the
matter to be heard afresh.” In the present case also, the I Party has clearly established that the II Party has terminated
the service of I Party without following the due process of law and also principles of natural justice, fairness and
reasonableness and hence, the I Party is entitled to get reinstatement with full back wages and also, the continuity of
service. Thus, the point is answered in favour of I Party. Hence, the following award, is passed:-
AWARD
The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal of I party/Manjunatha
with retrospective effect 01.07.1996 and II Party is directed to reinstate the I Party with continuity of
service, and with payment of full back wages and other consequential benefits from the date of
termination, namely, 01.07.1996 till providing employment and the present reference is answered in
favour of I party, without cost for the above mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 28th March, 2017)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1
Sh. Manjunath, I Party/ workman
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex W-1
06.07.1998
Termination order
Ex W-2
22.08.2008
Circular relating to enhancing the superannuation age
from 58 years to 60 years
—
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2017
S.O. 1110.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
13.04.2017.
[No. L-29012/22/2009-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
II
(ii)
2547
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 28th MARCH, 2017
PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
C R No. 04/2010
I Party
II Party
Sh. B.N. Devaraj, MML Worker,
The Managing Director,
S/o Late Sh. B.T. Nanjamari, Balekere Village,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Bajagur Post, Novavinkere Hobli,
No. 39, M G Road,
Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District.
Bangalore.- 560001
(For I Party, M/s. K.T. Vovinde Gowda &
Sh. C.G. Dileep Gowda, Advocates)
AWARD
1.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/22/2009-IR(M) dated 19.01.2010 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made
this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the order of dismissal imposed on Shri. B.N. Devaraj by the management of M/s Mysore
Minerals Limited w.e.f. 21.06.2003 is justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”
2.
Brief details mentioned in the Claim Statement are as follows:-
The I Party submits that in the year 1983, he has joined in the service of the II Party as Mechanical Helper,
Central Workshop, Yellapura Taluk, Karawara District in the year 1983 and worked as a helper upto 1991. The I Party
has rendered his service Sincerely, Honestly, and Diligently without giving any room for any omission or commission
and thus I party has rendered the unblemished service. From 22.03.1998, the I Party has been deputed as a Driver to
work in K.S.R.T.C from the II Party and he worked in the said Corporation form 1998 up to 03.01.2002. The
Corporation on 03.01.2002 has written a letter to the II Party, alleging falsely that the I Party has been in the habit of
absenting himself unauthorizedly and also, willing to go back to the parent institution and as a result the same, the II
Party has issued a Notice bearing MNL/T/CM/ENQUIRY/2002-03/1676, dated 21.01.2003 informing the I Party that
one Sri. D.S. Narayan, Manager, has been appointed as an enquiry officer by the Central Office and also, instructed the
I party to attend the enquiry as and when directed. The I Party has promptly attended the enquiry and participated in
the same. Thereafter the said enquiry officer of the II Party, after completion of the enquiry, submitted the report to the
Central Office. The I Party submits that the, enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is neither fair nor just confirming
to the principles of Natural Justice. The I Party submits that based on the said perverse enquiry, the Central Officer of
the II Party has held that the allegations made as against the I Party as proved i.e., that the I Party has committed the
unauthorized absence for more than 10 days without taking prior permission and he has committed default in his service
for which he is liable to be punished, which are far from truth. The Disciplinary authority has not issued to the I Party a
Second show cause notice and called for any explanation as to the nature and gravity of offence committed by him
before imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has mechanically
concurred with the findings given by the enquiry officer without proper application of mind independently and passed
the dismissal order dated 21.06.2003 dismissing the I Party from his service of the II Party with immediate effect. The I
Party states that, on account of severe ill health of wife of I Party and as the only person to look after her, the I Party has
taken leave and could not attend to duty on the dates mentioned in the charge sheet and he has, in clear and explicit
words, explained his absence on those days and also, furnished sufficient reasons to the enquiry officer of the II Party.
The I Party respectfully submits that apart from the violation of various provisions of the I.D. Act and the Principle of
Natural justice, the II Party violated its own Certified Standing Orders namely Mysore Minerals Limited Officers and
Employees Conditions of Service, Conduct and Disciplinary Proceedings Rules under Rule/Clause 24 & 33. The I
Party respectfully submits that the II Party failed to issue 3 months prior notice or tendered payment of 3 months salary
to the I Party before termination of service of the I Party under Rule 24. The I Party respectfully submits that the I
Party belongs to socially and economically weaker section and also, he is the Rural based worker and used to work in
Mines, which is in a remote place of the village and the I Party is also an illiterate worker belonging to Economically
weaker section & not a matching party to fight against the II Party, for the injustice done by the II Party. After refusal
of employment, the I Party failed to get any work and earnings in any manner. The I Party is facing financial hardship
2548
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and mental agony due to stoppage of his monthly earnings in the II Party organization and also, due to illegal
termination. Also, the I Party is not able to maintain himself and his family with day to day, food and basic needs. The
I Party has faced the financial hardship to reach the Labour Department like Assistant Labour Commissioner and
Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli from his place, for raising the dispute and also, to set right his grievances. Ultimately
with great hardship, mental agony and with the help of well wishers, the I Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant
Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli on 18.05.2009. The I Party is entitled for back wages,
continuity of service and other consequential benefits from the date of refusal to provide employment w.e.f. 21.06.2003.
The II Party violated the provisions of I.D. Act as well as its own Certified Standing Orders/Service Rules as stated
above. Under the I.D. Act there is no limitation prescribed for raising the dispute and the Article 137 of Schedule to the
limitation Act is not applicable to proceedings under I.D. Act. Under the I.D. Act there is no limitation for raising the
dispute, and the Article 137 of Schedule to the Limitation Act is not applicable to proceedings under I.D. Act. This
point is repeatedly decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble High Courts of various states namely,
(i).
LLJ-II-2001-pg788-792 [SC], Sapan kumar Pandit Vs U.P. State Electricity Board and others.
(ii)
LLJ-I-1999-pg 1260-1265 [SC], Ajaib Singh Vs Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-processing Service
Society.
(iii) LLJ-II-1999-pg-482-483[SC], Mahavir Singh Vs U.P. State Electricity Board and others.
(iv) LLJ-I-2003-pg 412-414 [MP], Ramadhar Tiwari Vs Union of India and others.
(v)
LLJ-I-1994-pg 468-471 [All], U.P. State Spinning Mills Co. Vs State of U.P & Others.
(vi) LLJ-II-2003-pg 1143-1145[Ori], Management of Aska Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Vs State of
Orissa.
(vii) LLJ-I-2002-pg-204-206 [Mad], E.E. Construction Division 2, Mannarpuram, Trichy and Another Vs
M.Gajapathy and Another.
(viii) LLJ-I-2002-pg-1079-1081[Del], Mangal Singh Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No.1, Delhi
and Another.
(ix)
LLJ-I-2002-pg-1129-1132[Bom], Haribhau S/o. Gaman Waghchaure Vs State of Maharastra and
Another.
The action of the II Party in dismissing the services of the I Party in retrospective effect is highly illegal,
irregular, arbitrary, capricious, malafide, victimisatory and not justifiable in law. Therefore, the I Party prays this Court
to pass an award by holding that the action of the II Party Management is not justified in terminating the services of I
Party with retrospective effect from 21.06.2003 and to direct the II Party to reinstate the I Party, with continuity of
service, with payment of Full back wages and other consequential benefits from the date of termination i.e., 21.06.2003
till providing employment as per the details mentioned in B-register and EPF records and Service records maintained
by the II Party and EPF Authorities and pay the interest at the rate of 18% from the said due date, up to the date of
payment and further, award for the cost of the present proceedings, in the interest of justice and also, equity.
3.
Brief details mentioned in the counter statement are as follows:-
The II Party states that, the I Party as mentioned in the claim petition that on 1983, the I Party joined the service
of the II Party at its mining unit, i.e., Central Workshop, Yellapura Taluk, Karawara District. The allegation of the I
Party that he is entitled to continue in the service with the II Party till reaching the age of superannuation i.e., 58 years
of age, is false and incorrect. It is specifically submitted that upon the intervention of the Employees Union of the II
Party and on the recommendation of the Employees Union of the II Party the I Party has been subjected to Medical
Examination. The II Party submits that the, I Party has not been allowed to work after 21.06.2003 in view of the fact
that I Party, has reached the age of superannuation. All the required facilities have been provided by the II Party to the
I Party as per the Mines act. The Medical Examination is conducted as per the Mines Rules, 1955 and the same doesn’t
offend any of the provisions of Mines Rules. Further, no reason or pressing circumstances warranted to change the date
of birth of the I Party in the records maintained in the office of the II Party. There is an inordinate delay in raising and
filing the present claim petition and the delay cannot be just condoned as there are no valid grounds to condone the said
delay. It is further submitted that the I Party is not entitled for any reliefs from this Court much less continuity of
service, back wages and other consequential benefits. Viewed from any angle, the claim filed by the I Party is not
maintainable for the reasons mentioned supra. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Court may be pleased
to dismiss the claim petition filed by the I Party with costs, in the ends of justice and equity.
4.
No representation has been made on behalf of II Party, though RPAD notice in transaction No.A RK 345401165
IN dated 08.02.2017 has been issued and served postal acknowledgment has been received by this Court. Further, the
counsel for I Party, reported that the II Party has not conducted any proper enquiry on the alleged misconduct of
II
(ii)
2549
unauthorized absence and also, the principles of natural justice, reasonableness and fairness have not been followed by
the II Party. This is an old case of the year 2010 and no representation has been made for II Party for several dates,
though sufficient time and adequate opportunities have been granted to II Party. Hence, this Court is constrained to
pass an appropriate award in accordance with law after the perusal of entire materials brought on record in the present
case. Further, it is pertinentaly held on 28.01.2014, itself, that the II Party has failed to produce the Enquiry file,
inspite of granting several adjournments and hence, no Domestic Enquiry has been held, in the present matter.
5.
The crucial point that arises for consideration in the present matter is:-
“Whether the order of dismissal imposed on Shri. B.N. Devaraj by the management of M/s Mysore Minerals
Limited w.e.f. 21.06.2003 is justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”
6.
Analysis, Discussion Findings with regard to the above mentioned point:-
The I Party/workman namely WW1 has specifically stated in the claim statement and also in his evidence that he
has joined in the service of II Party/Management at its mines unit, namely 1983, he has joined in the service of the II
Party as Mechanical Helper, Central Workshop, Yellapura Taluk, Karawara District in the year 1983 and worked as a
helper upto 1991 and WW1 has rendered his service sincerely, honestly, and diligently, without giving room for any
omission or commission. The I Party also states that, from 22.03.1998, the I Party has been deputed as a Driver to work
in K.S.R.T.C from the II Party and he worked in the said Corporation form 1998 upto 03.01.2002. The Corporation on
03.01.2002 has written a letter to the II Party, alleging falsely that the I Party has been in the habit of absenting himself
unauthorizedly and also willing to go back to the parent institution and as a result of the same, the II Party, issued a
Notice bearing MNL/T/CM/ENQUIRY/2002-03/1676, dated 21.01.2003 informing the I Party that one
Sri. D.S. Narayan, Manager, has been appointed as an enquiry officer by the Central Office and also, instructed the I
party to attend the enquiry as and when directed. The I Party has promptly attended the enquiry and participated in the
same. Thereafter the said enquiry officer of the II Party after completion of the enquiry submitted the report to the
Central Office. The I Party submits that the, enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is neither fair nor just confirming
to the principles of Natural Justice. The II Party passed the dismissal order dated 21/06/2003 dismissing the I Party
from the services with immediate effect. The I Party also submits that, the Second party terminated his services without
issuing any Charge-Sheet, Show Cause Notice calling for any explanation and conducting any Inquiry thereon and also,
without following the due process of law and conforming to the Principal of natural justice. Apart from the same, the
Second party failed to follow the due process under the ID.Act and also its own Certified Standing Orders namely
Mysore Minerals Limited Officers and Employees Conditions of Service, Conduct & Disciplinary Proceedings Rules
under Rule/Clause 24 & 33. Hence, the action of the Second Party is highly illegal, irregular, arbitrary, capricious,
malafide, victimisatory and not justifiable in Law. The I Party submits that, the I Party is not gainfully employed
anywhere during the termination period and the I Party is depending upon the earning from the employment with II
Party and also, due to the said illegal termination, the I Party suffered mental agony and hardship.
7.
Further, on a careful scrutiny of the pleadings namely claim statement and objection filed by the II Party and
also evidence filed on behalf of both parties, it is found that the II Party has not taken action as per the principles of
natural justice, fairness and reasonableness. Further, on appreciating the evidences adduced by both the parties, in the
proper perspective, it is found that the workman is entitled to get reinstatement, with full back wages, and also with the
continuity of service. Further, it is seen that, the II Party/Management is adopting super technical and hyper technical
measures, so as to stop the workman from getting the legal benefits. Further, the intension of the legislature in enacting
the Social Welfare provisions of Industrial Dispute Act would be defeated, if the untenable submissions of the II
Party/Management are not taken into consideration very seriously and, it is found that the legal benefits of the
workman have to be granted in the best interest of Industrial Adjudication.
8.
Further, MW-1 namely Somanna, Assistant Manager in II Party Management, submits that the I Party joined the
service of II Party in the year 1983 at Central Workshop, Yellapur Taluk, Karwar District and from 22.03.1998 the
I Party has been deputed as a Driver to work in K.S.R.T.C and in 13.12.1998, the I Party met with an accident. Further,
MW-1, states that, the I Party has committed the unauthorized absence from 19.08.2001 to 27.04.2002 and because of
the said attitude of the I Party, the KSRTC has relieved him from service of KSRTC and send the file to II Party. MW-
1, also states the II Party has issued a Letter No. 1565 dated 26.07.2002, namely, a show cause notice to the I Party for
giving an explanation towards unauthorized absence and the I Party has signed and received the notice. Further, MW-1
states that, in view of habit of unauthorized absence and irresponsible nature of the I Party, the Management thought fit
to remove the I Party from the services, with effect from 21.06.2003. MW-1 also states that, immediately after the
termination of the I Party, the II Party Management has settled all terminal benefits and the claim made by the I Party is
not sustainable in law.
9.
Further, it is relevant to mention that the I Party workman has been punished by II Party on 21.06.2003 itself.
Further, the underlying aim and object of adjudication of an Industrial Dispute is, in effect, dispensation of social and
economic justice and translating fundamental rights as well as directive principles into some tangible relief. As held in
2550
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs State of U.P., (1979) 2 SCC 88, by V. Kishna Iyer. J: “Industrial Jurisprudence does not
brook nice nuances and torturesome technicalities to stand in the way of just solutions reached in a rough and ready
manner. Grim and grimy life-situations have no time for the finer manners of elegant jurisprudence.” Thus, the
process of industrial adjudication is an onerous task being guided by the constitutional mandates and aiming at
settlement of the industrial dispute on a fair and just basis, tested on the touchstone of social and economic justice.
When an industrial dispute is raised, it is a commotion to be pacified by dispensing justice. In such adjudication, not
just the right to equality and other Constitutional guarantees, but the aims and ideals of the Constitution enter into the
consideration. It is the duty of the Courts to apply directive principles in interpreting the Constitution and the laws.
The jurisdiction of an Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, therefore, is expansive and creative and not restricted to
only enforcing or interpreting the contract of service or the extant legal provisions and it is not-fettered by the
limitations of contracts and can even involve extension of existing agreement of the making of a new one, or in general,
creation of new obligations or modification of old ones. The ultimate object is to see that industrial disputes are settled
by industrial adjudication on principles of fair play and justice.
10.
Further, in the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, dated 29.03.2001, Mr. Hon’ble
Justice. K.L. Manjunath, in Writ Petition No. 5615/2001(S-RES), between Smt. K. Dundamma Vs MML(II Party
herein), it is clearly held as follows:- “The Management herein shall not change the date of birth of the petitioner in the
service register without adopting the procedure known under the law”. Further, in the Judgment of the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka, dated 12.06.2002, by the Hon’ble Mr. N.K. Jain, Chief Justice and Mr. Hon’ble Justice. S.B.
Majige, in Writ Appeal No. 3460/01 C/W W.A. No. 3459/01(S), between MML(II Party herein) Vs Puttachari and
others, it is specifically held as follows:- “Once the age is entered in service record, it cannot be changed unless the
procedure prescribed for changing the date of birth is followed.” Also, in the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka, dated 01.06.2006, Mr. Hon’ble Justice. Ashok.B. Hinchigeri, in Writ Petition No. 26101/01 C/W W.P. Nos.
23798/01, 23797/01 & 23794/01(S-RES), between Sh. V.C. Range Gowda and others Vs MML, it is particularly held
as follows:- “I unmistakably hold that the impugned order and the medical reports are totally unsustainable and quash
them for the following reasons:-
a)
The decision making process is not fair and transparent.
b)
The impugned decision to retire them from the service is passed in fragment violation of the principles of
natural justice.
c)
It shocks the judicial conscience that somebody’s age can be determined based on the medical
examination; even when the medical science and technology have advanced, a stage has not yet come
where the date of birth can be ascertained with an absolute certainty based on the medical examination.
d)
There is no application of mind either by the respondents or by the author of the medical reports.
e)
The respondents are in no position to spell out the details of the ‘Mass Medical Examination’. They have
not filed the affidavits of the doctors who conducted the medical tests on the basis of which the age is
determined. How many employees were subjected to the medical examination, what is the length of the
medical examination and how many doctors did the examination are not forthcoming from the
respondents.
f)
Based on the unreliable medical reports, the date of birth of the petitioners cannot be altered to their
prejudice and disadvantage.
Viewed from any angle, the impugned orders and the medical reports are wholly unsustainable. Therefore, the
respondents order dt. 26.02.2001 Annexure-B in W.P. No. 26101/01, dt. 12.03.2001 Annexure-B in
W.P. Nos. 23798/01, 23797/01 & 23794/01 and dt. 27.03.2001 Annexure-A in W.P. No. 23797/01 and the medical
reports Annexures C-1 to C-4 in W.P. No. 26101/01, Annexure-B in 23797/01 & Annexure-C in W.P. No. 23794/01
are hereby quashed. For no fault of the petitioners they are driven to this Court by the capricious acts of the
respondents. Therefore, I impose a cost of Rs. 1,000/- on the respondents payable to each of the petitioners within 4
weeks from today. The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed.” Hence, the II Party is not justified in submitting in the
Objection/Written Statement that, the Medical Examination has been conducted as per the Mines Rules, 1955 and it is
true that, I Party, has not been allowed to work after 21.06.2003, as the I Party has reached the age of superannuation.
11.
Further, in the Judgment reported in 1981-1-LLJ-327 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, dated 12.12.1980,
Mr. Y.V. Chandrachud, Hon’ble Chief Justice, Mr. Justice A.P. Sen, between Grindlays Bank Limited Vs Central
Government Industrial Tribunal and others, it is pertinently held as follows:- “It is needless to stress that where the
Tribunal proceeds to make an award without notice to a party, the award is nothing but a nullity. In such
circumstances, the Tribunal has not only the power but also the duty to set aside the ex parte award and to direct the
matter to be heard afresh.” In the present case also, the I Party has clearly established that the II Party has terminated
the service of I Party without following the due process of law and also principles of natural justice, fairness and
II
(ii)
2551
reasonableness and hence, the I Party is entitled to get reinstatement with full back wages and also, the continuity of
service. Thus, the point is answered in favour of I Party. Hence, the following award, is passed:-
AWARD
The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal of I party/B.N. Devraj-
workman, with retrospective effect from 21.06.2003 and II Party is directed to reinstate the I Party with
continuity of service, and with payment of full back wages and other consequential benefits from the date of
termination, namely, 21.06.2003 till providing employment and the present reference is answered in favour of I
party, without cost for the above mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 28th March, 2017)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1
Sh. B.N. Devraj, I Party/ workman
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1 Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager/II Party
—
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2017
S.O.1111 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
13.04.2017.
[No. L-29012/26/2006-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
Dated : 28th March, 2017
PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
C R No. 04/2009
I Party
II Party
Sh. Munigowda,
The Managing Director,
S/o Late Ningegowda,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
R/p Bettegowda Doddi (Village)
No. 39, M G Road,
Kodihalli Hobli
Bangalore.- 560001
Narayanapura Post, Kanakapura Taluk,
Bangalore-560001
(For I Party, M/s. G.S. Naveen Kumar, Advocate)
2552
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
1.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/26/2006-IR(M) dated 13.01.2009 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made
this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s Mysore Minerals Limited in imposing the punishment of
termination of services on Shri. Munigowda, Ex-Mazdoor, M/s Mysore Minerals Limited, Katigeri Dolamite
Mines, Bagalkot District w.e.f. 16.11.2000 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled and
from which date?”
2.
Brief details mentioned in the Claim Statement are as follows:-
The I Party submits that, he has been selected and appointed as a Mazdoor by the respondent in the year 1986
and subsequently his services came to be confirmed. It is submitted that the I party has worked continuously
over a period of 13 years at Kebbihalli unit of Kanakapura Taluk. That, in the year 1999, the II party has transferred the
I Party to Kakegeri Dalmaite Mine, Badami Taluk, Bagalkot District. The I Party also states that, on the basis of false
complaint alleged to have been filed by one Mr. Mallikarjunaiah, son of Mallaiah on 03-04-2000, the II party has kept
the I Party under suspension pending enquiry by an order dated 04-04-2000. The I Party also submits that the Manager
of Katagere has not served the order of suspension and even subsistence allowance has not been paid to him, and he has
no source of income and also the I party has approached the manager. The I Party submits that on 19-07-2000
when the I party has filed a representation before the Manager of Kategere unit then the Manager has made an
endorsement on 15-10-2003 stating that the I party has already been terminated from the services by an order dated 16-
11-2000. The I party made several requests and ultimately the I party has filed a representation before the II
party on 13-06-2005 requesting to furnish the order of dismissal along with covering letter dated 12-07-2005. It is
submitted that the II party has terminated the I party for unauthorized absent from duties with effect from 04-04-2000
and onwards. Further, it is also submitted that the I party has not committed any misconduct as referred to in the order
of dismissal. It is submitted that the I party has not been served with the show cause notice and the publication notice
in the local paper circulated at Kanakapura Taluk. The I party is unaware of the exparte proceedings conducted and
also, the order of dismissal passed by the II party, without holding any enquiry, which is illegal and contrary to law and
the same is opposed to the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the II party has passed the order of dismissal
on 16.11.2000 but it came to be served on the I party only on 12.07.2005. That in compliance of the order passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the conciliation officer reheard the matter afresh and factual report has been
forwarded to the Central Government and then, it has referred the dispute to this Court for proper adjudication on the
point of reference. It is submitted that in view of the reasons stated above, absolutely there is no delay on the part of the
I party workman in raising the Industrial Dispute. It is submitted that the II party without, there being any justifiable
reasons, has illegally and arbitrarily dismissed the first party from service. Therefore, the I Party respectfully prays that
this Court may be pleased to
a)
Allow the reference by setting aside the order of dismissal dated 16.11.2000 passed by the II Party and
also, to direct the II Party to reinstate the I Party back into service with continuity of service and all other
consequential benefits, including back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement.
b)
Pass any other appropriate order, orders or directions as this Court may deems fit to grant by considering
the facts and circumstances of the case and an order as to costs to meet the ends of justice.
3.
The II party has not filed the objection for the said claim statement of I party, though sufficient and adequate
opportunities have been granted to the II Party. Further Vakalat has been filed on behalf of II Party on 25.04.2011
itself. However, the objection to the claim statement has not been filed by II Party, without any valid reasons. Further,
this is an old case of the year 2009. Further, RPAD notice has been sent to II party in Transaction No. A RK
345400491 IN, and served Acknowledgement card has been received by this Court. Still no representation has been
made on behalf of II party and II party also called absent. In the circumstances, this Court is constrained to pass
appropriate award, in accordance with law, based upon the materials brought on record.
4.
The pertinent point that arises for consideration in the present matter is:-
“Whether the action of the management of M/s Mysore Minerals Limited in imposing the punishment of
termination of services on Shri. Munigowda, Ex-Mazdoor, M/s Mysore Minerals Limited, Katigeri Dolamite
Mines, Bagalkot District w.e.f. 16.11.2000 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled and
from which date?”
II
(ii)
2553
5.
Analysis, Discussion Findings with regard to the above mentioned point:-
The WW-1 namely, Sh. Munigowda/Workman has examined himself as WW-1 and also, the above mentioned
submissions made in the claim statement have been stated by him. The I Party submits that, he has been selected and
appointed as a Mazdoor by the respondent in the year 1986 and subsequently his services came to be confirmed. It is
submitted that the I party has worked continuously over a period of 13 years at Kebbihalli unit of Kanakapura
Taluk. The I Party submits that on the basis of false complaint alleged to have been filed by one Mr. Mallikarjunaiah
son of Mallaiah on 03.04.2000, the II Party has suspended the I Party pending enquiry by an order dated 04.04.2000.
The I Party also submits that the Manager of Katagere has not served the order of suspension and even subsistence
allowance has not been paid to him, and he has no source of income and also, the I party has approached the manager
for the several times. The I Party submits that on 19.07.2000 when the I party has filed a representation before the
Manager of Kategere unit, then, the Manager has made an endorsement on 15.10.2003 by stating that the I party has
already been terminated from the services by an order dated 16.11.2000. The I Party submits that the II party has
terminated the I party for the unauthorized absence from duties with effect from 04.04.2000 and onwards. The I Party
submits that the II party has passed the order of dismissal on 16.11.2000 but it came to be served on the I party only on
12.07.2005.
6. Further, as Per EX W-1, dated 15.02.1999, Relieve Order has been issued by II Party to I Party. As per Ex W-3,
Dismissal Order issued by II Party dated 15.11.2000. Further, as per Ex W-6, dated 13.06.2005, Representation made
by I Party, requesting to furnish the copy of Termination Order dated 16.11.2000. Further, as per Ex W-7, dated
12.07.2005, the II Party furnished the copy of Order of Dismissal dated 16.11.2000, by stating that for the Unauthorized
and long absence of I Party, the dismissal order has been issued. But, no relevant record has been produced by II party,
regarding the service of the said dismissal order to I Party, as pointed out in the Ex-W-7. As per Ex W-8, dated
23.12.2005, Petiton filed by I Party before the Labour Commissioner, and as per Ex W-9, dated 29.12.2006, order has
been issued by Labour Officer to I Party and as per Ex W-10, dated 05.12.2008, Order passed by Hon’ble High Court
of Karnataka and also, it is ordered that, the Ministry of Labour is directed to refer the matter to the adjudicating forum
within one month from the date of production of copy of the said order. In the above mentioned facts and
circumstances, it is found that the workman of I Party is entitled to get back wages from the date of termination i.e.,
from 16.11.2000. Further, it is seen that, the II Party/Management is adopting super technical and hyper technical
measures, so as to stop the I Party from getting the legal benefits. Further, the intension of the legislature in enacting
the Social Welfare provisions of Industrial Dispute Act would be defeated, if the untenable actions of the
II Party/Management are not taken into consideration very seriously, and also the legal benefits of the workman are
denied. The I Party has clearly established that the II Party has terminated the service of I Party without following the
due process of law and also principles of natural justice, fairness and reasonableness and hence, the workman of I Party
is entitled to get full back wages and other consequential benefits from the date of termination, i.e., 16.11.2000. For the
above, mentioned reasons, it is found that, the I Party is entitled to get full back wages and other consequential
monetary benefit. For the above mentioned various reasons and grounds it is found that details mentioned in the claim
statement have been, established by the I party, in accordance with the law. Accordingly, the following award is
passed.
AWARD
The II Party is not justified in terminating the service of the I party Sh. Munigowda – workman, w.e.f
16.11.2000 and II Party is directed to reinstate the I Party with full pay back wages and other
consequential monetary benefits to the workman and the award is passed accordingly, without cost for
the above mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 28th March, 2017)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1
Sh. Munigowda, I Party/Workman
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex W-1
15.02.1999
Relieve Order
Ex W-2
06.04.2000
Office Order
Ex W-3
15.11.2000
Dismissal Order
2554
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex W-4
20.08.2003
Office letter
Ex W-5
15.10.2003
Office letter
Ex W-6
13.06.2005
Representation filed by I Party
Ex W-7
12.07.2005
Office letter
Ex W-8
23.12.2005
Petition filed by I Party before Labour Commissioner
Ex W-9
29.12.2006
Endorsement issued by Labour Officer
Ex W-10
05.12.2008
Certified copy of Order passed by the Hon’ble High Court
Ex W-11
-
Identification card issued by II Party
Ex W-12
-
Wage Slips under minimum wages Act issued by II Party
Ex W-13
-
Provident Fund Statement
—
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2017
S.O. 1112.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Hutti Gold Mines Company Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 13.04.2017.
[No. L-43011/1/2010-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 31st MARCH, 2017
PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
C R No. 28/2010
I Party
II Party
Sh. Sharana Kumar (Workman),
The Executive Director,
Rep. by the General Secretary,
Hutti Gold Mines Company Limited,
AITUC, District Council,
Hutti Post, Lingaure Taluk,
Upstairs, Saptagiri Complex,
Raichur- 584115
K.C. Road, Bellary
(By Mr. Muralidhara, Advocate)
(By Mr. M.R.C. Ravi, Advocate)
II
(ii)
2555
AWARD
1.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-43011/1/2010-IR(M) dated 03.08.2010 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made
this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of management of Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd., in terminating the services of
Shri Sharana Kumar, Token No. 2541 w.e.f. 24.05.2007 is justified? To what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2.
Brief details mentioned in the Claim Statement are as follows:-
The I Party is a trade union federation registered under the Trade Unions Act, and the HGML Employees Union
which is the recognised Union in the II Party. Smt. Hanumavva and Sri. Adappa belonged to Kabberu Caste, as that of
Sri. Raghavendrappa. Smt. Hanumavva has got the ownership in the land in Survey No. 57/B in Hutti Village. The
II Party acquired the said land for mining purposes in the year 1963. It is in this background, Sri. Sharana Kumar
S/o Sri. Raghavendrappa and grandson of Smt. Hanumavva made his claim for appointment with the II Party. He has
already produced all the relevant documents like land documents, Village Accountant's certificate of family tree, etc. It
is only after a thorough check of the relevant particulars, the II Party has appointed the I Party in their establishment.
The concerned workman, ever since his appointment, has rendered the honest and sincere service to the II Party and as
such, he has got the flawless record of service. Thereupon, the Manager, (HR) called Sri. Sharana Kumar to his office
on 08.07.2006 and under duress made him to sign a letter which has been written up to the dictation of the Manager.
As such, the so called statements obtained from Sri. Sharana Kumar and his father by the Manager (HR) have been
obtained by the Manger (HR) by misusing his official status and under the direction of his official superiors. The
II Party, without any notice and without any order, has placed the Sri. Sharana Kumar under suspension, and also,
refused to permit him to report for duty w.e.f. 08.07.2006. Thereupon, the Manager (HR) by terming the work of the
I Party/Workman as not satisfactory, initiated, domestic enquiry into the charges alleged against the workman
concerned by appointing one Sri. N. Kariyappa, Staff Officer as Enquiry Officer and Sri. S.S. Bhavimani, Junior
Officer, as the Presenting Officer. The I Party/workman humbly submits that the Enquiry Officer, being an officer of
the II Party has got the bias as against the charge sheeted workman, and also, conducted the enquiry in total disregard of
the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders. The Enquiry Officer failed to cause
the copies of documents which the Presenting Officer submitted in the enquiry, to the charge sheeted workman. The I
Party/Workman has not been granted the opportunity to produce evidence in his defence. The enquiry findings are
unjust, unreasonable and perverse. The enquiry officer, believed the statement of the persons who have not been
produced in the enquiry by the Management, to stand the test of cross-examination. The enquiry findings are therefore
liable to be rejected as perverse for the said reasons and other infirmities. Further, the II Party, as per their
predetermination proceeded to pass final order dated: 24.07.2007 terminating the I Party from the service. The said
order came to be passed without reasons and justification. The I Party submits that the order of termination passed
against the concerned workman is wholly arbitrary, unjust and illegal and the same is liable to be set aside for the
following reasons:
(i)
That, the concerned workman has not committed any act of misconduct in securing employment with the
II Party.
(ii)
Hence initiation of enquiry amounts to abuse of disciplinary power.
(iii)
That, the charge sheet is not proper & legal and the same has also not accompanied by the list of
witnesses and documents.
(iv)
That, the enquiry findings are unjust, unreasonable and perverse.
(v)
That, the action of the II Party amounts to unfair labour practices and legal victimization.
(vi)
That, the order of punishment is unsustainable for the reason of non-payment of subsistence allowance or
wages.
(vii) The I Party/Workman submits that the since the day of his termination, he has remained unemployed and
he has no other source of livelihood.
Therefore, the I Party respectfully prays that this Court may be pleased to pass an Award:
(a)
to set aside the order of dismissal dated: 24.05.2007 passed by the II Party against Sri. Sharana
Kuamar Token No. 2541, as unjust, arbitrary and illegal.
(b)
to direct the II Party Management to reinstate him into the service with full back wages, continuity
of service and all others consequential benefits.
2556
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
Brief details mentioned in the counter statement are as follows:-
The II Party states that, I party has worked as Ex. UG. T No. 2541 in the II party Company. It is further
submitted that one Smt. Hanumawwa W/o Adappa is the owner of land Sy.No.57/B, Hutti Village and the II party
company has acquired the said land for the mining purpose during the year 1963. It is further submitted that the II party
company has agreed to provide employment in the II Party company to one of the family members of the land losers.
Further, it is submitted that while giving undertaking at the time of appointment to the I party, Sri.Raghavendrappa,
F/o I party stated in the agreement that he has got the ownership of the land in Sy. No. 57/B, where as the Smt.
Hanumawwa has got the actual ownership of the said land. Smt Hanumawwa and her husband Adappa have already
expired at the time of proposal to provide employment to I party and Smt. Hanumawwa has expired 50 years ago. It
shows that Sri. Raghavendrappa to gain unlawful employment to his son, mislead the company and produced all the
documents which are manipulated and fabricated. It is submitted that the II party received a complaint regarding the
said matter, during the year 2006 and as per the complaint received, the II party called Sri. Raghavendrappa and I party.
It is submitted that the I party has furnished the false information at the time of appointment of I Party and committed
misconduct under the company standing orders 19(7), 19(18) and 19(41) and for the said misconduct the show cause
notice dated 29.07.2006 has been issued. It is further submitted that Notice of Enquiry dated 23.08.2005 has been
issued to the workmen and Sri. N. Kariyappa and Sri. S. S. Bhavimani have been appointed as the Enquiry Officer and
Presenting Officer respectively. It is further submitted that the Enquiry Officer has permitted the I party to take the
assistance of a co-worker of his choice and the workmen has availed the assistance of one Sri Amara Gundappa.
Further, it is submitted that the Enquiry Officer found that the I Party is guilty of the misconduct alleged against him in
the memo of charges and gave his reports and findings that the management has proved its case. The II party, after
taking into consideration the findings submitted by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report, past record of I Party and
after considering the gravity of misconduct committed by the workman, dismissed the services of the workmen vide
dismissal order dated 24.05.2007. The II Party Company submits that as the dismissal of the workman is just, fair and
bonafide and there is not even an iota of material in the action of the second party Company to suggest that it is for
ulterior motive and/or for extraneous consideration and/or by way victimization. Further, it is submitted that while
giving the undertaking at the time of appointment F/o I Party stated in the agreement that he is the landowner of
Sy. No. 57/B, where as it belongs to Smt. Hanumawwa and he has also produced the fabricated family tree showing that
Raghavendrappa is the only son of Smt. Hanumawwa W/o. Adappa (Khatedar) and I party is the grandson of
Hanumawwa which is issued by the Village Accountant, Grama Panchayat, Hutti. The contention that the Manager
(HR) by misusing the official status and under the direction of official superiors has obtained the statements, are not
tenable in law. Further, it is submitted that the I Party has been directly issued with show cause notice without
mentioning of suspension pending enquiry, therefore the question of payment of subsistence allowance does not arise.
The contention that the I Party remained without employment and that he has no prospects of getting any job elsewhere
and that he has no other means of livelihood and that he is not gainfully employed are totally false and denied. Further,
the II Party submits that this Court may be pleased to reject the contentions and claims of the I Party with regard to
reinstatement in service with full back wages, continuity of service, seniority and promotion, increments and other
consequential benefits, in the interest of justice and equity.
4.
The pertinent point that arises for consideration in the present matter is:-
(i)
“Whether the action of management of Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd., in terminating the services of
Shri Sharana Kumar, Token No. 2541 w.e.f. 24.05.2007 is justified? And
(ii)
to what relief the workman is entitled?”
5.
Analysis, Discussion Findings with regard to the above mentioned points :-
In the Counter the II Party has admitted that, II party company has acquired land situated at Sy.No.57/B, Hutti
Village for mining purpose during the year 1963 and II party company has agreed to provide employment in the II Party
company to one of the family members of the land losers. Further, in Ex M-4, dated 24.07.2006, Show Cause Notice
issued by the II Party to I Party, it is clearly pointed out by the II Party that according to the family tree and also on the
basis of land ownership and other documents, the II Party has offered the said job to the I Party on 21.03.2004 in Token
No. 2541. However, in the said Show Cause Notice itself the II Party has pointed out that the information furnished in
the letter of agreement dated 22.04.2004 are false and the particulars in the certificate obtained from the Village
Accountant are all false. However, on a careful perusal of materials on record it is found that II Party has miserably
failed to establish the said allegations in an acceptable and convincing manner. Further, it is stated in the Show Cause
Notice that I Party has created false documents and obtained job and thus committed misconduct and it is a crime under
the criminal offence. However, for the said criminal offence alleged to have been committed by the I Party also, the
II Party has not lodged any criminal complaint before the Police and also, for not lodging the criminal complaint, also,
the II Party has not furnished any sufficient and convincing reasons. Further, in the explanation dated 01.08.2006, itself
the I Party has clearly stated that as per the letter of appointment dated 21.03.2004, he has worked with II Party without
violating the standing orders of the Company and also rendered service with dedication and commitment and out of
II
(ii)
2557
vengeance and in order to harass the I Party, someone has given the false information and creating problems. Even
after the receipt of the said explanation also the II Party has not conducted the proper enquiry as per the principles of
Natural Justice, so as to establish that I Party has committed the misconduct as per the standing orders of the II Party.
6.
Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in 2008 AIR SCW 3460 in the matter of MAVJIA C
LAKUM Vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, on interpretation of Section 11-A of the
Act, has observed as under:—
“After all the Tribunal has to judge on the basis of the proved misbehaviour. In this case we have already
recorded that the Tribunal was firstly correct in holding that the misbehaviour was not wholly proved and
whatever misconduct was proved, did not deserve the extreme punishment of discharge……. The learned judge
seems to be of the opinion that if the enquiry is held to be fair and proper, then the Industrial Tribunal cannot go
into the question of evidence or the quantum of punishment. We are afraid that is not the correct law. Even if
the enquiry is found to be fair, that would be only a finding certifying that all possible opportunities were given
to the delinquent and the principles of natural justice and fair play were observed that does not mean that the
findings arrived at were essentially the correct findings. If the Industrial Tribunal comes to the conclusion that
the punishment given is shockingly disproportionate, the Industrial Tribunal would still be justified in re-
appreciating the evidence and/or interfering with the quantum of punishment. There can be no dispute that
power under section 11-A has to be exercised judiciously and the interference is possible only when the tribunal
is not satisfied with the findings and further concludes that punishment imposed by the Management is highly
disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned……. The Tribunal was justified in
appreciating the fact that the charges were not only trivial and were not so serious as to entail the extreme
punishment…….Though the learned judge had discussed all the principles regarding the exercise of power
under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act as also the doctrine of proportionality and the Wednesbury’s
principles, we are afraid the learned judge has not applied all these principles properly to the present case.” In
the above case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the scope of enquiry by the Industrial Tribunal, and the
finding of the Learned Single judge of the Hon’ble High Court as regards, the power of the Industrial tribunal in
case of enquiry held as fair and proper and the power of the Industrial tribunal to go into the question of the
evidence or the quantum of punishment. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the said law as pointed out by
the Hon’ble High Court is not a correct law. Even in case the enquiry is held to be fair and proper, the Tribunal
has to find out as to whether the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer are correct findings and supported by
evidence and also to find out as to whether the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. Accordingly in the
present case also, appropriate award has to be passed, based on the above mentioned facts and circumstances.
7.
Further, it is pertinent to point out that, at the time of joining and also providing employment to I Party, all the
concerned documents have been examined closely by the II Party and then only, II Party has appointed the I Party.
Further, the enquiry officer, in his report dated 10.01.2007, has mainly relied upon the statements given by the I Party
and his father. Further, the II Party appointed the Enquiry Officer Mr. Kariyappa N and the said statements have been
recorded by Lingappa, Grade 1 staff of the II Party Company. The said Lingappa has categorically stated that,
Sh. Kariyappa N, Enquiry Officer, and S.S. Bhavimani, presenting officer have also seated and present at the time of
recording the said statements. On that ground only it is clearly pointed out on behalf of I Party that the said 2
statements from the I Party and his father have been already obtained under duress in the presence of the Enquiry
Officer Sh. Kariyappa N, and S.S. Bhavimani, Presenting Officer and no independent documents and independent
witnesses have been examined to establish that Village Accountant has issued the false Family Tree certificate, and
I Party and his father have colluded to create false documents. Further, in the course of Enquiry before the Presenting
Officer, the I Party/Workman has stated that both I Party’s father and Hanumavva belong to ‘Kabberu’ Caste and
Sh. Raghavendrappa is considered as the adopted son by Smt. Hanumavva and after examining all the documents
thoroughly only the II Party appointed the I Party. Further, it is specifically pointed out by the I Party that II Party has
obtained the signature on the statements under pressure. Further, the said Lingappa, who has written the said
statements has admitted that on behalf of the I Party, no one has appeared or present, at the time of taking the statement.
Further, the I Party has clearly pointed out that he is the grandson of Hanumavva w/o Adappa who has got the
ownership of the land in Sy. No. 57/B acquired in the year 1963 by the II Party and the said Hanumavva adopted the
father of I Party Sh.Raghavendrappa as her son and the certificate obtained from the Village Accountant is genuine.
Further, the I Party has specifically pointed out that the witnesses have given evidence in favour of II Party as they are
working with II Party Company. Further, it is rightly pointed out on behalf of I Party that the II Party has to prove by
producing the independent evidence and documents and not by mainly relying upon the statements obtained under
duress.
8.
Further, on a careful scrutiny on entire evidence and materials available on record it is found that enquiry
findings are perverse and statements obtained from the I Party and his father have no evidentiary value and the Enquiry
Officer is not justified in mainly relying on the said statements. Further, I Party has clearly stated that he is the victim
2558
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of arbitrary and capricious action of the Management and he is not gainfully employed and the I Party is dependent only
on the said job for his livelihood. Further, it is seen that there is no suppression of material facts or false information
submitted by the I Party at the time of obtaining job, as stated by the II Party. Further, as per Ex M-11, in the
explanation to the final Show Cause Notice, dated 28.02.2007, the I Party has clearly stated that the action of the II
Party management in conducting post facto verification or enquiry after denying employment in an illegal manner, is
totally opposed to the principles of natural justice and further, the II Party, acting on the anonymous letter, purportedly
written by the unknown person, is unacceptable and on the very same basis denying employment is thoroughly illegal
and untenable and the I Party would be put to great loss and injury as he is the sole bread winner of the larger family
comprising of aged parents and rest of the family members, and coupled with the fact that the party is not having any
alternative source of income. Further, in the counter, the II Party has stated that the Smt. Hanumavva has expired 50
years ago and Sh. Raghavendrappa in order to gain employment to his son, namely the I Party/Workman, has produced
the manipulated documents. However, to establish the said details the II Party has not produced any material records or
relevant evidence. It is pertinent to point out the II Party has failed to prove the alleged misconduct committed by the I
Party as per the principles of preponderance of probability. Further, in the reply to the show cause notice, explanation
to the final show cause notice, claim statement and evidence, the I Party has clearly stated that he has no other source of
income and he is without employment from the date of illegal termination of employment by the II Party.
9.
Further, in the Judgment relied on behalf of II Party and reported in (2013) 9 Supreme Court Cases 363, dated
29.07.2013, (Before Mr. Justice. DR B.S. CHAUHAN and Mr. Justice. S.A. BOBDE, JJ in the case of DEVENDRA
KUMAR
Vs
STATE
OF
UTTARANCHALAND
OTHERS,
it
is
observed
as
follows
only:-
“Fraud/Misrepresentation/Suppression of information sought by employer or furnishing false information while seeking
appointment. Suppression of such material information itself amounts to moral turpitude and is a separate and distinct
matter than what is involved in Criminal case.” And also, in the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, dated
27.06.2000 (Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice. G.C. Bharuka and Ms. Justice. Manjula Chellur, in the case of Management of
V.I.S.L, Bhadravathi, Shimoga District Vs B. Veeranna Gowda Patil and others, it is held as follows only:- “Casual
Labourer obtained employment, on a fraudulent representation and by furnishing forged educational and academic
documents. Held, employment fraudulently secured is voidable and is liable to be recalled at the option of the
employer.” Further, in the case of Union of India and others Vs M. Bhaskaran, in the Civil Appeal No. 9637 of 1995,
reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 100, and also relied on behalf of II Party, it is held as follows, “Guilty of
misrepresentation and fraud, Procuring employment on the basis of bogus and forged documents. Employment secured
by fraud, held, renders it voidable at the option of the employer.” Further, the citations submitted on behalf of II Party
have been considered, with reference to the above mentioned prevailing factual and also legal position of the present
case and also with regard to the submission made by the II Party in the Counter Statement and it is found that the
submissions of the II Party do not fall within the ratio or principles, of the above mentioned judgments, submitted on
behalf of the II Party, in the light of the above mentioned special facts and peculiar circumstances of the present case
and also, particularly, due to the fact that the II Party has failed to establish that the I Party/Workman and his father
have produced manipulated and fabricated records, and the I Party, has committed the misconduct, as per the principles
of preponderance of probabilities and also, as per the principles pointed out in the above mentioned Hon’ble Supreme
Court judgment reported in 2008 AIR SCW 3460.
10.
Further, in the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Before Mr. Justice D.A. Desai, Mr. Justice.
O. Chinnappa Reddy and Mr. Justice. A. Varadarajan JJ, Civil Appeal No. 2659 (NL) of 1980, dated 02.09.1983, in the
case of S.K. Verma. Vs Mahesh Chandra And Another, it is categorically held that, “Industrial Dispute Act is a
legislation intended to bring about peace and harmony between labour and management in an industry and for that
purpose, it makes provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes. It is, therefore, necessary to
interpret the definitions of 'industry’ 'workman', 'industrial dispute'. etc. so as not to whittle down, but to advance the
object of the Act.” In the present case also, it is found that the Central Government has referred the present dispute in
CR 28/2010 in No.L-43011/1/2010-IR(M) dated 03.08.2010, for adjudication. On that ground also, it is found that this
Court has to adjudicate the present case to advance the object of the I.D. Act, 1947. Further, in the Judgment reported
in A. I. R. (3S) 1951 Calautta.-28.6..(C. N, 59,) in the case of Rupendra Deb Raikut Vs Ashrumati Debi and others, it is
particularly observed that, “‘Interest of Justice’ means promotion or advancement of the cause of justice. Applicant's
temperament, failings, interests and circumstances must be considered- Justice should not only be done but should
manifestly and undoubtedly seem to be done. After all, the procedure of the Court is to aid the administration of justice
and not hamper it. But where in the peculiar circumstances of a case, there is a conflict between the law of procedure
and the substantial rights of the parties, the Court or the Judge is justified in ignoring it and it is the duty of the Judge or
the Court to ignore the procedure.” Further, it is reported in Lloyds Bank Ltd Vs. Bundy, (1974) 3 All ER 757 that
Lord Denning first clearly enunciated his theory of "inequality of bargaining power". He began his discussion on this
part of the case by stating (at page 763): "There are cases in our books in which the courts will set aside a contract, or a
transfer of property, when the parties have not met on equal terms, when the one is so strong in bargaining power and
the other so weak that, as a matter of common fairness, it is not right that the strong should be allowed to push the weak
to the wall.” Further, in the Judgment reported in ILR 1998 KAR 18 BEFORE Mr. Justice R.P. SETHI, Mr. Justice CJ
II
(ii)
2559
AND Mr. Justice S.R. BANNURMATH, J in the case of The Management of the Mysore Coffee Processing co-
operative Society Ltd Vs Presiding Officer, it is particularly held that, “Where the Management discharges a workman
by an Order which is void for want of an Enquiry, the "Doctrine of Relation” back cannot be invoked and in that event
the workman would be entitled to the grant of Full back wages from the date of termination of his services till the date
of award of the Labour Court.” In the present case also, the II Party has not established that I Party has produced
manipulated and fabricated documents to gain employment in the II Party Company. For the above mentioned various
reasons and grounds, it is held that the I Party is entitled to get relief, as prayed and the points are answered in favour of
the I Party. Accordingly, the following award is passed:—
AWARD
The action of the Management of the Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd. is not justified in terminating the services
of Shri. Sharana Kumar, Token No. 2541, W.e.f 24.05.2007 and II Party is directed to reinstate the I
Party, with continuity of service and also, with payment of full back wages from the date of termination,
namely, 24.05.2007, and all other consequential benefits to I Party, and the present reference is answered
in favour of I party, without cost for the above mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances.
Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 31th March, 2017)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
List of Witness on the side of I Party regarding victimization and not being gainfully employed
—
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2017
S.O. 1113.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 13.04.2017.
[No. L-17012/46/2013-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 5th April, 2017
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 36/2014
(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 Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Two
Others and their workman)
WW1 Sh. Sharana Kumar, I Party/ Workman
2560
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
BETWEEN :
Sri R.S. Belin
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1.
The Manager
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
M/s Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Zion J.R.S. Centre, 2nd Floor,
Trivandrum Main Road
Opp. MRF Tyres, Marthandam,
Kanyakumari-629165
2.
The Manager – IR
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
M/s Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Brigade Sesha Mahal, No. 5, Vani Vilas Road
Basavangudi, Bangalore-560004
3.
The Associate Director
:
2nd Party/3rd Respondent
M/s Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Orchid Centre, 5th Floor, DLF Golf Course Road
Sector-53, Gurgaon-122002
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
M/s S. Arunachalam, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Respondent :
M/s King Stubb & Kasiva, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/3rd Respondent
:
Set Ex-parte
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-17012/46/2013-IR (M) dated
31.03.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the action of the management of M/s Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd. in terminating the services of
Sri R.S. Beilin w.e.f. 04.07.2012 is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to?”
2.
After receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 36/2014 and issued notice to both
sides. The petitioner and Respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.
The Third Respondent remained ex-parte.
3.
The averments in the claim statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner has joined the service of the Respondent organization as Sales Manager on 03.11.2010. He was on
probation and was confirmed in this post after completion of the period of probation, on 12.10.2011. Though the
nomenclature of the petitioner is Sales Manager, he is a workman coming within the definition of Section-2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act. The job of the petitioner was only of a Salesman as target was fixed for him to canvass
insurance policies. The petitioner has no subordinates under his control. He has no power or authority to execute any
order or to take any decision. The petitioner was performing his duties to the best of his abilities. No proper
encouragement was coming from the Management to complete the monthly targets. Since the Management came to
know that the petitioner is an active member of the Employees Union he was charged with unnecessary allegations. The
petitioner was issued with a warning letter on 27.04.2012 stating that his performance was below the acceptable
standards. Though the petitioner sent explanation it was not accepted. The petitioner was terminated from service on
29.06.2012 by giving one month’s notice pay. The order of termination is illegal. The petitioner is entitled to be
reinstated in the service of the Respondent with full back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
4.
The Respondents have filed Counter Statement contending as below:
The Written Statement is being filed through the Authorized Signatory of Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd.
There is no privity of contract between the petitioner and any employees arrayed as opposite parties. For this reason
itself the claim is not maintainable. The claim is outside the scope of the jurisdiction of this Tribunal as the petitioner is
not a workman coming under the definition of Section-2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner was
performing work which was purely supervisory and managerial in nature. He was drawing salary of Rs. 2,40,000/- per
annum. He was appointed as Sales Manager-Agency Sales in E-1 Grade to promote the business of the Company. He
does not qualify as a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. For this reason itself the claim is liable to
II
(ii)
2561
be dismissed. The petitioner was engaged by the Respondent Company by appointment letter dated 04.11.2010 as Sales
Manager-Agency Sales in E-1 Grade at Marthandam branch of the Respondent. The various terms and conditions of
appointment set out in the appointment letter were accepted by the petitioner. The appointment letter is binding on the
petitioner. The appointment letter provides for termination of the employee for inefficiency and poor performance,
among other reasons. The petitioner has not done any business for more than 15 months as on 12.06.2012. There were
instances of the petitioner coming to the office, marking attendance and leaving immediately. There has been gross
negligence and serious omission on the part of the petitioner in performing the duties that were assigned to him. Though
he was given time and assistance to improve his performance he continued to be irresponsible and did not bring any
improvement in the performance. In fact several opportunities were given to the petitioner to improve himself. The
Respondents had also sent several warning letters to the petitioner on account of his poor performance. Because of the
poor performance of the petitioner and his negligent and indifferent behavior the Company has terminated him from
service w.e.f. 04.07.2012. This decision was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 29.06.2012. 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 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M3.
6.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the action of the Management in terminating the service of the petitioner is justified?
(ii)
What, if any is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?
The Points
7.
The petitioner was appointed as Sales Manager-Agency Sales in E-1 Grade in November, 2010. Ext.W1 is the
appointment order by which he was appointed in the Office of the Respondent at Marthandam, a new branch. The
petitioner who was on probation after appointment was confirmed in the post on 12.10.2011. The Management of
Metlife Insurance Co. Ltd. terminated him from service by termination letter dated 29.06.2012. According to the
petitioner he was terminated from service without any valid reason. In their Counter Statement, the Respondents have
taken the stand that the petitioner had failed to achieve the performance goals for more than 15 months and it was on
account of this he has been terminated from service. The petitioner has insisted that the Respondents did not resort to
any enquiry before his termination, that he was not given proper assistance for continued performance and that his
termination was in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
8.
The petitioner has given evidence as WW1. In the Proof Affidavit filed by him he has reiterated the case in his
Claim Statement. He has stated in his affidavit that he was confirmed in his job taking into account his performance. He
has further stated that he being an active member of the employees union was not to the liking of the First Respondent
and he was being humiliated on account of this reason.
9.
MW1, examined on behalf of the Management is its Attorney and has filed Proof Affidavit as ascertained from
the records. It is stated in the affidavit that the appointment letter which was accepted by the petitioner constitutes a
binding contract between the petitioner and the Insurance Company and that the termination of the petitioner was on the
basis of the terms of the appointment letter. MW1 has reiterated in the Proof Affidavit that the petitioner has not been
doing any business for about 15 months and that he was in the habit of coming to the office, marking his attendance and
leaving immediately. It is also stated in the affidavit that there has been gross negligence and serious omissions on the
part of the petitioner in performing the duties that were assigned to him. Warning letters were sent to the petitioner on
three occasions because of his poor performance, it is stated. According to MW1, in spite of opportunities having been
given and the warning letter given to him the petitioner has failed to improve his performance and it is accordingly the
petitioner was terminated from service.
10.
Ext.M2 constitutes the copies of e-mail communications prior to the termination of the petitioner from service.
There are also Ext.W4 to Ext.W6, the complaint given by the petitioner to the Head of Human Resources, the reply
from the Head of the Human Resources, the performance review letter by the Respondent and the second warning letter
on performance. Ext.M2 contains a letter to the petitioner on 29.03.2012 in which it is stated that there are instances
where the petitioner has been coming to the office only to mark attendance and has been leaving immediately. He is
asked to submit explanation by the letter. There is another letter dated 27.04.2012 described as warning letter for poor
performance stating that the performance of the petitioner for the period from January to March 2012 was below the
acceptable standards. There is still another letter dated 20.06.2012 described as second warning letter to the effect that
the non-performance of the petitioner disclosed gross negligence and serious omissions on his part in performing the
duties. After five days, on 25.05.2012 there is another letter stating that the Management is constrained to review the
continuation of his employment. After four days, on 29.05.2012 the petitioner was terminated from service by Ext.M3
order. Ext.M2 contains other internal communications among the superior officers of the petitioner prior to his
termination. The one dated 21.03.2012 states that all the mails about the petitioner are about his non-performance but as
2562
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
action will be initiated not on the basis of non-performance, a clarification letter on the lines of insubordination is to be
issued to the petitioner. However, the subsequent communications are all based on non-performance.
11.
The details of the performance of the petitioner included in Ext.M2 perhaps show some variation in the
performance level. However, it is not the case of the petitioner that the continuous engagement of the petitioner should
be based on the achievement obtained by him in gathering business. The case that is put forth by the Respondent is that
he is a Supervisory Officer who has control over other subordinates also.
12.
What is the duty of the petitioner? MW1 has stated during cross-examination that the nature of duty of the
petitioner is to recruit Financial Advisors and his position is that of a Salesman. The Financial Advisors recruited by
him are to contribute to the business of the Company so the performance level of the petitioner should depend upon the
work done by the Financial Advisors. The warning letters issued by the Respondents merely states that the performance
level of the petitioner has been very low. The Respondents did not resort to an enquiry leading to the circumstance of
the low performance, if any. Again the two warning letters issued were one after the other in quick succession without
giving the petitioner enough opportunity to improve on his low performance, if any. Within a few days of the second
warning letter termination letter was issued to the petitioner. It has been admitted by MW1 during his cross-
examination that it was on the basis of satisfactory performance of the petitioner he has been confirmed in service after
completion of the period of probation. So it was not fair on the part of the Respondents in acting in a hectic manner.
13.
However, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the dispute on the ground of maintainability. The petitioner
has stated in his Claim Petition that he comes under the definition of workman under Section-2(s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. On the other hand, the Respondents have contended that his work is supervisory in nature and he is not a
workman and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the
decision of the Apex Court in D.P. MAHESHWARI VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS reported in
1983 4 SCC 493 and also the decision in ARKAL GOVINDRAJ RAO VS. CEIBA GEIGY OF INDIA LTD.,
MUMBAI reported in 1985 2 LLJ 401 where it has been held that in deciding whether a person is a workman or not the
focus has to be on the nature of the duties performed and not on the nomenclatures given to the job. The petitioner has
stated in his Proof Affidavit that the post of Salesman does not involve any supervision or managerial duty. The
admission on the part of MW1 that the petitioner has no subordinates on the payroll of the Respondents also has been
pointed out on behalf of the petitioner.
14.
The claim put forth by the petitioner that he is a workman is to be rejected in view of the dictum laid down by
the Apex Court in the decision in CHAUHARYA TRIPATHI AND OTHERS VS. LIFE INSURANCE
CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in 2015 7 SCC 263. Earlier the decision in H.R.
ADYANTHAYA AND OTHERS VS. SANDOZ (INDIA) LTD AND OTHERS reported in 1994 5 SCC 737, the Apex
Court has held that medical representatives do not come under the definition of workman under the Industrial Disputes
Act. Relying upon this decision the Apex Court has held in Chauharya case referred to earlier that Development
Officers working in LIC are not workman under Section-2(s) of the Act and therefore the claim of the Development
Officers is not maintainable before the Industrial Forum.
15.
In an earlier decision (S.K. VERMA VS. MAHESH CHANDRA reported in 2008 11 SCC 319) the duties of the
Development Officers has been elaborated. It has been pointed out that the principle duty of a Development Officer is
to organize and develop the business of the Corporation in the area allotted to him and for that purpose to recruit active
and reliable agents, to train them to canvass new business and to render post sales services to policy holders. The post
of Sales Manager in Metlife India Insurance Company Ltd., the Respondent Company is the same as that of the
Development Officer of LIC, as could be seen from the evidence. The persons known as Financial Advisors in the
Respondent Company are in the same position as the Agents of LIC. The main nature of the duty of the petitioner who
is known as Sales Manager is to recruit Financial Advisors. So the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the decision
in Chauharya case referred to earlier applies to the present case also. Just like a Development Officer in the LIC, the
Sales Manager in the Respondent establishment also could not be treated as workman. This being the case this Tribunal
has no jurisdiction to go into the dispute. The reference is to be answered against the petitioner for this reason.
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 5th April, 2017)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
WW1, Sri R.S. Belin
For the 2nd Party/1st, 2nd & 3rd Respondents
:
MW1, Mrs. Sumathi Arvind
Documents Marked :
II
(ii)
2563
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
01.11.2010
Offer letter appointing petitioner
Ex.W2
04.11.2010
Appointment order
Ex.W3
07.03.2012
Complaint of petitioner through e-mail to the Head-Human Resources
Ex.W4
07.03.2012
Letter of Head HR through e-mail
Ex.W5
27.04.2012
Performance review letter
Ex.W6
25.06.2012
Second warning letter on performance
Ex.W7
29.06.2012
Termination letter
Ex.W8
17.07.2012
Representation of the petitioner
Ex.W9
8/2012
Petition before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Conciliation), Madurai
Ex.W10
-
Pay slip of the petitioner for December, 2011.
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
04.11.2010
Appointment letter with connected forms
Ext.M2
-
E-mail copy
Ext.M3
-
Termination Order.
—
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2017
S.O. 1114.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Airport Authority of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
13.04.2017.
[No. L-11011/14/2001-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 50/2011
Airport Authority Employees Union,
T-3/ 2,3,4 INA Colony,
New Delhi – 110 023
…Workman
Versus
2564
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Airport Authority of India, IGI Airport,
The Director-in-charge,
New Delhi – 110 037
…Management
AWARD
On receipt of reference under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) vide letter No.L-11011/14/2001-IR(M) dated 15.04.2002, this Tribunal is now
required to adjudicate an industrial dispute with the following terms of reference:
Whether the action of the management of Airport Authority of India in not regularizing the services of
S/Smt. Santosh R Rajammal, Mariamma, Kangam and S/Shri Rajinder Kumar and Ranjeet Kumar, ex-contract
labour and now daily wager/casual worker is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief these workmen are entitled
to and from what date?
2.
It is clear from the averments made in the amended statement of claim that the claimants herein were working as
sweeper with the management of International Airport Authority at Terminal No. II of IGI Airport and were working at
the headquarter building of International Airport Authority through various contractors engaged by the management in
connection with the work of sweeping and cleaning of the said building for several years. Details of the claimants are
as under:
Sl.
No.
Name
Year of
Appointment
I Card/ Permit
No.
1
Mariammal
1986
7033
2
R. Rajammal
4986
6958
3
Kangam
1991
A001621
4
Rajnit Kumar alias Ranjit Singh
1993
8209
5
Rajinder Kumar alias Rajinder Singh
1996
6953
6
Santosh
1988
A001639
3.
It is further averred that the claimants have worked directly with the management at various points of time and
details of each of the workmen regarding their engagement with the management at different places is given in Para
1(a) of the statement of claim. Though the claimants were employed on daily wage basis, but they have put in long
tenure of service and their services have not been regularized by the management whereas they were performing work
of permanent nature. In view of this, union of the claimant filed a writ petition directly before the Bombay High Court
titled ‘India International Airport employees union vs. International Airport Authority of India’ and sought relief for
abolition of contact labour in the establishment of the management. The said writ petition was allowed by the Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay vide judgement dated 30.04.1995. Thereafter, management filed appeal before the Hon’ble
Apex Court where judgement of the High Court was upheld and appeal filed by the management was dismissed in case
reported as AIR (1997) SC 645.
4.
It is further alleged by the claimants that they had furnished details of their employment in an affidavit for the
purpose of regularization, containing necessary particulars. The claimants were also subjected to medical examination
and formalities were completed. Despite fulfilling of the requisite conditions, claimants were not allowed to perform
their duties with effect from 15.12.1998 onwards. No letter of termination was issued by the management to the
claimants nor any opportunity of hearing was given before dispensing with their services. No salary in lieu of notice or
retrenchment compensation was paid. It is, further, urged that a large number of workmen junior to the claimants herein
were retained, whose names are given in Para 4 of the statement of claim. Claimant has alleged that refusal of duty on
15.12.1998 is illegal, unlawful termination of the claimants. This action is extremely arbitrary and unjust. They have
been deprived of their right of livelihood.
5.
In their pleadings, claimants have also made reference of the civil suit earlier filed by them before the Civil
Court, which was decided vide judgement dated 21.12.1998 and in the said suit interim injunction was granted by the
court/ However, services of the claimants, as stated above, were terminated on 16.12.1998. Eventually, the Civil Court
has held that it cannot exercise jurisdiction on the matter, as such claimants filed the present case.
6.
Claim was resisted by the management who filed detailed reply taking preliminary objections, inter alia that
there was no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the management, as such, claim of the
claimant is not maintainable. Moreover, case of the claimant is liable to be dismissed in view of the judgement of the
II
(ii)
2565
Hon’ble Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Vs. National Union Water Front Workers (2001) 7 SCC 1. On merits,
management has denied most of the material averments. It is denied that the claimants were on their rolls since
06.12.1996, which was cut off date for regularization of contract workmen, as per judgement dated 06.12.1996 of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Air India Case. In fact, management has been awarding contracts to various contractors from
time to time and claimants were engaged directly by the said contractors, as such they were never in direct employment
with the management. After judgement dated 06.12.1996 of the Hon’ble Apex Court, thousands of applications were
received for seeking regular services with the management. A committee of Officers was constituted to scrutinize the
said applications and Medical Board was also constituted. It was finally found that several bogus application with
tampered photocopies, forged signatures etc. were filed so as to seek absorption and regularization in service of the
management. Claimant, Ms. R. Rajammal was not found on the rolls of contractor for the month of December 1996 as
no payment was made to her as per pay roll for the month of December 96. She was also not identified by the house
keeping supervisory committee. Similarly, Ms. Mariamma has claimed that she was working with ex-contractor M/s.
Aroon Enterprises with effect from 01.11.1996 whereas as per record, her first duty in November appeared only on
23.11.1996 and she was not identified by the house keeping committee. Her name has been inserted fraudulently by
the ex-contractor to extend her benefit of regularization. Smt. Kangam was working with M/s. Prime Enterprises since
October 1996. However, on verification, her name was not found in the pay rolls. Claimant Santosh was allegedly
working with Aroon Enterprises. Signature in the affidavit were made by this claimant in English whereas while
appearing before Committee officer on 22.10.1997 he signed in Hindi. Similarly, Shri Ranjit Kumar’s signatures were
also not found to be genuine. Shri Rajinder Kumar in his affidavit has mentioned his name as Rajinder Kumar whereas
in school record, his name was recorded as Rajinder Singh. Management has denied the other averments contained in
the subsequent paras of the statement of claim and further alleged that Hon’ble Supreme Court in SAIL case supra
overruled the judgement dated 06.12.1996 in Air India case. Management has taken care of all the workmen who were
employed on 06.12.1996 and the claim filed by the claimant herein is alleged to be false and baseless.
7.
No rejoinder was filed by the claimant nor any issue was separately framed by my learned predecessor as is
evident from the record.
8.
Claimants in order to support their case examined Ms. S. Rajammal, Ms. Kangam, Mariamma, Shri Rajinder
Singh and Shri Ranjit Kumar as WW1 to WW5 whose affidavits are Ex.WW1/A to Ex.WW5/A respectively.
9.
Management, in order to rebut the case of the claimants, examined Shri Girish Kumar as MW1, whose affidavit
is Ex.MW1/A.
10.
I have heard Shri H.S. Sasan, A/R for the claimant and Shri Feroz Ahmed, A/R for the management.
11.
First and foremost contention on behalf of the claimants is that they were in the employment of the management
through different contractors but they were working directly under supervision and control of the management. It was
strongly urged on behalf of the claimant that the management has not adduced any cogent or reliable evidence on
record to suggest that it was the contractor who was looking after and issuing directions to them to perform duties in the
premises of the management. Learned A/R for the claimant urged that the management has not taken care even to
examine a single contractor so as to prove any of the contracts which were entered into between the management and
the said contractor. Reliance was placed upon the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Air India
Statutory Canteen Corporation Vs. United Labour Union (1997) 9 SCC 377 wherein directions was given for
absorption of the claimants who were on job on 06.12.1990. Lastly, it was held that the management has refused the
claimants to perform duty on 15.12.1998 without serving any show cause notice or payment of one month’s notice, as
such, action of the management is held to be highly arbitrary and illegal.
12.
Per contra, Shri Feroz Ahmed, appearing on behalf of the management urged that there is no direct relationship
of employer and employee between the management and the claimants who were, in fact, engaged previously through
different contractors and they were not in fact in the employment of any contractor on the relevant date i.e. 06.12.1996
when judgement in Airport Authority of India case (supra) was rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. As a consequence
of the above judgement, a Committee was constituted by the managements, wherein thousands of applications were
filed, even by fake workmen so as to get benefit of the above judgement. Learned A/R for the management took pains
to take the court through the judgement in SAIL case (supra) wherein ratio of the Air India authority was partly
overruled and it was held that there cannot be automatic absorption of the workmen who were engaged through
contractors. Learned A/R for the management also urged that the claimants should have examined the various
contractors who were exercising effective control over the working of the claimant on the spot. Therefore, there is no
direct relationship of employer and employee between the management and the claimants.
13.
Before I proceed to consider the comparative merits of the case, it is necessary to bear in mind ratio of the case
in SAIL case (supra). In the above case, a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court directly considered the ambit
and scope of the expression ‘appropriate Government’ as used in Section 2(s) of the Act as well as section 2-1(a) of the
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Ratio of the case in Air India Statutory Corporation vs. United
2566
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Labour Union (1997) 9 SCC 377 was also reconsidered in the above case. In Para 103 Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt
with the question of direct and automatic absorption of contract labour, which was earlier considered by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Air India case (supra) In the said case, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that there is no express provision in
the CLRA Act for absorption of contract labour when an engagement of contract labour stood prohibited on the date of
notification under Section 10(1) of the Act and from that moment, principal employer cannot continue contract labour.
Resultantly, direct relationship gets established between the workman and the principle employer. It was also observed
that CLRA did not intend to denude contract labour of their source of livelihood and means of development by
throwing them out of employment after issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act. There is
also clear-cut observations that court is a watchdog of the rights of such downtrodden workmen. Workmen who are
engaged in violation of CLRA Act or such workmen/contract labour continue despite prohibition notification issued
under Section 10(1) of the Act, in that eventuality, relief of absorption in the employment of the principal employer is
to be given. However, in SAIL case (supra) findings rendered in the earlier judgement in Airport case were
prospectively overruled and it was held that with the evolution of contractor labour system or issuance of notification
under section 10(1) of CLRA Act, there is no automatic absorption of such employees with the main employer and they
would not become employees of the management. However, it was clarified in the subsequent para that all these
legislations are beneficial legislations and need to be construed liberally in favour of the workmen for whose benefit
these Acts are enacted. It was further held that on consideration of the various provisions of the CLRA Act as well as
other relevant laws, it is difficult to accept the contention that Parliament intended to absorb contract labour on issuance
of prohibition notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act. However, ratio of the above case is explicit that as an
when a post falls vacant, management is required to consider the case of each workman for the purpose of absorbing
them so as to make them regular employees of the establishment. In Para 107 of the above judgement in SAIL case
supra, it was held as under:
107. An analysis of the cases, discussed above, shows that they fall in three classes: (i) where contract labour
is engaged in or in connection with the work of an establishment and employment of contract labour is
prohibited either because the industrial adjudicator/court ordered abolition of contract labour or because the
appropriate Government issued notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, no automatic absorption of
the contract labour working in the establishment was ordered; (ii) where the contract was found to be a sham
and nominal, rather a camouflage, in which case the contract labour working in the establishment of the
principal employer were held, in fact and in reality, the employees of the principal employer himself. Indeed,
such cases do not relate to abolition of contract labour but present instances wherein the Court pierced the veil
and declared the correct position as a fact at the stage after employment of contract labour stood prohibited;
(iii) where in discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining a canteen in an establishment the principal
employer availed the services of a contractor the courts have held that the contract labour would indeed be the
employees of the principal employer.
14.
It is not out of place to mention here that in SAIL case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court approved ratio of
judgement in Hussainbhai, Calicut Vs. The Alath Factory Thezhilali Union, Kozhikode & Othrs (1978 (4) SCC 257).
Supreme Court in the said case also considered the vital question of status of the workmen who have been employed
through contractor by the principal employer. Issue in the said case was hiring of workmen through contractor by
industry manufacturing ropes. Supreme Court pointed out that work done by the contract labour was integral part of the
industry concerned and the workmen were broadly under the control of the management. Payment of wages was being
made through the contractor as is the position in the present case. In order to ascertain the real nature of the contract,
the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that where a worker or a group of workers labour to produce goods or services and
these goods or services are for the business of another, that other is in fact the employer. He has economic control
over the workers’ subsistence, skill, and continued employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off the worker is,
virtually, laid off. The presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct
relationship ex-contractu is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors
governing employment, Courts discern the naked truth, though draped in different perfect paper arrangement, that the
real employer is the management, not the immediate contractor.
15.
Yet in another case, Sankar Mukherjee & Others Vs. Union of India & Others (1990 (Supp.) SCC 668), The
Hon’ble Apex Court considered the notification under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Prohibition)
Act, 1970. The said notification by the Government of West Bengal dealt with prohibiting the employment of contract
labour in 16 departments covering 65 jobs in the establishments of M/s. Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. The list of the
departments and the jobs are annexed in the schedule to the notification. One of the Departments related to Brick
Department excluding the job of loading and un-loading of bricks from wagons and trucks. On a challenge made by
the affected workers that they had been subjected to hostile discrimination so much so that the workmen doing the same
job in other departments and allied jobs in the same department have been rescued from the system of contract labour,
the Supreme Court pointed out that bricks handled by the brick department were used in furnaces of the company as
refractory and incidental to the industry carried on by the company. The petitioners herein were employed as contract
II
(ii)
2567
labour by the company for the last 15 to 20 years. The Supreme Court further pointed out that even though the
petitioners were not doing the job of stacking the bricks, there was no denial nor any averment or material on the record
to show that the job of loading and unloading of bricks was not incidental or alike to the stacking of the bricks. On the
other hand, they are one continuous process. That being so, the workers performing these jobs which are of perennial
nature, are to be treated alike. The Supreme Court pointed out that the workers doing the job of loading and unloading
from the wagons and trucks in the Brick Department are to be treated on par with those who are doing the job of
cleaning and stacking in the said Department. The Supreme Court further pointed out that there was no reason as to
why others doing the same job should be treated differently.
16.
During the course of arguments, great emphasis was placed by the learned counsel for the workmen on the fact
that when the nature of job done by the workmen herein is regular and perennial in nature and workers are doing same
work which was being done by regular workmen, who were admittedly drawing salary double the amount of the salary
of the workmen herein, in such a situation, so called contracts with the contractors in the face of prohibition notification
under Section 10 cannot be termed to be legally valid. Such agreements are against public policy and any agreement
against public policy is liable to be termed as a void agreement. Consequently, such a contract itself becomes void,
sham, nominal and bogus in the eyes of law, such contracts are bogus and sham in law. Since majority of the workmen
are doing the work of skilled or semi-skilled in nature, which is an integral part of the activity of the department, as
such there was no question of engaging contract labour after issuance of notification under Section 10 of the CLRA
Act.
17.
In this regard, reliance was placed by the workmen on the case of Catering Cleaners of Southern Railway vs.
Union of India and another (1987 (1) SCC 700). This decision relates to a case of contract labour engaged for cleaning
catering establishments and pantry cars in Southern Railway. The Supreme Court pointed out that although the contract
system has been abolished in almost all the other Railways, the Southern Railway persists in employing contract labour
for cleaning its catering establishments and pantry cars to serve public better. In considering the claim of the contract
labour, Hon’ble Supreme Court pointed out that the work of cleaning catering establishments and pantry cars is
necessary and incidental to the industry or the business of the Southern Railway; the employment is of perennial nature
and that the work required employment of sufficient number of whole-time workmen. Thus, these factors satisfy the
provisions under Section 10(2) of the CLRA Act. Considering such facts, instead of issuing a Mandamus, the Supreme
Court directed the Central Government to take appropriate action under Section 10 of CLRA Act in the matter of
prohibiting employment of contract labour in the work of cleaning catering establishments and pantry cars in Southern
Railway. The Supreme Court further directed that these workmen, who were previously employed by the contractor on
the same wages and conditions of work as are applicable to those engaged in similar work in Western Railway, be
absorbed without waiting for the decision of the Central Government.
18. Question of contract labour was also considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suresh vs Haryana
State Electricity Board (1999 LLJ 1086). It was also a case where question of right of equality, i.e. equal pay for equal
work as well as question of contract labour was considered. In the said case also, Haryana State Electricity
Board awarded contract for keeping plants and service station clean and hygienic conditions to a private
contractor. There was a stipulation in the contractor to employ minimum number of workmen. Workmen had put in
more than 240 days in a calendar year and worked for several years. Labour Court ordered their reinstatement with
continuity of services when contractor had terminated their services. Hon’ble High Court also held that there existed
relationship of employer and employee between the Electricity Board and the workmen and upheld the award of the
Labour Court. Hon’ble Apex Court also upheld the judgement of the High Court and observed that maintenance work
in the plant is not seasonal in nature and overall control of contract labour, including administrative control rested with
the Electricity Board. Neither the contractor was licenced nor Electricity Board was registered as principal
employer. Therefore, so called contract system was merely a camouflage, bogus and a smoke screen. In the case in
hand also, as observed above, admittedly there is no evidence on record to show that the management was duly
registered nor there is any evidence worth the name that the so called contractor was duly licenced under the law. Work
in the case in hand is also not of seasonal nature and most of the workmen are doing this work regularly for the last
several years. Same cannot be termed to be seasonal or temporary work.
19.
Now coming to the factual matrix of the present case, this Tribunal is required to apply the ratio of the rulings
discussed above on the touchstone of legal principles delineated in the above authorities. Case of the claimants herein is
that they have been working from the year 1986 to 89 till their termination with effect from 15.12.1998. During the
course of arguments, it was not denied that work of sweeping and cleaning is of perennial or permanent nature and the
same was given by the management on paper to different contactors. It is not out of place to mention here that under
Section 7 of the CLRA Act, every principal employer is required to get registered its establishment in accordance with
the procedure contained in the said Act. There is a prescribed format for this and principal employer of the
establishment is finally to be issued certificate of registration containing necessary formalities. Finally, contravention of
Section 7 is also an offence under the law. Section 10 deals with the prohibition of employment of contract labor and
2568
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
under Section 12, it is clearly provided that no contractor shall undertake or execute any work through contract labour
without obtaining necessary licence issued by the Licence Officer in this behalf. Licence, in fact, contains necessary
conditions, including working hours, nature of work, place of work etc. and the appropriate Government also imposes
other conditions upon the contractor for the welfare of the workman. It is necessary condition for obtaining certificate
of registration under Section 7 of the CLRA Act and licence by the contractor are mandatory before award of any work
to the contractor. Licence issued to the contractor is prima facie proof that the contractors can engage contract labour
for the purpose mentioned in the said contract. In the case in hand, unfortunately no pain has been taken by the
management to specifically mention name of the contractor engaged by the management, year-wise, so as to perform
the work of sweeping and cleaning etc. Examination of the contractor was even otherwise necessary so as to ascertain
as to who was exercising supervisory or effective control over the performance of work by the workmen who were
admittedly working in the premises of the management. Affidavits Ex.WW1/A to Ex.WW5/A filed by the claimants
show that averments contained in the affidavit are in consonance with the stand taken in the statement of claim. They
have deposed in their cross examination that they were never asked to submit any documents for registration However,
their medical examination was got done and workmen were told that she would receive letter of regularization from the
management. Ms. Rajammal deposed that her last drawn wages was Rs. 3700.00 per month. She has admitted that no
letter of appointment was issued to her at the time of her initial appointment. However, she has clearly denied that she
was not an employee of the management. She has also made reference to her pass Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW1/2. Bare
perusal of WW1 would show that she was issued pass by government of India, Bureau of Civil Aviation Security and
was valid from April 1998 to 19.08.1998 and Head of Organization is shown as International Airport which shows that
she was working in the premises of the management. There is also mention of specific area. Similarly in Ex.WW1/2
there is mention of period 13.10.1996 to 16.10.1995. Ex.WW1/1 shows that even during the year 1996, Ms. Rajammal
was in the employment and was doing work for the management. Ex.WW1/3, pass of Rajammal shows that she was
doing the work of sweeping International Airport Terminal No.II and the same has been issued by the Deputy
Commissioner of IGIA authority. Similarly perusal of Ex.WW1/4 shows that case of the workman was espoused
through their union and matter was discussed at length. Even Ms. Kangam WW2 was in the employment since 1989
and she was kept on the job by contractor Rathore and worked under him for 3-4 years and she has not specifically
mentioned as to when she directly came in employment of the management. However, she has clarified that she
worked for about 2 years from 14.12.1998. She has further clarified that the management has engaged her through
contractor and that she was not paid any salary nor issued any notice at the time of her termination. Smt. Kangam has
proved her affidavit as Ex.WW2/A and stated that she was engaged through contractor since 1989 and she was working
with the management in the year 1996 and her services were not regularized. Her pass is Ex.WW2/2. Smt. Mariammal
has been examined as WW3 and her affidavits are Ex.WW3/A and Ex.WW3/B. She has tried to support the averments
contained in her affidavit. She has worked with the contractor till 14.12.1996. She has denied material suggestion that
she was not identified by the supervisor of the committee. Her pass is Ex.WW3/1. Similarly, Shri Rajender Singh was
examined as WW4 and his additional affidavit is Ex.WW4/B. He clarified that his name in school leaving certificate is
mentioned as Rajinder Singh. Perusal of School leaving certificate Ex.WW4/1 shows that his name is mentioned as
Rajinder Singh, S/o Shri Mewa Lal. Thus, it does not lie in the mouth of the management to say that Shri Rajinder
Kumar is different person from Rajinder Singh. It is matter of common knowledge that semi literate persons sometimes
do not get their name registered as per their matriculation certificate but get their name registered with the name as they
are commonly called. Shri Ranjit Singh is WW5. He has clearly deposed that he was in the employment of the
management since 02.02.1995 and in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, he was taken care of by the
management and he was an employee of the contractor at that time. He has also made reference to the Scrutiny
committee His middle class certificate Ex.WW5/2 mentions his name as Shri Ranjit. Hence, there is no merit in the
contention of the management that the claimants herein were not in fact doing any job at IGIS or were not in the
employment prior to 1996 when judgement in Airport Authority of India case (supra ) was rendered by the Hon’ble
Apex Court.
20.
Statement of Shri Girish Kumar is almost on similar lines as has been taken in the statement of defence. His
affidavit is Ex.MW1/A. In his cross examination, he has clarified that the words ‘taken under care’ in his affidavit
means that the workmen were taken under care through contractor. He has made reference to the lumpsum honorarium
through contractor. He has denied that after the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court on 06.12.1996, management
removed the contractor from the scene. He has denied the suggestion that the claimants remained directly in their
service on 14.12.1996. In his subsequent cross examination, he has clarified that the claimants were employees of some
company and not of the management and prior to 01.02.1997 there were contract workers. He was specifically posed
with the question by this court regarding production of the contract agreement entered into between the management
and the contractor. He has clarified in his subsequent cross examination dated 10.04.2013 that contract agreement
between the management and the contractor is not traceable and hence the same could not be produced. He was not in
a position to say as to how many contract were awarded from time to time as contractors used to be changed from time
to time. He was not even able to tell whether contractors used to supply list of the workers working with the said
contractors. He has also given strange reply that the management was not obliged to ask the contractor as to who were
II
(ii)
2569
their employees on 06.12.1996, as such no record was obtained from him. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the
provisions of Chapter VI of Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition (Central ) Rules 1971 which deals with the
payment of wages to the workers and precaution to be taken both by the contractor as well as by the management. Rule
7 specifically provides that wage shall be paid to the workmen without deduction of any kind, except those specified
by the Central Government in its special order. Rule 77 requires that the principal employer shall ensure presence of
their authorized representative on the at the time of disbursal of wage by the contractor to the workmen and it shall be
the duty of the contractor to ensure disbursement of wages in the presence of such authorized representative. The
authorized representative, as per rule 77 is also required to append his signatures on the said certificate. . Principal
employer is also obliged to maintain register in respect of each establishment and contractor is also required to maintain
register in respect of the workmen employed in such establishment. Copy of the list of workers so employed is also
required to be submitted to the principal employer by the contractor and after payment of wages, copy thereof is
required to be submitted to the principal employer so as to ensure payment of wages in accordance with law. In the case
in hand, as is evident from the cross-examination of Shri Girish Kumar, nothing of this sort has been done and same has
dealt a crippling blow to the welfare provisions contained in the CLRA rules made there-under. Moreover, non-
examination of the contractor as well as non-production of various contract agreements also shows that the management
has intentionally concealed something from this court so as to harm the case of the claimants. This Tribunal has to draw
adverse inference against the management for non-production of these material documents as proof of the same is
required under the law. It is further clear that the so called contractors who have been mentioned in the evidence by the
management in the pleadings as well as evidence were simply name lenders as they were not having any kind of
supervisory or administrative control over the workmen who were admittedly rendering services in the premises of the
management.
21.
During the course of arguments learned A/R for the claimant fairly conceded that Shri Rajinder Kumar alias
Rajinder Singh has since expired during pendency of reference and he did not take appropriate steps for bringing on
record legal heirs of the deceased claimant as nobody turned up on his behalf to pursue the matter. Though Shri
Santosh filed affidavit, but he did not turn up thereafter so as to support the averments contained in his affidavit. As
such, no relief can be granted to both these claimants.
22.
So far as claimants Ms.Mariammal, Ms.Rajammal, Ms.Kangam and Shri Ranjit Kumar is concerned, as
discussed above, they have appeared before this Tribunal for supporting the averments made in the statement of claim.
Termination of these claimants from services is apparently in violation of Section 25 F of the Act, which requires that
one months notice or pay in lieu thereof has been paid to the claimants before their termination. Admittedly, no such
notice was issued nor one month’s pay in lieu thereof was given to the claimant. This clearly shows that the
management has committed gross violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, which clearly provides that even
services of workmen who are employed on daily basis and has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year or for
12 months cannot be terminated or retrenched unless workmen has been given one month’s notice in writing, indicating
reasons for such retrenchment or the workman has been paid salary of one month in lieu of such notice. There is a long
line of decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts as well as Hon’ble Apex Court that violation of the above provisions
would render action of the management to be illegal and void under the law. This view has been reiterated in the case
of Ajay Pal vs Haryana Warehousing Corporation (AIR (2015) Lab.IC 3765). Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Umrala Gram Parishad Vs. The Secretary, Municipal Employees Union And Ors. (2015) Lab.IC 3765 also dealt with
provisions of Section 25-t read with section 2 (ra) of the Act, in case of safai kaamdaar employed by the Parishad. The
work which was being done by daily kaamdaar was the same as those of the regular workmen. There was disparity in
payment of wages between permanent and contract workmen. Same was held to be unfair labour practice and plea of
the Parishad that their financial position was not strong so as to pay salary equal to that of the permanent workman was
rejected. Hon’ble Apex Court ordered to treat the services of such workmen permanent and pay them regular pay
scale which was being paid to the permanent safai kaamdars.
23.
Reference in the present case is regarding regularization of service of the claimants and not to the effect whether
termination of the claimants by the management is illegal or unjustified. Though reference should have been to the
effect whether services of the claimants herein were wrongly and illegally terminated or whether they can be
reinstated in service with back wages but the Government has only made reference for regularization of the claimants
herein, which clearly shows that the claimants are to be treated in the employment of the management. Even otherwise,
as discussed above, action of the management on the face of it is unfair and unjustified. This Tribunal is legally
empowered to give findings on the incidental issues connected with the main reference in terms of section (4) of
Section 10 of the Act. Accordingly, it is held that termination of the four claimants, i.e. Ms.Mariammal, Ms.R.
Rajammal, Ms.Kangam and Shri Ranjit Kumar is unfair and unjustified and they are liable to be reinstated with back
wages and their case for regularization is liable to considered in terms of policy, if any in operation. An award is,
accordingly, passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : April 10, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
2570
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
—
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2017
S.O. 1115.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 84/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. SAIL, Rourkela Steel Plant and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
13.04.2017.
[No. L-29011/24/2012-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Shri B.C. Rath,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 84/2012
Date of Passing Award – 8th March, 2017
Between:
The Chief Executive Officer,
SAIL, Rourkela Steel Plant,
Rourkela, Dist. Sundargarh
…1st Party-Management
(And)
The Deputy General Secretary,
Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha,
Bisra Road, Rourkela – 769 001,
Dist. Sundargarh
…2nd Party-Union
Appearances:
Shri P.K. Nayak, Authorized Representative
…
For the 1st Party-Management
Shri R.C. Mahanta
…
For the 2nd Party-Union.
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour 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 have referred the reference vide its
letter No. 29011/24/2012 – IR(M), dated 24.09.2012 for adjudication of the following dispute namely:-
Whether the demand of the Union from the management of SAIL, Rourkela Steel Plant to correct the anomaly
and to give pay protection to Shri R.C. Mohanta at par with Shri J. Pattnaik is legal and justified? What relief
the workman is entitled to?”
2.
Facts giving rise to the above reference are as follows:-
II
(ii)
2571
The disputant workman Shri R.C. Mahanta joined in the 1st Party-Management on 15.10.1977 in the cadre of S-4
Grade and reported to his duty in the department of research and control laboratory of the Management. He was
promoted to S-5 Grade on 15.10.1979 in the said department and thereafter he was posted in the fertilizer plant and
joined there as Grade-1 Operator in same cadre on 9.5.1989. One Shri J. Pattnaik also joined in the fertilizer plant on
17.05.1980 in the cadre of S-5 Grade and both of them were in the same channel of promotion/line of promotion. Both
of them were promoted from S-5 Grade to S-6, S-7, S-8, S-9 and S-10 Grade on the same day, whereas their annual
increments fell on 1st January and 1st July respectively. The basic pay of Shri Mahanta and Shri Pattnaik were fixed at
Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 9,800/- respectively on their promotion to S-10 cadre on 30.06.2003. The Management introduced
a new scheme of increment on the basis of percentage of basic pay with effect from 01.04.2005 by its circular dated
22.3.2007. Accordingly pay of Shri Mahanta was fixed at Rs. 10,557/- and that of Shri Pattnaik was fixed at
Rs. 10,350/- on 01.04.2005 under the new scheme. Since Shri Pattnaik was allowed to draw his annual increment with
effect from 01.07.2005 his basic pay rose to Rs. 10,712/- on that day but, the basic pay of Shri Mahanta remained same
i.e. Rs. 10,557/- till he was allowed to draw his annual increment on next January. There is also no serious dispute to
the fact that the disputant workman was transferred from Fertilizer Plant to Research Control Laboratory on 09.03.2004
in the same cadre S-10, whereas Shri Pattnaik continued in the Fertilizer Plant and both the departments are having
separate channel of promotion/line of promotion as on 01.07.2005.
3.
It is the claim of the disputant workman that the Management issued a circular on 16.04.2008 whereby it has
been stipulated and clarified that if any anomaly arises in fixation of pays due to implementation of percentage system
in the rate of increment, the pay of the senior would be stepped up to the pay that of the junior provided; (a) the affected
employee is senior, (b) has the same line/channel of promotion, (c) also the senior person in the lower grade had been
drawing higher or equal basic pay, (d) the date of increment of the senior employee in the lower grade of pay was either
the same or earlier than that of the junior employee. It has been further stipulated in the said circular that on levelling of
the pay there would be no change in the date of increment of the employee. Keeping in view the above circular the
disputant workman is stated to have made a representation to his higher authority for giving him pay protection against
that of Shri Pattnaik. But his request was turned down on a plea that the provision of stepping-up of pay is not
applicable to his case. Hence, he raised a dispute through the Union giving rise to the present reference and a prayer has
been made in his statement of claim for stepping up his basic pay to the tune of Rs. 10712/- with effect from 01.07.2005
which is the basic pay of his junior Shri Pattnaik on that day and to allow him to draw his annual increment as on usual
date of his increment.
4.
The Management has resisted the claim taking a stand that the circular dated 16.04.2008 is not applicable to the
case of the disputant workman since he and Shri Pattnaik were posted in different wings of the Management on
01.07.2005 and as such they were not in the same line of promotion/channel of promotion. It is the case of the
Management that the disputant workman was transferred and posted to Research Control Laboratory on 9.3.2004
without any reservation/protest by him. Shri Pattnaik was subsequently transferred from Fertilizer Plant to Oxygen
Plant on 19.10.2006 which has a separate channel/line of promotion than that of Shri Mahanta. According to the
Management the scheme of increment on the basis of percentage system was introduced with retrospective effect from
01.04.2005 by the circular dated 22.3.2007 for all non-executive employees of SAIL. Clarifications were issued on
27.7.2007 and 16.4.2008 on pay fixations when there arises anomaly in pay fixation of a senior to that of a junior. As
per circular dated 16.4.2008 the pay of the senior is to be stepped up to that of the junior in the event of the junior
drawing higher pay than the senior provided; both of them are in same channel/line of promotion. Since Shri Mahanta
and Shri Pattnaik were posted in different departments of the Management having separate channel/line of promotion
on 1.4.2005, the pay of Shri Mahanta cannot be stepped up and equated to the pay of Shri Pattnaik with effect from
01.07.2005. As such, the claim of Shri Mahanta has no merit and the reference is to be answered against him.
5.
On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties following issues have been settled as per the terms of reference for
adjudication of the dispute.
ISSUES
1.
Whether the demand of the Union from the management of SAIL, Rourkela Steel Plant to correct the
anomalies and to give pay protection to Shri R.C. Mahanta at par with Shri J. Pattnaik is legal and
justified?
2.
What relief the workman is entitled to?
6.
Both the parties have adduced oral evidence in support of their respective stand and relied upon the same set of
circulars issued by the Management. That part documents like copies of comparative statement of basic pay in respect
of the workman and Shri J. Pattnaik, anomaly statement of the 2nd party, letters/orders dated 31.12.1986 to 21.7.2011
issued by the Management and details of arrear payment from April, 2005 to February, 2007 of the workman have
been exhibited on behalf of the disputant workman and marked Ext.- 1 to Ext.- 19 whereas, the Management has relied
2572
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
upon the documents like some letters/representations from dated 9.3.2004 to 21.7.2011 marked Ext.- A to Ext.- K to
refute the claim of the disputant workman.
7.
As it appears from the pleadings and evidence of the parties that there is no serious dispute to the fact that Shri
Mahanta joined in the Management earlier to Shri Pattnaik and being senior to him he was drawing higher basic pay
than that of Shri Pattnaik till 01.07.2005. A scheme of percentage system of rate of increment was introduced with
retrospective effect from 01.04.2005 by the circular dated 22.03.2007 of the Management. It is also not in dispute that
by the time of introduction of the new increment scheme both the employees were transferred and posted in different
wings/departments of the Management and as such they were having separate channel/line of promotion. As per the
circulars more particularly the circular dated 16.4.2008 the date of increment of employees were not affected and
accordingly the date of increment of Shri Mahanta was 1st January whereas that of Shri Pattnaik was 1st July. It is also
emerging from the contentions advanced by the parties that both of them were having same channel/line of promotion
on account of they being in Fertilizer Plant till they got promotion to the grade of S-10 cadre. Therefore, had both of
them continued in one wing of the Management i.e. in the Fertilizer Plant, the basic pay of Shri Mahanta would have
been fixed at Rs. 10,557/- and the basic of pay of Shri Pattnaik would have been fixed at Rs. 10,350/- as on 01.04.2005
due to introduction of new Scheme of annual increment. As the date of annual of increment of Shri Pattnaik fell on
01.07.2005, the pay of Shri Pattnaik was increased to Rs. 10,712/- on that day by virtue of annual increment, whereas
the pay of Shri Mahanta remained at Rs. 10,557/- till he got his annual increment on January next. In order to avoid
such anomaly and to protect the interest of seniors, the provision of stepping up of basic pay of senior to that of junior is
usually given effect by the employer and there is no serious contention from either side that the circular dated 16.4.2008
has been issued to avoid such type of anomaly in fixation of basic pay of senior and junior. Had both of them continued
their service in the Fertilizer Plant, the basic pay of Shri Mahanta could have been stepped up and equated to the basic
of Shri Pattnaik on 01.07.2005 pursuant to the circular dated 16.4.2008 so that Shri Mahanta should not draw lower pay
than Shri Pattnaik, who is junior to him in the cadre.
8.
The Management is not prepared to adopt/apply the circular taking a plea that both of them being in separate
departments which have separate line/channel of promotion and Shri Mahanta cannot avail the benefit of the circular
due to the stipulation that the senior must have the same line/channel of promotion to that of the junior. Indisputedly the
circular requires that stepping up pay of seniors to that of juniors is permissible subject to the satisfaction of the
stipulations as provided in the circular. One of the stipulations is that both of them should be in the same channel/line
of promotion. But, it cannot be over-sighted that as per the service jurisprudence the condition or stipulation if any in
the circular has to be construed and interpreted liberally keeping in view the financial benefit of an employee. Usually
in the matter of increment or promotion the employee is always expected to derive financial advantage and as such his
pay fixation should be made accordingly giving him financial advantage. Such circular or guideline shall not be
interpreted/applied in detrimental to the employee. In that view of the matter there would be no unanimity that the
stipulation “the same line/channel of promotion” has been incorporated keeping in view the fact that workmen or
employees working in different departments of the Management have different promotional scope/avenues. By virtue
of such different promotional avenues in different departments a junior employee of a particular department can be
entitled to higher basic pay than that of his senior working in different department by virtue of his earlier promotion in
his department and in that circumstance the senior working in other department cannot claim his pay shall be fixed to
that of his junior in pursuant to the above circular dated 16.4.2008. However, in the case at hand the basic pay of Shri
Pattnaik on 01.07.2005 is not in the higher side due to his earlier promotion on account of he being in separate
line/channel of promotion than that of Shri Mahanta. Rather, both of them reached to grade-S-10 cadre having been
posted in the same wings/department i.e. Fertilizer Plant after availing the same line/channel of promotion. Admittedly,
the basic pay of Shri Pattnaik became higher than that of Shri Mahanta in the same cadre when they were transferred
and posted in different wings/department, which have separate line/channel of promotion. But, it cannot be over-looked
that both of them inherited their basic pay in grade S-10 cadre from the same department though the basic pay of Shri
Pattnaik became higher than that of Shri Mahanta on 01.07.2005 due to grant of annual increment in favour of Shri
Pattnaik. He reached to that scale due to getting earlier increment than that of Shri Mahanta after pay fixation under the
new Scheme. As per the principles of equity and natural justice the stipulation “the same line/channel of promotion”
shall not be interpreted or construed in its literal meaning in the case at hand. The same should have been interpreted
and the circular dated 16.4.2008 should have been applied in the case of Shri Mahanta to step up his pay taking into
consideration that both of them reached to the anomaly in their basic pay being in same line/channel of promotion. It
appears that the Management has rejected the claim of the disputant workman taking literal meaning of the stipulation
as both of them were in different wings which have different channel of promotion when Shri Mahanta requested to
step up his pay. On the other hand the Management should have taken into consideration the source i.e. the channel/line
of promotion from which they reached to their basic pay on 01.07.2005 instead of taking their postings on 01.07.2005.
Hence, action of the Management refusing the stepping up pay of Shri Mahanta to that of Shri Pattnaik on 01.07.2005 is
apparently wrong and unjustified in the present situation. Hence the contention advanced by the Management is not
acceptable.
II
(ii)
2573
9.
For the reasons mentioned above, the disputant workman Shri R.C. Mahanta is entitled to get pay protection to
that of his junior Shri J. Pattnaik with effect from 01.07.2005 only in the cadre of S-10 grade with his usual annual
increment on 1st January.
10.
The reference is answered accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
—
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 24th April, 2017
S.O. 1116.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of
Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.04.2017.
[No. L-12012/25/2015-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Tuesday, the 4th April, 2017
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 32/2015
(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 State Bank of India and their workman)
BETWEEN :
Sri M. Swaminathan
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Deputy General Manager
:
2nd Party/Respondent
State Bank of India
Chennai Zone-I, NW-1, Zonal Office
Rajaji Salai
Chennai-600001
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
M/s. K. M. Ramesh, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
Sri S. Ravindran, Shri S. Bazeer Ahamad, Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/25/2015-(IR (B-I)
dated 09.03.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The Schedule mentioned in that order is:
2574
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Chennai regarding the termination of the service
of the petitioner, M. Swaminathan is justified or not? If not, to what relief the petitioner is entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 32/2015 and issued notices to both sides.
Both parties have entered appearance through their counsel and filed their claim and counter statement respectively.
The petitioner has filed Rejoinder after the Counter Statement was filed.
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:
During the period from 05.06.2004 to 30.09.2010 the petitioner was working as Special Assistant at
Melsanakuppam Branch. He was transferred to Perambur Branch in 2010 as Senior Special Assistant. He was
discharging his duties faithfully and efficiently. While working at Perambur Branch the petitioner was placed under
suspension by letter dated 27.08.2011. The petitioner was served with a Charge Sheet dated 14.02.2012 alleging various
lapses on his part. Subsequently, an amended Memorandum of Charge was served on him. The petitioner submitted a
representation to the Disciplinary Authority requesting to provide the names of witnesses and list of documents to be
relied upon by the Management. Rather than providing these details the petitioner was informed that an Enquiry Officer
had been appointed to enquire into the charges against the petitioner. Though the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry
Officer he was not provided with the copies of documents relied upon by the Management. On 10.03.2012 the
petitioner requested the Enquiry Officer to postpone the enquiry till reply is received from the Disciplinary Authority.
However, the Enquiry Officer decided to conduct the enquiry ex-parte even when the petitioner was present at the
enquiry and participated in the proceedings. The enquiry was conducted in total violation of principles of natural
justice, equity and fairness. It was also against the rules relating to departmental enquiry. On the basis of the report of
the enquiry the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner from service on 28.03.2012. The action of the
Disciplinary Authority was mechanical, without applying his mind. The petitioner acted in good faith and without any
mala fide intention as per the instruction of the superior officer. The petitioner was not imparted proper training to
ensure purity of gold ornaments. An appraiser was arranged by the Branch Manager for examining the purity. The
Branch Manager had himself ascertained the quality and quantity of the gold ornaments and sanctioned the loans in
question in spite of the fact that the checking of purity of gold falls within the purview of the duties of Special
Assistant. On 23.06.2011 the Branch Manager of Melsanakuppam Branch had preferred a complaint stating that he
suspected purity of gold ornaments pledged with the Bank. A check was made with the assistance of Professional Gold
Appraiser and jewels pledged in respect of 26 out of 84 agricultural loans were found spurious. On enquiry it was
revealed that two account holders had confessed about their involvement in the fraud and had agreed to repay the
amount when the fraud came to light. Several account holders had closed their accounts. In the complaint made there is
no mention of the involvement of the petitioner in committing fraud. The action of the Respondent in dismissing the
petitioner from service is illegal and unjustified. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 28.03.2012 when he was
due for retirement on 31.03.2012. The petitioner is entitled to full salary from the date of suspension from service and
for settlement of all his terminal benefits and pensionery benefits. An Award may be passed accordingly.
4.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:
The petitioner had 32 years of experience on the eve of the incident. On 25.02.2012 a charge sheet was issued to
the petitioner for his failure to follow the systems and procedures prescribed in respect of appraisal and disbursement of
gold loans during the period from 15.06.2004 to 30.09.2010 resulting in fraud being committed in the branch. An
Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges against the petitioner. The petitioner was not present on the
date when the enquiry was started. The enquiry was postponed. But on the postponed date the petitioner sought
adjournment and the case was again reposted. When he sought adjournment on the next posting date also this was
refused by the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner was set ex-parte and enquiry was concluded. The Enquiry Officer
found that out of the 8 charges 5 charges are proved and 2 not proved and one charge was found to be true. After
personal hearing the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 28.03.2012. The domestic enquiry against the
petitioner has been conducted in a fair and proper manner. If the enquiry is found vitiated the Respondent may be
permitted to lead evidence on the merits of the case. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
5.
The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the allegations in the Counter Statement and also reiterating his case in
the Claim Statement.
6.
In view of the contentions raised by the petitioner that domestic enquiry was not conducted in accordance with
the principles of natural justice, the issue was heard and a preliminary finding was entered. This Tribunal has accepted
the case of the petitioner that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. In view
of this finding the Respondent has let in evidence to prove the charges leveled against the petitioner as per the charge
memo issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has given a rebuttal evidence examining himself.
7.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.M1 to
Ext.M108.
II
(ii)
2575
8.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the action of the Respondent in terminating the petitioner from service is justified?
(ii)
What if any is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?
The Points
9.
The petitioner had joined the service of the Respondent Bank in the year 1979. He had been working as Special
Assistant at Melsanakuppam Branch during the period from 05.06.2004 to 30.09. 2010. After he was transferred to
Perambur Branch as Senior Special Assistant the then Branch Manager of Melsanakuppam Branch had suspicion about
the purity of the gold ornaments pledged with the Bank for availing agricultural gold loans. So he preferred a complaint
before the Superintendent of Police on 23.06.2011. Subsequently, a Professional Gold Appraiser was engaged to
examine the purity of the jewels and jewels pledged for 77 gold loans were found spurious. According to the
Respondent the petitioner as Special Assistant was duty bound to examine the purity of the gold ornaments and also do
certain other connected things. The petitioner was placed under suspension and a memorandum of charges was served
on him alleging 8 lapses on his part as detailed below:
He did not exercise due diligence and care in observing the due systems and procedures prescribed by the Bank
in respect of Agricultural Gold Loans. The following are the lapses against the employee:
(i)
He did not verify the address and identity of the gold loan borrowers, in respect of 77 Gold Loans
(Details given in the Annexure A)
(ii)
He did not verify and satisfy about the purity of the gold ornaments pledged for in respect of each of the
77 gold loans before recommending them for sanction. (List of Accounts in Annexure B). the gold
ornaments in respect of each of the 77 said gold loans are found to be spurious as tested and certified by
an approved appraiser.
(iii)
In all the 77 Agricultural Gold Loans, he did not verify and ensure that the loan amount arrived at for the
weight of the gold ornaments pledged, is well within the eligible amount of loan arrived at based on the
extent of acreage under cultivation, nature of crop and the applicable scale of finance.
(iv)
When he is not authorized to sanction gold loans, he has sanctioned two Agricultural Gold Loans (A/c
Nos. 30653794632 and 30700190819) and thereby violated the Bank’s instructions (Annexure-C)
(v)
He failed to roll over simultaneously while closing the existing loan (closure done on the next day only)
resulting in loans being without security for one day which is against the interest of the Bank. (List of
Accounts furnished in Annexure B)
(vi)
He did not make entries and maintain “In and Out Register” as per laid instructions.
(vii)
He put through vouchers in the CBS system without authorization of the Branch Head.
(viii) By the above acts of omission and commission, the Bank is likely to incur an estimated loss of Rs. 48.08
lacs.
10.
MW1 has given evidence with reference to the documents produced to prove the charges against the petitioner.
In the Proof Affidavit filed MW1 has stated that the petitioner who was working as Special Assistant was to obtain
KYC documents which provides for Photo ID proof and address to be given by the persons who wants to avail loan.
The petitioner is stated to have failed in complying with this procedure. In respect of 77 jewel loans he did not obtain
KYC declaration forms from the customers. He did not verify the address and identity of the persons with core-banking
solution. MW1 has referred to Ext.M3 providing for the responsibilities of the Special Assistant who is dealing with the
loan applications in respect of KYC. Ext.M5 to Ext.M10 would show that there is discrepancy in the address given by
the loan applicants when compared to core-banking solutions. Ext.M3-Circular, Annexure-A(i) refers to the duties to
be entrusted to Senior Special Assistants. It states that for opening all types of accounts including loans Senior Special
Assistants would be responsible for completion of KYC formalities, authorization of details of account in the system
and authorization in the account opening form. Ext.M5 to Ext.M10 are gold loan applications of the applicants involved
in the incident. It could be seen from the perusal of these that KYC norms were not complied with when compared to
core-banking solutions.
11.
The very admission made by the petitioner during his examination would show that he did not comply with the
procedure even though he was bound to as per the circular. In his Proof Affidavit it is stated that instructions relating to
KYC norms were followed by him, in effect admitting that he was the one dealing with the loan applications in
question and also admitted that he was bound to follow the norms. Then he had continue to state that in order to cope up
with the desire of the Branch Manager to achieve business target he has acted in good faith and has discharged the
duties as per the instructions of the Branch Manager. Then he has tried to put the responsibility on the Branch Manager
2576
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
stating that the Branch Manager had carried out mandatory scrutiny of all the loan applications and had kept a
certificate. In effect he has been stating that even if non-compliance of KYC norms is found the Manager is responsible
for the same. However, as per the circular it is entirely upon the Special Assistant to comply with the KYC norms. The
petitioner cannot escape from the liability of non-compliance of the KYC norms.
12.
As per the second charge the petitioner did not verify and get satisfied about the purity of the gold ornaments
pledged for in respect of each of the 77 gold loans before recommending them for sanction. The ornaments pledged in
respect of the gold loans were found to be spurious on testing done by an approved appraiser. MW1 has stated in his
proof affidavit that the petitioner who was bound to test the purity of the gold ornaments have not done so. According
to MW1 the petitioner was to ensure that the ornaments were tested by him using the testing materials provided in the
branch or he should have sought the assistance of the bank approved appraiser and obtain a certificate from him on the
purity of gold pledged. The petitioner had not examined purity of the gold ornaments that have come before him during
the period from 05.06.2004 to 30.09.2010 in respect of the 77 gold jewel loan applications. The case of the petitioner in
the proof affidavit submitted by him is that the branches should get the gold ornaments checked by a Gold Adviser for
its quality and purity in the case of gold loans above Rs. 50,000/-. He has further stated that as the request for gold loans
exceeded Rs. 50,000/- the Branch Manager had engaged the services of a third person. According to the petitioner, in
view of the urge of the Branch Manager to increase the loan portfolio he was totally divested of his duty to test the
purity of the gold ornaments by the Branch Manager and yet he was instructed to sign the challans and he has done so.
Thus it could be seen from the Proof Affidavit itself that the petitioner is impliedly admitting the fact that it is his duty
to test the purity of the gold ornaments. MW1 has stated in the Proof Affidavit regarding the duty of the petitioner as
Senior Special Assistant to obtain KYC and also his duty to ensure that the gold ornaments are tested by him using the
testing materials provided in the branch. The petitioner has admitted during his cross-examination that this statement
made in the Proof Affidavit of MW1 is correct. There is also Ext.M1, the Master Circular regarding agricultural gold
loans referring to the duty of the Special Assistant regarding gold loans under the heading Purity of Gold. Clause-10 of
the Circular states that the Branch Cash Officer (Special Assistant/Senior Assistant In-charge of Cash) is responsible
for ensuring genuineness and purity of gold ornaments. The subsequent sub-clauses refer to the methods to be used for
ensuring the genuineness and purity of ornaments. It has been admitted by the petitioner during his cross-examination
that there is apparatus in the branch for verifying the purity of gold. He specifically admitted that he did not verify the
purity of the 77 jewels involved in the 77 jewel loan applications personally. Thus it could be seen that the petitioner
has been shirking away from his responsibility of testing the purity of gold involved in the loan applications that came
before him. This has happened for a long period i.e. from 05.06.2004 to 30.09.2010.
13.
Ext.M11 to Ext.M37 are the appraisal certificates issued to the Bank by the Approved Appraiser and Valuer of
the Bank declaring that the ornaments involved in the 77 loan applications were spurious. There is no case for the
petitioner that these are not certificates properly issued. There is also no case that these are not certificates issued after
appraising the jewels involved in the loans in question. In his Proof Affidavit the petitioner has impliedly admitted the
case of the Respondent that the ornaments involved in the concerned loans were found spurious. He has stated in his
affidavit that the appraiser had issued certificates in respect of certain loans which were closed also. MW1 has stated in
his Chief Affidavit that at the time when the charge sheet was issued 67 loanees had not paid any amount towards the
jewel loans availed by them and the Bank was thus exposed to loss of more than Rs. 45.00 lakhs in respect of 66 loan
accounts. Thus the second charge against the petitioner also is proved.
14.
The Third Charge is that the petitioner did not verify and ensure that the loan amount arrived at for the weight of
the gold ornaments pledged is within the eligible amount of loan arrived at based on the extent of the acreage under
cultivation, nature of crop and the applicable scale of finance. However, the Respondent has not adduced any evidence
regarding this charge. No documents are produced pertaining to this also. So this charge is not established.
15.
The Fourth Charge is that the petitioner though not authorized to sanction gold loans has sanctioned two
agricultural gold loans and violated the Bank’s instructions. The petitioner has stated in his affidavit that he did not
sanction gold loans. According to him the Branch Manager had sanctioned the loans and instructed him to sign as if he
sanctioned loan. According to MW1 agricultural gold loans can be sanctioned only by the officials of Junior
Management Grade-I and above. The petitioner who is a Senior Special Assistant has not been vested with powers of
sanctioning loans. It is very clear from the Proof Affidavit of the petitioner itself that he had signed loan applications
sanctioning them, though according to him it was at the instance of the Branch Manager. The petitioner has admitted
that Ext.M43 and Ext.M45 loan applications contain his initial with endorsement “Sanctioned Agricultural Gold Loan
with a limit of Rs. 30,000/-“. Thus it is apparent that these loans were sanctioned by him. The duties of the Senior
Special Assistant as stated in Ext.M3 does not give any power to sanction loans. Ext.M45 states that only the Branch
Managers have the discretion to exercise powers for conversion of crop loans into term loans, etc. Even the Managers
of the Division or Rural Development Managers are not to exercise these powers. Thus it could be seen that by
sanctioning the two loans, the petitioner has acted beyond his authority, against the instructions given by the Bank in
this respect.
II
(ii)
2577
16.
The Fifth Charge is that the petitioner failed to rollover simultaneously by closing the existing loans resulting in
loans being without security for one day. MW1 had explained in his affidavit that when a customer is having an
existing loan amount he is not entitled to another loan on the very same loan ornaments pledged by him to the Bank.
The customer can obtain a new loan only after closing the old loan account. On 16.09.2010 the petitioner seems to have
processed 7 jewel loans resulting in two loans having been given on the same day in respect of one jewel which was
also found to be spurious later. However, the allegation now made in the Proof Affidavit seems to be different from the
charge that is made against the petitioner.
17.
The Respondent has not adduced any evidence regarding the Sixth Charge that the petitioner failed to make
entries and maintain in and out register as per laid down instructions.
18.
The Seventh Charge is that the petitioner had put through vouchers in the CBS System without authorization of
the Branch Head. As could be seen from the evidence given by MW1 the petitioner has signed in the space for signature
of the authorized official when the Branch Manager had not authorized the vouchers for posting in CBS. This could be
seen from Ext.M79 to Ext.M86.
19.
Thus it could be seen that the main and grevious charges against the petitioner that he failed to verify the KYC
norms and also did not test the purity of the gold involved in 77 agricultural gold loans are proved beyond doubt. This
has resulted in the Bank having been exposed to a loss of more than Rs. 45.00 lakhs. This is in spite of the fact that the
petitioner had service of 32 years at the time of the incident. He has been continuously resorting to the practice of not
testing the purity of the ornaments deliberately or probably out of negligence. The lapses on the part of the petitioner
are very grievous. The petitioner having been placed in a position of faith and was dealing with the public money he
should have shown sufficient sincerity in his work.
20.
Rather than the reversal of the finding by the Enquiry Officer the attempt of the petitioner has been to see that
the punishment of dismissal imposed on him is modified so that he becomes entitled for terminal benefits and pension
on his retirement. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judicial pronouncements pointing out that Tribunal
has got the power to reduce the penalty imposed by the domestic tribunal There is no doubt about this power of
interference by the Tribunal. However, the power should be exercised judicially and judiciously. Here is a case where a
Senior Special Assistant who was very much acquainted with the banking procedure and was bound to do certain duties
on his part had failed to performed those duties thus resulting in the Bank being exposed to a loss of almost half crore.
It would not be proper to interfere with the punishment of dismissal imposed on the petitioner. I do not find any reason
to interfere with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
21.
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 4th April, 2017)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
WW1, Sri M. Swaminathan
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
MW1, Sri V. Narasimhan
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
13.04.2009
Master Circular Agri Gold
Ext.M2
24.03.2009
Master Circular on Career Progression: Award Staff in-cadre higher appointments
Ext.M3
22.10.2009
Empowerment of staff – review of Career Progression Scheme – Circular No.
CIRDO:HR:65 dated 22.10.2009
Ext.M4
21.10.2008 to
Copy of 70 gold loan documents
25.06.2010
2578
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.M5
28.07.2009
Copy of document a/c 30839344195
Ext.M6
-
CBS Screenshot of Customer Details – a/c 30839344195
Ext.M7
-
CBS screenshot of long – a/c 30839344195
Ext.M8
08.07.2009
Copy of document a/c 30817464699
Ext.M9
-
CBS screenshot of Customer Details – a/c 30817464699
Ext.M10
-
CBS screenshot of long enquiry – a/c 30817464699
Ext.M11
-
Appraiser Certificate – 31376076062
Ext.M12
-
Appraiser Certificate - 31467311696/31467326760
Ext.M14
-
Appraiser Certificate
Ext.M15
-
Appraiser Certificate
Ext.M16
-
Appraiser Certificate
Ext.M17
-
Appraiser Certificate
Ext.M18
-
Appraiser Certificate
Ext.M19
-
Appraiser Certificate
Ext.M20
-
Appraiser Certificate
Ext.M21
-
Appraiser Certificate
Ext.M22
-
Appraiser Certificate
Ext.M23
-
Appraiser Certificate
Ext.M24
-
Appraiser Certificate
Ext.M25
-
Appraiser Certificate
Ext.M26
-
Appraiser Certificate
Ext.M27
-
Appraiser Certificate
Ext.M28
-
Appraiser Certificate
Ext.M29
-
Appraiser Certificate
Ext.M30
-
Appraiser Certificate
Ext.M31
-
Appraiser Certificate
Ext.M32
-
Appraiser Certificate
Ext.M33
-
Appraiser Certificate
Ext.M34
-
Appraiser Certificate
Ext.M35
-
Appraiser Certificate
Ext.M36
-
Appraiser Certificate
Ext.M37
08.07.2011
Approved Jewel Valuer’s Authenticity
Ext.M38
18.09.2010
Copy of document – a/c 31116693663
Ext.M39
16.09.2010
Copy of document – a/c 31448210395
Ext.M40
16.09.2011
Copy of document – a/c 31139261830
Ext.M41
16.09.2010
Copy of document – a/c 31156680395
Ext.M42
20.04.2010
Scale of Finance – Circular No. RBU-14/2010-11 dated 20.04.2010
Ext.M43
21.01.2009
Copy of document – a/c 30653794632
Ext.M44
04.03.2009
Copy of document – a/c 30700190819
Ext.M45
12.05.2009
Copy of circular on delegation of financial powers
Ext.M46
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 31420040922 – short enquiry
II
(ii)
2579
Ext.M47
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 31420040922 – Transactions Enquiry
Ext.M48
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 30344806992 – Short enquiry
Ext.M49
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 3030448-6992 – transaction Enquiry
Ext.M50
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 31419953776 – Short enquiry
Ext.M51
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 31419953776 – Transaction Enquiry
Ext.M52
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 30376606667 – Short enquiry
Ext.M53
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 30376606667 – Transaction Enquiry
Ext.M54
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 31420122170 – Short enquiry
Ext.M55
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 31420122170 – Transaction Enquiry
Ext.M56
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 11415069370 – Short enquiry
Ext.M57
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 11415069370 – Transaction Enquiry
Ext.M58
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 31420204542 – Short enquiry
Ext.M59
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 31420204542 – Transaction Enquiry
Ext.M60
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 30306424997 – Short enquiry
Ext.M61
-
CBs screenshot – a/c 30306424997 – Transaction Enquiry
Ext.M62
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 31420323659 – Short enquiry
Ext.M63
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 31420323659 – Transaction Enquiry
Ext.M64
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 11415069358 – Short enquiry
Ext.M65
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 11415069358 – Transaction Enquiry
Ext.M66
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 31420382741 – Short enquiry
Ext.M67
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 31420382741 – Transaction Enquiry
Ext.M68
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 11415069369 – Short enquiry
Ext.M69
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 11415069369 – Transaction Enquiry
Ext.M70
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 31419823872 – Short enquiry
Ext.M71
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 31419823872 – Short enquiry
Ext.M72
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 11415069336 – Short enquiry
Ext.M73
-
CBS screenshot – a/c 11415069336 – Transaction Enquiry
Ext.M74
16.09.2010
VVR dated 16.09.2010
Ext.M75
-
Copy of pages 78 and 79 pf in and out register copy
Ext.M76
-
CBS report – Accounts closed today
Ext.M77
-
Copy of pages 78 & 79 pf in and out register copy
Ext.M78
16.09.2010
Loan balance filed dated 16.09.2010
Ext.M79
18.03.2010
Copy of Demand Loan Voucher dated 18.03.2010
Ext.M80
01.03.2010
Copy of Demand Loan Voucher dated 01.03.2010
Ext.M81
01.03.2010
Copy of Demand Loan Voucher dated 01.03.2010
Ext.M82
13.02.2010
Copy of Demand Loan Voucher dated 13.02.2010
Ext.M83
13.02.2010
Copy of Demand Loan Voucher dated 13.02.2010
Ext.M84
18.03.2010
VVR dated 01.03.2010
Ext.M85
01.03.2010
VVR dated 13.02.2010
Ext.M86
13.02.2010
VVR dated 13.02.2010
Ext.M87
-
List of 7 gold loans.
2580
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
—
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 24th April, 2017
S.O. 1117.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 4/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Railway and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.04.2017.
[No. L-41012/196/2000-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/4/2001
The Secretary,
National Railway Mazdoor Union,
C/o Shri M.L.Jain,
Shahdol (MP)
…Workman/Union
Versus
Assistant Engineer,
Central; Railway, Beohari,
Distt. Shahdol (MP)
Divisional Engineer(North),
Central Railway,
Jabalpur (MP)
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 7th day of March 2017
1.
As per letter dated 28-11-2000 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification
No.L-41012/196/2000/IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the Divisional Engineer, Central Railway, Jabalpur and the Assistant Engineer, Central
Railway, Jabalpur and the Assistant Engineer, Central Railway, Beohari, Distt. Shahdol (MP) in terminating
the services of Shri Gyan Singh S/o Shri Ramnimit Singh At & PO Bharjuna (Kala) Distt. Satna (MP) is
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party Union submitted statement of claim
through Secretary, M.L.Jain of National Railway Mazdoor Union. Case of Ist party Union is that Gyan Singh was
member of the Union, he was suffering from paralysis from 11-2-87. After recovery, he was about to join duty but he
suffered 2nd attack on 4-10-87. Gyan Singh was receiving treatment at DRM, Central Railway Hospital, Satna. There
was full knowledge of illness of Gyan Singh to Railway Authorities which can be seen from letters sent to the
authorities. That during illness of Gyan Singh, his wife Savita was approaching officers at Beohari informing about
inability of Gyan Singh to attend duty. His inability to attend Enquiry Proceeding despite of knowledge about illness of
Gyan Singh, Railway Authorities started disciplinary action regarding his absence from duty. Gyan Singh was
terminated from service on 23-9-93 holding exparte enquiry. That Gyan Singh submitted representations to Railway
Authorities requesting reinstatement in service. Railway Authorities not decided his appeal/ representation. Therefore
dispute was raised. Ist party Union further submits that termination of services of Gyan Singh is illegal, enquiry was
conducted in violation of natural justice. Gyan Singh was unable to attend Enquiry Proceedings. Disciplinary action
taken against Gyan Singh is illegal. He was not allowed personal hearing. Punishment imposed against Gyan Singh is
II
(ii)
2581
illegal. His absence on account of illness was bonafide. Enquiry conducted against Gyuan Singh was empty formality.
On such ground, termination of services of Gyan Singh is alleged to be an act of victimization and unfair labour
practice. Union prays for reinstatement of Gyan Singh with backwages.
3.
2nd party filed reply at Page 5/1 to 5/3. 2nd party contends that Gyan Singh was pump khalasi under IOW
Beohari. He was unauthorisely absent from duty during the period 18-2-87 to 31-8-87. Chargesheet for unauthorized
absence was served on him. Gyan Singh had brought certificate of fitness from NKJ for joining duty. He also given
reply to the chargesheet. Reply to the chargesheet requesting to allow him to join duty. That Gyan singh had received
treatment in Divisional Medical Hospital, Satna but not submitted medical certificate for taking treatment. As per
statement of the employee, he was unauthorisely absent. His family members approached the office are denied as false.
CSE did not attend Enquiry Proceedings. Therefore enquiry was proceeded exparte. All adverse contentions of
employee are denied as false. Employee was given sufficient time. Intimations were given to him for attending
enquiry. Employee did not attend Enquiry Proceedings. Order of termination/ dismissal issued against workman is
proper and legal. 2nd party prays for rejection of claim.
4.
Ist party filed rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/3 reiterating its contentions in statement of claim. That Gyan Singh
suffered from paralytic attach and received treatment in Railway Primary Health Centre. He was admitted in Railway
Hospital, Satna. Representations of the claimant workman were not considered.
5.
As per order dated 24-6-15, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal.
6.
Considering pleadings on record and findings on preliminary issue, the points which arise for my consideration
and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the misconduct alleged against
workman Gyan Singh is proved from evidence in
Enquiry proceedings?
In Affirmative
(ii) Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed
against workman is proper and legal?
In Negative
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
As per final order.
REASONS
7.
Point No.1 – Chargesheet was issued to claimant Gyan Singh for unauthorised absence from 5-10-87 till
22-11-88 as per Exhibit W-2. In Exhibit W-5, Gyan Singh informed PWI, Beohari that because of his illness, he was
absent from duty from 5-10-87. Savita Devi w/o Gyan Singh submitted applications informing about illness of Gyan
Singh and other certificates. Medical certificates produced on record was issued by Vaidya Kailash Prasad. As per
Exhibit W-3, Savita Devi S/o Gyan Singh informed about illness of her husband. Her husband has rendered 20 year
service. Under Exhibit W-4, she had informed about illness of her husband and requested to pay salary for balance of
leave of her husband. Under Exhibit W-5, Gyan Singh admitted he was absent from duty from 5-10-87as he was
suffering from illness. Absence from duty is admitted. The certificate produced on record is issued by Ayurvedic
Vaidya. Any document is not produced that application for leave is produced by Gyan Singh. As Gyan Singh though
suffering from illness did not submit application for leave, his absence from duty is unauthorized. For above reasons, I
record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
8.
Point No.2 As per my finding in Point No.1 charge of unauthorized absence from duty is found against claimant
workman. On other issues claimant workman filed affidavit of evidence reiterating that he was suffering from illness.
Applications were sent to the authorities. The age of workman is shown 62 years. He has also crossed age of
superannuation therefore relief of reinstatement is not possible. Considering short period, charge of unauthorized
absence is established, workman has also explained his absence was on account of illness, the punishment of dismissal
was imposed against workman without considering his length of service and explanation for absence. The dismissal of
workman in the circumstances is not appropriate. Considering length of service and age of workman, punishment of
dismissal from service deserves to be modified to compulsory retirement. Accordingly I record my finding in Point
No.2.
9.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management terminating the services of Shri Gyan Singh is not legal.
(2)
Punishment of dismissal imposed against workman is modified to compulsory retirement.
(3)
Monetary benefits be paid to the Ist part workman within 30 days from the date of notification of award.
In case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
2582
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
—
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 24th April, 2017
S.O. 1118.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 122/1995) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of South
Eastern Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.04.2017.
[No. L-41011/17/1995-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, 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. 122/1995
Employer in relation to the management of SE Railway
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Adv.
For the Workman : None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Railway
Dated 8/9/2016
AWARD
By Order No. L-41011 /17/1995-IR(B-1) dated 25/09/1995, 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 Railway, South Eastern Railways, Chakradharpur in terminating the
services of Shri Manoharlal. Vishwakarma and others, is proper, just and reasonable? If not, to what relief the
concerned workmen are entitled and Since when ?”
Annexure
List of workman
1.
Shri Manohar Lal Viswakarma
2.
Shri R.N.Das
3.
Shri Raghu Nath Mahto
4.
Shri Iswar ch. Mahto
5.
Shri Makardhaj Pradhan
6.
Shri Ram Chandra Nag
7.
Shri Gopal Pradhan
8.
Shri Methious Lakra
9.
Shri B. Durga Prasad
10. Shri G. Krishna Rao
11. Shri Kajal Bhattacharjee
12. Shri G Janardhan Rao
13. Shri Narayan Mondal
14. Shri Nand Kishore Mahto
II
(ii)
2583
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
—
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 24th April, 2017
S.O. 1119.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of
India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.04.2017.
[No. L-12012/255/2002-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/45/2003
Shri Avdesh Kumar Rajwade,
S/o Shri Kamal Sai Rajwade,
Resident of Village Surajpur,
Thana & Tehsil Surajpur,
Distt. Surguja (CG).
…Workman
Versus
Branch Manager,
State Bank of India, Bishrampur,
Distt. Surguja (CG)
Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India, Region-I,
Zonal Office, Shanker Nagar,
Raipur (CG)
…Management
2584
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of March 2017
1.
As per letter dated 14-2-2013 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
12012/255/2002-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Avdesh Kumar
Rajwade, S/o Shri Kamal Sai Rajwade, Messenger w.e.f. 13-12-98 is justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 3/1 to
¾. Case of workman is that he was initially appointed as messenger from 3-1-84. He continuously worked from 3-1-84
to 13-12-98. That he worked more than 240 days till 1998. If holidays and other rest days are included, the total
number of his working days is more, is covered as employee under Section 25 B of ID Act. 2nd party Bank is a statutory
organization established under SBI Act 1955. Despite he continuously worked for many years without any
justification, his services were not regularized. That work of regulalr messenger was taken from him since initial
appointment. He was posted to deliver local dak since his initial appointment could be seen from the inspection reports
during the period 1984 to 1998. That his termination amounts to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of ID Act. His
retrenchment without notice is void ab initio. He was not paid retrenchment compensation before his termination.
Management not followed Section 25-F of ID Act while terminating his services. That management also not followed
Section 25 G,H of ID Act, Rule 77 of ID Central Rules 1957 was not complied. His termination amounts to
victimization and unfair labour practice as well as illegal retrenchment. That he is unemployed after termination of his
service. On such ground, workman prays for reinstatement with backwages.
3. 2nd party management filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/4 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party reiterates
that claim of workman is based on violation of Section 25-F of ID Act claiming that he worked more than 240 days is
incorrect. Ist party deliberately suppressed facts for obtaining the relief. 2nd party submits that it is not in dispute before
13-12-98, workman worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Since services of Ist party workman were no
longer required after following Section 25-F of ID Act terminated his services on 12-12-98. Workman was given one
months pay in lieu of notice by Banker cheque No. 080872 dated 12-12-98. Retrenchment compensation Rs.27598 was
paid by Bankers Cheque No. 080874, 7 days wages for December 98 of Rs.477 were also paid on 12-12-98. The Bank
given intimation to appropriate Government in Form B as per Industrial Dispute Central Rules. Workman initially
accepted the amount under Bankers cheque issued to him, returned the same along with letter dated 1-1-99. That on 28-
6-00, workman demanded that he be paid salary and allowances for 12 days. That Bankers cheque of Rs.1843/- and
Rs.477 be returned to him. The Bank accordingly paid workman amount of Rs.27598 on 4-1-03. That letter dated 23-1-
04 written by the Bank shows that amount was credited in account of workman as per his request. The contention of
workman about non-payment of retrenchment compensation is misleading and incorrect. Ist party workman was
temporary employee. He had no lein on any post. Workman was engaged as and when required. Workman was paid
retrenchment compensation, pay in lieu of notice. Section 25-F of ID Act was complied by the management. Violation
of said provision has been denied. 2nd party further submits that workman has not mentioned any name as to who were
junior to him and how Section 25 G,H are violated. 2nd party also denies that workman is unemployed after termination
of his service. 2nd party prays for rejection of claim.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My
findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri
Avdesh Kumar Rajwade, S/o Shri Kamal Sai
Rajwade, Messenger w.e.f. 13-12-98 is justified?
In Negative
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
As per final order.
REASONS
5.
Point No.1 The terms of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of workman. Workman filed
affidavit of his evidence. In his affidavit of evidence, he has stated that he was appointed as messenger on 3-1-84. He
was continuously working till 13-12-98. He completed more than 240 days continuous service during each of the year.
He studied upto 8th standard he doesnot know English. His services were orally terminated without notice. He was not
paid retrenchment compensation and one months pay on 12-12-98. That at the time of termination of his services, his
signatures were obtained on blank paper. After 5 years of termination of his service on 4-1-03, compensation amount
was paid. He was not paid retrenchment compensation prior to it. In his cross examination, workman says name was not
sponsored through Employment Exchange. Employment Exchange card is not produced. Appointment letter was not
II
(ii)
2585
issued to him by Bank. Post of messenger was not advertised. He had not received retrenchment compensation in 1988.
His signatures on letter dated 1-1-99 were obtained calling him in the Bank, document is marked Exhibit M-1. In his
further cross, he says he has not disclosed name of junior employees in his affidavit. He denies that he not completed
240 days continuous service. He denies that he was not appointed as messenger. He denies that he was paid
retrenchment compensation by cheque. He was given sealed envelope treating him temporary employee and stopped
from work. He did not remember his last day of work in the Bank. He admits letter dated 12-12-98 written by him.
Workman denies that he has concealed the facts in his affidavit of evidence.
6.
Management’s witness Rajesh Pandey filed affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions in Written
Statement filed by management that workman was employed on daily wages as messenger. His services were
terminated on 12-012-98 giving him one month salary Rs.1843, retrenchment compensation Rs.23,598/-. That workman
refused said amount and returned vide letter dated 1-1-98. After lapse of few years, workman demanded the amount.
Considering the demand of workman, amount by Bankers cheque dated 4-1-03 was accepted by the workman.
Management’s witness in his cross says personally he is not acquainted with workman. He claims ignorance that
workman was engaged as daily wage messenger. He claims ignorance whether termination notice was issued to
workman. In his further cross, management’s witness says workman had refused to accept retrenchment compensation.
After workman had made request, compensation amount was paid. Workman had submitted application – Exhibit M-1.
Exhibit W-5 bears signature of Assistant General Manager. Management’s witness also admits Exhibit W-6. In his
further cross, management witness Mahesh Ram Yadav was reinstated in service, he was senior to the workman. Any
person by name Sudama Prasad was not working in the Bank. He denied that Ist party workman was not paid
retrenchment compensation prior to or subsequent to termination of his services.
7.
Documents produced by workman Exhibit W-1 is letter dated 20-10-84 by Regional Manager directing to
continue workman as temporary employee on month to month basis till decision for his permanent absorption or
otherwise was taken. Exhibit W-2 is certificate issued by Bank. Working days of workman are shown 242 days in 1997,
292 days in 1998, the details of the working days of workman from 84 to 91 , 91 to 96 are also shown in said document.
The working days of workman in 1985 are 270 days, in 1986- 270 days, in 1987- 286 days, in 1988- 277 days, in 1989-
310 days, in 1993- 293 days, in rest of the years is less than 240 days. In Exhibit W-3 working days of workman till
14-8-91 are shown 1949 days from 15-8-91 to 1-12-98- 1745 days. As per Exhibit W-4 letter dated 1-1-98 workman
had returned bankers cheque of retrenchment compensation, pay in lieu of notice and wages claiming that he had
rendered 15 years service. Exhibit M-5 is letter given by Assistant General Manager dated 10-3-99 to recover amount
of retrenchment compensation from Mahesh Yadav and reinstated him in service. His absence till 13-12-98 be
considered as leave with pay and accordingly payment be made to him. Exhibit W-6 is document regarding
retrenchment of temporary employee M.R.Yadav dated 11-12-98.
8.
Management produced document M-6 Form P information sent to the Government regarding termination of
workman. Exhibit M-1 is copy of letter dated 1-1-99 workman returning cheque of amount of retrenchment
compensation. Documents on record clearly shows that workman was sent amount of retrenchment compensation, one
months pay in lieu of notice and amount of wages. Workman had returned back amount. Management complied Section
25-F-a,b, of ID Act. The amount was refused and cheques were returned back cannot be construed as violation of
Section 25-F of IDI Act. Section 25-F(a) clearly provides conditions for retrenchment that workman has been given one
months notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment, (b) at the time of retrenchment compensation
equivalent to 15 days average pay etc. is paid. Documents produced by management Exhibit M-1 shows amount of
Rs.26,598 was deposited in account of workman by cheque Exhibit M-2. Exhibit M-3 amount of Rs.27,600 was
withdrawn by workman on 7-1-03, its entries of crediting amount, and withdrawal are found in Exhibit M-5. Though
initially workman had returned back, amount of retrenchment compensation and pay in lieu of notice, said amount was
deposited in his account on 7-1-03. On same day, workman had withdrawn amount Rs.27,600 clearly shows that
workman had accepted the amount of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. As such workman had given up his
defence about nor compliance of Section 25-F of ID Act. On depositing amount of Rs.26,598 which was accepted by
workman, workman has failed to establish non-violation of Section 25-F of ID Act.
9.
However as per document Exhibit W-6, M.R.Yadav temporary messenger was retrenched on 11-12-98. From
Exhibit W-5, it is clear that management had taken decision to recover amount of retrenchment compensation paid to
M.R.Yadav and reinstate him in service w.e.f. 13-12-98. It is argued by learned counsel for management that workman
has not mentioned names of junior employees consequently violation of Section 25-G cannot be established. As per
Exhibit W-5 Mahesh Yadav was reinstated w.e.f. 13-12-98. Services of workman were terminated on 12-12-98. The
management has not maintained seniority list of temporary daily wage messengers though the Ist party has not stated
name of junior in statement of claim or in affidavit of evidence. Evidence on record is clear that Mahesh Yadav was
working as temporary messenger during the same period, his retrenchment was cancelled recovering the amount of
retrenchment compensation. Management has not adduced evidence why Shri Mahesh Yadav was reinstated cancelling
his retrenchment. Why Ist party was not equally treated. If the evidence is fairly appreciated, it is clear that workman
2586
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 29, 2017/VAISAKHA 9, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
has been discriminated. After his retrenchment, when Mahesh Yadav was reinstated, and workman was not reinstated.
Evidence on record clearly shows that management has violated Section 25 G, H , Rule 77 of ID Act.
Ratio held in case between State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur versus Omprakash Sharma reported in
2006(5)SCC-123 pertains to violation of Rule 77 where the only question in reference was whether the appointment of
a new workman in place of the retrenched workman was in violation of Section 25 h, Industrial Dispute Act and the
Labour Court found that there was no violation of Section 25 H held violation of Rule 77 may attract penalty under rule
79 but would not by itself entitle the retrenched workman to reinstatement.
In present case evidence shows that workman and Mahesh Yadav were working as temporary messengers,
seniority list was not maintained by management. Ratio held in the case doesnot squarely cover the controversy.
Reliance is also placed by management counsel in case between Anoop Sharma versus Executive Engineer,
Public Health Division No.1, Panipat, Haryana reported in 2010(5)SCC-497. Ratio held in the case is that burden lies
on workman to adduce evidence w.r.t. violation of Section 25-F. the ratio cannot be applied to present case as initially
o2nd party had sent amount of retrenchment compensation, one months noticie pay etc. was reduced by workman
subsequently he accepted said amount and withdrawn amount of Rs.27,600 as per Exhibit M-5 acceptance of amount of
retrenchment compensation and its withdrawal. Violation of Section 25 H Rule 77 is established from evidence.
Ratio relied in case between Raj Kumar versus Director of Education and others reported in 20166)SCC-541
cannot be applied to case at hand. The facts of present are not comparable.
10.
As management has cancelled retrenchment of Shri Mahesh Ram and reinstated him directing recovery of
amount of retrenchment compensation is violative of Section 25-F Rule 77 therefore I record my finding in Point No.1
in Negative.
11.
Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 termination of Ist party workman is in violation of Section 25-
H, Rule 77 of ID Act, Ist party was discriminated. He was not reinstated while Mahesh Yadav was reinstated cancelling
his retrenchment. Question remains for consideration is whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages.
Workman in his affidavit and plea stated that he is unemployed after termination of his service. Management has not
adduced any evidence about gainful employment. Considering the services of workman were terminated on 12-12-98,
dispute is raised as per order dated 14-2-03, in my considered view reinstatement with 50 % backwages from date of
order of reference dated 14-2-03 would be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.
12.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Avdesh Kumar
Rajwade, S/o Shri Kamal Sai Rajwade, Messenger w.e.f. 13-12-98 is not proper and legal.
(2)
Termination of Ist party workman is set-aside. Management is directed to reinstate workman with
continuity of service and pay 50 % back wages from date of reference i.e. 14-2-03.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In
case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.
ALOK KUMAR
Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2017.06.01 12:22:20 +05'30'